Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

Editor's Note: WorldNetDaily talk-radio host Geoff Metcalf recently interviewed Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, author of "The Real Lincoln." In his book, as in the interview published April 14, DiLorenzo claims the 16th president was far more concerned with economic centralization than the abolishment of slavery. The interview elicited strong responses from readers, about half of whom disagreed with the author's assertions. Among them was Dr. Richard Ferrier, president of the Declaration Foundation. According to Ferrier and scholars at the foundation, the evidence DiLorenzo uses to back his claims actually proves the author wrong. Ferrier, who calls DiLorenzo's scholarship "sloppy," explains the quandary in his interview with Metcalf.

Metcalf's daily streaming radio show can be heard on TalkNetDaily weekdays from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern time.

A: Falsehood, basically. Falsehood in details, sloppiness of scholarship and a fundamentally wrong-headed view of the role of Lincoln and the Declaration of Independence, and American history and our political philosophy.

Q: One of the key items DiLorenzo focused on was his suggestion that the debate between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton was won for Hamilton by Lincoln. Was he wrong?

A: Yes, I think he's wrong. I think Jefferson and Hamilton fundamentally agreed, and Jefferson is the one DiLorenzo will pick as being on his side – that the American Union began not with the Constitution but with the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson said so in a letter to the board of governors.

A: What that means is that we are a people with a limited but sovereign federal government under the rule of law whose spirit is given in the Declaration of Independence. I think on that point Hamilton and Jefferson agree, and they both disagree with Calhoun and Jefferson Davis and the people who started the rebellion of 1860-61. He's just wrong on that, but he's wrong on more gross and obvious matters.

Q: What I am specifically concerned with is what you claim are his factual errors.

A: Suppose I said to you, "Jesus said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones where I will store all my grains and all my goods, and I will say to my soul, soul you have ample goods laid up for many years. Take your ease and eat, drink and be merry.'" Is that true?

A: He did. It's in a parable. He has somebody else say it. Jesus tells the story about the rich man, and those are the words of the rich man. So in a way, it's true that Jesus said that; he said it in quotation marks. He didn't say it himself.

A: So listen to this from Tom DiLorenzo's book: "Lincoln even mocked the Jeffersonian dictum enshrined in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. He admitted that it had become a genuine coin in the political currency of our generation but added, 'I am sorry to say that I have never seen two men of whom it is true. But I must admit that I never saw the Siamese twins and therefore will not dogmatically say that no man ever saw proof of this sage aphorism.'" That is supposedly from Lincoln. DiLorenzo goes on to add, "So with the possible exception of Siamese twins the idea of equality, according to Lincoln, was a sheer absurdity." This is in stark contrast to the seductive words of the Gettysburg Address 11 years later, in which he purported to rededicate the nation to the notion that all men are created equal.

Q: There is a footnote in DiLorenzo's book regarding that quotation, citing the first Lincoln-Douglas debate.

A: Yes, and when I was researching the book, I dutifully followed up the footnote and read the passage. Rather, I didn't find the passage because it isn't there. It is nowhere in the first debate. It is nowhere in any of the debates. Where it is is in an 1852 eulogy of Henry Clay, and Lincoln is quoting a Virginia clergyman with whom he disagrees. In other words, it's a lie. Lincoln never said those words in his own voice. It is not only a lie, but it is either an incompetent or malicious inference that Lincoln contradicts himself in the Gettysburg Address when he declares his solemn faith in the American creed that "all men are created equal."

Q: DiLorenzo quotes Lincoln from the Lincoln-Douglas debates, saying, "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between white and black races, and I have never said anything to the contrary." Did Lincoln ever say that?

A: He did say that. But DiLorenzo has the citation wrong there, too. It is from a speech Lincoln gave in Peoria in 1854. Lincoln, who was a lawyer and was careful with his words, did not say "I do not believe in that equality. I do not think it is a good thing." He said, "I have no purpose to introduce it." Those are the words of a careful lawyerly politician who knows perfectly well how much good you can accomplish in your time and how much (if you espouse it) will ruin your career and keep you from accomplishing the good you can accomplish. So yes, it's perfectly true that Lincoln said, "I have no purpose," meaning, "I don't at the moment intend to bring about such equality." And if he had said anything else in Illinois in the 1850s, he couldn't have been elected to dogcatcher.

Q: DiLorenzo includes the Lincoln letter to Horace Greeley in 1862. Is that accurate?

Q: Hold on, here's the quote: "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union; it is not to either save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it." What's the rest of it?

A: He continues, "I say nothing about my well-known desire that all men everywhere should be free." In other words, he's speaking as a public man with respect to his constitutional duty, which is to preserve the Union. Now it should be said that Lincoln thought the Union wasn't just a legal entity or a practical entity but an entity like a human being – a body and a soul. And the soul of that entity was the truths that are expressed in the Declaration, including the truth that all men are created equal.

I was a vice chair of the Proposition 209 [California's anti-discrimination law] campaign and a friend of Glynn Custred. This principle of human equality and treating people according to skin color or race is more than dear to me. I have labored in the vineyards for it. Lincoln thought the American Union was not just a matter of laws and conventions and agreements, but it was a kind of spiritual compact. He drew that from the Declaration that, itself, goes back to our Protestant colonial forebearers who believed from Scripture and reason that all men are created equal. So when Lincoln wanted to save the Union – and told Greeley that in a letter – Lincoln is thinking, "I will save the Union, whose heart and soul are the truths that are spoken of in the Declaration." In fact, if it was unwise in the short term to issue an Emancipation Proclamation, he would hold it off. When it was the right time to do it, he would do it.

Q: I asked Dr. DiLorenzo if, in his opinion, Lincoln was a dictator. He said that even some of the most pro-Lincoln historians had called him a dictator. Do you consider Lincoln a dictator?

A: No, I don't. That is a vexed question. By the way, it's a good question for both sides of the Civil War. One of the unhappy things about DiLorenzo's scholarship is that he pays no attention to broad historical context and doesn't look for example at the actions of Jeff Davis and the Confederate government. He finds fault with Lincoln for the suspension of habeas corpus, for various measures taken to suppress sedition in the states under control of the Union, and pays no attention …

Q: I didn't realize so many American citizens were thrown in the slammer just for disagreeing with him.

A: They weren't thrown in the slammer for disagreeing with him. They were thrown in the slammer for encouraging sedition and desertion. There is a long and complex scholarship on this, and you won't get much of it or a balance of it from the book. There was suppression of newspaper editors in Richmond, declaration of martial law in numerous areas of the Confederacy. The Confederacy instituted conscription in advance of the Union. Tom is a libertarian, and he thinks economic issues dominate everything. He thinks personal liberty is the absolute trump card in every argument. He's entitled to think that, but he applies that to Lincoln and the Union without a glance at the corresponding actions in the Confederacy.

Both parts of the American republic in that unhappy war did similar things, and they both did them with respect to sustaining the integrity and security of the Confederacy or the Union. Lincoln is consistently modifying the actions of his subordinates in the direction of liberty and leniency. He has hotheads he has to keep under his control – notably Ambrose Burnside and Ben Butler, who are responsible for unwise actions. And down the line, Lincoln reverses those actions in the direction of liberty. He did that because he conceived of the war and of his sustaining of the Union as a defense of fundamental human rights as expressed in the Declaration.

Q: I was intrigued by Tom's book, because I don't have a dog in this fight. My litmus test is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Q: Fine, we'll make it the troika. Several of the things Lincoln did were specifically designed to abrogate, eviscerate and destroy the very document to which he swore an oath. To say, "Well, gosh, the other guys were doing it too," is not an adequate defense.

A: That is fair enough. In a way, you almost want to look at what Davis and company said. Davis and company argued like Hamilton, and so did Lincoln. That is to say both men, Lincoln and Davis, saw their fundamental duty to support the integrity and security of the republic to which they saw themselves belonging. Of course, Lincoln never saw the Confederacy as a republic; he thought it was an insurrection. They looked at the sections of both the Confederate and U.S. Constitutions, in which the executive is given fairly broad powers with respect to seeing that the laws are upheld and that the public peace is maintained. They both made appeals of that sort. You can hammer out the details ad nasuem.

A: The one that is most plain and reasonable to think about, I think, is the suspension of habeas corpus. That is authorized in the United States Constitution. DiLorenzo and his friends niggle on a small point: that it's Article 1, Section 9, and not Article 2 under the executive power. But the whole first article is about the power of the United States government. Section 10 of Article 1 prohibits the states from doing a number of things. It is not restricted to the powers of Congress. The complaint, if I'm being obscure …

A: What I'm saying is this: The complaint is Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for the sake of the security of the national capitol. When the bulk of the active powers in Maryland were about to prevent him from being inaugurated, prevent the United States Congress from meeting, organizing military forces to oppose the national government and the like, Lincoln cited Article 1, Section 9. Namely, that habeas corpus could be suspended in the case of insurrection or rebellion in defense of the Constitution and laws that he was sworn to uphold.

The confederates suspended habeas corpus, too, and for the same reason. Namely, that they were concerned with security within the Confederacy. I think in their own lights, both men were right. If the Confederacy was a government and had real independence, it couldn't put up with insurrection in the Confederacy. And there was insurrection in the Confederacy.

Q: What about the repression of all those newspaper editors? The numbers vary; I've heard from 13,000 to a gazillion.

Q: No, but were the incarcerated people all preaching desertion and sedition, or were they merely critical of Lincoln and as a result got thrown in stony lonesome?

A: There were blockade runners. There was an extensive Confederate spy network. There were plans to disrupt public meetings in Ohio and Indiana. To look at that fairly, you have to look at the scholarship on it. There was an organized seditious campaign, especially in Ohio and Indiana. It was run in part by exiles from Canada in Canada, across the Great Lakes, with actual plans for violent acts and the encouragement of desertion from the United States armed forces. Among those people were newspaper editors. How would you have felt about that during the Vietnam War? What if there had been in Vancouver an organized pro-Viet Cong movement with financial arrangements to the North Vietnamese paying and organizing newspaper writers, agitators on the ground, and planning to disrupt American political meetings?

Q: I wouldn't tell or involve my government, but I'd take about four A-Teams and covertly visit and counsel the offenders with extreme prejudice.

A: Yes, but we didn't want to invade Canada. I feel kind of the same way. But that was the actual situation. When his generals went over the line on that and suppressed people who shouldn't have been suppressed, Lincoln was consistently on the side of clemency. It is an old and ugly grudge that is held against Lincoln and the Union for various reasons. I think partly regional sentimentality, partly racism sometimes and various other reasons make people state a one-sided case against a man who sustained the founding principles of this country.

Q: You are accusing DiLorenzo of sloppy and disingenuous scholarship. Can you give me an example?

A: In support of his thesis, he says, "In virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion this corrupt economic agenda …"

A: It's like chartering canal companies and banks and things. He gives a footnote to that, and it's to the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Go look in those debates; there is not a word about this economic agenda. Not a word! Let me read from the Oxford history of this period. It's called "Battle Cry of Freedom," written by Dr. James McPherson, and it is a very respectable book. It's sort of the standard work on the matter. He talks about the Lincoln-Douglas debates:

"Desiring to confront Douglas directly, Lincoln proposed a series of debates." The famous debates that school kids used to read back in the days when we actually taught them something about American history. "The stakes were higher than a senatorial election. Higher even than the looming presidential contest of 1860 … for the theme of the debates was nothing less than the future of slavery and the Union. Tariffs, banks, internal improvements, corruption and other staples of American politics received not a word in these debates."

A: Nothing. I teach this at my college. I must have read and re-read seven debates 20 times. Trust me, Geoff, there is not a word about tariffs in those debates. Nothing.

Q: There is no argument that the tariffs imposed by the North on the South were draconian. You wouldn't refute that, would you?

A: The tariff of 1857, which was the existing tariff at the time, had bipartisan support. The South Carolina delegation voted for it. It was the lowest tariff in 20 years. That's not to say there wasn't debate about tariffs.

Q: The tariffs went from about 15 percent to 40 percent. I'd call that a big hike.

A: Yes, but that's two-and-a-half years later, in 1861. Democrat president James Buchanan signed that tariff, and it had bipartisan support. He called for its passage; he didn't just support it. In the '58 Senate contest and their seven famous debates, Douglas and Lincoln did not cross swords once over tariffs or the bank or internal improvements. I'm sorry to say this, Geoff, but what DiLorenzo says is a lie. These debates are available online. The books are widely published. Your readers should just go out and look. Also, the Declaration Foundation has a number of articles and a forum discussing this very matter of DiLorenzo's book and the legacy of Lincoln.

Q: DiLorenzo includes references to Frances Key Howard and Rep. Vallandigham. What can you tell us about them?

A: I don't know about the first one, but Clement Vallandigham was a Democrat from Ohio. When I mentioned Ambrose Burnside, Vallandigham was the congressman who gave speeches calling for the end of the war and for resistance to conscription …

A: That's right, but there was an income tax when he gave the speech that got him in trouble.

Q: My question is about congressional immunity. Unfortunately, Congress critters can get away with saying anything they want, as long as they say it in the well of Congress. How did Vallandigham end up getting his front door kicked in by federal soldiers?

A: He gave his speeches out in his home area in Ohio. The local general, Ambrose Burnside, thought it was treason and put him under arrest right away. When the facts came back to Lincoln, he thought it was unwise and possibly illegal, and he undid Burnside's action. What they offered him was a free pass through Confederate lines. And it's Vallandigham who wound up in Canada organizing seditious anti-Union, and sometimes violent, groups in the period of '63-'64, to undermine the national war effort. But Lincoln let him out. Lincoln turned the key. Burnside is the guy who did that, and Lincoln didn't think it was the right thing to do.

Q: What about the Morrill tariff bill, which bumped the tariff from 15 percent to 47 percent?

A: That bill would never have passed if the Southern states had not seceded. It passed in the Senate – before Lincoln was president, by the way – because 14 Southern senators were out of the Senate. They could have blocked it, but they walked out in advance.

When the neo-Rebels say the tariff was the cause of the war, they conveniently overlook the fact that South Carolina withdrew on December 20th of 1860 – not because of any tariff that had been passed or signed, but because Abraham Lincoln, who declared that slavery was a moral wrong, had been elected president of the United States. The Morrill tariff that you are referring to was not passed until three months after South Carolina and six other states went out.

Q: So if they blame secession on the tariff, they are being more than a little disingenuous.

Besides that stupid Bimbo Virginia Postrel and her dope smokin buddies at Reason, you really can't find any libertarians who like Lincoln. No one is more responsible for destroying the decentralized vision that the founders created than the American Lenin, Abe Lincoln!

If anyone from the Civil War era is responsible for more centralization of government, it is the Confederates, who gave secession and state power a bad name. Moreover, there is nothing libertarian about preferring regional tyrants bent on preserving slavery to the man who was more responsible than anyone for the 13th Amendment. And I challenge you to name a more libertarian Supreme Court justice than Lincoln appointee Stephen J. Fields. Here is how prominent libertarian David Friedman (son of Milton) described Fields in a 1998 article in Liberty:

"During Field's thirty-five years on the Supreme Court, he argued, mostly in minority opinions, for strict limits on the ability of governments to regulate and redistribute -- to establish monopolies, set prices, impose special taxes on disfavored industries. By the end of his term his position had finally become the majority view -- and remained so for the next forty years, until overthrown during the New Deal. When Justice Holmes, in his famous dissent in Lochner v. New York , complained that the majority was reading Herbert Spencer's Social Statistics into the Constitution, it was Stephen Field, six years dead, whom he was attacking."

I find it hard to believe that an "American Lenin" would appoint such a champion of freedom. (By the way, when Lincoln was President, the federal government, despite a very expensive effort to crush a Southern slaveholderocracy, never spent more than 16% of the gross national product, and federal spending dropped to less than 5% of GNP shortly after the war. It was not until FDR's "New Deal" tenure that the federal budget began to rise to the absurd modern peacetime levels in excess of 20%.) You can't blame Lincoln for FDR and the free-spending DemocRepublicans of the 20th (and 21st) Century.

I would also suggest Henry Adams, in 'The Great Secession Winter of 1860-1861 and other essays. The essay 'The Declaration of Paris, 1861.is particularly relevant to British efforts to take advantage of the opportunities the war brought to furthering their efforts to diminish the US by splitting into sections. This long standing British effort played a major role into suckering the South into actions Adam's can only describe as 'demented.'

For the record, here is what Titus Fikus (aka LLAN-DDUESSANT before his former name got banned from FR a few months ago) had to say about the exact same writing of Adams' only one week ago when he observed me quoting from it in a post to another freeper:

The Real Lincoln
Posted by Titus Fikus to GOPcapitalist; ConfederateMissouri; Whisky Papa
On General Interest ^ Apr 21 11:08 AM #77 of 104 ^

Also, may I suggest investing in a writing by northerner Henry Adams about the onset of the war called "The Great Secession Winter of 1860-61." Adams, who you may know of in his own right through American history, was the son of Charles Francis Adams, a prominent congressman during the war from an even more prominent political family (that of John and John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts).

A truly stunning and phenominal documentation of the general quality and and integrity of the lame tripe you pour all over the fine intentions of Free Republic.

'The Great Secession Winter of 1860-61 was published by some other Henry Adams in 1958. The son of Charles Francis Adams died in 1918. Click the link and do try to think. It's well worth the effort.

The Real Henry Adams, not the truckstop junk history peddler

I thank for taking my advice and coming forth with a legitmate attempt to find a provable fact. It seems you have done so, so now here it is just for you.

FLUSH!

If you manage to get through the linked Encyclopedia article on the great grandson of John Adams, (the one any three year old could find), you will note that one of his most famous works is on the inadequacy of most of our education systems. He was talking most sincerely about the the morose and incompetent sort of work exhibited in the words italicized at the beginning of this post above. I recommend you invest in one of his actual works instead of the popular pablum tripe you so adore.

I see you are again turning to your hero Karl Marx for your opinions on historical events. In case you have not realized it yet, Llan-ey, that may not be the best person to quote or base your opinion around on a conservative forum if you ever have any hopes of getting others to listen to you.

Let's look at a few things though...

Charles Sumner from Massachusetts, a member of the Senate -- where he was attacked by a cane-wielding Senator from the South at the time of the Kansas affair

That alone should be enough to draw question to the statement's credibility. Brooks was a Congressman, not a Senator. His kinsman Butler was a Senator, and Sumner had crudely made fun of Butler's physical handicap on the senate floor - the very incident that prompted his caning.

made a brilliant speech on the origin and hidden motives of the slave-owners' rebellion at a well-attended meeting in the Cooper Institute of New York on November 27.

I'm glad to see that both you and Karl Marx agree in your worship of Charles Sumner. Perhaps there was something to the suspicions of that famous statement of the very same congressman after all...

"Slaveholders are the scapegoats for the failures of northern society. Slavery has served as a vent for fanaticism, communism, and morbid sentimentality, whicht, without this safety valve, would have long since resulted in a social explosion" - Preston Brooks, 1854

Now, that having been said, would you mind telling me what your little marx n' paste fest is all about and exactly what you intend to achieve by conducting it? Then again, there are some things that are simply irrational in their very nature. So I won't get my hopes up that you should provide a satisfactory answer.

"Q: One of the key items DiLorenzo focused on was his suggestion that the debate between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton was won for Hamilton by Lincoln. Was he wrong?"

"A: Yes, I think he's wrong. I think Jefferson and Hamilton fundamentally agreed, and Jefferson is the one DiLorenzo will pick as being on his side – that the American Union began not with the Constitution but with the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson said so in a letter to the board of governors.

It seems to me you are ducking the real question here. The issue of contention between Jefferson and Hamilton - to which Metcalf surely is referring - has nothing to do with the beginnings of the American Union, but rather was over whether the United States would be a loose confederation with very limited central government or a federation with a strong central government, and whether it should be a primarily agricultural society or develop a strong industrial base. There is a well-known quote from Jefferson, which I can't cite at the moment, in which he expresses his preference that the U.S. remain an agricultural society because much industry would lead to large cities housing masses of underpaid laborers in squalid slums and resulting in corruption (presumably of morals) as was the case in Europe.

This is the argument that may be seen to have been won by Lincoln for Hamilton.

... but the rest of that section contains no references limiting its applicability to Congress, which strongly suggests that those restrictions apply to all branches of Congress (and arguably to individual states as well).

Article I, section 8 enumerates the delegated powers to the federal legislature, section 9 enumerated the powers prohibited to the federal legislature, and section 10 enumerates the powers prohibited to the states. In Article II it is found that, "[t]he Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors", so would you maintain that Congress may execute Presidential powers of appointment and serve as commander-in-chief, simply because that branch is also mentioned in Article II?

This last statement makes it clear that Taney either lacked the courage of his convictions or (more likely) was just making his latest attempt to please his Confederate friends.

Ya think? Consider what Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote in ex parte Merryman about the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus - first he cited Justice Story, "[i]t would seem, as the power is given to congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, in cases of rebellion or invasion, that the right to judge whether the exigency had arisen must exclusively belong to that body".

Next he cited former Chief Justice John Marshall, "[i]f at any time, the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so."

Then the Chief Justice adds his opinion, "[t]his article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department." He notes that the Constitution directs that all legislative powers shall be vested in congress, and that the powers of the President are limited to enumerated powers in Article II, "[a]nd if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article; but there is not a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power."

Next he asserts that the Constitution cannot be suspended, "[n]or can any argument be drawn from the nature of sovereignty, or the necessity of government, for self-defence in times of tumult and danger. The government of the United States is one of delegated and limited powers; it derives it existence and authority altogether from the constitution, and neither of its branches, executive, legislative or judicial, can exercise any of the powers of government beyond those specified and granted; for the tenth article of the amendments to the constitution, in express terms, provides that 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people."

How much plainer can he be? He cited two other legendary justices, along with his own opinion about the legality of the President's actions. He is quite candid in his assessment:

"These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found."
"In such a case, my duty was too plain to be mistaken. I have exercised all the power which the constitution and laws confer upon me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome."

Since Chief Justice Taney is not the Commander-in-Chief, he certainly can't order the miltary to arrest Lincoln. Isn't the President required to abide by judicial decisions, or is he above the law?

In any case, the current Chief Justice has opined that the question of whether the president may or may not suspend habeas corpus has never been definitively answered to this very day.

Justice Joseph Story would disagree, as would Chief Justice John Marshall in Ex parte Bollman and Swartwout, and he is joined by Justice Roger Taney in ex parte Merryman. Perhaps the learned Chief Justice Rehnquist never read ex parte Milligan?

"If the sentence respecting the habeas corpus be, as I contend, a limitation, and not a grant of power, we must look into other parts of the Constitution to find the grant; and if we find none making it to the President, it follows that the power is in the legislative or the judicial department. That it lies with the judiciary will hardly be contended. That department has no other function than to judge. It cannot refuse or delay justice."
"But if the clause in question were deemed a grant of power, the question would then be, to whom is the grant made? The following considerations would show that it was made to Congress:
First. The debates in the convention which framed the Constitution seem, at least, to suppose that the power was given to Congress, and to Congress alone.
Second. The debates in the various State conventions which ratified the Constitution do most certainly proceed upon that supposition.
Third. The place in which the provision is left indicates, if it does not absolutely decide, that it relates only to the powers of Congress. It is not in the second article, which treats of the executive department. It is not in the third, which treats of the judicial department. It is in the first article, which treats of the legislative department. There is not another subdivision in all the seven subdivisions of the ninth section which does not relate to Congress in part, at least, and most of them relate to Congress alone.
Fourth. The constitutional law of the mother country had been long settled, that the power of suspending the privilege of the writ, or, as it was sometimes called, suspending the writ itself, belonged only to Parliament. With this principle firmly seated in the minds of lawyers, it seems incredible that so vast a change as conferring the grant upon the executive should have been so loosely and carelessly expressed.
Fifth. The prevailing sentiment of the time when the Constitution was framed, was a dislike and dread of executive authority. It is hardly to be believed, that so vast and dangerous a power would have been conferred upon the President, without providing some safeguards against its abuse.
Sixth. Every judicial opinion, and every commentary on the Constitution, up to the period of the Rebellion, treated the power as belonging to Congress, and to that department only.
Justice Davis, ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2; 18 L. Ed. 281; 1866 U.S. Lexis 861; 4 Wall. 2.

Nope. Nothing definative. < /sarcasm >

The consensus among legitimate historians is that President Lincoln bent the rules, but he never broke them.

"What is called the war power of the President, if indeed there by any such thing, is nothing more than the power of commanding the armies and fleets which Congress causes to be raised. To command them is to direct their operations."
"These various provisions of the first article would show, if there were any doubt upon the construction of the second, that the powers of the President do not include the power to raise or support an army, or to provide or maintain a navy, or to call forth the militia, to repel an invasion, or to suppress an insurrection, or execute the laws, or even to govern such portions of the militia as are called into the service of the United States, or to make law for any of the forts, magazines, arsenals, or dock-yards. If the President could not, even in flagrant war, except as authorized by Congress, call forth the militia of Indiana to repel an invasion of that State, or, when called, govern them, it is absurd to say that he could nevertheless, under the same circumstances, govern the whole State and every person in it by martial rule. The jealousy of the executive power prevailed with our forefathers. They carried it so far that, in providing for the protection of a State against domestic violence, they required, as a condition, that the legislature of the State should ask for it if possible to be convened."
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."
Justice Davis, ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2; 18 L. Ed. 281; 1866 U.S. Lexis 861; 4 Wall. 2

I would take the word of numerous justices of the Supreme Court over that of some "legitimate" historians.

"Ex Parte Milligan also includes a favorable comparison of Lincoln to George Washington. How did you miss that?"

"Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln."

Wow. I'm amazed. Citing the name of a President or two negates a Supreme Court decision.

"Our system knows no authority beyond or above the law. We may, therefore, dismiss from our minds every thought of the President's having any prerogative, as representative of the people, or as interpreter of the popular will. He is elected by the people to perform those functions, and those only, which the Constitution of his country, and the laws made pursuant to that Constitution, confer."
"These various provisions of the first article would show, if there were any doubt upon the construction of the second, that the powers of the President do not include the power to raise or support an army, or to provide or maintain a navy, or to call forth the militia, to repel an invasion, or to suppress an insurrection, or execute the laws, or even to govern such portions of the militia as are called into the service of the United States, or to make law for any of the forts, magazines, arsenals, or dock-yards. If the President could not, even in flagrant war, except as authorized by Congress, call forth the militia of Indiana to repel an invasion of that State, or, when called, govern them, it is absurd to say that he could nevertheless, under the same circumstances, govern the whole State and every person in it by martial rule. The jealousy of the executive power prevailed with our forefathers. They carried it so far that, in providing for the protection of a State against domestic violence, they required, as a condition, that the legislature of the State should ask for it if possible to be convened."
Justice Davis, ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2; 18 L. Ed. 281; 1866 U.S. Lexis 861; 4 Wall. 2

How did you miss that?

In Article II it is found that, "[t]he Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors", so would you maintain that Congress may execute Presidential powers of appointment and serve as commander-in-chief, simply because that branch is also mentioned in Article II?

No, because Article II specifically calls for the President to be Commander in Chief and appoint Ambassadors, etc. with the advice and consent of the Senate. In contrast, the habeas corpus provision of Art. I, Sect. 9 is ambiguous because the passive voice is used therein with no with no indication as to whether it is referring to Congress, the President, the Judiciary, or the government of a state. Your suggestion that Section 9 merely "enumerated the powers prohibited to the federal legislature" is therefore presumptive. As a well trained lawyer, Lincoln knew to never to presume anything about the law. The burden was on anyone who objected to his interpretation to properly challenge it. If you assume as you have that Lincoln was usurping the role of Congress, it was imcumbent upon Congress to formally state their objection thereto through some sort of resolution or bill. They not only failed to do so, they in fact ratified Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

Consider what Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote in ex parte Merryman about the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus - first he cited Justice Story, "[i]t would seem, as the power is given to congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, in cases of rebellion or invasion, that the right to judge whether the exigency had arisen must exclusively belong to that body".

Are you arguing that Lincoln was bound by what a (even highly reputable) jurist wrote in a mere commentary? I'm not saying that no reasonable person would suggest that suspension of habeas corpus was intended to be an exclusive proivince of Congress. My main point is that Lincoln had a plausible argument for his decision to suspend habeas corpus, and any attempt to brand him "a dictator" or "the American Lenin" for doing so is ridiculous given that (a) the issue was (and remains) unsettled law and (b) Congress ratified his action. Moreover, Taney certainly didn't aquit himself well as a jurist by making his blatantly flase statement about Article I having "not the slightest reference to the executive department."

Having briefly reviewed Ex parte Bollman and Swartwout, it appears that the portion quoted by Taney is mere dictum, since the President had not suspended habeas corpus in those cases. Marshall was merely holding that the Court had the Constitutional/common law authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus even in the absence of statutory authorization from Congress. Note that Marshall doesn't say even in dictum that the President is prohibited from suspending habeas corpus.

Then the Chief Justice adds his opinion, "[t]his article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department." He notes that the Constitution directs that all legislative powers shall be vested in congress, and that the powers of the President are limited to enumerated powers in Article II

Do you agree with Taney that Article I "has not the slightest reference to the executive department" and "the powers of the President are limited to enumerated powers in Article II"? (Hint: Before you answer this question, please read Section 7 of Art. I and note that Art. II does not grant the President any power to sign or veto Congressional bills or resolutions.)

"[a]nd if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article..."

Isn't is equally (in)valid to state that "if suspending habeas corpus was intended to be the sole province of Congress, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in Article I"?

How much plainer can [Taney] be?

Taney was plain enough -- it's just that his plain words don't amount to a convincing argument that Lincoln was wrong (let alone that he was "the American Lenin").

I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may ... upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.

True enough perhaps, but in arresting Merryman, the military was not acting on its own in peacetime -- they were acting pursuant to (at least arguably) Constitutional Presidential authority during a massive rebellion which imminently threatened the Capital city and all of its inhabitants.

Since Chief Justice Taney is not the Commander-in-Chief, he certainly can't order the miltary to arrest Lincoln. Isn't the President required to abide by judicial decisions, or is he above the law?

Any interested party who objected to Lincoln's refusal to obey Taney's Circuit Court order could have sought relief from the Supreme Court and/or Congress. I am not aware of any such objection being pressed through the Constitutionally provided channels.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.