Happy Birthday!

Some of us here see the US Constitution as a document that is the foundation of our nation.

Any violation of the US Constitution is flat out wrong. There are ways to change it, if that is what is needed.
Tell me specifically where President Lincoln violated the constitution.

I know he suspended Habeas Corpus but the suspension clause, listed below, gives them the power to do so during specific times, rebellion is listed chief among them. So, suspending the writ of habeas corpus during wartime wasn't a violation of the constitution. What other constitutional violations are you speaking of?

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

I know he imprisoned people for writing articles that were not complimentary towards him. That would be one of them. A particularly ugly one. However that goes with the habeas corpus.
 
Tell me specifically where President Lincoln violated the constitution.
Lincoln suspending habeus corpus is a direct violation of the US Constitution. Arresting a member of the press for speaking out against presidential policy and the war violates the US Constitution.

I know he suspended Habeas Corpus but the suspension clause, listed below, gives them the power to do so during specific times, rebellion is listed chief among them. So, suspending the writ of habeas corpus during wartime wasn't a violation of the constitution. What other constitutional violations are you speaking of?
The executive branch does not have constitutional authority to suspend the writ of habeus. Only one federal body has that authority and that would be congress.



I know he imprisoned people for writing articles that were not complimentary towards him. That would be one of them. A particularly ugly one. However that goes with the habeas corpus.

again, lincoln did not have that authority or power.
 
Lincoln suspending habeus corpus is a direct violation of the US Constitution. Arresting a member of the press for speaking out against presidential policy and the war violates the US Constitution.
I've noted how and where it says in the constitution that there is a right to suspend habeas corpus, it should be noted that it does not specify which of the branches can do such a thing and your insistence that only Congress has the authority is based solely on wishes, not on the words.

The second here expands from that particular suspension.

It is also notable in my post that I stated that the imprisonment of people for writing articles that were not complimentary was particularly ugly.

The executive branch does not have constitutional authority to suspend the writ of habeus. Only one federal body has that authority and that would be congress.

Again, the suspension clause does not specify to whom the authority is given other than to the Federal Government.



again, lincoln did not have that authority or power.

You are wrong.
 
I've noted how and where it says in the constitution that there is a right to suspend habeas corpus, it should be noted that it does not specify which of the branches can do such a thing and your insistence that only Congress has the authority is based solely on wishes, not on the words.

The second here expands from that particular suspension.

It is also notable in my post that I stated that the imprisonment of people for writing articles that were not complimentary was particularly ugly.



Again, the suspension clause does not specify to whom the authority is given other than to the Federal Government.





You are wrong.


That's a pretty odd (and rather foolish) argument considering the suspension of the writ clause comes within Article I not Article II.
 
Mostly he had the authority because, after he found that there was opposition to his suspension, he sought and received authority from the Congress to suspend the writ. He didn't need a court battle to distract at that moment in time.

It's not like I like that habeas corpus can be suspended, just that this is a particular example of people who latch onto one thing without knowing all about it first.
 
That's a pretty odd (and rather foolish) argument considering the suspension of the writ clause comes within Article I not Article II.
It's not:

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/51-habeas-corpus-suspension.html

Educate yourself.

The clause itself does not specify, and while most of the clauses of § 9 are directed at Congress not all of them are.1775 At the Convention, the first proposal of a suspending authority expressly vested “in the legislature” the suspending power,1776 but the author of this proposal did not retain this language when the matter was taken up,1777 the present language then being adopted.1778 Nevertheless, Congress’ power to suspend was assumed in early commentary1779 and stated in dictum by the Court.1780 President Lincoln suspended the privilege on his own motion in the early Civil War period,1781 but this met with such opposition1782 that he sought and received congressional authorization.1783 Three other suspensions were subsequently ordered on the basis of more or less express authorizations from Congress.1784

Again it should be noted that he sought and gained authorization from the Congress. So the number one objection to the suspension is moot.
 
The suspending of Habeas Corpus was not the only violation.

Here is a portion of an article I found at http://shnv.blogspot.com/2008/12/true-estimate-of-abraham-lincoln.html

(this is a list of violations of the US Constitution by Lincoln)

"Coercion in 1861, Article IV.

Laws of Neutrality—Trent Affair. Article VI, Clause 2—Violation of international Law.

Writ of Habeas corpus Suspended. Article I, Section IX, Clause 2.

War Declared Without the Consent of Congress, 1861. Article I, Section VIII, Clause 11, 12.

Emancipation Proclamation. Article IV, Section III, Clause 2.

West Virginia Made a State. Article IV, Section III, Clause 1.

Freedom of speech denied. Vallandigham Imprisoned in Ohio. Amendment One.

Blockading Ports of States that Were held by the Federal Government to be still in the Union.

Liberty of the Press Denied. Amendment One.

Violation of the Fugitive Slave Law. Article IV, Section II, Clause 3.

How did Lincoln’s actions tally with his words? Was this honest dealing? Let us now quote the admissions of Lincoln’s own contemporaries in the North. Godwin, of The Nation, says: “The first real breach in the Constitution was President Lincoln’s using his war power to abolish slavery.

Thaddeus Stevens Stated: “I will not stultify myself by supposing that Mr. Lincoln has any warrant in the Constitution for dismembering Virginia.”

A. K. McClure, his friend, said: “Mr. Lincoln swore to obey the Constitution, but in eighteen months violated it by his Emancipation Proclamation.”

James Ford Rhodes said: ”There was no authority for the Proclamation by the Constitution and laws–nor was there any statute that warranted it.”

Wendell Phillips, at the Cooper Institute, said in 1864: “I judge Mr. Lincoln by his acts, his violations of the law, his overthrow of liberty in the Northern States. I judge Mr. Lincoln by his words, his deeds, and so judging him, I am unwilling to trust Abraham Lincoln with the future of this country.”

Percy Gregg said: “Lincoln (like Bush) never hesitated to violate the Constitution when he desired. The Chief Justice testified to this. Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus in 1861; he allowed West Virginia to be formed from Virginia contrary to the Constitution; he issued the Emancipation Proclamation without consulting his Cabinet and in violation of the Constitution.”

Charles Sumner said: “When Lincoln reinforced Fort Sumter and called for 75,000 men without the consent of Congress, it was the greatest breach ever made in the Constitution, and would hereafter give the President the liberty to declare war whenever he wished without the consent of Congress.”

Lincoln had no respect for the decisions of the Supreme Court, in the highest law in the land. As J. G. Holland pointed out: “The South stood by the decisions of the Supreme Court–The North did not and Lincoln did not.”

Abraham Lincoln himself stated in his Cooper Institute speech: “In spite of Judge Taney’s decision, Congress did not have the right to prohibit in the territories.” In his inaugural address, he said: “If the decisions of the Supreme Court are irrevocably fixed, Then people cease to be their own masters, and practically resign government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

To pander to the South’s vote, he openly said that any state had the constitutional right to secede if her rights were interfered with. Yet as soon as he was elected, he denied this and began to plan to coerce the seceding states back into the Union. He had openly said that coercion was not constitutional, and yet he called for 75,000 men to begin the coercion act without the consent of his Cabinet or Congress. He gave as his excuse that he could not afford to do without the revenue from the Southern states, and must prevent their withdrawal, right or wrong. This was the cunning that Seward said amounted to genius.

While insisting that the Southern states were still in the Union, on 19 July 1861, Lincoln declared a blockade, which brought untold suffering and privation on the people of the South. No nation can blockade her own ports. When England and France declared neutrality, Lincoln, fearing they would later acknowledge the seceding states as a Confederacy, issued his Emancipation Proclamation in the hope of conciliating them, though he acknowledged that he thought it would result in the massacre of the women and children in the South.

When the South, not desiring war, made every effort for peace, he blocked every effort that was made. When he learned of the Crittendom Resolutions before he was inaugurated. He sent word to every Republican member of Congress to vote against them. When he learned of the PEACE Convention presided over by ex-President Tyler, he sent Salmon P. Chase to represent him, instructed to vote against every comprise, especially against the return of fugitive slaves. And yet this man was the man who had said in Peoria, Illinois in 1854: “The slaveholder has a legal and moral right to his slaves. Fairly and fully I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves. The master has the right to seize the runaway slave in every state in the Union.”"
 
The suspending of Habeas Corpus was not the only violation.

Here is a portion of an article I found at http://shnv.blogspot.com/2008/12/true-estimate-of-abraham-lincoln.html

(this is a list of violations of the US Constitution by Lincoln)

"Coercion in 1861, Article IV.

Laws of Neutrality—Trent Affair. Article VI, Clause 2—Violation of international Law.

Writ of Habeas corpus Suspended. Article I, Section IX, Clause 2.

War Declared Without the Consent of Congress, 1861. Article I, Section VIII, Clause 11, 12.

Emancipation Proclamation. Article IV, Section III, Clause 2.

West Virginia Made a State. Article IV, Section III, Clause 1.

Freedom of speech denied. Vallandigham Imprisoned in Ohio. Amendment One.

Blockading Ports of States that Were held by the Federal Government to be still in the Union.

Liberty of the Press Denied. Amendment One.

Violation of the Fugitive Slave Law. Article IV, Section II, Clause 3.

How did Lincoln’s actions tally with his words? Was this honest dealing? Let us now quote the admissions of Lincoln’s own contemporaries in the North. Godwin, of The Nation, says: “The first real breach in the Constitution was President Lincoln’s using his war power to abolish slavery.

Thaddeus Stevens Stated: “I will not stultify myself by supposing that Mr. Lincoln has any warrant in the Constitution for dismembering Virginia.”

A. K. McClure, his friend, said: “Mr. Lincoln swore to obey the Constitution, but in eighteen months violated it by his Emancipation Proclamation.”

James Ford Rhodes said: ”There was no authority for the Proclamation by the Constitution and laws–nor was there any statute that warranted it.”

Wendell Phillips, at the Cooper Institute, said in 1864: “I judge Mr. Lincoln by his acts, his violations of the law, his overthrow of liberty in the Northern States. I judge Mr. Lincoln by his words, his deeds, and so judging him, I am unwilling to trust Abraham Lincoln with the future of this country.”

Percy Gregg said: “Lincoln (like Bush) never hesitated to violate the Constitution when he desired. The Chief Justice testified to this. Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus in 1861; he allowed West Virginia to be formed from Virginia contrary to the Constitution; he issued the Emancipation Proclamation without consulting his Cabinet and in violation of the Constitution.”

Charles Sumner said: “When Lincoln reinforced Fort Sumter and called for 75,000 men without the consent of Congress, it was the greatest breach ever made in the Constitution, and would hereafter give the President the liberty to declare war whenever he wished without the consent of Congress.”

Lincoln had no respect for the decisions of the Supreme Court, in the highest law in the land. As J. G. Holland pointed out: “The South stood by the decisions of the Supreme Court–The North did not and Lincoln did not.”

Abraham Lincoln himself stated in his Cooper Institute speech: “In spite of Judge Taney’s decision, Congress did not have the right to prohibit in the territories.” In his inaugural address, he said: “If the decisions of the Supreme Court are irrevocably fixed, Then people cease to be their own masters, and practically resign government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

To pander to the South’s vote, he openly said that any state had the constitutional right to secede if her rights were interfered with. Yet as soon as he was elected, he denied this and began to plan to coerce the seceding states back into the Union. He had openly said that coercion was not constitutional, and yet he called for 75,000 men to begin the coercion act without the consent of his Cabinet or Congress. He gave as his excuse that he could not afford to do without the revenue from the Southern states, and must prevent their withdrawal, right or wrong. This was the cunning that Seward said amounted to genius.

While insisting that the Southern states were still in the Union, on 19 July 1861, Lincoln declared a blockade, which brought untold suffering and privation on the people of the South. No nation can blockade her own ports. When England and France declared neutrality, Lincoln, fearing they would later acknowledge the seceding states as a Confederacy, issued his Emancipation Proclamation in the hope of conciliating them, though he acknowledged that he thought it would result in the massacre of the women and children in the South.

When the South, not desiring war, made every effort for peace, he blocked every effort that was made. When he learned of the Crittendom Resolutions before he was inaugurated. He sent word to every Republican member of Congress to vote against them. When he learned of the PEACE Convention presided over by ex-President Tyler, he sent Salmon P. Chase to represent him, instructed to vote against every comprise, especially against the return of fugitive slaves. And yet this man was the man who had said in Peoria, Illinois in 1854: “The slaveholder has a legal and moral right to his slaves. Fairly and fully I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves. The master has the right to seize the runaway slave in every state in the Union.”"
Hence the reason I asked. The suspension of habeas corpus is just the most famous and most wrong.
 
It's a silly argument.
Yet it is reality. And again, regardless of this he sought and gained the authority of the congress (admittedly after meeting opposition), each of the times he suspended the writ.

It is one of the main things that people "dislike" about Lincoln, when in reality it wasn't against the constitution which actually gives the government the authority to do this during specified events.
 
Here's another Lincoln quote for you:

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” - Abraham Lincoln , 1858, Charleston, Ill

and Lincoln also wrote about the Slave issue in his letter to Horace Greeley;

"As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

and it was his saving of our Union that Lincoln was the greatest Statesman of the 19th century.
 
and Lincoln also wrote about the Slave issue in his letter to Horace Greeley;

"As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

and it was his saving of our Union that Lincoln was the greatest Statesman of the 19th century.

Also note, that this demonstrates Lincolns genius as a Statesman. Not only does he concisely, clearly and unequivocaly state his policy objective but when he wrote this letter to Greeley he had a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation he wrote sitting on the desk. So by making clear his policy objective of preserving the Union and then implementing emancipation he placed the entire struggle on a whole new moral grounds which doomed any remaining chance the Confederacy may have had. This was purely strategic political genius of thie highest order.
 
I cited it as a power of congress because of the location in Art. 1. Now, not being able to find a specific cite where Lincoln got authority from congress to do it, but having heard about historical articles that claim he threatened to arrest any congressperson who didn't side with him, i'd question the legitimacy of that authority.

regardless of all that, we were both right and both wrong.
 
Another thing that Darwin and Lincoln had in common besides their greatness and their birthday was their extraordinary writing talents.

Who can read Lincolns Ghettysburg addres or second innaugural without chocking up?

I also consider "On the Origins of Species" one of the best written scientific treatise ever written. It has exceptional scientific applicability even to this day and is so well written and conveyed that even a lay person can grasp it's meaning. It is not only a staggering work of science but great literature too.
 
Back
Top