No, that is the point. We take the idea of precedent for granted; in the 1860's they did not.
You're blasting Lincoln over this, is a modern day judgement using modern day standards. That is always just silly when historical people are concerned. It's how Christopher Columbus went from "Admiral of the Ocean Deep" to syphilitic oppressor of minorities.
Professor Neely says that it was a truism in Lincoln's day that he saved Maryland for the Union. He was widely applauded for doing so. That is enough. But I thought of this little quoted part of Lincoln's first inaugural:
"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
So people back then had a different perception of the way the government functioned. Lincoln's inaugural was March 4, Merryman was arrested in late April, I believe.
You are putting a modern day judgement on an historical person. That is just silly.
I condemn the slave power because they were condemned at the time. I call them traitors because they were called traitors at the time.
Lincoln was not condemned the way you do --at the time-- (there was certainly a lot of discussion), so you have no right to criticize him now.
Walt
So you hold that The Lincoln was not bound to follow the procedures of the court system?
We take the idea of precedent for granted; in the 1860's they did not.
First off, centuries of common law says otherwise. Second, even if your claim were true it is rendered irrelevant by the fact that there was a pending case on the matter pertaining to The Lincoln. He didn't like its outcome so, instead of appealing it as procedure said, he ignored it.
You're blasting Lincoln over this, is a modern day judgement using modern day standards.
No Walt. I'm blasting The Lincoln over the simple fact that he ignored a court order without appeal or merit because he didn't like the outcome of the case. He had no right to do that then and would have no right to do it today.
Professor Neely says that it was a truism in Lincoln's day that he saved Maryland for the Union.
And so it may have been, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether he acted unconstitutionally in doing so, and by suspending habeas corpus and ignoring the ruling of the court on that matter, he did exactly that.
Lincoln was not condemned the way you do --at the time--
Really? Cause Justice Taney says otherwise and in fact condemned him just as I do with a court ruling. You're grasping at straws, Walt. Give it up. Your false god The Lincoln was fallable...very fallable.