Those who arrested Milligan acted under authority claimed by and delegated by Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln authorized them to do it.
The Supreme Court held that the Constitutional rights of Milligan were violated.
My point is, and has been, that President Lincoln violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that he violated the Constitution. He granted authority he assumed unlawfully and delegated it to others who acted unlawfully.
You are free to say he did it in an act of greatness.
The Constitution does not contain a Lincoln Act of Greatness exception. There were violations of Constitutional rights. It happened. It is a matter of history. It was so held by the Supreme Court, 9-zip.
Your point is wrong.
If he had someone arrested after a case with language like that of Milligan had come down, that would be one thing, or if he had kept someone incarcerated -after- such a ruling, that would be one thing. He never did that.
When Milligan was arrrested, as he said, the Constitution allowed HB to be suspended. The Constitution does not have any territorial limitations; it doesn't say HB may be suspended only in active theaters of war.
You neo-rebs throw up your hands, "oh my gosh, look what Lincon did!", when there is nothing to it.
Walt
Too easy.
President Lincoln authorized them to exercise executive power in their areas of responsibility. He expected them to. In the case of Vallandigham, he had the guy released. In Milligan's case, he wouldn't sign off on the sentence.
Your statement as written is misleading at best, and disingenuous at worst. It's typical of the neo-reb intent to mislead and dissemble.
Walt