Why President Lincoln Should Have Been Impeached

On that fateful day when the founders of our country signed their names in acceptance of the U.S. Constitution, they created the foundation of our country. Those strong men worked day and night for several months, attempting to create the perfect set-up for what they hoped would be a very successful country. Although they did manage to create a very balanced and strong system, they did not foresee one of the major issues that would come out of it. The battle over how to interpret the constitution when making decisions proved to be one that lasted until this very day. Every time a court case comes up, it is the job of a judge to determine how to decipher the Constitution. The first of the two options available to him is the ability to translate each clause literally, in a strict interpretation. The second choice allows the judge to take into consideration that the Constitution assumes the changes that take place in society, and encourages a loose interpretation. Both interpretations are completely legitimate, and have been debated over countless times in American history.

The first time the issue came up was during President George Washington's first term in office. Between January of 1790 and December of 1971, Alexander Hamilton proposed four plans to help the country's economic problems. The part of Hamilton's plan that created much dissent throughout politicians was his plan for a National Bank chartered by Congress. James Madison, the future founder of the Democratic-Republicans, believed that since the constitution never clearly stated weather or not Congress had the right to Charter a National Bank, it should not be allowed. Hamilton on the other hand argued that the elastic clause which stated that Congress had the right to do whatever was necessary and proper allowed them to create a National Bank. The two debated with one another to try to sway Washington's opinion, but Hamilton eventually won. The dual-sided belief regarding the interpretation of the Constitution eventually led to the creation of the first two political parties. The Democratic-Republicans were mainly southerners and strict constructionists. On the opposing side were the Federalists, mostly northerners, who believed that the elastic clause gave the Constitution the right to be loosely interpreted.

The next large dispute over the interpretation of the Constitution occurred in 1803 when President Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase. The problem with the purchase was that Jefferson did not believe that Congress had the right to acquire territories. Regardless of his principles, he understood that such an acquisition would be a huge gain for the country, and his dream of creating and agrarian American society. In the end, his rational won out over his desire to see the Constitution properly mandated.

One large court case that led to yet another dispute between the North and South occurred in 1857 with the case Dred Scott v. Sandford. In this case, a black slave that was in free territory sued for peace on grounds that since he was on free land, he should therefore be freed. The chief justice of the Supreme Court was Roger Taney. Taney took the strict constructionist approach to the case and said that Scott was still a slave and his freedom was denied. Since he was a slave, he had no rights which anybody had to respect, and that Congress did not have the power to exclude slavery from a territory.

During the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln, one of the most serious events our country has ever faced took place. The American Civil War was quite possibly the greatest struggle for unity our great country has ever faced. Sadly, while it was taking place, President Lincoln took abuse of his powers and violated the Constitution, the document meant to hold the country and its peoples together. In this time of crisis, President Lincoln abused Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution. This part of the constitution says "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."

While loose constructionists argue that since the Civil War was a case of rebellion, it was necessary for President Lincoln to suppress Habeas Corpus. Yet even if that was the case, why did Lincoln do it to people who were not violating any laws. He chose to use it against anybody who disagreed with the war against the Confederacy. President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus in a case where the public of the safety did not require it. He was in direct violation of the law when he used his assumed powers to imprison Clement Vallandigham, a Democratic nomination for governor of Ohio who chose to speak up against the war. In imprisoning him, President Lincoln not only abused his power, but also revoked Vallandigham of his right to free-speech (Unger 410). Does he deserve to get away with atrocity he committed? When Lincoln took the oath of office, he promised to "Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States." (Kwok OL) Regardless of political views, President Lincoln obviously acted as a tyrant and destroyed the foundation of our country, the Constitution. Since we do have a fair institution, the only way to tell the fate of President Lincoln is with a speedy trial, the very principle he denied so many innocent people.

Sources:
Unger, Irwin. "Civil Libirties During Crisis." These United States The Questions of Our Past. Sixth Edition ed.
Kwok, Gordon. "The Suspension of Habeas Corpus." gordonkwok. 6 June 2005.