Replies

He had the right to suspend it, but he did so illegally and merely to silence opposing voices to his own.

If he had the right to suspend it then how were his actions illegal? And since the most famous 'victim' of the habeas corpus suspension, John Merryman, was arrested for terrorist activites (he burned a bridge) then how can you say Lincoln's actions were 'merely to silence opposing voices to his own?"

You of course ignored his reference to the lack of Congressional consent for the military invasion of Virgina, and the initial issue of the legality of South Carolina's secession and their actions concerning Fort Sumter.

Why did Lincoln need Congressional consent to combat the rebellion? He had all the authority he needed to do that under the Militia Act of 1795. And I'm pretty sure that shooting up Fort Sumter violated some law or another.

But as James Ostrowski put it, "If South Carolina illegally seceded from the Union, then both the Union’s initial refusal to surrender Fort Sumter and its subsequent invasion were lawful and constitutional. Conversely, if South Carolina had the right to secede from the Union, then indeed the Union soldiers in the Fort were trespassers and also a potential military threat to South Carolina. Thus, assuming the right of secession existed, the Union had no right to retaliate or initiate war against the Confederacy. Its subsequent invasion of Virginia then marks the beginning of its illegal war on the Confederacy.".

This makes no sense. Even assuming for a moment that the secession of South Carolina was legal where does that automatically give her title to federal property within her borders? And Sumter was federal property, built with federal dollars on land deeded to the federal government in perpetuity by the legislature of South Carolina. The troops occupying the fort were no more tresspassing than were the troops occupying the forts in New York harbor. And the U.S. did not 'retaliate or initiate war against the (c)onfederacy.' It responded to an attack on Sumter by the Davis regime. Legal or not, the southern states forced war upon the U.S. When Virginia joined the rebellion she left brought upon herself the results of her action.

So this makes Lincolns unconstitutional actions regarding this ok, because they SUPPOSEDLY wanted to remain in the union?

Lincoln's actions were not unconstitutional simply because you say they are.

US Constitution Article IV, Section 3 "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any state be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress".

And that is what happened. People from Virginia, primarily western Virginia, organized an alternate, loyal Virginia legislature and it was this body which petitioned the government for permission to separate, in accordance with Article IV. There was nothing unconstitutional with that.

Actually the Federal army occupied Maryland in 1861, threw most of the legislators in military prison, which kept them from discussing secession.

Flat out false.