Describe at least two war powers that Lincoln claimed the executive branch could exercise during the Civil War. More broadly, do you agree with Randall’s description of Lincoln as a “benevolent dictator”?
Week 5: Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln
Published
Constitutional Law (Powers) Spring 2019 
The Civil War , an event in American history that led to a reshaping of the nation , also led to a reinterpretation of the constitution. President Lincoln first claimed that a war power that the executive branch possess is to suspend writ of habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus essentially means that if person is held in custody, the agency holding him must appear with the person in custody to court and give lawful reasons for holding them in custody. President Lincoln suspended this right , in order in his words “put down the rebellion in the South”. Another war power that President Lincoln says the executive branch possess is the right to place persons under arrest without a warrant. Similarly to suspending the writ of habeas corpus,Lincoln claimed it was necessary to do so in suppressing the rebellion in the south. The constitutional protections put in the bill of rights by the founding fathers to protect the people from an all-powerful government, were put on hold during the war according to Lincoln’s interpretation of the war powers. The author , Randall does give a persuasive argument on how Lincoln can be viewed as a benevolent dictator. Many argue that his war powers stretched the power of the president, thus making him a dictator. However, Lincoln did not abuse these powers to the extent he could have. Instead, Lincoln used the powers to try re-unite the union.
LikeLike
Good summary here, Sarah. I’d be interested to hear more in class (or here) about your last two points – Lincoln not abusing powers in the way he could have, and using them instead for the purpose of preserving the unity. Are you perhaps suggesting that he showed constraint in some areas where other presidents might not have? There may well be some truth to this, but we’ll definitely discuss further
LikeLike
For the point, I was thinking in terms of modern day, if put in the hands of a President Trump who can seemigly take it to far, or how people argued FDR abusing his powers when establishing the New Deal. In terms of that, I say Lincoln was doing was for the sole purpose of preserving the union and all those powers were re-installed after the war was over.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Constitution divided war powers between the executive and legislative branches. Congress is given the power to declare war and the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln took unprecedented actions independent of Congress. Lincoln’s exercised war power specifically included:
1. “The right to determine the existence of “rebellion” and call forth the militia to suppress it”
2. “The right to increase the regular army by calling for volunteers beyond the authorized total”
3. “The right to suspend the habeas corpus privilege”
4. “The right to proclaim martial law”
5. “The right to place persons under arrest without warrant and without judicially showing the cause of detention”
6. “The right to seize citizens’ property if such seizure should become indispensably to the successful prosecution of the war”
7. “The right to spend money from the treasury of the United States without congressional appropriation”
8. “The right to suppress newspapers”
9. “The right to do unusual things by proclamation, especially to proclaim freedom to the slaves of those in arms against the Government”
One war power Lincoln claimed was suspending of the habeas corpus without Congressional approval in 1861. He claimed he could do so due to emergency war powers. Lincoln claimed that the rebellion created an emergency that permitted him the extraordinary power of unilaterally suspending the writ.
Another war power, President Abraham Lincoln had asserted was the military draft in which he stretched out the size of United States army. This was the sort of power that is executed by Congress in approving these sort of expansion in the military.
I do agree with Randall’s description of President Abraham Lincoln as an “benevolent dictator”. Randell stated a true fact in the article when it came to justifying why Lincoln did what he did, “In the actual use of the war powers, great circumstances and leniency were manifested by President Lincoln’s administration, and the Government showed a wholesome regard for individual liberty.” Lincoln faced a very difficult time as President dealing with secession, war, and slavery. All of which were not easy situations to deal with. As President, he need to be the confident leader that the country need him to be and by that, he needed to take unprecedented actions. He engaged in the Civil War as a way to preserve the Union. Lincoln’s decisions and actions made in his presidency does make him a “benevolent dictator.”
LikeLike
As the executive head of the United States President Lincoln under the war powers had provisions in the time of war to take action without the legislatures approval. Interpreted by Lincoln the war powers he possessed was the right to suspend certain civil liberties which included suspension of habeas corpus, right to proclaim martial law, place persons under arrest without warrant or judicial review and the right to seize citizen’s property if it proves to affect the war. To specifically describe the suspension of habeas corpus, it is when the writ to see a judge or go to court after an arrest are eliminated. An individual during this time during an arrest, possibly linked to the rebellion, would not have the right to see a judge, meaning they would be under unlawful detention but with its suspension would not be able to see a judge or prove innocence. Another war power provision President Lincoln was allowed to spend money from the treasury without congressional approval. During this time of armed conflict the power vested to the president was simply a credit card with no limit, and no one to put a strict rearing on the spending habits.
James Garfield Randall description of the Lincoln when using war powers has no merit, since the provisions were granted to the executive body. The comparison of President Lincoln and Wilson is a farce as both situations level of urgency were much different. World War I was fought on the fields of Europe 3,000 miles away with different belligerents and of course goals to come out of the war. The United States entered the war with a perfect infrastructure to take on a European power, with the support of the entire nation. Lincoln on the other hand, faced a war in the within our home. A rebellion meant to undermine the nation making it vulnerable both internally and externally. Lincoln was in a difficult decision and as the leader of a nation he needed to make tough decision to ensure the union did not collapse. The provisions under the war powers were intended to be used when facing an external army, not specifically the nation itself. The War Powers Resolution states the necessary steps the President must when issuing orders for U.S. military personnel to engage in an action. If the issue of Lincoln’s power was to great, then why didn’t congress enact themselves to take on responsibility to limit such powers. The situation at the time with brother against brother, the congress understood the risk in not checking the executive power but saw the greater threat just over the Mason Dixon line. So Lincoln as a benevolent dictator does not fit him as he never retained such powers after the war and all actions taken during the military engagement was meant to ensure victory for the union.
LikeLike
This is another great post Jorge – thanks. It also sounds like you read ahead on the Wilson/Lincoln comparison for Thursday. This, I think, is a particularly helpful point: “If the issue of Lincoln’s power was to great, then why didn’t congress enact themselves to take on responsibility to limit such powers?” The Supreme Court seems to have mostly sided with your view since the Civil War: the President’s power is at its “highest ebb” when it endorsed affirmatively by Congress; and is still strong when it is not challenged by Congress. But perhaps there are longer-term “Constitutional Problems” associated with this balance of executive and legislative power? This is a theme we will return to.
LikeLike
Two powers:
1. The right to declare martial law.
2. The right to define what a “rebellion” is and order the military to suppress it.
According to the reading, Lincoln expanded his power by actually claiming that the secession of the Southern States was a rebellion, and that he had the power to order the military to suppress it.
The reading also establishes that the president already had extensive judicial power. The reading describes the executive as the “fountainhead of military justice.” The executive has the constitutional right to pardon any federal crimes. He, also, through his attorney general and his district attorneys has the right to determine what crimes to prosecute. The reading argues that the president expanded these powers by establishing military courts.
These courts, the reading argues, were not confined to military cases. They also reviews civilian cases. In a way, the reading appears to defend Lincoln by arguing that the legislative branch followed Lincoln’s decisions by establishing quasi-judicial functions under the executive.
For example: The freedman’s bureau had its own courts. The Secretary of the Treasury also decided what to do with abandoned and captured properties.
——
I do agree with the notion that Lincoln was a “benevolent dictador.” The President, during this crucial times, abandoned the Constitution. But, he rightfully did so.
LikeLike
Well-put, Luis. However, it does seem in your final comments that although you agree with Randall’s description of “benevolent dictator,” you might differ with him somewhat on the question of whether Lincoln “abandoned” the Constitution. I think he’d say Lincoln “bent” it, perhaps… Personally, I’d say your word is better, but we will discuss this more in class.
LikeLike
The greatest challenge in the very fun blog question, is choosing just two of Lincoln’s unbelievably brazen powers to consider. I believe that the two most potentially dangerous powers Lincoln gifted himself were: “The right to determine the existence of “rebellion” and call forth the militia to suppress it” (Randall, 36) and, “The right to suppress newspapers” (Randall, 36) which I construed to mean a complete suspension of the first Amendment. Like I mentioned there are too many other frightening powers, but these two are particularly egregious. By the terms of the first power an executive can determine a “rebellion” and utilize the national guard in order to “suppress” it, and by the second, an executive can fully suspend first Amendment rights in times of war. Finally, I heartily agree with Randall’s description of Lincoln as a “benevolent dictator”, but I feel that this description is slightly biased towards those who were lucky enough to be on the side of Lincoln, and as the banner for this weeks blog suggests, most southerners would not hasten to call him “benevolent”.
LikeLike
Somehow you ended up in spam, Adam – sorry about that. Maybe the NSA didn’t like what you were saying…
The 1st amendment stuff will be a big focus on Thursday (because these were the main “constitutional problems” in the Court’s eyes during WWI). I think your concerns about Lincoln’s powers are very valid indeed – and well-expressed!
LikeLike
Two war powers Lincoln claimed the executive branch could exercise were the right to suspend habeas corpus and the right to place individuals under arrest without warrant and without a cause. I agree that Lincoln was a benevolent dictator for the following reasons. He had to act quickly when the War broke out and acted in a way he thought best. He didn’t declare war as the Constitution only allows Congress to do so. Therefore he acted within his Constitutional powers. Next, when the War ended individuals who performed war crimes were shown immense amounts of mercy, “…ignorance of the law was often accepted as an excuse; first offenses were passed over, and spies even were released on the acceptance of stipulated terms.” (The Constitution and War Powers).
LikeLike
This is a solid, straight-to-the-point answer Sarah-Hannah – thanks. I also like that you picked up on the idea that Lincoln didn’t actually “declare” war, and that mercy was shown in many circumstances.
I would say, however, that Randall is perhaps a bit soft on the administration with regard to its “merciful” treatment of dissidents. My own argument about the Civil War in my research is that yes, there were moments when Lincoln said “let this guy go”, but the main reason repression was not worse was because the government lacked the administrative capacity to round people up. There was no FBI, CIA, NSA or Department of Homeland Security – in fact, the whole “internal security” operation was a mess, sometimes run by the State Department, sometimes by the military.
Note: You don’t have to remember my second paragraph here – it’s more just my own two cents. However, when we return to “War Powers in the 21st Century” later in the semester, these bigger institutional questions will come up.
LikeLike
Didn’t get a chance to to reply to this, but I was unaware of historical circumstances which restricted the government’s ability to detain (even more) individuals. Thank you for that nugget of knowledge.
LikeLike
The Civil War was the biggest test the Union and the Constitution had to bear. With the southern states seceding and creating their own confederacy, there were many that questioned if this was the death of the American experiment. However, the Constitution did not die, neither did the Union. We owe this fact to the leadership of President Abraham Lincoln, whose bold policies and expansion of executive powers helped fight the Confederacy of the Southern States. Two examples of the President Lincoln expanding executive powers were the suspension of Habeas Corpus and use of military force without authorization from Congress, specifically the creation of the Naval Blockade around Southern ports and the call for to the militia to take up arms.
I don’t agree with Randall’s description of President Lincoln as a “benevolent dictator.” There were many actions that Lincoln took that could be seen as at the actions of someone with little regard to the limits placed on his office. However, Lincoln took the time to consider the constitutionality and the legal basis for all of his actions. According to Randall, Lincoln’s unusual and unprecedented actions include confiscation of property, extension of immunity to officers carrying out presidential orders, extension of federal courts’ jurisdiction, issuance of paper money, and confiscation of railroads and telegraph lines. But as Senator Charles Hughes points out, “the power exercised by the President in time of war is greatly augmented outside of his functions as Commander-in-Chief through legislation of Congress increasing his administrative authority.” In other words, these actions were all taken with the authority given to Lincoln by Congress. Congress could’ve, at anytime remove these powers from Lincoln or object to their use. But they never did. And Presidents continues to exercise powers similar to Lincoln’s to this day. The Supreme Court ruled in Lincoln’s favor while debating the question of the constitutionality of the Naval Blockade while Congress was not in session, saying that the action was well within his powers as Commander-In-Chief. Also, it is well known that Lincoln completely disagreed with Chief Justice Taney’s ruling in the Dred Scott case, which prohibited the Federal government from banning slavery in the territories. Lincoln did not believe that the ruling had the correct interpretation of the Constitution. If Lincoln was truly a benevolent dictator, why didn’t he dissolve or erase the ruling from the books? Instead, he used the text of the Constitution has the basis of his defiance of Taney’s ruling, saying that he did in fact have the power to ban slavery in the territories. A belief that has been upheld by the Courts and legal scholars decades after the Civil War ended. A similar scenario existed in the context of Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus. Chief Justice Taney issued one in spite of Lincoln’s action, saying that only Congress has the authority to suspend the writ. Lincoln defied Taney’s writ for two reasons. First, being that Lincoln argued he did have Congress’ support in it’s suspension. Also that the Founders would’ve never wanted one clause in the Constitution to be enforced while the Constitution itself was at serious risk. A dictator would never bother with legal justification for his actions. Lincoln strongly considered legal justification for all his actions, and he was clever enough to find them.
LikeLike
This is great, John – I particularly like your last two sentences. I may bring them up in class.
LikeLike
The two executive powers that the U.S president can execute are being able to “review over the decisions of the military courts” (Randall, 40), which means that he can lead the army in times of war or armed conflict in regards to foreign affairs. Also the “President have the power of pardon, which may undo any punishment decreed by a Federal court” (Randall, 39), which means that the president can nullify any repercussions that a verdict may face, due to the courts judgment. Ultimately it is true that President Lincoln was a “Benevolent Dictator”, in other words stated by Randall. During the time of war, President Lincoln had created many special war courts and had a lot of unrestricted power. An example of this power was that, the military courts created by Lincoln had so much impact on the states; they matched the powers of civil and criminal courts. Thus, it is true that President had overbearing power over the citizens and military; it was seen as if he had practically no limitations as a governing entity.
LikeLike
According to the interpretation of President Lincoln, the executive branch could increase the size of the army with volunteers surpassing the authorized total and suspend habeas corpus as part of their granted war powers. I agree with Randall’s description of Lincoln as a “benevolent dictator” because of the context of the time. Cleary the author demonstrates that Lincoln took great liberties during the Civil War period that pushed executive power and can be seen as borderline dictatorial such as the implementation of conscription and dramatically increasing the size of the army, however, we have to consider the leniency that was demonstrated by the administration. The author sights the lack of invading private rights and the respect shown in regards to freedom of the press as examples that speak truth to the benevolent aspect of the characterization.
-Rumer
LikeLike
One war power that the President claimed was the power of review over the decisions of military courts. With the deceleration of martial law, and the establishment of military commission to try civilians, it consequently led to the authority of the military courts to greatly expand and thus the ordinary civil courts were for the time superseded. Although such act of an expansion of the executive power was perceived by the Supreme Court as “too far under Lincoln’s administration”, it was necessary for the Lincoln administration to create “Special War Courts” in order to secure peace and tranquility through the war torn states.
Another war power found in the Constitution is the power “to repel sudden attacks” and that the President has “authority to wage a defensive war without direct authorization from Congress”. Such war power could be best understood under the circumstances whereupon the United States, as a whole nation, engages in war with another nation, whether that’s for defending her borders or fighting for her interests. Yet when the nation-state is under the formidable acts of Civil-War, it is hard to understand such power given by the Constitution or by certain acts of Congress. For when a nation-state engages in a civil-war, the essential goal for the president is to not let the war escalate to a stage whereupon the nation’s sovereignty is challenged. Such act is highly perceived as a political act given the side that the President and its administration takes.
In regards to Randall’s description of Lincoln as a “benevolent dictator”, ones acceptance or denial of such a description will be highly dependable on which side that individual takes. For example, if he/she were from the South, I would assume that they would by swift action declare that Lincoln was indeed a dictator let alone a benevolent one. Whereas on the other side, if he/she were from the north, they would be in favor of Lincoln’s decisions, thereby concluding that Lincoln’s actions were justifiable. I, since this is an opinion based inquiry, would state that I disagree with Randall’s description of Lincoln as a “benevolent dictator” for I too also believe that given the circumstances of the Civil-War, Lincoln’s actions were justifiable.
LikeLike
according to President Lincoln, the power that Congress had during war times and that they exercise was that they were able to confiscate private property from individuals and were/are allowed to provide protection to officers if they committed unlawful war crimes as they would be protected by both congress and pardoned by the president.
when it comes to calling president Lincoln a benevolent dictator I would say that was an overstretch as even tho he did “bend” the laws/rules at times by definition a dictator is a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force. which not something he did. president Lincoln was very democratic when it came to individual liberty.
instead of instilling harsh punishments that tend to happen during times of war he prevented deserted from being persecuted. he let first offenses pass over, and even released spies on certain terms.
LikeLike
Thanks Javier – you’ll see I commented above on Luis’s post that it’s an interesting debate whether Lincoln was “bending” or “abandoning” the Constitution. One clarifying point I’d make is that Randall’s talking more about Lincoln’s claims about *executive* power – ie what he could do on his own – rather than the power of Congress. As we’ll see, this tension between the branches is a very important theme
LikeLike
One of the War Powers that Lincoln interpreted that the Executive branch could exercise was the right to verify if there is a “rebellion” and if so, the right to make the decision of assembling a militia to restrain it. Meaning, the president has the right to decide if an occurrence is a threat of revolt and then the President has the right to call the military force to prevent/conquer it. Another war power that Lincoln claimed the Executive branch could practice was the right to reject the habeas corpus all together. In other words, not allowing the detainee’s case to be taken into consideration in a court to decide if the imprisonment was lawful or not. Lincoln also claimed that the Executive branch has the right to consider an individual under arrest, without a warrant or evidence in regard to the reason of the imprisonment. Furthermore, Randall’s description of Lincoln said to be a “benevolent dictator” is agreeable in the extent of the evidence that was provided. Randall claims that Lincoln was lenient under his guidance because he often did not enforce conditions and attempted to justify wrongdoings by concealing and minimizing it someway. For example, when it came to the crimes of “treason”,”conspiracy”, and “obstructing the draft” the punishment was not enforced and it was carelessly considered. The punishment went from “death to fine and imprisonment.” Penalties were disregarded with the oath of allegiance and specified terms were given for release. Many offenses were excused, and were not considered big of a deal due to the lenient consequences that were decided. On one hand, this can be interpreted that Lincoln wanted to encourage respect for individual liberty; hence, why he tried to give each individual chances to recuperate. On the other hand, these factors can also prompt the belief that Lincoln was a benevolent dictator because he did not enforce the proper action that was anticipated.
LikeLike
Throughout the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln appeared to have violated the Constitution as he acted without legislative authority. The suspension of “habeas corpus” and the signing of the Proclamation of Emancipation are examples of powers Lincoln believed presidents have at the time of war. Lincoln’s suspension of “habeas corpus” led to his complete control over arrests, detentions, and release of “political prisoners.” This was all done without enforcement of laws passed by Congress nor prosecution in the courts. Lincoln had also overstepped his position in the executive branch with the Proclamation Emancipation, in which he took the role of the legislature.
LikeLike
Thanks for this Estefania – funnily enough not many of us have written about the Emancipation Proclamation here. I’m glad you did, as it provoked (and in some sense still does provoke) a lot of Constitutional debate. We will discuss it further in class.
LikeLike
During the Civil War, Lincoln claimed that the executive branch could exercise two war powers which were suspending habeas corpus and use money from the treasury without the appropriation of congress. I’m not quite sure if I agree with Randall’s claim that Lincoln can be seen as a benevolent dictator because Lincoln asserted more power than he was supposed to which violated many rights of citizens and just because Randall points out that many other presidents have done so, it should not justify Lincoln’s decisions as well. In case of emergency, the rights of citizens should not be dismissed, possibly even with a sort of justification, which is what Lincoln essentially did when people were being arrested without warrants and being withheld with violation of habeas corpus, which determined if the arrest was lawful. This does not seem like the decisions of a benevolent dictator, even if certain decisions do appear that way, the best interests of citizens do not coincide with abuse of their constitutional rights.
LikeLike
You are going against the grain, here, Sharon – as almost everyone else seems to be going soft on Lincoln! I think you make a great point here: “In case of emergency, the rights of citizens should not be dismissed, possibly even with a sort of justification.” There is some sense in which this is one of the most elementary principles of our Constitution. We will definitely debate it further in class (and, warning, I may call on you!)
LikeLike
Two war powers that President Lincoln claimed that the executive branch could exercise during the Civil War were, the right to place persons under arrest without warrant and without judicially showing the cause of detention; the right to suppress newspapers. The right to placing people under arrest without reason is very scary. You could catch President Lincoln on a bad day, and look at him the wrong way, and the next thing you know you’re in custody. Now i’m pretty sure that didn’t happen, but you get the point. This right ties in with the right to suppress newspapers. This right goes violates the right of freedom of the press. Lincoln used this right to stop newspapers from criticizing him during the war. If a writer said some outrageous things in the eyes of Lincoln, the other right could be used. Thrown in jail for trying to exercise your constitutional right. In present day, I don’t think President Trump would hesitate to exercise these rights if he had the opportunity.
I do agree with Randall’s description. The rights that Lincoln was claiming was very dictator like but Randall was describing him as a “benevolent dictator”. I think Lincoln only had good intentions claiming these rights, he was just trying to accomplish his goal of preserving the Union. If his goals were any different then he would be a straight up dictator.
LikeLike
This is a great response, Eric. Along with Sharon, you are in the minority in showing some real discontent with Lincoln’s actions. And thinking about it in terms of “Would I want Trump [or someone else] exercising this power” is very wise indeed. You’ll see in class the quote from a Supreme Court ruling after the war: “Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Randall’s description that Lincoln was a “benevolent dictator” is correct. He expanded the power of the executive branch ten-fold. He believed that the war powers went to the executive branch and which expanded how much power he had, especially over the other branches of government. One of the war powers that he believed he had during the Civil War was to spend money from the treasury without the approval of congress. This can be seen as something that a dictator could take advantage of and use to gain more power. This is because whoever controls the money controls the country. He also did say that the war powers included the right for the Emancipation Proclamation which helped progress the United States. Despite taking an immense amount of power during the Civil War, he did forgo the power once the war was done. He was not vindictive against those who had rebelled, as any other dictator would have been, and he took the power to do something that would better the country and free slaves, therefore the title of benevolent dictator is accurate. The second part of Randall’s statement is also interesting, when he states that “Yet in a democracy it is a serious question how far even a benevolent dictatorship should be encouraged” The expansion of power under Lincoln was used in a benevolent way, but it opens up the fact that encouraging a president to do as such, can result in a not-so benevolent dictator coming into power.
LikeLike
Thanks Isuri – your final two sentences are particularly thoughtful and impressive. We’ll continue discussing the theme on Thursday
LikeLike
During the Civil War, it seemed as if the scope of power vested in the executive, Lincoln, was unlimited and unrestricted due to how he utilized his position of power. The arguably most known wielding of war power during this volatile time was Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus. In essence, to suspend habeas corpus meant that any suspected enemy or potential threat to the wellbeing of the nation could be detained without trial indefinitely. From the onset, such an act is a clear violation and red flag in terms of the regard for every individual’s protected rights. To be stripped of the right to a trial is arguably inhumane and contrary to the beliefs embedded in the Constitution.
But Lincoln, as the head of the executive branch, took advantage of the looseness in wording in regards to the exercise of war powers with the executive. In contrast, the war powers of the legislative branch are enumerated in the Constitution and blankly stated, leaving little to no room for ambiguity. As Randall states, “It is the ‘legislative powers herein granted’ that are bestowed upon Congress, but it is simply the ‘executive power’ that is vested in the President.” Lincoln would take this idea and run with it, borderline (if not actually) abusing his “executive power” in the name of war, which also included “the right to determine the existence of ‘rebellion’ and call forth the militia to suppress it.” Were the explicit guidelines as to what rebellion constituted as or was it solely up to the discretion of the executive, an individual with very personal and entrenched beliefs and one who is far from being an objective spectator to the issue at hand–slavery and maintaining the Union. Such an act is so incredibly ambiguous, and to have that power supposedly vested in the leader of such a divided nation at the time is unsettling, so it is definitely understandable that Randall dubs Lincoln as a sort of dictator. The benevolent dictator that Randall claims Lincoln to be is moderately agreeable; Lincoln may have had to abuse his power out of necessity, but if I were to think of a number of executives that would use the same reasoning to excuse their actions, I wouldn’t be so sure that doing so was solely out of necessity; perhaps there were other paths he could have gone.
LikeLike
This is a sharp and thoughtful response, Ana. I think your past sentence is particularly strong – thinking about how these powers would be used by others. This is certainly in line with what the Founders thought and may well still be accurate today
LikeLike
During the Civil War President Lincoln expanded his rights as an executive. In times of war the President becomes the person who serves military justice. Furthermore, once Marital law is declared they can establish military courts to try civilians. Thus, one war power that was exercised by President Lincoln is establishing “special war courts” which was the right to create civil and criminal courts to handle cases that would have been dealt with by state court. Additionally, a second war power that President Lincoln was expanding his power by pushing forth “presidential legislation”. President Lincoln issued “regulations” for the enforcement of the Militia Act of 1862 which established conscription. The President’s regulations which allowed the state governments to raise a militia in the case of when the state does not want to follow the President’s regulations. However, although he was expanding his authority he did not infringe on the rights of the individual that is why many believed him to be a benevolent dictator. Moreover, Lincoln was known to be less harsh than officers in the Union. In my opinion, I agree with Randall because dictators are seen as hostile or dangerous once they start restricting the rights of the people. Hence, once civilians feel like they have to watch everything they do and their privacy is at risk the image of the dictator changes.
LikeLike
Lincoln claimed both the creation of a regulations for how troops were to behave in war, a precursor to the current LoAC, UCMJ, and RoE as well as gave military tribunals jurisdiction over civilians. Both are necessary to maintain order and legitimacy of the Government and its military during the Civil War, but maybe both were overstepping the powers enumerated to the Executive Branch by the Constitution.
Lincoln definitely sidestepped both Congress and the Courts when he felt it was necessary, but whether that makes him a dictator or not is debatable. Dictionary.com defines a dictator as:
1) a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
So the question is really: Did Lincoln exercise absolute power, and then the determination is needed whether this was a benevolent use of that power or not. The key word here is “absolute”. Yes, Lincoln acted authoritatively when he felt Congress or the Courts were moving too slowly or were wrong. But does that mean he exercised “absolute power”? I think Randall makes a strong argument that Lincoln acted in defiance or despite Congress and the Courts enough to consider his use of power as absolute, however this is one argument for this view and, ever skeptical of new information, I’m not fully convinced that Lincoln acted dictatorially.
On a side note, Dictionary.com also defines a dictator as:
4) a person who dictates, as to a secretary.
Given that Lincoln had a secretary in John Hay that he dictated to, at least on one occasion, and as I would like to believe that Lincoln was a benevolent man in general and likely moreso to those who worked closely with and for him, I would therefore agree that he was a “benevolent dictator.”
LikeLike
I’m glad you brought up the trickiness of the word “dictator,” John. I’ll touch on this in class, but the actual origin of the word is not negative. It was the provision in the Roman Republican Constitution that allowed one man to take emergency command of the government for a fixed period of time (usually six months) and then go back to his farm. The most famous “dictator” was Cincinnatus, after whom the American city is named. Clinton Rossiter’s 1948 book “Constitutional Dictatorship” similarly tries to use the term to describe a temporary emergency government, rather than a Muammar Ghaddafi.
LikeLike
Two war powers that Lincoln claimed the executive branch could exercise during the Civil War were issuing regulations for the enforcement of the Militia Act of 1862 which established conscription for the first time during the war. This particular Act allowed African-Americans to take the role as work laborers and soldiers during the Civil War (Wikipedia). The States accused President Lincoln for overstepping the boundaries of his executive power. The States felt as though this decision should have been implemented by the legislative branch, the Congress. One other war power that President Lincoln claimed was giving “general order” to armies in the field. Opponents felt that these orders should have been implemented by the Congress which is clearly stated in the Constitution.
And I do not agree with Randall that President Lincoln was a “benevolent dictator” because while even the judicial branch (the Supreme Court) also felt as though Lincoln’s “expansion of the executive power was carried too far under his administration, and that exceptional tribunals in districts not affected by actual insurrection were illegal”, he was acting under the guidelines of Articles of War derived by the Congress.
LikeLike
Abraham Lincoln took office as the 16th president of the United States, just as the Civil War was looming. Southern rebellion and threats of secession were high. It was during this time of war that Lincoln decided to take advantage of his war powers. As stated in the document, two examples of war powers that Lincoln exercised were the suspension of habeus corpus and the right to impose a naval blockade of southern ports. As was discussed in the reading, during the Civil War people were divided on the idea of war powers. Some felt that the government should stick to a strict interpretation of the constitution, even during times of conflict. Other more extreme views felt that, during times of war, the constitution is non-operative. A third position was that during war time, the constitution is present, but with a more liberal interpretation so as to allow more flexibility and justification for severe measures. I’m regards to whether Lincoln could be considered a “benevolent dictator”, I think that that is wrong to say. Sure he used his war powers to an extent to which no one had ever done, but it was for the bigger goal, which was to preserve the union. The actions he took were necessary in a time of looming threat to the unification of the union.
– Sally Balbuena
LikeLike
President Lincoln believed that the war power of the president specifically included the right to determine the existence of a rebellion and assemble a militia to suppress it.
The right to increase the regular size of the army by calling for volunteers beyond the limit that has been permitted. In addition the right to suspend the habeas corpus privilege just to name a few. Lincoln was not a benevolent dictator. He was a president that had to deal with an unfortunate series of events in the best manner possible. In his mind that entailed grabbing powers that the other 2 branches of government did not have and the constitution did not forbidding him from having either. I do not believe it is possible for a dictator to be benevolent. The idea of being a dictator is the exact opposite of what can be construed as benevolence.
LikeLike
One of the war powers that Lincoln claimed the executive branch could exercise during the Civil War was the evoking the Emancipation Proclamation. A second war power that Lincoln exercised was issuing a naval blockade on southern ports without the approval of Congress in mid-April on 1861. This was a direct action against an attack on Fort Sumter. Lincoln did not obtain Congressional approval. I do agree with Randall’s description of Lincoln as a “benevolent dictator.”
LikeLike
One war power that Lincoln claimed included “the right to determine the existence of “rebellion”
and call forth the militia to suppress it” as well as the right to get more volunteers for the military
even if it went past the limit. Lincoln also claimed that he could suppress and suspend habeas
corpus which many find controversial. Another war power he claims includes arresting people
without a warranty if they are deemed a threat to the country or its citizens. I don’t necessarily
believe Lincoln is a dictator since his powers are limited to only during times of war, however I
can understand the author’s point that he is a benevolent dictator because he is denying many
rights and taking control of many aspects of American peoples lives. This can definitely be
dangerous and harmful for America however I’m not sure if I would go as drastic as to call him a
dictator.
LikeLike
The executive power is vested in the President. He is the commander-in-chief of the army and navy. In the various discussions concerning the “war powers” during the Civil War, the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments and the habeas corpus clause were more particularly held in mind than any other parts of the constitution. There were a few war powers discussed in the reading. The first war power was the right to determine the existence of “rebellion” and call forth the militia to suppress it and the second was the right to seize citizens property if such seizure should become indispensable to the successful prosecution of the war.
I do agree with Randall’s description of Lincoln being a “benevolent dictator” Lincoln, as a president has too much power, he controls the army and navy and may order them where he thinks best. He can wage a defensive war without direct authorization from Congress. President Lincoln called for volunteers for the military without congressional action authorizing the increase of the army. I felt this action showed that he had too much power, especially during war. Which is why I agree with Randall’s description of Lincoln being a “benevolent dictator.”
LikeLike
Describe at least two war powers that Lincoln claimed the executive branch could exercise during the Civil War. More broadly, do you agree with Randall’s description of Lincoln as a “benevolent dictator”?
Among the powers that Lincoln claimed the executive branch could exercise included, the power to call forth for militia and the right to proclaim martial law. In claiming the power to call forth the militia, Lincoln was able to avoid directly asking the Congress for approval. In being able to call forth a militia, war does not exactly have to be declared. Lincoln also claimed the power of proclaiming martial law. Martial law suspends certain rights and gives the military powers.Under Lincoln’s declaration of martial law, Union forces had the authority to arrest and conduct trials.
Lincoln’s approach in interpreting war powers in the Constitution,was the third approach mentioned in Randall’s. To a certain extent, I agree with Randall’s description of Lincoln as a “benevolent dictator”. The intention and goal, whether it be benevolent of not, should not be looked at. Despite the fact that war powers are to only remain during a time of war, this sets a precedent to future presidents. This can be potentially dangerous as it can lead to an accumulation of powers thus facilitating the rise of a “benevolent dictator.” To a certain extent, the approach taken by Lincoln was a ‘necessary evil’ in order for the preservation of the Union. At times, the expansion of powers not mentioned in the the Constitution, allows for its survival.
LikeLike