How do you reconcile Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus?

[Darth_Ole]

This, I'm sure, has been debated on this board, but as it's Lincoln's birthmonth, it's been on my mind. A lot of Repubs like to cite Lincoln's suspension to defends Bush's.

Yes, I know that the Constitution allows for H.C.'s suspension in case of "rebellion or invasion," but this is listed in Article I under Congress' powers. Lincoln suspended H.C. under his own accord, without Congress' assent.

I've searched for works by scholars like Jonathan Turley and can only find criticism of Bush's actions on their part, as opposed to a defense of Lincoln. Someone please navigate these waters for me.

[tekisui]

1. He was saving the Constitution.

To save the Constitution that he swore to defend, he had to keep the nation together. To do that he worked out side the Constitution, at times. In a way that only Lincoln could argue and succeed.

[Prism]

2. Someone correct me if I'm wrong

But I believe Lincoln suspended the writ when Congress was out of session/in recess. Much of the time during the war, he did things when Congress was not in session to monitor him. Now, once Congress came back to Washington, they had to approve what he did. But he used that "out of session" wiggle room to great effect, ramming through what he wanted before then searching for the political means to get the radical Republicans to approve of it.

Presidents still do that sort of thing, but not on so nearly grand a scale. He basically treated the suspension of writ like a recess appointment.

That's if I'm remembering my Lincoln correctly.

[Occam Bandage]

3. Lincoln did many things that were horrendous to the conscience,

but yet had he not the nation may well have unraveled. I will not outright condone his actions, but I will say that if there is ever a time for a President to bypass the Constitution, it is when the Constitution is in immediate danger of complete destruction.

[NYC Liberal]

4. I don't...they were both wrong.

The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln was wrong and did not have the authority. That makes Bush wrong too -- not right.

If you wanted a justification for why Lincoln was right and Bush was wrong (if you believed that the case), then I guess you could argue that at least Lincoln was dealing with both an invasion and a rebellion (the two possible, and only, pretexts for suspending habeas), even if it wasn't his power to decide. Plus I don't believe there was precedent that Lincoln could have looked at, whereas Bush had plenty of precedent that he had no power to suspend it.

[Zomby Woof]

9. Lincoln used Andrew Jackson as a justification

Lincoln studied Jackson intently, especially his handling of the Nullification Crisis AND the Indian removal program (where Jackson flaunted the Supreme Court) as sources of justifying his extraneous power-grabbing.

[Zomby Woof]

5. He also had people rounded up in the middle of the night

Home invasions and the like. And he executed suspects without trial. For all intents and purposes, he took dictatorial powers. The rationale was more or less "destroy the Constitution in order to save it".

Sources: "The Civil War: A Narrative" by Shelby Foote, and "Civil War Justice" by Robert Alotta.

[Lex]

6. Lincoln was wrong to do it just as Bush was wrong too.

nt

[book_worm]

7. historians generally don't reconcile it. It is generally considered a blot just like FDR's

rounding up of Japanese Americans and putting them in camps and depriving them of their rights. Even great men have made great mistakes. Bush is neither a great or good man.

[book_worm]

8. self delete above post was double posted.