"This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted.''
Chief Justice Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 315, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)"But may it not be asked, with infinitely more propriety, and without the possibility of a satisfactory answer, why, if the terms were meant to embrace, not only all the powers particularly expressed, but the indefinite power which has been claimed under them, the intention was not so declared; why, on that supposition, so much critical labor was employed in enumerating the particular powers, and in defining and limiting their extent?"
James Madison, "Letter of Mr. Madison to Mr. Stevenson", 27 Nov 1830, Elliot's Debates, Vol IV, p. 612."I, sir, have always conceived--I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived--it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived--that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers--but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms."
James Madison, "On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties", 3 Feb 1792, Elliot's Debates, Vol IV, p. 428."I admit that it is a government of strictly limited powers,--of enumerated, specified, and particularized powers,--and that whatsoever is not granted is withheld."
Daniel Webster, "State Rights.--Foote's Resolutions", Jan 1830, Elliot's Debates, Vol IV, p. 508.
Where is the grant of this power to the Executive? And Article II contains NO grant of power. Would you argue that the Judicial branch has this power as well?
Again, my point is not that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus would or should have been upheld had it come before the U.S. Supreme Court. My only point is that he had a plausible good faith argument that under the unusual and dangerous exigencies of April 1861 (i.e. the Capitol itself being imminently threatened by Confederates and their operatives who essentially had the place surrounded), he could properly and Constitutionally suspend habeas corpus.
So why have a three month delay before Congress convened? The first major battle of the war was 1st Manassas (The Battle of Bull Run to Yankees). Fought on 21 Jul, 1861, it was still after the special session called by Lincoln back in April. Besides, Congress could have been notified by telegraph (Morse’s patent officially approved in 1854).
The Constitution is far from perfect and is horrendously ambiguous. I wish the people who waste so much of their time criticizing Lincoln's actions would spend more time helping to come up with some Constitutional improvements that would more perfectly preserve ordered liberty.
Ambiguous? Only if you don't believe in "separation of powers", limited powers, "checks and balances". What do we do, add an amendment "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"?
By focusing their criticism on a single government official for eroding our liberties, they lend credence to the "if we could only elect better people" pipe dream.
And your point is? Do we let everyone slide? Was Lincoln above the law? Pardon me, but Lincoln insisted that the seceded states had never left, yet southern property was seized in the blockades, a violation of property rights. Unable to win on the battlefield, Lincoln made innocent civilians legitimate military targets, women and children slaughtered, property and crops destroyed. The South was starved into submission. After the war, the Confederate states ratified the 13th as a condition of RE-admission to the union, then refused to ratify the 14th Amendment, which promptly led to them being "declared out of the union" (which is what they wanted in the 1st place, but their vote on the 13th put them back into a union they allegedly never left), the federal government deprived millions the right of suffrage. Hundreds of thousands of southerners were killed, raped, robbed, and starved, millions of dollars of property stolen during reconstruction, and you and others have the audacity to insist that "we" are picking on someone?
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
James Madison, Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 47, "The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts", 1 Feb 1788.
The Confederates certainly didn't create a more perfect union, because their primary intent was to preserve their ability to perpetuate the oppression of 3,000,000 negroes and their progeny. By suppressing the Confederate rebellion, Lincoln made it clear that a slaveholderocracy was a dead end road.
Slavery was legal at the time, and was still practiced in Illinois after the start of the War for Southern Independence. Blacks were not wanted in the North, and what few were there were despised. Besides that, Brazil and several other countries all ended slavery well after the war - and without a war. In his inaugural address, Lincoln made it perfectly clear that all he wanted was the revenues from Southern ports. He stated uneqivocally that he had no desire nor authority to interfere with anything - only that he wanted the money. That in itself, puts to rest any legitimate claims that the war was to preserve the union, or to free the slaves.
Lincoln's argument would obviously be that it lies within the scope of Art. II, Section 2, paragraph 1 ("The President shall be Commander in Chief...").
Would you argue that the Judicial branch has this power as well?
Such an argument could perhaps be plausibly made. Note as I stated earlier that in Ex parte Bollman and Swartwout the Supreme Court held that the federal courts had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus even in the absence of statutory authorization from Congress. Where is that power enumerated in the Constitution?
So why have a three month delay before Congress convened?
Aside from the logistical difficulties of getting Congressmen from Oregon and California to D.C. (even by Pony Express it took at least 7 days for mail to move between telegraph stations in April 1861), Washington wasn't exactly a safe place to be in April 1861, and until Bull Run, Lincoln (and almost everyone else in the Union) anticipated a short war. Nevertheless, he called Congress in for the special session which convened on July 4, 1861. I'm not sure when Lincoln called for the special session, but it appears he wanted to give every Congressman plenty of time to get their personal affairs in order and travel to Washington and he also wanted to take advantage of the Independence Day symbolism. Note that he had suspended habeas corpus on April 27 and Taney had issued his Merryman ruling on May 28.
Ambiguous? Only if you don't believe in "separation of powers", limited powers, "checks and balances".
Stack up all of the paper it has taken to interpret the U.S. Constition and then tell me if you still believe that.
What do we do, add an amendment "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"?
Of course, that provision still requires judges to determine exactly what power has been delegated and whether the powers not delegated are reserved to the people or the states.
And your point is? Do we let everyone slide?
I thought I was pretty clear about that. I'd like to see more energy focused on improving the Constitution rather than blaming the politicians who take advantage of its weaknesses, loopholes, and ambiguities.
Was Lincoln above the law? Pardon me, but Lincoln insisted that the seceded states had never left, yet southern property was seized in the blockades, a violation of property rights.
As I've stated, Lincoln was acting within the scope of a plausible, good faith interpretation of his Article II powers as Commander in Chief. Would you have preferred that he acted meekly and permitted the Southern slaveocracy to survive in perpetuity?
Unable to win on the battlefield, Lincoln made innocent civilians legitimate military targets, women and children slaughtered, property and crops destroyed.
Now you've gone way off the deep end into Confederate fantasyland. The Union forces prevailed on the battlefield without slaughtering women and children. Certainly there were innocent civilians who were caught in the crossfire from time to time as in all wars, but they were not targeted by the Union forces. Property and crops were legitimate military targets, since they provided the fuel, sustenance, and transportation of the Confederate forces. There certainly was some retaliatory property damage in areas in which the inhabitants were known to have provided aid and comfort to Confederate guerillas/raiders like Forrest, Morgan, Mosby, and Quantrill. There were also numerous incidents of rogue soldiers harming civilians by both sides in the war. In comparison to other wars before and after, however, the Civil War was a rather civilized conflict.
After the war, the Confederate states ratified the 13th as a condition of RE-admission to the union, then refused to ratify the 14th Amendment, which promptly led to them being "declared out of the union" (which is what they wanted in the 1st place, but their vote on the 13th put them back into a union they allegedly never left), the federal government deprived millions the right of suffrage. Hundreds of thousands of southerners were killed, raped, robbed, and starved, millions of dollars of property stolen during reconstruction, and you and others have the audacity to insist that "we" are picking on someone?
Lincoln had nothing to do with reconstruction. In fact, it was the Confederates' assassination of him that triggered the harshness of reconstruction, and once again, the ambiguities of the Constitution made it easier for that harsh treament to occur.
Slavery was legal at the time, and was still practiced in Illinois after the start of the War for Southern Independence.
Slavery was outlawed in Illinois by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Given that Southern Illinois was surrounded on two sides by slave states, however, it is not surprising that there are reports of slaveholding in "Little Egypt" -- and of course the fugitive slave laws made it easier for people to get away with that.
Blacks were not wanted in the North, and what few were there were despised.
There is an immense moral difference between merely not wanting to associate with people and enslaving them. Americans (especially poorer white people) have never been very enthusiastic about hordes of refugees pouring into their neighborhoods. The Northern Democrats certainly took advantage of that anxiety in their campaigns against the Republicans. Nevertheless, by the end of the war people like Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln had made great strides in persuading most fair minded Americans that negroes could become full citizens without shattering American society.
Brazil and several other countries all ended slavery well after the war - and without a war.
" By 1872, there were 4.25 million free blacks and mulattos, and they accounted for at least three-quarters of all African Brazilians (as compared to a mere 262,000 or 6 percent of all African Americans in the U.S. South on the eve of emancipation)." Source.
Despite these much more favorable numbers, slavery was not abolished in Brazil until 1888. If you were a slave in the South in 1865, would you be comfortable with waiting even as little as 23 years for your liberty?
In his inaugural address, Lincoln made it perfectly clear that all he wanted was the revenues from Southern ports. He stated uneqivocally that he had no desire nor authority to interfere with anything - only that he wanted the money. That in itself, puts to rest any legitimate claims that the war was to preserve the union, or to free the slaves.
Hardly. Lincoln made it very clear when he was inaugurated that his first priority was preserving the Union. He had also made it very clear during the campaign that although he despised slavery, he preferred to try to appeal to Southerners' Jeffersonian instincts to negotiate a peaceful end to slavery.
The radical Republicans, on the other hand, made it clear that they were determined to abolish slavery as soon as possible. The Confederates made little distinction between radical Republicans and moderate Republicans, labeling them all "Black Republicans". I give the Confederates credit for being smart enough to see the writing on the wall if they remained in the Union and maintained their affinity for slavery. You apparently do not, even though you have the advantage of knowing what happened to the institution of slavery during the war at a time when abolishing it was not the President's first priority.