why did Lincoln suspend the right of habeas corpus?
151858
In English common law habeas corpus is the name of several writs issued by a judge ordering a prisoner to be brought before the court. More commonly, the name refers to a specific writ known in full as habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, a writ ordering that a prisoner be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not he is being imprisoned lawfully.\n\nIn the USA, the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a civil proceeding in which the court inquires as to the legitimacy of a prisoner's custody. Typically, habeas corpus proceedings investigate whether a criminal trial was conducted fairly and constitutionally after the criminal appellate process has been exhausted. Habeas corpus is also used as a legal avenue to challenge other types of custody such as pretrial detention or detention by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement pursuant to a deportation proceeding.\n\nHabeas corpus was suspended on April 27, 1861, during the American Civil War by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana. He did so in response to riots, local militia actions and the threat that the Southern slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., in the south. He 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. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended the Habeas Corpus and imposed martial law. This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession.\n\nIn 1864, Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps and were sentenced to hang by a military court. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War. In Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 1866 the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the suspension of the writ did not empower the President to try and convict citizens before military tribunals. The trial of civilians by military tribunals is allowed only if civilian courts are closed. This was one of the key Supreme Court Cases of the American Civil War that dealt with wartime civil liberties and martial law.
573972
abe lincoln was shot in the head.
101043
Lincoln didn't do squat there.\n\nThe second in command at the fort, however, was given the honor of firing the first shot in defending the fort against the South on April 12, 1861. The second in command was Captain Abner Doubleday - the inventer of baseball.  :)
429703
It was one of the contributory causes. The North wanted to weaken the institution while the South wanted to preserve it. The South believed that President Lincoln intended to end it contributing to secession. \n\nLincoln initially declared his purpose to be the preservation of the Union, not emancipation. He had no wish to alienate the thousands of slaveholders in the Union border states, some of whom stayed loyal. The long war radicalised the Governments policy. With the Emancipation Proclamation, announced in September 1862 and put into effect four months later, Lincoln adopted the abolition of the Slave Power as a second mission—that is slaves owned by rebels had to be taken away from them and freed.
132660
Daniel Shays led a group of Massachusetts farmers in a revolt against the state government because they were being taxed and the local militia was not protecting them from the Indians onthe western frontier of Massachusetts.  Under the Articles of Confederation (the U.S. Constitution at the time [1785]) there was no power to tax--therefore no state militias could be provided.  With no military protection Shays and his followers were able to take over the state house unopposed.  When the rebellion was finally quelled several days later it showed massachusetts and other states that they HAD to have a stronger national constitution that allowed for the taxation of states to provide tax dollars to pay for military protection.  Therefore it was Shays's Rebellion that led DIRECTLY to the organization of the Constitutional Convention two years later in Philadelphia.
48705
It was mostly political, the abolition movement was very strong in the north, and obviouslty opposed in the south being it powered their mostly agricultural society...(there weren't a lot of farm Machines back then). Political force threatened to divide the country. Lincoln didn't want the country to divide the country on his watch...(wouldn't have looked too good in the history books). The abolition movement would never have lost steam, the industrial north had the upper hand so reasonably Lincoln sided with the north...that's just a practical view....But he also had a personal reasons for choosing the ending of slavery.
1126740
One other guy was close when he said that the supreme court gave some certain rights to this. But the  problem is some states took that too far.\n\nI read over some of the answers and either ppl didn't understand your question or their states don't do what you are referring to. Mine does so I get it.\n\nBottom line: they should NOT have this right. I agree with you completely on the right of passage being interfered with.
1117396
It all started when the north won the civil war. Before there were states rights. Lincoln did away with them when he installed a "Centralized Government". Thomas Jefferson knew what would happen and it did. Lincoln wanter the federal government over all the states. Before the civil war...the states had the power. Lincoln had to declare martial law and take all the rights away from all citizens north and south. Since them the federal gives us rights as it sees fit. Before states had to give the power to the federal government. It made a big difference to the states both north and south. Lincoln was an atheist dictator thru out the civil war.
120335
The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.
394888
The Ameroica Civil war was about state rights
637173
A group of people living by our modern laws and morality might have been able to avoid the American Civil War.  I'm not sure that the people of the day could have come up with a solution.  The South wanted to secede because what the federal government was doing was going to destroy their economy.  It did, but a successful secession would have destroyed both economies.
996
Yes, if Lincoln wouldn't have re-inforced Ft. Sumter.  The fort was being turned over to the Confederacy before he did that.  The North could have withdrawn.  Pre-Civil War the Constitution was concidered a Social Compact.  The South had some legitament reasons for leaving.  The Missouri Comprimise was not a comprimise, making the South feel more threatened.  \n\nDuring the Presidential Campaign Lincoln was the only talking about Civil War.  If the South wanted Civil War it would have start a few years earlier when John Brown tried to take over that armory in Virgina
523732
President Lincoln was the greatest because he saved the Union. Most of the leaders did not have the courage to take the necessary action.
651380
the southern Representatives felt that the north Representatives were interfering with the southern rights. in the constitution there was a rule saying, if necessary, the American people have an obligation to their country to overthrow the government if it becomes corrupt (betcha that's the first law to go if the gov does become corrupt).  instead of a coup, the southerners said "screw you guys, we quit" and the northerners said "you cant quit" and then the rest was history.
675962
The main underlying cause for the Civil War was the freedom of states, and the rights of the states granted under the US Constitution, which by the way does not state that succession is illegal orr forbidden.  The powers of the Federal government are stated clearly in the Constitution, and any powers not specifically granted to the federal government are the responsibilities of the states.  Slavery did not become an issue until 1863 when the United States President Lincoln freed the slaves in a forgien country to keep France and Britian out of the war.  Odds are they would not have done anything to really help the South's war effort, but it was a good political move on Lincoln's behalf.
538325
Habeus Corpus is defined as a writ requiring an incarcerated person to be brought before a judge for an investigation of the restraint of that person's liberty. Habeus Corpus is used as a means to remedy wrongful arrest. Your son was not wrongfully arrested. There was a bench warrant for his arrest. Therefore a writ of Habeus Corpus does not apply.\nThe fifth amendment protections include freedom from self incrimination, unlawful interrogations and prevention from punishment without due process. I don't see how your sons Fifth Amendment rights were violated. He was lawfully arrested as a result of failure to appear in court, therefore he is lawfully incarcerated.\n\nTo the person who answered before me, the body of the crime is referred to as 'corpus delecti'.
1035774
The repeal of prohibiton and why it was enacted.