The Constitution during the Age of Lincoln
In recognition of Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, (Concordia's 2009-2010 Book of the Year), we will honor the U.S. Constitution this year by examining some of the primary cases, people, and issues that arose during that critical period in American History. So for the next 3-4 weeks, pay us a visit and read some facts and details about the Constitution and how it developed and changed during the administration of President Abraham Lincoln and the American Civil War.
CASES
Ex parte Milligan (argued and decided in 1866).
The now famous Milligan stemmed from restrictions placed on civil liberties during the Civil War by President Lincoln. The U.S. Supreme Court was faced with questions concerning military authority over civilians and the emergency powers of the government during wartime.
Lambdin Milligan and several other Indiana antiwar Democrats were arrested and charged with conspiracy to seize munitions at federal arsenals, and also to liberate Southern prisoners held in Northern jails. While the prisoners could have been tried for treason in federal court, Union army officials did not trust Indiana jurors, so Milligan and his compatriots were tried by a military commission. Milligan and two others were found guilty and sentenced to hang. Milligan challenged the conviction in a U.S. Circuit Court where a disagreement sent the case to the Supreme Court.
The justices agreed (9-0) that the military court lacked jurisdiction and Milligan and the others must be released. But there was real disagreement on the Constitutional grounds for the decision.
Justice David Davis emphasized that the Constitution was not actually suspended in time of war so military trials of civilians--which violated Constitutional guarantees of indictment by grand jury and public trial by impartial jury--was impermissible as the civil courts remained open. Davis argued that neither the President nor Congress had the authority to authorize military trials of civilians as long as the civil courts were open. Davis said the Constitution was "a law for rulers and people, equally in time war and peace."
Justice Salmon P. Chase and three others agreed that Milligan should be released--but their reasoning was far different. Chase declared that the President and Congress did have the right to authorize military trials of civilians under the War Powers provision in the Constitution. Chase decided that Milligan should be released on the grounds that the 1863 Habeas Corpus Act had been written to guarantee civilian trials in civil courts.
The case was controversial then because Reconstruction was in a critical phase and Republicans believed they needed powerful military courts to protect the security of former slaves in the South. They were especially disheartened when President Andrew Johnson used Milligan as justification to reduce military authority in the occupied Southern states.
The case is still considered a landmark and the Court has never actually repudiated that 1866 decision.
source: Kermit Hall, ed.
The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions, 1999.
Prize Cases (argued and decided in 1863)
At the start of the Civil War, President Lincoln declared a naval blockade of Confederate ports. On 13 July 1861, Congress authorized Lincoln to declare that a state of insurrection existed. By August, all of the president's earlier military actions had been approved by the legislative branch.
The
Prize Cases involved libels against four different ships and their cargoes seized before 13 July 1861. The
Amy Warwick, the
Hiawatha, the
Brilliante, and the
Crenshaw were all captured during the blockade. All four lost their cases in lower courts.
But the primary question concerned presidential actions: Did President Lincoln have the power to impose a naval blockade without explicit congressional authorization? Lincoln argued that a state of insurrection existed after Ft. Sumter and that he was empowered to take unilateral action.
The Court agreed with Lincoln's theory of war in a close 5-4 vote. The Court basically decided that an insurrection existed against the U.S. government and it could be suppressed according to the rules of war. In this way, Lincoln was able to fight the war as if it were an international conflict without actually being forced to recognize the Confederate government. Justice Grier argued that a "war could exist even if one party did not recognize the sovereignty of another."
In the dissent, Justice Nelson wrote that "no civil war existed between the Government and the State in insurrection till recognized by Congress" on 13 July 1861. Nelson was arguing that Lincoln did not have the Constitutional power to issue the blockade--only Congress possessed such power so the seizures in question were all illegal.
But Lincoln's theory of the conflict was narrowly upheld and the power of the presidency in wartime was greatly enhanced.
sources: Kermit Hall, ed.
The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions, 1999; Kermit Hall, ed.
The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, 1992.
Ex parte Merryman (argued and decided in 1861)
In April 1861, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Was he going too far in infringing civil liberties during this insurrection? Before the policy even went into effect, Chief Justice Taney attempted to control the actions of the executive branch by invalidating Lincoln's suspension on the writ of habeas corpus.
John Merryman was a pro-Confederate Maryland political leader arrested in may 1861 under authority of Lincoln's suspension. Merryman petitioned Taney for a writ. Taney issued the writ but the Union military commander to whom it was addressed refused to release the prisoner. Taney then ordered the military commander arrested but was again rebuffed. On 28 May 1861, Taney declared Merryman free.
Taney argued that only Congress had the right to suspend habeas corpus. He saw the president as a administrative official who could only enforce the laws, not make them. Taney sent a copy of his opinion to Lincoln. On 4 July 1861 Lincoln addressed Congress where and justified his actions on the basis of his Constitutional oath to faithfully execute the laws. The president argued that in an emergency, the founders would not have intended that no action take place--the public safely needed protection and Congress was not in session. Therefore, maintained Lincoln, he had the right and responsibility to act in the best interest of the nation.
So Lincoln, as Andrew Jackson before him, simply disregarded the ruling. He asked his Attorney General for an opinion supporting his suspension. That opinion actually formed the basis for his speech to Congress as he rhetorically asked "Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Lincoln subsequently expanded the zone within which the writ was suspended. After reconvening on July 4th Congress rejected a bill favored by Lincoln to sanction his suspensions. Between 1861 and 1863 several additional federal district and circuit court rulings affirmed Taney's opinion. Lincoln nevertheless continued making unauthorized suspensions for another two years until the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 formally gave him the powers.
The Merryman decision is still among the best known Civil War-era court cases and also one of Taney's most famous opinions. Its legal argument holding that Congress alone may suspend the writ is noted for reiterating the opinion of John Marshall in 1807 and was recently restated by the Supreme Court in 2004.
source: Kermit Hall, ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, 1992.
