Did Abraham Lincoln ignore the Constitutional rights of the southern states?

Similar questions: Abraham Lincoln ignore Constitutional rights southern states.

Can o' worms, can o' worms! I love it, Ronin! The Civil War was not about slavery.It was about state's rights.

Apologies to all I offend, but West Point MC itself taught up until 1857 that secession was an absolute right of the states. IMHO, yes, the rights of all states and the express intent of the authors of the constitution were trampled. I think if you look at the history of where the signers of the Constitution had just been in terms of trying to extricate themselves from a relationship with Great Britian, it makes sense that they would have insisted on safeguards to ensure that if a similar situation presented itself again, they would be able to leave quickly and easily.

When you read the words of southern people in the late 1850s, it is clear that they feel that people far away who have no knowledge of the realities of southern life are trying to dictate terms. Yes, he violated the Constitution. What other choice did he have?

I don't know; I don't know what our world would look like now. It is a bit like the fantasy match football, because it was a forgone conclusion that the south did not have the resources to win. I think he did what he had to do; Shelby Foote argues that the Civil War, not the Revolutionary War, made the country what it is by settling the 'United' States issue.

What I find ironic is how the Supreme Court is now so hot to throw things back to individual states to decide! I have to get off my soapbox now.My ex used to tell people not to get me started on this topic, with good reason. Sources: history buff LarssenAbdo's Recommendations America in 1857: A Nation on the Brink Amazon List Price: $27.95 Used from: $1.78 Average Customer Rating: 4.0 out of 5 (based on 4 reviews) The Civil War: A Narrative (3 Vol.

Set) Amazon List Price: $78.00 Used from: $41.95 Average Customer Rating: 5.0 out of 5 (based on 130 reviews) .

This is the kind of question that could take all night to answer but here is the short version of my opinion. Slavery or no slavery the question of state’s rights was going to cause a conflict sooner or later. The South was not the only region that had threatened secession and from the time that Jefferson and Madison wrote the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions the powder was primed and waiting for a spark.

I tend to think that the states did have the right to secede but that is purely my opinion and others would strongly disagree. This very disagreement backs my belief that the issue was going to have to be settled by armed conflict sooner or later. Once the South left the Union Lincoln could no longer trample their rights because he had no authority there and if one believes that secession was legal then he was simply making war on a foreign power, which he basically admitted to when he declared a blockade of Southern ports.

If you don’t think that secession was legal then he was within his rights in putting down an insurrection. It was the population of the states that remained in the Union upon who’s rights he trampled and there is no doubt whatsoever that he did that. If he hadn’t done so who knows how the war might have turned out but if the Confederacy had won the war there is no doubt that history would have been very different.

Slavery of course would have died out long ago both because of moral pressure from within and without and because it was becoming more unprofitable every day. I don’t know how race relations in the South would be today but given the much higher percentage of black voters in the South than in the US as a whole I imagine that it is entirely possible that blacks would have more clout in a 21st century Confederacy than they do in the current US government. Of course that assumes that the Confederacy would have held together and that is unlikely.

Georgia threatened to secede from the Confederacy during the war and I can very much see there being five to eleven little independent countries in existence by now. Maybe even more because I have no doubt that as soon as a victorious Confederacy recovered from the war that they would have invaded Cuba and possibly Mexico. Sources: My condensed thoughts on the subject.

KingofRandomCrap's Recommendations Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy Amazon List Price: $55.00 Used from: $23.26 Average Customer Rating: 4.5 out of 5 (based on 5 reviews) .

I do not think Lincoln violated the Constitution or ignored the rights of the southern states. First of all, other than the possible right to secede (which I’ll address in a moment) Lincoln bent over backwards NOT to infringe in the rights of the Southern States. He was not going to interfere with slavery in those states, unless he could find a way to have them voluntarily give it up.

He didn’t attack states that had seceded, or even raise an army, until South Carolina fired on Sumter. Even the Emancipation Proclamation was restricted to "States, and parts of states, if any, in which the people thereof respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States". Thus it had no effect in slave states like Missouri, Maryland and Kentucky, which had never joined the Confederacy or had been "rehabilitated" by the time of the Proclamation.So, no, he didn’t violate the constitutional rights of the southern states.

Did the Southern States have the right to secede? First, there is no relation to the American Revolution. The right of the colonies to secede from Britain would have to be determined by British law at that time.

The rights of the Southern States would have been governed by the U.S. Constitution. Of course, one could always point to a higher natural law, giving people the right to oppose and/or replace a tyrannical government that has become injurious to their rights. But you asked about Constitutionality, so I’ll address it that way.

It would seem that at least some of the Framers intended for the States to be able to secede. "In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what ’the people’ meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, ’not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. ’ In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1543 However, Lincoln felt there were compelling reasons to say that right didn’t exist. "He opposed secession for these reasons: 1. Physically the states cannot separate.

2. Secession is unlawful.3. A government that allows secession will disintegrate into anarchy.

4. That Americans are not enemies, but friends. 5.

Secession would destroy the world’s only existing democracy, and prove for all time, to future Americans and to the world, that a government of the people cannot survive. http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/secession.htm The strongest of his reasons are #3 and #5. He felt that the South should not be able to take by force what they were not able to achieve at the ballot box.

In other words, if secession were lawful, any State could, at any time, separate from the nation if issues weren’t decided to their liking. The States had collectively joined the Union, and only collectively could they dissolve it. S view of the United States had evolved significantly since the time of the Founders.

The view of the country was shifting from being a collection of separate states to that of one, unified nation. The War, of course, completed this evolution. Before the War the United States were referred to using the plural verb "are", as in "The United States are doing X.

" After the War, reference to the U.S. used the singular verb "is". So, did the Southern States have the "right" to secede? I think the best we can say is that, to the extent such a right existed, it was not legally implemented, and was not militarily enforced.

Did Lincoln, in suspending habeus corpus in prosecuting the War, violate the Constitution? Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution says, "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. " Since the Civil War was a case of rebellion, the mere fact that Lincoln suspended habeus corpus is NOT unconstitutional.

"On April 27, 1861, habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincoln was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause.

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeus_corpus#United_States Now, this action was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Taney, in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F.Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861).

Lincoln ignored this decision. The Taney Court (Taney was from Maryland) had consistently found in favor of the rights of slaveholders during his almost 30 years as Chief Justice. It was also during his tenure that the Court issued the Dred Scott decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford So, we can see that Lincoln considered Taney part of the problem, and probably would have removed him if he could have found legal grounds to do so. It should also be noted that Jefferson Davis suspended habeus corpus in the Confederacy, AND imposed martial law. I would have to say that, under the terms of the Constitution itself, Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus was not unconstitutional.

Did Lincoln violate the Constitution by taking certain actions without Congressional approval? Without knowing specifically what acts you are referring to, it is impossible to answer this. The President, as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, is accorded broad powers in time of war.

I also see now that you got your questions from this web site - http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20030718_citron.html, or at least from the book reviewed there. However, I was going to say, before seeing this site, that I am not aware of any particularly unconstitutional actions Lincoln took. The author of this book seems to agree.

Without these actions by Lincoln, how would our world be different? After the first few defeats of 1861 (in the East), the war was very unpopular in the North (for various reasons). The question is - without these actions, would Lincoln have been able to keep a lid on this discontent?

It’s hard to say for sure, but let’s assume he would not. It’s likely that this discontent would have damaged the government’s ability to prosecute the war. Would there have been enough troops?

Would Congress have continued to support Lincoln? Even with increased discontent, the fact of the matter is that Lincoln would not have given up. And, it was just a matter of time before the North exhausted the South.So, the only real question is, would Lincoln have been re-elected in 1861.

Well, of course, once you change one historical fact, it’s impossible to say what course history would’ve taken. But, the success of Union arms in 1861 is what got him re-elected, and, in general terms, I see no particular reason that would have changed.So I think that, whereas specific things would undoubtedly have changed, the general course of events would not have been different, and our world would not be significantly different. In summary, it is my opinion that Lincoln’s actions made it easier for him to fight the War, but that while the absence of those actions would NOT have changed the outcome, it would have made things much more difficult.

Sources: As cited above, and my 35 years reading history. PoorRichard's Recommendations One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution Amazon List Price: $21.99 Used from: $20.58 Average Customer Rating: 5.0 out of 5 (based on 3 reviews) Lincoln's Constitution Amazon List Price: $14.00 Used from: $5.74 Average Customer Rating: 4.0 out of 5 (based on 5 reviews) Our Secret Constitution : How Lincoln Redefined American Democracy Amazon List Price: $16.95 Used from: $4.99 Average Customer Rating: 3.5 out of 5 (based on 8 reviews) Abraham Lincoln: A Constitutional Biography Amazon List Price: $17.95 Used from: $0.35 Average Customer Rating: 5.0 out of 5 (based on 2 reviews) .

Heh Many of the states, and not just in the South (it was an issue here in New England now and again) thought they had the right to secede. The argument was that they had joined voluntarily and could leave the same way. Of course, no nation allows itself to broken up without a fight and that issue was settled at bayonet point.

Article I, Section 9 provides for the suspension of Habeas Corpus: "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. " Sometimes it’s done by a genius for truly exigent reasons (Lincoln), sometimes by a goof to prop up his debacles (Dubya). Any good President will play fast & loose with the rules when the situation requires it.

Jefferson bought the Louisiana territory without a scrap of Constitutional authority. Lincoln created a new state (West Virginia) out of an existing state in direct contravention to the Constitution. But even good ones (Adams and the Alien & Sedition Act) can abuse it.

Bad ones like the incumbent love to do it for their own purposes. No matter who does it, the political price always has to be paid. Jefferson and Lincoln were ultimately justified by success.

Adams got hammered politically and historically and rightly so. The jury is still out on Dubya but his place in the history books is looking pretty precarious so far, unless they are written in comic book format. How would the world be different?

Lincoln saved the Union and the nation it grew into. But for him North America would be balkanized the way Europe was and torn with all the same wars and hostilities that took place there. And it wouldn’t have been around in the 20th Century to take on tler and/or the Soviets.

The world would have been a VERY different place.

There is no right to Secession in the constitution. The only way out is to Amend the constitution. However, suspending Habeas Corpus was unnecessary.

The times in our history where we abandon our base of believes because of real and imaginary threats are the times we, rightly, should feel ashamed of ourselves, and in history, those most desperate of times, the benefit we received from abandoning who we are were non-existent.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.