Current Events > Was Lincoln justified in suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War?

(+) Yeah! (+)

What do you think?

Anything he had to do to preserve the union was justified even in hindsight.

Sure

To end slavery, yea, I'd say that's fine.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Anything he had to do to preserve the union was justified even in hindsight.

I suppose a cogent argument along those lines is that the Constitution outlines rights for the United States of America, and since there were people during the Civil War who were threatening the stability of that nation, suspending habeas corpus was justified. The tricky legal aspect here is that they were still citizens of the United States, albeit potential revolutionaries, and thus constitutional rights were still applicable.

TULPAMANCER posted...

I suppose a cogent argument along those lines is that the Constitution outlines rights for the United States of America, and since there were people during the Civil War who were threatening the stability of that nation, suspending habeas corpus was justified. The tricky legal aspect here is that they were still citizens of the United States, albeit potential revolutionaries, and thus constitutional rights were still applicable.

It's more like there was intense gross constitutional violations being perpetrated on black people in the south and a less severe & temporary yet unconstitutional measure to immediately stop that is an acceptable trade.

Maybe it would be a little different if Lincoln began conducting mass executions but there's nothing to suggest the rights violations perpetrated by the union even come close to what happened in the confederacy.

Just because it's written in the constitution doesn't mean it's the right thing to do at all times. If it was, there wouldn't be an amendment process. Rule of law is only important as long as people are adhering to it. An open rebellion is the exact opposite of rule of law.

^Well said. That was laid on like a trowel, to quote As You Like It.