Replies

LOL, so you think Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, and all the other northern States were in Rebellion? Ol' Abe suspended Habeas Corpus in all those places and had thousands and thousands and thousands of his political opponents and critics in the press arrested without charge and thrown into prison cells, some for years.

Can you name someone in one of those states that was imprisoned for "years"?

Even the famous Merryman was released after 49 days. And he -was- indicted for treason, he did raise troops for the insurgency, and he was later a serving officer in the insurgent army. You would deny the government the most reasonable measures for its own defense.

In fact, the government declared a general amnesty early in 1862, and almost all the people arrested earlier were released.

President Lincoln's proclamation of December 8, 1863 allowed all who would (excepting high insurgent officials and miitary officers) the opportunity to take an oath to the goverment and be released/not charged.

Your distortion is easily exposed.

President Lincoln addressed concerns about martial law/habeas corpus in June, 1863:

"After the battle of New Orleans, and while the fact that the treaty of peace had been concluded, was well known in the city, but before official knowledge had arrived, Gen. Jackson still maintained martial or military law. Now, that it could be said the war was over, the clamor against martial law, which had existed from the first, grew more furious. Among other things, a Mr. Louiallier published a denunciatory newspaper article. Gen. Jackson arrested him. A lawyer by the name of Morel procured the United States Judge Hall to issue a writ of hebeas corpus to release Loualier. Gen. Jackson arreted both the lawyer and the judge. A Mr. Holander ventured to say of some part of the matter that "it was a dirty trick." Gen. Jackson arrested him. When the officer undertook to serve the writ Gen. Jackson took it from him, and sent him away with a copy. Holding the judge in custody for a few days, the general sent him beyond the limits of his encampment, and set him at liberty with an order to remain till the ratification of peace should regularly be announced, or until the British should have left the coast. A day or two elapsed, the ratification of a treaty of peace was regularly announced and the judge and the others were fully liberated. A few days more and the judge called Gen. Jackson into court and fined him $1,000. The general paid the fine, and there the matter rested for nearly thirty years, when Congress refunded principal and interest. The late Senator Douglas then in the House of Representatives, took a leading part in the debates, in which the constitutional question was much discussed. I am not prepared to say whom the journals would show to have voted for the measure.

It may be remarked: First, that we had the same Constitution then as now; secondly, that we then had a case of invasion, and now a case of rebellion; and thirdly, that the permanent right of of the people to Public Discussion, the liberty of speech and the Press, the trial by jury, the law of evidence, and the Habeus Corpus, suffered no detriment whatever by that conduct of Gen. Jackson, or its subsequent approval by the American Congress."

President Lincoln had the right to suspend habeas corpus.

Only a bunch of carping losers ever say anythnig else.

Walt

President Lincoln had the right to suspend habeas corpus.

President Lincoln had the power to suspend habeas corpus.

There, fixed it for you. Of course, I should follow that up with an explanation that it was not a constitutionally delegated power, but rather force of arms which allowed him to ignore his oath and do so.

...the judge called Gen. Jackson into court and fined him $1,000. The general paid the fine, and there the matter rested for nearly thirty years, when Congress refunded principal and interest.

As you know (because I've posted it to you before) but doubtless forgot, General Jackson said the following upon paying the fine:

Considering obedience to the laws, even when we think them unjustly applied, is the first duty of the citizen, and I do not hesitate to comply with the sentence you have heard pronounced; and I entreat you to remember the example I have given you of respectful submission to the administration of justice.

He obeyed the law. Lincoln didn't.

Can you name someone in one of those states that was imprisoned for "years"?

Lambert Milligan for one. He was never charged in a civil court, was held for years, and was sentenced to be executed by an unconstitutional tribunal acting under the "authority" of Lincoln's tyrannical suspension of Habeas Corpus in Northern States. He was just one of thousands and thousands and thousands of Americans arrested, "tried" by an illegal military tribunal and then imprisoned, all without ever having set foot in a courtroom to receive their right to due process as guaranteed by the Constitution. You might remember Mr. Milligan from Ex Parte Milligan fame.

Even the famous Merryman was released after 49 days. And he -was- indicted for treason, he did raise troops for the insurgency, and he was later a serving officer in the insurgent army...

If the evidence existed then they could easily have had him arrested and tried using the existing court system, but they didn't, choosing instead to arrest and hold him using unconstitutional means, a fact that speaks volumes. Yes, he was eventually turned over to civilian authorites and indicted, but only because of the immense attention being paid to his situation, even by the governments of the world. In regards to Mr. Merryman, Lincoln's hand was forced. Isn't it amusing that THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM WERE LATER DROPPED. You forgot to mention or even suggest that part, hmmmmmmmm.

You would deny the government the most reasonable measures for its own defense.

Hmmmmmm, I think the Supreme Court must have had people like you in mind when it said this:

"But, it is insisted that the safety of the country in time of war demands that this broad claim for martial law shall be sustained. If this were true, it could be well said that a country, preserved at the sacrifice of all the cardinal principles of liberty, is not worth the cost of preservation." - Ex Parte Milligan

Good thing for the rest of us that the Constitution and the Supreme Court says that you and your opinion on this matter are wrong. Liberty wins again, and you lose.

In fact, the government declared a general amnesty early in 1862, and almost all the people arrested earlier were released.

LOL, you really should study this more. The "amnesty" came about at the urging of Stanton, who had taken over the War Department. His concern was not the fact of the arrests, but only that they had been made while the "security" functions were being dished out by the Secretary of State. Conjunctive with the "amnesty" for the arrests made under the authority of the Secretary of State was the transfer of the "security" powers to the Secretary of War, Stanton. He not only continued the arrests, he INCREASED them, in breadth and scope. Stop trying to deceive the lurkers, waltrot.

Your distortion is easily exposed.

LOL, as usual, it is you who is being exposed as the distortionist.

President Lincoln addressed concerns about martial law/habeas corpus in June, 1863:...

The Supreme Court addressed concerns about martial law/habeas corpus in 1866:

"It is claimed that martial law covers with its broad mantle the proceedings of this military commission. The proposition is this: that in a time of war the commander of an armed force (if in his opinion the exigencies of the country demand it, and of which he is to judge), has the power, within the lines of his military district, to suspend all civil rights and their remedies, and subject citizens as well as soldiers to the rule of his will; and in the exercise of his lawful authority cannot be restrained, except by his superior officer or the President of the United States...The statement of this proposition shows its importance; for, if true, republican government is a failure, and there is an end of liberty regulated by law. Martial law, established on such a basis, destroys every guarantee of the Constitution, and effectually renders the "military independent of and superior to the civil power" -- the attempt to do which by the King of Great Britain was deemed by our fathers such an offence, that they assigned it to the world as one of the causes which impelled them to declare their independence. Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish." - Ex Parte Milligan
President Lincoln had the right to suspend habeas corpus.
No, he didn't, and the Supreme Court made it absolutely clear that he had no right to do so. His suspension of Habeas Corpus in the Northern States and the subsequent arrests and imprisonments by his military tribunals were unconstitutional, period:

"Every trial involves the exercise of judicial power; and from what source did the military commission that tried him derive their authority? Certainly no part of the judicial power of the country was conferred on them; because the Constitution expressly vests it "in one supreme court and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish," and it is not pretended that the commission was a court ordained and established by Congress. They cannot justify on the mandate of the President; because he is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, the laws" - Ex Parte Milligan

Only a bunch of carping losers ever say anythnig else.
LOL.

[Walt] In fact, the government declared a general amnesty early in 1862, and almost all the people arrested earlier were released.

On November 22, 1862 an order was very publically issued by the War Department, signed by E.D. Townsend, AAG by order of the Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton. That very public order purported to release all prisoners arrested for specified alleged offenses from further military restraint.

On November 29, 1862 Stanton wrote in a report, "By a recent order all persons arrested for discouraging enlistments and disloyal practises in the States where the quotas of volunteers and militia are filled up, have been released. Other persons arrested by military commanders and sent from the departments where their presence was deemed dangerous to the public safety, have been discharged upon parole to be of good behavior and do no act of hostility against the Government of the United States."

On November 24, 1862, at 11:50am, a secret private order was issued to the commanders of the Bastiles not to release any political offenders under the publically issued order of November 22.