Summary Of Lincoln And The Triumph Of The Nation

In Mark E. Neely, Jr.’s book, Lincoln and the Triumph of the Nation: Constitutional Conflict in the American Civil War, he offers his readers two notable as well as important contributions to the study of the American Civil War. These contributions consist of the attempt to compare and examine the constitutionality of the acts that were committed by both the Union and the Confederacy, the other contribution is that of the “nationalistic” interpretation of Civil War Constitutionalism that is present throughout the latter end of the book. Even though the book is entitled Lincoln and the Triumph of the Nation, the entirety of its eight chapters are sectioned off into three distinct parts. The first section addresses the way President Lincoln handled …show more content…
He discussed how national courts and state courts handled cases that related to issues such as conscription, the writ of habeas corpus, political dissent, and underage soldiers. Neely looked over cases presented from both the federal and state courts, in which no consistent pattern of court rulings were found. Through the suspension of habeas corpus many of Lincoln’s supporters followed with his actions, however some began to turn on him when the suspension grew from not only war zones and active acts of insurrection, but on the country as a whole to this who were voicing their “disloyal” opinions. It was not long after this expansion occurred that those regarded amongst the highest of society were being held on false charges or no charge at all. Throughout the Civil War there were a multitude of high-profile cases that involved purported sedition, though, habeas corpus was more than likely invoked for soldiers who were seeking discharge from the army because they had signed up when they were minors, rather than being of age. Because of this, a question arose from the frenzy: Did the president have the power to overrule a habeas corpus writ that had been issued by a state judge? In his book, Neely cites that the administration had “a clear-cut precedent”, the case of Ableman v. Booth(1859). In this particular case a state court’s writ of habeas corpus for a …show more content…
Many Presidents from President Lincoln to those in modern times have tried and at times successfully suspended the right of habeas corpus. This suspension of a basic right, which is protected under Article I, Section 9, clause 2, in which it is stated “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.” goes against every civil liberty that is guaranteed to Americans. Continuing, during the Civil War President Lincoln, without approval from Congress, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, but only applied it to the Maryland route (vital stretch of railroad tracks that served as the route for the army to fight the south). During this time, one sitting U.S. Congressman from the opposing party, the mayor, police chief, entire Board of Police, and the city council of Baltimore were arrested without charge and imprisoned indefinitely without trial because of the suspension. The actions taken by President Lincoln were quickly challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Maryland which happened to be led by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney in Ex Parte Merryman. Chief Justice Taney ruled the suspension unconstitutional, stating that only Congress could suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Even so, the Lincoln administration