Nothing Lincoln did was shown to be unconstitutional.
The only place to show that was in the courts, and the rebels dared not go there.
And then you tell us:
The famous Mr. Merryman was burning bridges. He mustered a secessionist calvary unit. He was indicted for treason.
What ultimately happened to him?
The police chief of Baltimore --Kane. He was arrested by the military. What happened to him?
Here's a hint. He was later a serving officer in the rebel army.
Look's like you classify "Mr. Merryman" as a "rebel." Since you have raised the subjects of "courts" and "Mr. Merryman," allow me to quote the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in Ex parte Merryman:
"Held...That the president, under the constitution of the United States, cannot suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, nor authorize a military officer to do it."
Of course, you choose to ignore Ex parte Merryman, just as you choose to ignore every documented historical fact that contradicts your 'comic book' version of history. But your pseudo-historical 'tunnel vision' (or is it simply hypocrisy? ;>) is - as always - quite amusing!
The neo-rebs don't much care for quotes from people of the Civil War era. The record doesn't support their rant.
Really? Bite off a piece of this, friend Walt:
The Union, sir, is dissolved. That is an accomplished fact in the path of this discussion that men may as well heed. One of our confederates has already, wisely, bravely, boldly confronted public danger. and she is only ahead of many of her sisters because of her greater facility for speedy action. The greater majority of those sister States, under like circumstances, consider her cause as their cause; and I charge you in their name to-day: 'Touch not Saguntum.' It is not only their cause, but it is a cause which receives the sympathy and will receive the support of tens and hundreds of thousands of honest patriot men in the nonslaveholding States, who have hitherto maintained constitutional rights, and who respect their oaths, abide by compacts, and love justice...
Senators, my countrymen have demanded no new government; they have demanded no new Constitution. Look to their records at home and here from the beginning of this national strife until its consummation in the disruption of the empire, and they have not demanded a single thing except that you shall abide by the Constitution of the United States; that constitutional rights shall be respected, and that justice shall be done. Sirs, they have stood by your Constitution; they have stood by all its requirements, they have performed all its duties unselfishly, uncalculatingly, disinterestedly...I have stated that the discontented States of this Union have demanded nothing but clear, distinct, unequivocal, well-acknowledged constitutional rights - rights affirmed by the highest judicial tribunals of their country...We have demanded of them simply, solely - nothing else - to give us equality, security and tranquility. Give us these, and peace restores itself. Refuse them, and take what you can get.
Sirs, the Constitution is a compact. It contains all our obligations and the duties of the federal government. I am content and have ever been content to sustain it. While I doubt its perfection, while I do not believe it was a good compact, and while I never saw the day that I would have voted for it as a proposition 'de novo,' yet I am bound to it by oath and by that common prudence which would induce men to abide by established forms rather than to rush into unknown dangers. I have given to it, and intend to give it, unfaltering support and allegiance, but I choose to put that allegiance on the true ground, not on the false idea that anybody's blood was shed for it. I say that the Constitution is the whole compact. All the obligations, all the chains that fetter the limbs of my people, are nominated in the bond, and they wisely excluded any conclusion against them, by declaring that 'the powers not granted by the Constitution to the United States, or forbidden by it to the States, belonged to the States respectively or the people.'
Now I will try it by that standard; I will subject it to that test. The law of nature, the law of justice, would say - and it is so expounded by the publicists - that equal rights...shall be enjoyed. This right of equality being, then, according to justice and natural equity, a right belonging to all States, when did we give it up?
What, then, will you take? You will take nothing but your own judgement; that is, you will not only judge for yourselves, not only discard the court, discard our construction [of the Constitution], discard the practice of the government, but you will drive us out, simply because you will it...
Robert Augustus Toombs of Georgia (upon his resignation from the United States Senate)
January 7, 1861
Yes, you would consider an appeal to the specific written terms of the United States Constitution a "rant," wouldn't you? What was it you said a few months ago?
The Constitution won't even make a good door stop...
276 posted on 10/08/2002 9:28 AM MDT by WhiskeyPapa
That, my friend, is the difference between us - I respect the Constitution, and you apparently do not. And that is quite obviously the difference between you and the "rebels" ("neo" or otherwise ;>) as well...
;>)
The Union, sir, is dissolved.
"South Carolina...cannot get out of this Union until she conquers this government. The revenues must and will be collected at her ports, and any resistance on her part will lead to war. At the close of that war we can tell with certainty whether she is in or out of the Union. While this government endures there can be no disunion...
If the overt act on the part of South Carolina takes place on or after the 4th of March, 1861, then the duty of executing the laws will devolve upon Mr. Lincoln. The laws of the United States must be executed-- the President has no discretionary power on the subject -- his duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Mr. Lincoln will perform that duty. Disunion by armed force is treason, and treason must and will be put down at all hazards. The Union is not, and cannot be dissolved until this government is overthrown by the traitors who have raised the disunion flag. Can they overthrow it? We think not."
Illinois State Journal, November 14, 1860
Who was right?
Walt
Here's what gives the Constitution its power:
"A member of the 13th Massachusetts noted that his regiment "listened with respectful attention" while officers urged re-enlistment and extolled the valor of old soldiers, but he added: "It was very sweet to hear all this, but the 13th was not easily moved by this kind of talk. The boys knew too well what sacrifices they had made, and longed to get home again and, if possible, resume the places they had left." In the end the 13th refused to re-enlist, except for a handful who signed up for places in another regiment".
Altogether, there are few facts in American history more remarkable than the fact that so many of these veterans did finally re-enlist —probably slightly more than half of the total number whose terms were expiring. The proffered bounty seems to have had little influence on them. The furlough was much better bait. To men who had not seen their homes for more than two and one half years, a solid month of freedom seemed like an age. A member of the 5th Maine said that it actually seemed as if the war might somehow end before the furloughs would expire, and he wrote of the men who re-enlisted: "What tempted these men? Bounty? No. The opportunity to go home."
It was not hardship that held men back. The 100th Pennsylvania had been marooned in eastern Tennessee for months, cut off from supplies and subsisting on two ears of corn per day per man, but when the question of re-enlistment came up only 27 out of the 393 present for duty refused to sign.
In the 6th Wisconsin, which had done as much costly fighting as any regiment in the army, it was noted that the combat men were re-enlisting almost to a man; it was the cooks, hostlers, clerks, teamsters, and others on non-combat duty who were holding back. And the dominant motive, finally, seems to have been a simple desire to see the job through. The government in its wisdom might be doing everything possible to show the men that patriotism was for fools; in the end, the veterans simply refused to believe it. A solid nucleus did sign the papers, pledging that the army would go on, and by the end of March Meade was able to tell the War Depart- ment that 26,767 veterans had re-enlisted.
The men signed up without illusions. A company in the 19th Massachusetts was called together to talk things over. The regiment had left most of its men on various battlefields, in hospitals, and to Southern prison camps, and this company now mustered just thirteen men and one wounded officer. These considered the matter, and one man finally said: "They use a man here just the same as they do a turkey at a shooting match, fire at it all day and if they don't kill it raffle it off in the evening; so with us, if they can't kill you in three years they want you for three more—but I will stay." And a comrade spoke up: "Well, if new men won't finish the job, old men must, and as long as Uncle Sam wants a man, here is Ben Falls."
The regiment's historian, recording this remark, pointed out that Ben Falls was killed two months later in battle at Spotsylvania Court House."
"A Stillness at Appomattox" by Bruce Catton, pp. 35-36
The Constitution is just words on paper.
Of course, by this time the rebel armies were melting away.
Walt