Punishment of Disloyalty: A Revolutionary Precedent

[Joshism]

In the category of things not taught when I in school: Patriots/Rebels were frequently abusive and cruel to Tories/Loyalists (real or suspected) and even those trying to stay neutral. In some places the accused were denied legal counsel, if they had legal recourse at all. Not only during the American Revolution, but even in the years leading up to it. I've taken notice of this in a number of modern books, including Rick Atkinson's The British Are Coming. There was quite a "you're with us or against us" mentality.

So when people decry Lincoln suspending habeus corpus or the Union's arrest of people who spoke against the war, or similarly forceful measures in the Confederacy, we need to remember ACW leaders were merely following the precedents set by the founding fathers they idealized, whether they realized it or not.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

Patriots/Rebels were frequently abusive and cruel to Tories/Loyalists (real or suspected) and even those trying to stay neutral.

And vice versa.

There was quite a "you're with us or against us" mentality.

So when people decry Lincoln suspending habeus corpus or the Union's arrest of people who spoke against the war, or similarly forceful measures in the Confederacy, we need to remember ACW leaders were merely following the precedents set by the founding fathers they idealized, whether they realized it or not.

Agreed.

 

[5fish]

Did you all know Lincoln could suspended habeas corpus: We act as if he could not?

Habeas corpus in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "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."

Old Jeff Davis suspended habeas corpus as well: It seems to be the thing you do during a civil war...

In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law.[37] Shortly after his inauguration as president of the Confederacy,[38] an act of the Confederate Congress of February 27, 1862, was passed authorizing Davis to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and declare martial law "in such towns, cities, and military districts as shall, in his judgment, be in such danger of attack by the enemy".[39] The Confederate Congress passed a limiting act two months to restrict the suspension of the writ "to arrests made by the authorities of the Confederate Government, or for offences against the same" and to add a sunset clause providing that authorization to suspend habeas corpus would expire 30 days after the next meeting of Congress

Here is a short discussion on the topic...

Interpretation: The Suspension Clause | The National Constitution Center

constitutioncenter.org

snip...

The Clause does not specify which branch of government has the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ, but most agree that only Congress can do it. President Abraham Lincoln provoked controversy by suspending the privilege of his own accord during the Civil War, but Congress largely extinguished challenges to his authority by enacting a statute permitting suspension. On every other occasion, the executive has proceeded only after first securing congressional authorization. The writ of habeas corpus has been suspended four times since the Constitution was ratified: throughout the entire country during the Civil War; in eleven South Carolina counties overrun by the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction; in two provinces of the Philippines during a 1905 insurrection; and in Hawaii after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

 

[5fish]

A brief summary of its roots... wiki...

Habeas corpus derives from the English common law where the first recorded usage was in 1305, in the reign of King Edward I of England. The procedure for the issuing of writs of habeas corpus was first codified by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, following judicial rulings which had restricted the effectiveness of the writ. A previous act had been passed in 1640 to overturn a ruling that the command of the Queen was a sufficient answer to a petition of habeas corpus. Winston Churchill, in his chapter on the English Common Law in The Birth of Britain, explains the process thus:

Only the King had a right to summon a jury. Henry [II] accordingly did not grant it to private courts ... But all this was only a first step. Henry also had to provide means whereby the litigant, eager for royal justice, could remove his case out of the court of his lord into the court of the King. The device which Henry used was the royal writ ... and any man who could by some fiction fit his own case to the wording of one of the royal writs might claim the King's justice.

The writ of habeas corpus was issued by a superior court in the name of the Monarch, and commanded the addressee (a lower court, sheriff, or private subject) to produce the prisoner before the Royal courts of law. Petitions for habeas corpus could be made by the prisoner himself or by a third party on his behalf, and as a result of the Habeas Corpus Acts could be made regardless of whether the court was in session, by presenting the petition to a judge.

The 1679 Act remains important in 21st century cases. This Act and the historical body of British practice that relies upon it has been used to interpret the habeas rights granted by the United States Constitution, while taking into account the understanding of the writ held by the framers of the Constitution.

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention Habeas Corpus was first introduced with a series of propositions on August 20th by Charles Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina.[2][3][4] Habeas Corpus was discussed and voted on substantively on August 28th, 1787,[5] where the first vote of the motion in favor of Habeas Corpus passed unanimously, and the second part passed by a vote of 7 to 3,[6][7] for making Habeas Corpus Constitutionally-recognized.

 

[Mike12]

In the category of things not taught when I in school: Patriots/Rebels were frequently abusive and cruel to Tories/Loyalists (real or suspected) and even those trying to stay neutral. In some places the accused were denied legal counsel, if they had legal recourse at all. Not only during the American Revolution, but even in the years leading up to it. I've taken notice of this in a number of modern books, including Rick Atkinson's The British Are Coming. There was quite a "you're with us or against us" mentality.

So when people decry Lincoln suspending habeus corpus or the Union's arrest of people who spoke against the war, or similarly forceful measures in the Confederacy, we need to remember ACW leaders were merely following the precedents set by the founding fathers they idealized, whether they realized it or not.

Oh! I bet we could do a lot of mean things to people in the Confederacy! Lets do mean things to people in Hawaii! What are they?! Hawaiian?! If people think that they can defend their rights to things that are in places as they are, I'd toss them in jail. There's a Revolution coming , its All Men are Created Equal, "No More Kings", schoolhouse rock.

 

[5fish]

Oh! I bet we could do a lot of mean things to people in the Confederacy! Lets do mean things to people in Hawaii! What are they?! Hawaiian?! If people think that they can defend their rights to things that are in places as they are, I'd toss them in jail. There's a Revolution coming , its All Men are Created Equal, "No More Kings", schoolhouse rock.

@Mike12 Be the reason...