Revoking Civil Liberties: Lincoln's Constitutional Dilemma
His suspension of habeas corpus is part of what some consider the "dark side" of his presidency
To Lincoln's surprise, the governor, too, refused him. "It would madden the true men of this State," Fletcher wrote, "to talk to them of reliance on the 'honor' and 'christian charity' of these fiends in human shape."
It was at this moment, historians believe, that Lincoln may have realized how far his civil liberties restrictions had been taken—and how difficult it might prove to restore those liberties. "Governments that assemble these powers tend to be rather reluctant to give them up," says Foner. Particularly, it seems, during a violent, highly personal civil war. "Lincoln had miscalculated. He could not at first believe that liberty could be permanently diminished among the liberty-loving American people," writes Neely. "Missouri proved him wrong."
Lincoln's solution was straightforward: If neither the Army commander in Missouri nor its civilian leaders would agree to end martial law, Lincoln would send in the Army to do it for them.
Only a few months before he was killed, Lincoln decided to send a new general, John Pope, to the state to impose his will. Pope, to his surprise, found the rancor in Missouri went even deeper than Lincoln imagined. In March 1865, a newspaper correspondent in St. Louis reported that many Republicans in Missouri—not just the state's leaders—had come to admire the efficiency of martial law: "So far from being unpopular, it is believed that a large portion of our loyal people are willing to see a provision incorporated in the charter of the city, requiring six months of martial law to be imposed . . . every five years to clean up all the little cases of outraged justice, loose indictments, public corruption and private peculation, which the ordinary courts cannot reach."
Lincoln's envoy pushed back against what he and the president surely recognized as creeping tyranny. Pope reminded the state's leaders that he "fully believed in the capacity of the American people for self-government." In a letter to the governor, Pope said he already had seen "an alarming and fatal tendency among the people . . . to surrender to the military the execution of the laws, and thus to abandon all safeguards against tyranny and oppression." He worried about where this temptation might lead: "Once let the American people abandon themselves to this practice, which indulgence confirms into habit, and their liberties are gone from them forever."
There is little evidence, unfortunately, of what Lincoln thought of these final developments. He was killed only a few weeks later, before martial law was finally repealed in Missouri and before civil liberties could be restored elsewhere in the country. It seems likely, though, that in the waning months of the war, Lincoln learned an important lesson: Civil liberties are much more difficult to restore than to revoke.
Reader Comments
reponse to Jon of TX
1. Mr. Lincoln was a circuit lawyer. Of 5000+ case he handled approx. 130 railroad cases. of those, he opposed the railroads in about 60 of those cases. hardly classifies him as a 'railroad lawyer'.
2. Um, yeah, okay... this definitely applies to the Bush administration
3. If Mr. Lincoln decided to secede the DC area from the Union, then i guess he was responsible for the war. But that's not what happened.
4. Try to engage in unrestricted warfare and not destroy your enemies economy. Stupid idea.
5. see #2 above
6. the emancipation proclamation freed ALL slaves held in rebellious states not 'volunteers' willing to fight for the Union.
7. i was not aware that the Andersonville was a Union prison, as it was opened in Sumter Co. Georgia by the confederacy, but accuracy doesn't seem to be an impediment to anyone who would consider this screed true.
In response to Joe Reb
I was born and raised in Kansas, however I do not hold a grudge against the Missouri bushwackers that burned crops, farmsteads, slaughtered cattle as well as the killing of the innocent. It was horrible, true enough, however war is a nasty business and Lincoln did the best he could with what he had. I don't think he had much control over Sherman. In retrospect if anyone should have been tried for a war crime it would be Gen. Sherman.
Comments
> A politician with a agenda to save the union.
He said he was, but politicians lie. Saying he wanted to free the slaves
would have been politically dangerous at the time: pretending all he
cared about was the union made sense.
> It is clear that his proclomation was a political ploy to gain favor
> with the northeners
I don't think so, or at least not mostly. The northerners who wanted
slavery abolished were already on his side anyway.
Gaining favour with the British and French was part of it: he needed to
keep them out of the war. And he wanted to stir up trouble in the south:
if the slaves knew they'd be free when the confederacy fell, they would
be more likely to make a nuisance of themselves: sabotage, go slow, etc..
> The document refers to all states that are in rebellion.
Which was nearly all the slaves since it was the slave states that had
revolted. He might not have felt he had the legal authority to abolish
slavery in Maryland. Anyway Maryland abolished slavery itself not long
after.
If your own ancestors were slaves in Maryland then I can understand you
feeling he let them down. But he was probably doing as much as he felt
he could get away with.
Lincoln wasn't perfect. But nobody is, and he deserves credit for doing
far more than others of him time did.
advertisement











