Was Lincoln Justified In Cases Of Rebellion

944 Words4 Pages

It has been affirmed that such charges against Abraham Lincoln, referring to the unwarranted accusations that has plague Mr. Lincoln, that he has suspended and violated the Constitution and committed treason against his own nation, are completely groundless. He has been tried for much misconduct as the President of the US, more specifically, he has been charged of committing murder, violating the first and Fifth Amendment rights of ordinary citizens and for invading a sovereign nation without congressional approval. Mr. Lincoln has done no such misconducts which warrant his presence in court, as such; he is innocent from these charges in every respect.
Although the deaths of the many people who fought the Civil War were charged against him, …show more content…

As a result of the suspension of habeas corpus, John Merryman was arrested and put in prison without a reason as to prevent Maryland from seceding from the Union. According to the Constitution, “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 I, Section 9, Clause 2). Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (Revised Sixth Edition, 1856) defines rebellion as ‘the taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued’. In the case of the seceding states, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia, they all rallied under the Confederate flag, their new form of government in opposition of the laws set by the Union. Since the southern states were considered rebels, rebelling against the US, the public safety may require for the privilege of habeas corpus to be suspended. Thus, Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus did not infringe on a citizen’s right to habeas corpus, but rather, it was permitted by the …show more content…

As a result of the court case Texas v. White (1869), the Supreme Court declared that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null". This meant that the coalition of the rebellious states, self proclaimed as the Confederate States of America, was not a sovereign nation and was still part of the US. This would mean that it is legal for Lincoln to move troops into the south as it is essentially mobilizing troops within a country and using them to suppress

Open Document