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 MilliganPresident 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 MilliganOnly a bunch of carping losers ever say anythnig else.
LOL.
Lambert Milligan for one. He was never charged in a civil court, was held for years...
I don't know who Lambert Milligan is, but Lambdin Milligan was arrested on October 5, 1864. That would make it hard for him to have served "years" in jail during the ACW since the war ended @ 8 months later.
He -did- advocate the violent overthrow of the government. Why is it exactly that you are stickng up for him?
Now, Ex parte Milligan came to the Supreme Court in April, 1866. I don't know, but I don't think Milligan was incarcerated the whole time any way, but even -that- time from 10/64 to 4/66 is not "years".
You don't seem very familiar with the history.
Walt
Yes, no one was executed in the north by federal officials for treason at all. Keep in mind that Merryman was a citizen of Maryland, which gives not even the fig leaf of secession. And he did burn bridges and he did raise troops to overthrow the United States government. That is treason. After he was released he was a serving officer in the insurgent army.
This fact that no one was executed by federal authorties makes a striking contrast with rebel actions, where hundreds of loyal southerners were executed simply for standing by the old flag.
Walt