Bad Things About Abraham Lincoln: Civil Liberties.

Abraham Lincoln is revered as one of our greatest and most beloved presidents.

The man embodied a number of leadership qualities and was able to gain the confidence of the American people through the worst upheaval in our nation’s history, the Civil War.

But any popular public figure is bound to attract criticism, and Lincoln is no exception.

Lincoln is viewed by some as a tyrant who upset the balance of the constitutional system established by the Founding Fathers.

It is a historical fact that the states voluntarily formed the Union.

For this reason, it is not difficult to understand why many southerners believed states could voluntarily leave the Union.

In fact, Lincoln’s predecessor, President James Buchanan believed it was unconstitutional to use force against a state that attempted secession.

Lincoln’s philosophy about the Union could be considered one of the bad things about Abraham Lincoln.

He argued that the Union was perpetual and could only be disbanded if all of the states agreed to leave the Union.

He seemed to ignore the fact that the United States, indeed, was a union of states that had voluntarily consented to band together for their common good.

Lincoln argued that no provision in the Constitution allowed for a state to secede.

Therefore, he believed secession to be unconstitutional, which is why he eventually ruled that the seceded states were in rebellion and authorized the use of force to preserve the Union.

While Lincoln was correct that the Constitution did not give a state the right to secede, it also did not give the federal government the right to use force against a state that left the Union.

This lack of understanding of the Constitution was another one of the bad things about Abraham Lincoln.

The Founders struggled with the question of using force against a state at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, but they rejected the use of force against a state on the grounds that it would result in war.

President Lincoln’s Reasons for War

The Decision for War

The Civil War claimed the lives of over 600,000 men – more than any other war in our history.

Critics of Lincoln contend that he did not need to go to war; that the South and the North could have co-existed peacefully.

It is quite possible that after a period of co-existence, the two separate nations might have re-unified.

We will never know if peaceful co-existence between the United States and the Confederate States would have worked, because history took a different course.

Lincoln was so passionate in his belief that the Union should not be divided, that he refused to hold negotiations with the South that could have avoided the conflict.

The Effect on Government Today

With the United States re-defined as one nation, as opposed to a federation of states, the growth of federal power after the Civil War led to a weakening of state governments.

Governmental authority became more centralized in Washington, D.C.

Through the rise of new governmental institutions such as independent regulatory commissions and the imposition of the federal income tax, more governmental decisions and much of the spending of public funds came to be controlled by Washington politicians and bureaucrats.

Federal policies and rules today control or influence many of the programs of state governments; and the federal government often provides federal funds for these programs. Some regard this as part of Lincoln’s legacy.

Of course, the centralization of power in Washington means that citizens must connect more with Washington to address public policy problems instead of handling the issues at the state or local level.

It is far easier for citizens to influence state and local governments since they are closer to the people and most responsive to their concerns.

Suspension of Habeas Corpus

Lincoln is also criticized for suspending the writ of habeas corpus. This is a constitutional guarantee that prevents someone from being unlawfully detained.

An individual can demand that the government provide a reason for the detention or release them.

However, that the Constitution does provide for the suspension of habeas corpus “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” (Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2)

While Lincoln may be criticized for suspending habeas corpus and for the thousands who were arrested and held without charges, in some cases the arrests were justified.

In 1861 John Merryman of Maryland was arrested for speaking against the Union and organizing a group of recruits to serve in the Confederate Army. He was arrested and held in Baltimore.

Merryman’s attorney secured a writ of habeas corpus from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney, but the commander holding Merryman refused the writ on the grounds that President Lincoln had suspended habeas corpus.

Taney then wrote the opinion for the case, ex parte Merryman, in which he said only Congress had the power to suspend habeas corpus.

The Constitution did not specify who in the government could suspend habeas corpus, but Taney made another error in his opinion: he ignored the fact that a rebellion was underway – a rebellion that, logically, would have allowed habeas corpus to be suspended.