Abraham Lincoln is a towering figure in American History,
literally. A 60 foot likeness of his head is chiseled into the side of a
mountain in North Dakota. A giant statue of him sits above the Abraham Lincoln Reflecting
Pool, prominently displayed in our nation’s capital. Countless schools, cities,
and other tributes are scattered across the country. Yet, much of the history
of this President is misunderstood and certain actions and decisions he made
while navigating the nation through its most tumultuous time, the Civil War are
misrepresented in our culture, and most disturbingly, our educational system.
It is dangerous not to know and understand history but even more dangerous to
learn incorrect history. Maybe even more important, to have honest and critical
thought and discussion about Lincoln and the Civil War is honorable to the
650,000 men killed in the service of their country. The canonization of Lincoln by the public
school system and culture has led to a misunderstanding of him and the Civil
War.
As
usually taught and promoted, Lincoln waged the war to “Save the Union”, which
is a euphemism for the one thing actually settled by the Civil War – if
sovereign States have the right to secede.
The tenth amendment of the Constitution
states: “The powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.” As James Madison stated,
state’s rights contained in this amendment are “innumerable.” Presumably, the right to peacefully remove
their participation in the Union would be one of those rights. It is hard to
imagine the States ratifying a Constitution which delegated the right to
forcibly coerce States to remain in the Union. Thomas Jefferson agreed. Jefferson defended the right of secession in
his first inaugural address by declaring, "If there be any among us who
would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them
stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be
tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Jefferson later commented on the New England
Federalists secession movement. “If any State in the Union will declare that it
prefers separation…to a continuance in Union….I have no hesitation in saying,
let us separate.” Jefferson was
intimately familiar with the matter; he authored the most famous secessionist
statement in history when he penned Declaration of Independence.
On the
contrary, Lincoln’s stated justification for saving the Union made secession next
to impossible. Lincoln stated in his inaugural address “It is safe to assert
that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own
termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national
Constitution, and the Union will endure forever – it being impossible to
destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”
As well as, “Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association
of States in the nature of contracts merely, can it, as a contract, be
peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a
contract may violate it – break it, so to speak; but does it not require all too
lawfully rescind it?” In other words, to
break away from a tyrannical government, one must have the permission of that
same tyrannical government. Good luck with that. It is not hard to imagine King
George III shouting a hardy “Hear, Hear!” and nodding approvingly.
Prior
to using his gift of rhetoric to justify forcibly maintaining the Union, his opinion of the issue could
have been used as an opening statement by a defense lawyer in a treason
trial of a secessionist:
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power,
have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new
one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a
right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right
confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may
choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize,
and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.”
- Abraham Lincoln January 12, 1848
Lincoln’s
war to save the Union was a war to end the secessionist movement and with it
the political tradition of states’ rights as a check on the tyrannical
proclivities of the central government. He succeeded in saving the Union, but
only geographically. Philosophically he destroyed it and it was replaced with a
consolidated empire instead of a constitutional republic of sovereign states. From
the ashes rose a bloated bureaucracy so powerful it dictates the size of fruit
cup medleys on school lunch menus from Freedom, Wyoming to Liberty, Arizona and
all points in between.
The
safeguard provided by the Constitution to citizens by guaranteeing due process
is of paramount importance. The ability to throw a man in jail without
recourse, without being informed of alleged crimes indefinitely should not be
trifled with. Lincoln trifled and as a result, weakened this cherished
protection. Less than two months after assuming office, Lincoln authorized
General Scott to suspend habeas corpus
for reasons of “public safety” in locations between “the City of Philadelphia
and the City of Washington” he then extended the suspension to Florida by unilateral
proclamation. Additional suspensions of
the writ were authorized by Lincoln throughout the remainder of the war.
This
resulted in the imprisonment of thousands of anti-war protestors. This included
newspaper editors and owners and even priests and preachers. A secret police force was established by
Secretary of State Seward which arrested thousands of citizens for disloyalty –
broadly defined as disagreement with Lincoln’s war policies. The Legislature of
Maryland was of questionable loyalty and Lincoln had many of them arrested. One
can see by the various professions of those thrown in jail, his suspension of
the writ also assaulted the freedom of the press, speech and assembly.
It is
unquestionable the Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus.
Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states “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.”
Article 1, Section 1 stipulates “All legislative powers herein granted
shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and House of Representatives.”
Article 1 is exclusively dedicated to the Legislative Branch. Article 2,
pertains to the Executive Branch. Any plain reading of the text leads to the
conclusion that Congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus and not the
President.
Lincoln
addressed Congress on July 4th, 1861 and stated “Now it is insisted
that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power. But the
Constitution itself, is silent as to which, or who, is to exercise the power;
and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be
believed the framers of the instrument intended, that, in every case, the danger
should run its course, until Congress could be called together; the very
assembling of which might be prevented ... by the rebellion.” Lincoln's argument here is flawed, as the
Constitution extends the power to call Congress back into session, which Lincoln
could have done in 1861, nullifying his argument. Instead of exercising a power
granted to him to call Congress back in session, he overstepped his
presidential power and failed to allow Congress to consider the suspension. According
to Lincoln, the framers of the constitution failed to consider what a
“dangerous emergency” might entail. On the contrary, the framers knew one man’s
interpretation of a “dangerous emergency” provides an easy route into an abuse
of power and worse, tyranny. Because of this, they placed it specifically under
the Legislative Branch. At the time, the
most unconstitutional power grab in American history went unchallenged by
legislators and journalist. The thought of rotting in the American Bastille no
doubt contributed to their silence, which in and of itself is just another
example why founders did not give this power to the Executive.
Further
evidence that supports Lincoln acted unconstitutionally is evidenced by the
arrest of John Merryman. Merryman was arrested and imprisoned near Fort McHenry
by federal authorities. Merryman petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus and his
case was heard by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland. Chief Justice Taney was
serving in his circuit capacity and his ruling declared:
"With such provisions in the constitution, expressed in
language too clear to be misunderstood by any one, I can see no ground whatever
for supposing that the president, in any emergency, or in any state of things,
can authorize the suspension of the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, or
the arrest of a citizen, except in aid of the judicial power. He certainly does
not faithfully execute the laws, if he takes upon himself legislative power, by
suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and the judicial power also, by arresting
and imprisoning a person without due process of law."
Indeed,
the language is too clear to be misunderstood by anyone – the language of the
constitution and Taney’s ruling - except Lincoln, who contemplated issuing an
arrest warrant for the Supreme Court Justice.
One can make the argument that
Lincoln was justified and eventually, the legislature did suspend the writ. It
does not diminish the fact his actions weakened the protection, as future
Executives may use Lincoln to justify their own suspension of the writ.
Another
misrepresented act of Lincoln is the Emancipation Proclamation. It is often
heralded as a great document of freedom written by the Great Emancipator himself
with the stroke of a pen. In reality, it emancipated hardly anyone and
reinforced slavery in certain areas. Lincoln’s words are useful in
understanding his actions. In a letter to newspaper editor Horace Greely in
1862, Lincoln wrote:
“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.”
The
Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states that were in rebellion. These
States would not recognize it and Lincoln knew it. In border States such as
Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky as well as other areas under Union control
slavery was still legal. If a state was loyal to the Union, then slavery was
fine by Lincoln. Lincoln’s Secretary of
State William Seward put the proclamation into perspective. “"We show our sympathy
with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them
in bondage where we can set them free."
History
is distorted when the Emancipation Proclamation is not taught and understood as
it was actually used by Lincoln. This results in a failure to recognize the
true significance of the document. It was a masterful nuanced diplomatic move
and a brilliant war time measure. Lincoln himself admitted the proclamation was
a “war measure.”
Diplomatically,
it prevented European powers from recognizing the Confederate States of
America. After having achieved emancipation peacefully, European powers would
not want to be seen as siding with the Confederacy. This was a major concern of
Lincoln. With the Industrial Revolution in full swing, the lack of trade with
the southern states, most notably cotton, was severely hindering the European
economy. It was a legitimate concern that European powers would recognize the
Confederates as a means to speed the return of commerce with the region.
Militarily,
it was a cause for concern for Confederate soldiers fighting far from home, as
the possibility of slave revolts were of serious concern. It also accelerated
the integration of black soldiers to join the fight for the Union. As the war
raged on, manpower was becoming an increasingly crucial issue and the
additional troops were vital to continuing the war effort.
The
Border States were always troublesome for Lincoln, as evident by his tossing many
Maryland state legislatures into military prisons without due process. By
maintaining the status quo, Lincoln hoped to keep a lid on the legitimate
possibility of more rebellion in these areas. The writing on the wall was clear,
slavery’s days were numbered, but Lincoln masterfully kept more trouble at
arm’s length. One pitch, three strikes. Not to mention, it signaled real
emancipation was on the horizon.
If one
does not learn and understand Lincoln’s actions and motivations accurately, it
is impossible to understand our government and how it has evolved into its
present day form. Neglecting the
unconstitutional power grab he
exercised in suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus is to deny the possibility of
tyranny that could result in the future from a less benevolent leader, one who
no doubt would invoke Lincoln as justification. Not placing the Emancipation
Proclamation in proper context fails to recognize the political, military, and
diplomatic brilliance of the maneuver and a valuable lesson is lost. Lincoln’s
legacy is cemented as a great President. We could further his legacy by
assessing, learning, and teaching what he did wrong as well as what he did
right – as long as his successes are taught in the correct context. The American
Bastille created by Lincoln has long been closed. There is no reason not to.
No comments:
Post a Comment