Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GOPcapitalist; WhiskeyPapa
When the rebellion broke out, Congress was out of session, not to return for another eight months and there was no way for the both houses of the new Congress to be called into session until June or so. That would have meant the U.S. Government would have had to allow rebels to run around unchecked behind the privilege of habeas corpus until whenever Congress was able to suspend the privilege. The Militia Act of 1792 empowered the President to take much the same actions as lifting habeas corpus would have done. President Lincoln called Congress into session months ahead of time, in any case.

Neo-Confederates make a big deal about today, but patriots at the time did not.
130 posted on 07/29/2003 2:23:07 PM PDT by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies ]


To: Grand Old Partisan
When the rebellion broke out, Congress was out of session, not to return for another eight months and there was no way for the both houses of the new Congress to be called into session until June or so.

Nonsense. The Senate was in session until March 28th and most of the House was still around in Washington at least for the inaugural on March 4th. Lincoln could have EASILY called the House into session and called the Senate to remain in session. But he did neither. Instead he sat around waiting for the senate to go home. Barely a week after they left he started his war making plans by organizing the so-called relief expedition to Fort Sumter.

The Militia Act of 1792 empowered the President to take much the same actions as lifting habeas corpus would have done.

...but not to suspend habeas corpus itself. Try again.

Neo-Confederates make a big deal about today, but patriots at the time did not.

The suspension helped push some of the border states and the indian tribes into the secession column. It drew two federal court rulings against it including one from the chief justice. It recieved heavy condemnation in newspapers around the country. It even provoked retired Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis, a republican and author of the Dred Scott dissent, to condemn Lincoln's actions as unconstitutional. So yes, Partisan. I'd say a great deal was made of it both at the time it happened and today.

132 posted on 07/29/2003 3:21:45 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson