Executive Actions taken by President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War

In American History, the Civil War remains the only one of its kind with numerous events that happened on several levels. One of those events is the expansion and scope of executive power by President Abraham Lincoln which was undoubtedly uncosntitutional. He made various decisions without the approval of Congress, and he even acknowledged beyond the boundaries of his powers as a president. According to Belz (1998) Lincoln critics believe that he might have as well aggrandized himself, in a manner similar to what Cesar and Napoleon did. Many nationalists have, however, supported President Lincoln’s dictatorship during the civil war praising it as both constitutional and wise. Whether wise or utterly dictatorial, Lincoln was determined to hold his union together. His action, which violated the American constitution, had several pros and cons that afflicted his leadership and the American people. Some of the actions remain questionable up to date despite the fact that they yielded positive outcomes.

Suspending Habeas Corpus

Lincoln’s first proclamation was suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The concession of habeas corpus’ writ submits to a general traditional law that states individual right, before being imprisoned, to appear before a judge (Belz, 1998). It is found under article 1, section 9 of the constitution, US (Greenberg, 2001 and Adams, 2000).

The privilege of writ of habeas Corpus, shall not be suspended unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it” (US Constitution Article 1 section 9)

Lincoln’s first suspension of this writ came when the federal troops assaulted the federal garrison at fort Sumter on April 12 1861, and it was effectively in use by march 1863 after congress passing it. The idea that Maryland would unite Virginia and later separate from the union would see capital city threading in the middle of hostile states brought tension to him. He also wanted to maintain unhindered route between Washington, DC and the north. Lincoln argued that he omitted the writ in order to avoid compromise with courts and enhance victory that will see the existence of the union. So he gave union generals the mandate to arrest and detains anyone who posed insecurity to the public domain without trial (Greenberg, 2001 and Adams, 2000).

This saw the arrest of a Marylander, John Meryman, Vallandigham and other 13,000 people under martial law without trial. They were accused of being rebellious. So during the case of Merryman many newspapers especially from the north including Horace Greeley were shut down, and they were branded as anti-war newspapers. Some of the newspapers had anticipated for Taney’s capture. Lincoln violated the constitution since the power to suspend the Habeas Corpus belonged to the congress. Chief justice, Taney accepted Merryman’s and Vallandigham’s petition to the Supreme Court for writ of habeas corpus. The generals were instructed by Taney to free them and allow the court to prosecute them, but the order was later denounced by the generals (Adams, 2000). Though this suspension limited the rights of many people, it main advantage is that it limited the activities of Militia and limited the ability of young men being conscripted into militia armies. According to Gienapp (2002) Lincoln suspension of Writ Habeas Corpus was due to conscription. He wanted many youths to join the army and fight for the union, a move that was very successful.

Later Lincoln ordered the arrest of chief justice, Taney for writing an opinion to the president denouncing his actions against the constitution as the president and mentioning out that only the congress had the mandate to suspend the habeas corpus (Adams, 2000). This act also limited undermined the rights of the Chief Justice which served to enforce the suspending the habeas corpus. Though Lincoln had successful neutralized Villandigham and those with opinions similar to his, which was necessary for his course, the suspension of liberties carried a great political risk.

Judicial murder

Another violation of presidential powers was the judicial murder the individual accused of plotting to assassinate Lincoln. The suspects were hanged in the presence of the public without appellate review, trial by a judge or a panel of judges. Mary Surratt, an innocent victim, was hanged for being close to John Wilkes Booth. She was a southern sympathizer and a catholic, and both would at times stay in her boarding house (Adams, 2000). Jefferson further said that the south did not pose any element of rebellion; they only wanted to go their way as the thirteen colonies did when they separated from Britain. He also claimed that the retaining of the union did not substantiate the hanging of such huge number of youth and Lincoln required convincing reason rather than the union for him to continue the war (Miller, n.d.). The main con of this action it that it undermined the victims’ right to life and justice resulting to criticism. However, it did send a warning to all those who had thought of killing Lincoln though it did not deter attempts since Lincoln was later assassinated.

Freedom of speech denied

Union soldiers under the command of General Ambrose Burner, on May 5 1863, went to arrest Clement L. Vallandigham at his home. Vallandigham was a former congressman and a renowned democratic politician (Sachsman, 2008). Vallandigham was arrested for issues his famous anti-war speech. According to Sachsman (2008) Vallandigham was taken by train to Cincinnati to be prosecuted under the marshal laws. However, after conviction, his sentence was later changed by President Lincoln from detention to deportation to the confederacy. After sometime general Burnside censored printing of Chicago Times newspaper, but later president Lincoln withdrew the order (Sachsman, 2008).

Another incident happened in May 1863, when republicans in congress initiated a decision to banish a democratic congressman for campaigning of harmony and recognition of the confederates through a speech delivered to the house. Riots were registered in the home town of vallandigham as Reiteration for his detention. There was also burning of buildings belonging to the republican newspaper by the mob. The sanity was later restored under the martial laws after General Burnside sent troops to the area. More criticisms on Lincoln administration were generated, and people demanded clarification on freedom of speech in time of war (Curtis, 2001). Although the suspension of freedom of speech limited the people’s ability to expressing themselves and share opinions, it served to prevent the spread of propaganda and incitements from the secessionists.

War Declared Without the Consent of Congress

Lincoln violated article 4 of the constitution when he coerced the Southerners into a war aiming at having them surrender to him. The action bearded fruits, the southerner decided to fight, and found themselves at a disadvantage. This started on April 15, 1861, when President Lincoln sent a troop of seventy five thousand army men to attack the southern states that had separated from the union (Krannawitter, 2010). He did this without calling for discussion session with the congress. Only seven states had separated from the union until when Lincoln announced his target to bring them back into union using force, four extra states – Arkansas, north California, Tennessee and Virginia parted and united the confederacy. The southerners took the act as coercion. According to Krannawitter (2010) Lincoln scheduled the congress to be in session on april15, this was three months after the unusual occasion (civil war), unlike required by the constitution, the meeting was delayed. He also organized for procurement of material for war, and naval vessels without the approval of the congress on 21april (Krannawitter, 2010).

Lincoln’s violation of the constitutional right saw disintegration of the Maryland government. He went ahead to detain individual he feared to vote for secession of Maryland and members of legislation believed to be sympathizers to the southerners (Adams, 2000). Though action to go to war without the consent of the congress was illegal, it communicated Lincoln’s stand that he was ready to do whatever it takes to defend the union. He earned supports who were ready to fight alongside the union army and enemies who ready to fight against the union because they considered the president’s action as coercion.

The Emancipation Proclamation

Emancipation proclamation was declared in September 1862 by Abraham Lincoln. The slaves who inhabited areas occupied by confederate states of America were to be freed (Michael, 2002). This proclamation made slaves stop working on farms owned by confederate states. This was advantageous since it denied confederate states labor that was required to run their agrarian economy. As Michael (2002) notes, it became harder to support their warfare against the north since they mostly depended on agrarian farming for sustaining war as well as for food.

It also challenged the European countries to validate their intervention on behalf of the confederacy as many of the countries resisted slavery. Morel (20020 observes that the African-Americans were recruited in to the union army to fight against the confederates. Thanks to the proclamation. The president, however, failed to collectively apply the law in the unions states as the northern continued administered the slavery practice. The low was only applicable in areas under the influence of the confederacy. Lincoln was letter criticized for delaying actions to free slaves (Morel, 2002; Power, 2001). Lincoln validated slaves’ emancipation during his Gettysburg address by announcing the freedom of slaves. Despite the constitution stating, “all men are equally created” it discriminative in its language and favored mostly white men. President Lincoln ordered the owners to be compensated for the loss of their slave asset.

Lincoln admitted that the government had to incur transportation cost of moving the blacks out the U.S to Africa and Latin America (Michael, 2002). None of the proposals reflected on by the congress. It sounds ironic that the north wanted the freedom of blacks in south, yet they refused to allow them move towards the north and live with them. For instance, Illinois and Indiana had laws that directly barred the settlement Africa-American. Charles dickens concluded that the political and business leader insisted keeping the union in order to collect revenue for the federal government (Miller, n.d.).

Proclamation Prohibiting trade with rebellious states

In July 13, 1861 Lincoln declared that the commercial trade between rebellious states likes Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama among others and other states to be illegal until they cease to be rebellion. The union navy blockaded the southern port belonging to the confederate states to ensure no commercial goods, arms and other supplies were moving to or from the confederate states. Lincoln aimed at blockading 5,600 km coastline and twelve essential ports of the confederate. These ports include New Orleans, Alabama and Louisiana. He used the U.S. law for revenue collection, which required tax to be consistent throughout the United States.

He argued that the revenue collection cannot be effectually performed in confederate states. This earned him criticism from congress given that under international maritime law, when a nation suspects a violation of a blockade, they only have the right to hunt neutral vessels on the open sea and ports closing weren’t allowed. At long last, the blockade by the union was an influential arm that eventually destroyed economy of the southerners. It diminished cotton exports, which in turn affected imports of munitions (Maoriello, 2008). This weakened the ability of the confederates to mobilize resistance against the union military invasion.

West Virginia Made a State.

April 17, 1861 is the year when Virginia joined the confederacy after seceding from the union. John Carlile later paid a visit to the president at the white house. Lincoln then told carlile to organize his group of Virginia to join the union. Ohio governor, Dennison, assisted the West Virginia’s separatist movement Shaffer, 2011)

Dennison sent an envoy to promise military aid when leaders of Virginia’s counties rejected to follow the eastern Virginia into the confederacy. Salmon, secretary of the treasury told Dennison to place Ohio troops across the river from wheeling. Andrew, the governor of Pennsylvania agreed also to support western Virginia together with Ohio troops. The residents of West Virginia accepted troops under General McClellan to create union power in their division. On January 1, 1863 the West Virginia declared its union after President Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation. West Virginia tremendously voted for the necessary constitution amendment banning slavery on March 26, 1863. On April 20, 1863 Lincoln gave a legal certificate indicating that West Virginia had rallied the requirements to be a state (Shaffer, 2011).

West Virginia’s actions were seen as search for freedom by the northerners. The northerners also admitted that the breaking of West Virginia from the confederacy will be such a big achievement to the union. They wanted to free themselves from the repressive easterners and to be able to live their lives under whatever establishment they may chose.

Violation of the Laws of neutrality

Abraham Lincoln also violated the law of neutrality when he went against Laws of Neutrality—Trent Affair. Article VI, Clause 2. The confederates had sent representatives to Britain to go and represent their cause to the British government (Gienapp, 2002). However, Lincoln send troop to intercept the births ship and arrest the representatives who were later detained without trial. This violates the laws of neutrality that had been reached at between America and Britain in 1812. Though this limited the link between the confederates and the outside world, it earned them sympathy from those who considered Abraham Lincoln’s action as intolerable.

Conclusion

Philosophers, critics, and supports are at liberty to formulate their ideas of what is politically right in respect to whatever sources the consult. However, they will never fail to agree that Lincoln’s calculated violation of the constitution and usurping of powers beyond what his presidency legally bestowed to him saved the union. Lincoln made some of the decisions when the congress was not in session and believed the congress would have ratified them if it were in session. Certainly, involving the congress in making some of the decisions would have taken a lot of time, yet the situation at hand need quick actions.

Lincoln’s greatest accomplishments include liberating slaves and holding the union together. His martyrdom, exactly when the war was ending, enhanced his fame to be remembered by the future generation. Both the supporters of Lincoln and opponent agreed that he ruled with dictatorship during the civil war to save the union. The evidence to this is well analyzed by Davis Jefferson. Jefferson viewed civil war as the consequences of their founding fathers failing to adequately address the issue of slavery when they attained independent. He also argued that the northerners rallied at the start of war were not to liberate the slaves but to maintain the union. He further states that the Protestants from the north were worried with the growing numbers of catholic immigrants and not slavery. Jefferson supports this idea indicating the first inaugural address where the president Lincoln promises to maintain slave fugitive slave act to the slave holders. Jefferson agreed that slavery could have ended without war with confederate states. He refers to the confederate’s constitution under article 1 section 9 banned the importation of slaves since neighboring countries had banned slavery thus they could easily escape to north countries (Miller, n.d.).

Bibliography

Belz, H. 1998. Abraham Lincoln, constitutionalism, and equal rights in the Civil War era. New York: Fordham University Press

Gienapp, W. E. 2002. Abraham Lincoln and Civil War America: a biography. New York: Oxford University Press.

Greenberg, D. 2001. Lincoln’s Crackdown. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2001/11/lincolns_crackdown.html (Accessed November 9, 2011).

Shaffer, D. S. 2011. Lincoln and the “Vast Question” of West Virginia: West Virginia History. 32(2) 86-100.

Streichler, S. 2005. Justice Curtis in the Civil War era. Charlottesville; London: University of Virginia Press.

Sachsman, D. B. 2008. Words at War: The Civil War and American Journalism. West Lafayette, Ind: Purdue University Press

Krannawitter, T. 2010. Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Politics of Our Greatest President. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers

Michael, M. 2002. The Emancipation Proclamation: Hope of Freedom for the Slaves. Mankato, Minn.: Bridgestone Books

Morel, E. L. 2002. Lincoln’s sacred effort: defining religion’s role in American self-government. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books.

Power, Max. 2011. The Pros & Cons of the Emancipation Proclamation. http://www.ehow.com/info_8676471_pros-cons-emancipation-proclamation.html.

Miller, W. D. Jr. (n.d). A Jeffersonian view of the civil war. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html (Accessed November 9, 2011).

Maoriello, S. 2008. Lincoln The War Leader. http://www.hudsonrivervalley.org/learning/pdfs/lesson_plans/presidentmaoriello1.pdf. (Accessed November 9, 2011).

Curtis M. K. (2001). Lincoln, Vallandingham, and Anti-War Speech in the Civil War. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. 3(7) 54-63

Adams, K. (2000). Lincoln Crossing the Rubicon. Freedom Daily http://www.fff.org/freedom/1100e.asp (Accessed November 9, 2011).