In class recently we have discussed the role of habeas corpus in Civil War history and, throughout the remainder of the year, will see instances when the government is tempted to suspend (or even in rare cases ignore) the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. The argument for such an action is usually that it is easier to "get the job done" when the "red tape" has been removed. While we, as Christians, are biblically called upon to obey the laws of the land, it is important for the preservation of liberty that, as citizens, we are aware of our rights and that we hold our leaders accountable to the Constitution.
Decisions that are rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court are extremely important because it is almost impossible to undue the legal restrictions and precedents they establish. In the years following the Civil War, not only were there cities and homes to restore, but also a certain balance of power that needed to be corrected. Actions taken by the Lincoln administration in the time of war were feared to pose a real danger to individual liberty once the war was over. For this reason Congress and the Court, in their separate ways, attempted to reform American government.
In this week's assignment I'd like you to research a Supreme Court case entitled "Ex parte Milligan, 1866" (filed usually under Milligan, ex parte). Lambdin Milligan was undoubtedly a criminal, and something had to be done about his scheme, but the Court ruled (9-0, which is very rare) that the Lincoln administration had made a mistake. It will take some thought to sort out why the Court (led by Lincoln-appointed Salmon P. Chase) disagreed with Lincoln's handling of the situation.
Write an essay (200 word minimum) that explains what the dispute was about, and make a suggestion as to how the need of the government to provide for the safety of society can, in such situations, be balanced with the constitutional guarantees of individual liberty.
As you might have noticed, this is an topic that still matters today. For bonus on the next test, in addition to the homework assignment, write an essay (turn it in to me in class) that compares and contrasts the Milligan case with the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 2005.
Good luck and God bless! Don't forget to site your sources and to leave 150 words of comments on the work of others.
In 1864, Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were tried by military courts and sentenced to death by hanging because they showed acts of disloyalty by planning to steal Union weapons, invade prisoner of war camps and use the prisoners to fight against the government of Indiana. They were tired in 1864, but the hanging was not until May of 1865 so they had a chance to argue the case to the Supreme Court after the war. He argued that a civilian is not subject to military law and petitioned for habeus corpus. The court had to decide if the military courts had the legal power and authority to try and punish Milligan. The court said no. They stated in a quite bold way: "Martial law ... destroys every guarantee of the Constitution." This did not mean that martial law could never be implemented, however. The President can declare martial law, but only when it is absolutely necessary in a case were the courts are closed down and justice cannot be administered through them. However, during the time of the trying of Milligan, the courts were up and running, so, the military technically had no legal right to try and punish him with death; that had to be left up to the civil courts.
ReplyDeleteSources:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html#milligan
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1865/1865_0/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan
As Colby did I am going to start with the basic story of what happened. There were five men planning to steal weapons from the armories that pelonged to the Union army. They were then going to use these weapons to free prisoners of war and start a little army of their own. The men then planned on using this army to take control of the state of Indiana. They then planned on taking control of the surronding states.
ReplyDeleteNow on to the ruling. The court ruled that in this case it was lawful to ignore habeas corpus. This of course is direct disobedience of the constitution. The court also ruled that the military tribunals, which tried the five men, did not have the right to trie the men because they were not in the military.
Now I am going to give you my oppinion on the case. First, neither the President or congress have the power to suspend habeas corpus. At least not without a constitutional ammendment, which they did not get before suspending it. Now about what they ruled about the military tribunals. This was a simple matter of common sence. the tribunal is a MILITAY court. Sence the five men were not in the military the military did not have the right to trie them. Now the ruling would have probebly been different if the men would have actually followed through with the plan because then they would have actually commited a crime against the military. I am giong to take some words from colby in saying that the wether or not the death penalty was carried out was "up to the civil courts."
The background or reason for the case was that Lambdin P. Milligan and four other people were going to steal weapons from the Union. The weapons that they stole were then going to be used to invade Union prisoner-of-war camps. Those prisoners would then be used as soldiers in taking over the Indiana and nearby Ohio and Michigan state governments and free other Union prisoner-of-war camps. When Lambdin P. Milligan and his group's plan got out into public, the military court charged them and found them guilty in 1864. The group was sentenced by the court to be hanged in May of 1865. Because Milligan and his group's sentence was in May of 1865, it gave Milligan and his group a month after the end of Civil War to argue with the court system about their case.
ReplyDeleteIn the end the Supreme Court ruled that it was lawful to ignore habeas corpus, but military courts could not try citizens even during times of war if there were civil courts open in that area.
My opinion with this case is that nobody or not even the President should be able to ignore or suspend habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is really a persons right because as the Constitution states an American citizen has the right to a fair trial. As for Milligan and his group, they really didn't continue on with their plan so that didn't give the military court the right to give the men their trial. The men should have been tried by a civil court.
My source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_milligan
We all know that in 1864, the Civil War was pretty much over. The Union had it in the bag. So what does some crazy dude named Lambdin P. Hill do? He decides to make a plot to overturn the northern states.
ReplyDeleteSo in 1864, Lambdin and four of his buddies hatch this plan: steal a bunch of Union weapons, use those weapons to raid and set free CSA soldiers in Union prison camps, and use those liberated CSA troops to overturn the government's of Indiana, Ohio and Michigan. But, much to their demise, the plan was leaked and these 5 geniuses were sentenced to death by hanging. BUT, their execution was not scheduled until May of 1865, so they and their attorneys were able to argue their case until after the Civil War.
When the Supreme Court reviewed the suspension of habeas corpus by President Lincoln, they looked at a number of things. For example: the tribunal law (Marshall Law) system can not become into effect if there is still a working civil courts system, even during times of war. Another thing is that in the event that habeas corpus is suspended, the citizen can only be HELD without charges being filed, not tried in the courts. So, in the end, the Court ruled (9-0) that Lincoln had made an unconstitutional decision.
Now, although I agree completely with the statement that something must be done about these 5 schemers, I DO NOT agree with the suggestion of suspending the right of habeas corpus. The closest we have ever come to suspending habeas corpus (since Lincoln) was back after September 11th, 2001, when we captured who we thought to be some of the conspirators of these attacks. I believe that the right of habeas corpus should ALWAYS be a right, even when we know that the person is guilty. I don't think it was put in the Constitution so the President (even though it was Lincoln) could suspend it.
Colby, I liked that quote of what the Justices said: "Marshall Law...destroys every gaurantee of the Constitution". Although everyone knows that having a strong military is key to having a succesful nation, that does not mean that they do everything perfectly. They have some flaws. Like they are not trained to handle civilian cases, only cases within their system. And Marshall Law is only used in EXTREME circumstances, so it's not a problem we really have to worry about.
ReplyDeleteNice work Colby
Camden, I liked that you pointed out the fact that these men weren't in the jurisdiction of the Military law. And you even went a step further, that if they HAD committed these crimes they would have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law at the time. Also, a Constitutional amendment was a good point. Even thought today that wont be happening. Innocent until proven guilty, and I'm glad the Constitution has it like that.
ReplyDeleteGood job Camden
Akers, I used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan
ReplyDeleteok this is the set up, lambden milligan is a civilian that is a trator. he is going to be tried by a military tribunal that was set up during the civil war but President Lincoln. this is the question that was asked and the reason the supreme court even delt with the case: should civilian courts have jurisdiction over a military tribunal? ...here's the problem, milligan was wanted to be released due to habeas corpus, but during the war habeas corpus had been suspended by President Lincoln. the chief justice ruled that the military tribunals were unconstitutional where civil courts already existed and therefore marshal law does not apply to these areas. davis saw that marshal law did not apply to states that remained loyal to the united states.
ReplyDeletemy opinion: i think within the balance of things we must becareful of the things that are established and the amount of government that is put into power. it is our right as citizens to vote and put people into office that reflec our views. i think marshal law, during a time of unrest, was needed in certain cercumstances, but in post war america i think that the civil courts and habeas corpus must retain their original power, while the military tribunals are used for just that, that they try those who are within the united states army and the civil courts handle all other cases. our founding fathers created a system that has checks and balances that must be up held, when these checks and balances are partially eliminated or simply ignored there is an open door to change in the very america that has grwon into the america we know today, these changes are what we can begin to see even today. that is why as americans we must look back and read/study our past and why we are the america we are today, so that if corrections or other desitions must be made to uphold our great nation.
sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1865/1865_0/
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/071-002a.htm
sam i think you make a great point. Abe Lincoln was a great President and a great man, possibly the greatest President to ever live, but he was still a man. he still could make mistakes and still misjudge things. i agree that habeas corpus is one of our most important rights and should always be a right, we must always remember that our rights are our rights and when they are taken from us we are no longer free. when we do not stand for our freedoms (such as free speech, habeas corpus and free enterprise) we are really standing nearly against those freedoms. In america today we MUST stand for what the constitution allows but also what it does not allow. Our country is ever changing and ever moving in a diferent direction, it is the well edcated and well founded americans that will only be able to stand against those who attempt to steal our freedoms. We cannot forget who we came from and the foundation we have, habeas porpus is one right that we cannot forget, awesome essay wien wien.
ReplyDeletecolby, yours brings out the nearly the same point as sam. i think your point about half way through is really the take home point, when you say that it destroys the rights granted in the constitution. i completely agree of coarse and see the point, education is the key. it is essays like yours that shows the importance of our rights and how easily those rights can be lost, awesome essay.
ReplyDeleteEx parte Milligan was a Supreme Court case from the 1860’s. What happened was that five individuals (including Lambdin P. Milligan) were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and use them to invade Union prisoner-of-war camps; then they would use the liberated Confederate soldiers to help free other camps and fight against the Indiana government, and the state governments of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. The plan leaked, and in 1864 they were charged, and found guilty and sentenced to hang by a military tribunal (a military court that tries enemies during war). They were sentenced to hang in 1865. Milligan argued his case and petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, because he felt that as a civilian, he should not be subject to military law. Lincoln would suspend the habeas corpus
ReplyDeleteThe case would make it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ended up deciding in favor of Milligan. They ruled that since Milligan was a citizen that a military court had no right at all to convict him. They ruled that military tribunal did not apply to citizens of states that upheld the Constitution and had operating civil courts, even in wartimes. They also concluded that during the suspension of habeas corpus, citizens can only be held without charges, and definitely not tried or executed.
The need of the government to provide for the safety of society can be balanced with the constitutional guarantees of individual liberty. Even though I don’t really understand this question, we can all have individual liberty, and have the government provide for the safety of society. We can just do both at the same time. The government will just provide for the safety of society while they are also letting us have individual liberty. This assignment was very hard. I did not really understand what we were supposed to do. I hope this is ok.
references:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan
http://usinfo.org/docs/democracy/26.htm
http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Milligan,+ex+parte
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1865/1865_0
You have just been accused of a crime that would cost you your life. They rule your sentence without having fair trial. You’re angry and feel that the government has not served you correctly. This was the position of Lambden P. Milligan.
ReplyDeleteMilligan was a man who was accused of rebellion. Now this whole dispute was not whether or not he committed this crime, but the means of his sentencing. Milligan was tried and sentenced by the Indiana military court system. He was not tried by civil court, thus Milligan’s argument. He presented the fact that because this court was not a civil court, they did not have the power to sentence him.
Though we believe that this man should have been punished, was it right to sentence him outside of the legal civil court? The Supreme Court ruled that because the Indiana civil courts were in full working order, the military courts had no right to charge Milligan. Though they acted in the way of trying to protect the citizens of the North, they acted too quickly and not even technically legally. They were only allowed to try individuals if the civil courts were not in working order.
The government has a responsibility to protect the citizens of this country, but they must abide by the laws set.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/ex_parte_Milligan.aspx
http://usinfo.org/docs/democracy/26.htm
Camden, you make a good point. The men were not even in the military so they couldn’t be tried by the military. Because the civil courts were perfectly fine, the military didn’t have a reason to try other than the threats were against the military. If these men actually had performed the acts, I feel, the rulings would have changed, but since all that occurred were threats the outcome was as it was.
ReplyDeleteSam, you bring out a good point. No matter what the situation, habeas corpus should not be suspended. We are a country that prides itself in our people, but if we don’t let others take part in those constitutional rights, what does that say about us? We all have opinions and takes on every case or every criminal, but I think we all can agree that everyone should have a fair trial. To follow through with what our foundation has set, we must provide these rights for everyone.
ReplyDeleteLamblin P. Milligan was from Belmont County, Ohio. His father Moses Milligan was a soldier in the American Revolutionary War. His formal schooling ended when he was eight. His father wanted him to go to school to become a doctor. His mother Mary forbade it saying "if none of the other children could have it, he shouldn't be able to either." This made Lamblin leave home mad. He became a lawyer, Oct. 27, 1835. He was very outspoken in political affairs but could not become a politician because he was not wise.
ReplyDeleteHe publicly protested the Union waging a war against the Confederacy. He would frequently target the Indiana Governor Oliver P. Morton. He was a very stupid citizen. By May 1864, Union authorities were convinced that he was very involved in a confederate plot against the United States of America(which was a true fact).
Milligan was dragged from his home at 4:00 AM. He couldn't walk because he had erysipilas which were large skin lesions on his leg. He and four other men were accused of planning to steal weapons and invade Union prisoner of war camps and release Confederate prisoners. They planned to rise up against the government in 3 states using the confederate prisoners as part of their new army. He was convicted and sentenced to death by a military court. Their execution was not set until 1865 which gave them time to appeal.
The four prisoners (the fifth one escaped to Canada) argued that they never should have been tried by a military court. Two days before the hanging the five men had their sentence reduced. The Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase ruled they should be released. Chief Justice Salmon said that the civilian courts were still in effect in Indiana and they should not have tried him in a military court since the defendants were not in the Army.
Later Milligan sued General Hovey (who had arrested him) for $500,000 and received a small settlement of $5.00. The defendants were represented by future President Benjamin Harrison. Harrison's argument that Miligans actions prolonged the war and that was why he only received $5.00.
My thought: I think Milligan was a jerk. Emotions caused bad judgment on his arrest. Had he been arrested and treated fairly in a civilian court he would have hung.
Thanks to Wikipedia
Emily C., I thought you had a good approach to starting your essay. You started out as if you were in Lambdin P. Milligan's shoes. As you expressed in the beginning, he would have been angry with the court because he didn't get a fair trial. If you really think about it wouldn't we all be angry if we weren't given a fair trial and the court sentenced us to death. This was the original case for Milligan. He was tried by a military court system when he really was suppose to have been tried by a civil court system.
ReplyDeleteWell, so you have this guy named Lambdin P. Milligan and four others that thought highly of the South. They thought they had a clever little scheme. They planned to steal Union weapons and attack Union prisoner-of-war camps, hoping then to be able to use the freed Confederate prisoners to help them fight against the government of Indiana. If they made it that far, Milligan and company would move on to other camps and liberate a ton of Confederate soldiers. Keep in mind they were going to accomplish this during the war. I’m sure you can see where this was going. If they could defeat Indiana’s government and liberate multiple camps, they would be a large, dangerous force to be reckoned with and could very well take over other state governments (Ohio, Michigan). If it weren’t for whoever accused them and brought their plan to attention, Lambdin Milligan could very well be a big household history name today.
ReplyDeleteIn 1864, they were found guilty and sentenced to hang by a military court. However, they were able to argue the case after the Civil War ended because their execution was not until May 1865. In 1866, the case obviously made it to the US Supreme Court. Milligan asked for habeus corpus and argued that the military court’s decision shouldn’t be upheld. The Supreme Court decided in his favor because military courts couldn’t call the shots in states where civilian courts were operating, even during war.
I had never heard of this case before now, but it was pretty interesting. I just used information about it off Wikipedia.
Pope, I think what you had to say was true. That we the people are the ones that elect the government officials and that we have the responsibility to control and maintain the officials power. This is something that a lot of people forget these days. This really is important to know because we can stop something that the government is doing that we don't like.
ReplyDeleteEx Parte Milligan
ReplyDeletein 1864 Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal weapons, invade prisoner-of-war-camps, and free the prisoners. They planned to liberate the camps and use the freed soldiers to help fight against the government of Indiana. They planned to continue freeing camps and eventually take over the governments of Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan.
Unfortunately for them, the plan was found out. They were charged and found guilty of treason. All were sentenced to hang in May of1865 by Military Court in1864. All five men were able to argue case and appealed for release under habeas corpus. At this time Lincoln was very concerned with the southern sympathizers. To combat these active “copperheads” Lincoln issued orders putting certain civilian areas in the North under military control and imposing martial law. This enabled the military to arrest and try anyone suspected of disloyalty.
The Constitution guarantees habeas corpus, so when Lincoln suspended this writ, the Court had to decide if the President had followed the law and the Constitution when authorizing martial law.
With a unanimous vote of 0-9, the Supreme Court decided that the President had over stepped his boundaries. They concluded that Indiana wasn’t under attack and that Milligan had no connection with the Confederate Military. They said that, since the courts in Indiana had been open and normally during the war, they could have tried Milligan there. Instead of being kept without trial, there, he would have had the right to a jury and a fair trial, under the Constitution.
The reason I think the Court ruled this way is simple. The Civil War had just ended, therefore they probably didn’t want to cause any more conflict. If they ruled in favor of the hanging of five men who were trying to free the men that had fought so hard for what they believed, they would have to face the same war all over agin. But, if they ruled in favor of letting them go, they faced a whole group of people that wouldn’t understand why you would let a criminal; go that was about to undo everything that took you so long to do, not to mention all the lives it took. The Court obviously didn’t want a repeat of what had just occurred, so they did the most reasonable thing. They gave them a trial and ruled in their favor.
I’m not saying that I totally agree with this but it seams to be what happened. Truthfully, I don’t understand why they would let them go either, but it wasn’t my decision and I’m glad of that.
Thought this was pretty interesting. One of Milligan’s lawyers was James A. Garfield, who litter became president of the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Parte_Milligan
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/youth/sia/holtases/milligan.html
So far I think everyone has summed up Ex Parte Milligan pretty good. So just a brief rundown…. Mulligan and four others were plotting to steal weapons from the union and were going to liberate some of the camps where the confed soldiers were being held. once they liberated the confed soldiers, the confeds would join in and help them with more of the camps and eventually take over the state govts of Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. Someone ratted out the four and they were found guilty and sentenced to hang.
ReplyDeleteWe all know what habeas corpus is. The supreme court had decided to suspend this in the trial of Ex Parte Milligan. When habeas corpus is suspended, the only thing that the courts can do is HOLD someone without charges. They cant try them. Even though the supreme court was wrong in which they suspended habeas corpus and tried these men, the only intentions were the intentions of what is best for this country. Im certainly glad these men didn’t have a chance to even start their plan because it could’ve succeded. It may not have, but it was a possibility. I agree with what the courts did. It was for the best of this country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan
ReplyDeleteEmily you said something that sticks to mind, The government has a responsibility to protect the citizens of this country, but they must abide by the laws set. That is very very true. I can see where the higher courts wanted to try him instead of waiting for a long time till the civil courts to try him, but for them to “work around” certain laws and sentence him to death with out a fair trial was not right.
ReplyDeleteblake i agree with you in which these men shouldve been tried by a civil court instead of a military court. these men did no wrong towards the military. however, if they had carried out this plan then the people that were sentenced to death deserved it. but since they didnt, i dont think they shouldve been hung.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of what happened is this;
ReplyDeleteA man by the name of lambdin p. milligan was going to steal weapons from the union with the help of four other men, and attack union prisoner of war camps. He then, with the help of the liberated soldiers, would free more soldiers, and try to take over the government of indiana. From there, they would shoot for the governments of ohio and michigan. Basically, he was trying to keep the civil war going, and win it for the south. Unfourtunitly, (for him) word of the plan leaked out, and he was arrested. They were sentenced by military court to be hanged in 1864. However, they were suppost to be actually hanged in 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the war had ended.
What happened is this: the court that they were tried in ruled that a military court could not judge civillians in areas where civil courts were open, so basically, the other sentence didn't matter anymore.
In my opinion, the court did the right thing in there decision.
Lambden P Milligan and four other men were accused of foul behavior or in other words they were being disloyal. They were planning on stealing the Union army’s weapons and plotting to use men in prisoner of war camps to go against the government there in Indiana. Abraham Lincoln saw this as “Disloyal” and had them tried in 1864, but the actual hanging wasn’t until May of 1865. We all know the assassination of our president, April of 1865, and this was before there due dates for their sentences. So they had time to re-rule it to the Supreme Court. Milligan’s attorney appealed to them through the 1863 Habeas Corpus Act. Milligan was not in the military and so his attorney put up an argument that a civilian can not be put through military law. The supreme courts ruled that the military had no right to accuse them, and so therefore they had their sentences taken away from them.
ReplyDeletehttp://usinfo.org/docs/democracy/26.htm
Lambden P. Milligan along with four companions decided to be disloyal and steal weapons from the Union and attack the government in Indiana. President Abraham Lincoln saw this attack as a dishonest and disloyal doing. He had them tried with these charges in 1864 but they were not actually hung untill May of 1865. Due to president Lincolns assisination April of 1865 the convicted had the right to appeal the ruling of the court and due to Milligan not bein in the army he could not be accused by the millitary. There for the charges were dropped.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the decesion was wrong of the court due to the fact that what Milligan had done was wrong and unjust to his country and should have to pay for what they had done not be let off due to the assisination of Lincoln. They deserved to be tried at least and let the decesion be made. So this trial was handeled in a completly wrong way if it would have been me it would have changed everything
Ex Parte Milligan
ReplyDeleteIn 1864 during the time of the Civil War, a Confederate by the name of Lambdin P. Milligan and a few others had a plan to steal weapons and invade into the Union military camps. Basically, this guy was convicted of this crime and put in prison by the military court. This took place in Indiana. Now there are two facts right here that I need to point out. First of all, the Supreme Court says that if there is civil court nearby, that they have the overall authority and they should be the ones to take on cases such as these. Also, what was done here went against habeas corpus, because the court must have a sufficient reason for a criminal to be held in prison. However, habeas corpus was suspended at the time because of the war. What was decided in 1866, was that Milligan could go free since his liberties had been violated.
So what was wrong with this? What was
wrong was that Milligan had totally done something worthy of being arrested. So the question is, should he have been set free? Yes, it was decided that the military court technically had no say if there was a civil court nearby(after Milligan appealed to the Supreme Court), but he wasn’t innocent. In my opinion, I think that was pretty stupid of the Supreme Court to let him go free. They should have gotten onto the military court for messing with what was not their overall decision and put the guy in civil court and have him re-tried there in civil court for military crimes.
My sources were word book encyclopedia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan
ReplyDeleteI got my info from Wikipedia (“ ” means copied verbatim) ….
ReplyDeleteLambdin Milligan was charged with:
1) Conspiracy against the Government of the United States
2) Giving aid and comfort to Confederate soldiers
3) Inciting rebellion
4) Disloyal practices
5) Violation of the laws of war
Milligan along with four other men were charged with these crimes against the United States. And they were sentenced to hang on May 19, 1865.They were tried by Military Court which was one of the grounds they used to acquire his freedom when he appealed to a higher court. He spent approximately a year in a wretched Union prison. “Two days before the hanging Vice President Andrew Johnson to a life sentence in prison.” But were soon set free because Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase cited habeas corpus , which meant that Milligan along with the others would be freed, because Indiana was still a union state the military ruling was not constitutional. Regardless of all of this it is known that Milligan and the others were involved in the conspiracy, but were freed any way because their rights were being encroached upon. And later Milligan would sue the presiding Union official for “conspiracy, false imprisonment & libel. Where he won and received the small settlement of $5.”
We all know from the research that we have done ,or should have done, that what Lambdin Milligan did was wrong. In spite of this the Union tribunal was unsuitable for this case because Indiana had not, and never did secede from the United States. Therefore, it was unconstitutional (but ethically correct) to sentence the men to be hanged. The only positive thing that I can gather from this is that if this country would ever be in a state where habeas corpus would be on the line of suspension we could in fact be tried. Just hope that you’re living in a state that agrees with the government otherwise you might be in a heap of trouble. This also agrees with the fact that we are all born with certain unalienable rights, which all man deserves because we are all God’s creation. And as such we are imperfect and if one man has no rights than it won’t be long till a few will control all and then where would the honest folk of this world be? So there are good thing and bad thing about this just like every Supreme Court case that has ever taken place in this country. Some have brought to the surface the ignorance of those we elect ( Dred Scott & Roe v. Wade) and others have at least attempted to create peace , regardless of how long it lasts.
Emily I think you did a really good job. It's straight forward and to the point. As to the Union jurisdiction I agree with you (not because Wiki told me so) but if a state was on good terms with the union during the civil war why would that state be able to use their own court systems??? And when you said they acted too hastily that is very true because if they had taken their time they would have been able to see that their proceedings where not constitutional and this mess could have been prevented. So
ReplyDeleteMichael I agree with you. I had completely forgotten about the checks and balances otherwise I probably would have mentioned it. Our founding fathers did set up the system so that "we the people" would be represented justly and one branch of the government would never become too powerful.
ReplyDelete(Good job on your essay)
Oops!!! cut my self off I meant to say "good job" on Emily's and well I didn't copy and paste it so well from WORD to here!
ReplyDeleteThe argument was that can the military issue punishment for crimes committed during a time of disaster. The courts ruled that martial law can only be implemented during at time in which the courts can not functioning, and the courts were functioning at this time. I believe that the very Idea of the military being the justice system is a bad idea. It might possible open the door for a military dictator and socialism. Every state has its own government system, and every city also has their own miniature government. During a time of a natural or terristic disaster that divides the nation. The state governments should control their state. If the individual cities or towns cannot communicate with their state governments, then the individual city governments should govern themselves. The Military should only govern in case of the individual city governments’ fall. The military should have nothing to do with governing instead it should help those in need and protect us in a disaster of this magnitude. The military’s reason for existence is to serve and protect not to dominate and dictate. The military is a vital tool in protecting our country and cutting its founding is not going to solve anything.
ReplyDeleteMy source: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1865/1865_0/
ReplyDeleteLambdin Milligan was simply this: A traitor.
ReplyDeleteHe was a citizen of the "North" and he aided the South in its attempts to secede and defeat the Union in armed combat. Lincoln being the wise man he was sentenced Milligan to death by military tribunal. Milligan, however, being a united states citizen appealed to the supreme court. The court appealed his case and found Lincoln's military tribunal death conviction unconstitutional. Though Lincoln's conviction was not wrong, because Milligan was a traitor, it was unconstitutional.
Ex parte Milligan was an odd case in that the marshall and civil court laws conflicted. Lambden P. Milligan was tried and was sentenced to death by marshall law in Indiana during the Civil War. Why? He had been behaving in a disloyal manner in the United States Army. Milligan requested the writ of habeaus corpus but was denied. Why is there a problem with this?
ReplyDeleteEvery American citizen is granted the right of such. BUT, while the military is in charge, they make the rules. The other problem was that the assumption of this working was wrong. The civil court was still in charge. You can't pour it all on Lincoln, but he was in charge overall.
hmm, Jacob.
ReplyDeleteinteresting that you pointed out the fact that while America was one place, the north and south saw each other as traitors. I appreciate your work tonight by the way. We did just play at Boyce College and I realize the burden of this assignment, Thanks.
Caleben I should have taken note of the fact that though it appeared to be a good idea at the time, but the millitary's judicial power is only good for punishing those within its own ranks. Caleben I appreciate your writing skills, and your wording fits the subject very well.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Civil War, Lambdin P. Milligan and four others planned to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner of war camps and set all the prisoners and fight to overtake the governments of Ohio, Indiana and Michigan. However, the plan was caught and they were sentenced to death by a military court. They appealed to the Supreme Court. The problem was that they unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus and overlooked the fact that martial law cannot be used when the regular courts are working, so the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that what the military tribunals had done was unconstitutional. This ruling is still important today because we have to keep a balance of upholding the freedom guaranteed by the constitution and the security of everyone. I believe the ruling was the right thing to do because we must stick to the liberties given to us by the constitution, but I do think something needed to be done about the criminals. I’m not sure if the rule of no double jeopardy applied to this, but I would say they should have had a separate trial by the regular courts after the Supreme Court said they were free. This way they would have their rights in the constitution but something would still be done about their treason.
ReplyDeleteRyan I appreciate your work and how you cited the fact that Ex Parte Milligan was a case with which marshall and civil laws conflicted i should have said that. I appreciate your work tonight by the way. We did just play at Boyce College and I realize the burden of this assignment, Thanks.
ReplyDeleteAkers,
ReplyDeleteI do not appreciate the assignment. By the topic was quite interesting. It did infact "raise my brows". The north and south were being childish. I will pin it on the South though. I kind of like the state powers that would have shined through all of this instead of having one highly uneducated, small "resumead" loser. tyvm
In 1864 Lambdin P. Milligan of Ohio planned to invade Union prison camps and set free the prisoners of war. Then, use the freed Confederates to attack Indiana’s government and free even MORE of the captured soldiers. Fortunately, their plan was discovered before it was put into action. Lambdin Milligan and his accomplices were sentenced to be hanged. They had the opportunity to argue their case after the Civil War ended and because his initial trial was through the military court and not the civil court- the court of his peers- they had no right to sentence him. The Supreme Court’s decision was that it was unconstitutional for the military courts to sentence Milligan when the civil courts were running properly.
ReplyDeleteSites: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0833218.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI've been planning on saving my post until later, but that means fewer would see it. Your points have all been well-constructed, though some of you missed some essential details. Habeus Corpus is the right to be presented before a judge and be officially charged with a crime, with an opportunity to plead "guilty" or "not guilty". Without this right, the courts would be unable to verify that the police (or military, in this case) were holding you legally. While it might seem trivial at first, this is an absolute necessity in the preservation of a free system. Take an opposite example: Hitler's Nazis acted without oversite, able to arrest, torture, imprison, and kill without the prisoner's having the opportunity to plead his case before an impartial judge and be tried in a fair trial.
ReplyDeleteYou might say that Milligan was a criminal that got off on a technicality; just remember that "technicality" is another word for "constitutional right".
By the way, it was Lincoln's decision to suspend habeus corpus, not the courts. It was the Supreme Court's decision that Lincoln had violated the constitution by setting up military tribunals to try civilians, denying the accused of access to lawyers and a jury of their peers.
Alright, let’s say you commit some crime and you get sent to a military court. Now, let’s take it a step further and say that court sentences you to death. You’re going to be pretty angry, right? But, you’ve realized that you should have been tried in a different court, and now you can not only delay your death but you may get around being killed. Lambdin P. Milligan had a right to be tried in a civil court, and it’s a right he intended to take-wouldn’t you?
ReplyDeleteDon’t get me wrong, it is legal to suspend habeas corpus, but the part of our Constitution that says it can be suspended is directed at the legislative branch (Article 1), not executive (Article 2). So it (sort of) wasn’t Lincoln’s place to suspend it. And that article says habeas corpus can only be suspended if civilian courts are down or a hostile force is in the area, and that was not the case. So, when Lambdin P. Milligan, who was a criminal, took his case-of deciding whether or not he was properly judged NOT whether or not he was a criminal-to the Supreme Court he won. And for my suggestion to keep things safe and let us keep our liberties, I think our Constitution has this one right, “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.”
http://www.sinc.stonybrook.edu/Class/pol325/Milligan.htm
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/071-002a.htm
my sources
David, I like the way you explained the case in your essay. It was a different perspective on it than some of the others, since it was like trying to put yourself in Lambdin P.Milligan’s point of view. If I were him I would have wanted to take my right to be tried in civil court too. And that’s true, that Lambdin P/ Milligsn won the case merely because they were deciding whether or not he was properly judged, NOT whether or not he was guilty of the crime. In my essay, mentioned just that habeas corpus was suspended, but I didn’t mention that it was Lincoln who suspended it. Lincoln did have the to suspend habeas corpus, but he messed up by setting up military courts.
ReplyDeleteIn 1864 the Union Army arrested Lambdin for a violation of martial law in Indiana. He, along with four other men, was charged with plotting to steal weapons and free Confederate soldiers. A military court had sentenced all five men to death, but they appealed, using the Constitutional right of habeas corpus.
ReplyDeleteUnanimously, the Supreme Court decided that the President had gone too far. The Court justified their decision by saying Milligan was not connected with Confederate military service or a prisoner of war. They also based there decision on the fact that he was arrested at home, not during a military maneuver. A better move on the government’s part would have been to charge him with treason and try him in the courts that way, where he would have had the right to a jury and the right to a fair trial, as granted by the Constitution.
This case serves as an archetype for many important Supreme Court cases that would follow. Though the base issue was regarding martial law, the underlying issue was the government’s ability to balance society’s well-being with overwhelming Constitutional boundaries. This issue, in my opinion, must be viewed through the following scope: many constitutional lines are crossed during wartime.
The Milligan case is just one example of the government sticking up for society. We, the people, are what government was made to protect, and if they can’t do their job because of antiquarian limitations- why are they even there?
Controversial lat statement… I know.
www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0833218.html
www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1865/1865_0/
Josh, quite interesting point you made late in your essay. You drew the theme back to Milligan's treason. I think a lot of us have missed the point of the case. Most people focussed on issues relating to Constitutional interpretation and such, when the real issue was the right to habeas corpus. Regardless of the court's decision, Milligan was at fault and Lincoln was only trying to protect the people.
ReplyDeleteRyan, I like how you made the key point that it was a conflict of martial and civil court laws. You also made the point how every American citizen is guaranteed the rights Milligan was denied because he military made the rules and the problem with that. However, you did not explain the exact circumstances around Milligan’s charges, and your essay was much shorter than two-hundred words.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn 1864, a man by the name of Lambdin Milligan along with four others were arrested in Indianna. The five men had been charged with plotting to free Confederate soldiers being held as prisoners. These men were just what Abraham Lincoln was talking about when he called them (and others alike) Copperheads-those "Southerners" in the North who would make attempts to stall or injure the North. These "Copperheads" were especially active in southern Ohio, Indianna, Illinois, and right along the northern Kentucky border.
ReplyDeleteNow let's rewind history to composition and ratification of the U.S. Constitution, when James Madyson writes in "habeas corpes"
(Article One, Section Nine) guaranteeing anyone taken into custody the right to be presented before a judge in a court of law. However, Abraham Lincoln said no we don't have the time, space, money, etc.to do this, so he set up martial law (where the military rules).
The five men arrested were sentenced to death by a military court, but they appealed for their release on the grounds of their right to habeas corpes.
As for the decision, it came many years later. The Supreme Court ruled that in this situation President Lincoln had gone too far. They said that Milligan and the others were not prisoners-of-war because they were arrested in their homes, not on the battlefield. The courts of Indianna had been functioning properly and the S.C. ruled that these men were indeed entitled to a fair trial, and should have been given one as such.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour right Jarred, it would have been a better idea to charge them with treason. Instead of wasting money and time to set up your own trial, it would have been a lot easier to charge them with treason and give them to a justice system that was already there, and functioning. It would also would have been fairer, even though it would still lead to the same consequence.
ReplyDeletePope, your essay was really good. I liked how you mentioned checks and balances. I agree with you that they must be upheld. When they are ignored or eliminated, change for the worse occurs. Our country’s government needs to always uphold those. I also agree with you that Lambdin Milligan was really a traitor. I think that Lincoln was right in doing away with habeus corpus during the war.
ReplyDeleteI liked what Roberto said. This was an important case. It helped recognize a constitutional right, the right to a fair trial. As time goes on people may change how the constitution is interrupted. The constitution is not the same slab of parchment it was 200 years ago. If it wasn’t for good old judicial decisions like this, we would be a socialistic country right now. Politicians manipulate the interputations of the constitution to make it say what they want it to say. This is why I believe a good non-corrupt judicial system is key to the survival of any government.
ReplyDeleteI liked Jarred’s post. I totally agree with what you said. Sometimes it is unavoidable when Constitutional lines are crossed during war. I don’t think what Lincoln did necessarily crossed the line. He didn’t stick with the Constitution, but he didn’t go too far because he was protecting citizens during the Civil War. It is true that government is supposed to protect us. I believe you’re right that the government sometimes needs to ignore the limitations to protect the country. I feel weird after saying that, because the Constitution is very important.
ReplyDeleteHannah; I liked how you presented the information concerning Lamblin P. Milligan. I agree with you as not understanding why they let Milligan and his friends go. Im not sure we understand the atmosphere of a nation in a civil war. It must have been very confusing for the average citizen. I think in a America,Government, the checks and balances between the president of the United States and and Supreme Court makes sure that we have more of a Democracy than a dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteZiaBeth
ReplyDeleteThanks for all the information concerning Lamblin P. Milligan i liked what you said concerning the habeas corpus. Habeas corpus means the unlawful detention of a person. and protects them from harmed by are judicial system. If we were in a state or lived ina state that suspended the habeas corpus we would be in a lot of trouble. I know that it is important that we pray for elected officials so that as a nation we can do whats right.
Roberto, I liked how in your essay you mentioned why this ruling is still a problem today. It is still a struggle today because we need to be able to keep balance in keeping people safe and still making our decisions based on the constitution. An example of a problem similar to this now would be the debate over the terrorist prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay. Some are now being tried n US courts instead of being held with no court date and no reason.So this debate as you can see if most definitely on-going. This assignment was interesting for me once I understood everything about it. I wasn’t sure why rulings similar to Ex Parte Milligan were still a problem today, so I’m glad you said something about it.
ReplyDeleteanna katherine, I thought your essay was good and I agree with you on the point you made about the trial. Even though the military court was out of line when they tried him and had no right to do so, Milligan was still a criminal, and he shouldn't have juust been set free. He was guilty and I agree with you when you said that he should've been retried by a civil court. Just becouse the court system wronged him doesn't make him innocent all of a sudden. Maybe he should've gottten something from having to sit in jail like that, but being let go was too much. I also think you summarized the case very well. good job.
ReplyDeleteBgruk, good post. It was simple and covered all of the major points and facts of the case. You also made a good point when you said: “I think that the government should balance protection with freedom. A good way of doing this would be to make sure that every United States citizens will be tried by their local court.”
ReplyDeleteJarred:
ReplyDeleteI like what you said about Constitutional lines being crossed during war time. I think that tends to happen a lot, and it's not good. But at the same time, is there a good reason for it? Like was Lincoln right or wrong in supsending habeas corpes. Normally, I would say no, but the Civil War wasn't normal. I'm not quite sure where I stand on this issue..I don't know; I like that you brought it up though. It's making me think.
akers..i always forget to cite my sources..but here they are:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.abanet.org/publiced/youth/sia/holtcases/milligan.html
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1865/1865_0/
1864 Lambdin Milligan and four other men were plotting to steal Union weapons, break into a prisoner of war camp and set free the prisoners, then use the weapons they stole and the prisoners they set free to set other prisoners of war free and mess with government. But his crazy plot didnt get to far. October 5th 1864 Milligan was arrested in his home and brought before military court and sentenced to death by hanging May 19th 1865. But since his hanging wasnt right away Milligan had some time to think of some ways to get out of his hanging.
ReplyDeleteHe came up with a pretty good idea on his part. He argued that the military court had no right to hold, charge and sentence him since he was a citizen of the U.S. and was not and had not been in the military. Constitutionally citizens of the U.S. have a right to trial by jury. He argued that since he was a U.S. citizen an hadnt been involved in the military or navy he too had the right to trial by jury and that right could not be taken from him.
It was decided that it was unconstitutional that the president suspend the writ of habeas corpus and that ordinary citizens couldnt be denied the right of the court system and trial by jury.
I think that habeas coorpus is a right that should not be taken away from us. It is our right. Now something had to be done about these guys but suspending habeas corpus was not right even if it was very wrong.
Sam, I agree with you on the fact that Habeus Corbus should never be suspended, even if we know for a fact they are guilty. Trial by jury is one of those things that makes America great and shouldn't be taken away. Everyone should be given a fair trial, no matter race, religion, social or economical back ground, etc.
ReplyDeleteMy sources
ReplyDeleteen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan
www.civil-liberties.com/pages/exparte_milligan.htm
Man, this topic is more controversial than you would think.
ReplyDeleteJaykub..
The fact you brought up Milligan as being a traitor is interesting. It kind of justifies him being tried in a martial court. Maybe. But then there was something else you said..about Abraham Lincoln's decision/conviction not being wrong, just unconstitutional. What's the difference there? Can something the government does be wrong but not unconstitutional? Just wondering. Again, I'm not being mean, this topic really is stretching my brain. (That could be just because I've had a migraine for a week and a half..I don't know =P) Anyways, good job. I just wanted to bring out that point.
Pope, I liked your "My Opinion" part. Your right, we have to make sure we uphold the constitution. If we disregard one or more then we leave a wide open door for loopholes and people who will try to take advantage of that and want to change the constitution. We can't let that happen because what is America without the Constitution? Not much. It's one of the things we were founded on and what makes America great.
ReplyDeleteBlake, you made a lot of the same points that I made. They did not have the right to suspend Habeus Corpus and the military did not have the right to put the men on trial. I would also like to say that once again you had another good report. I would also like to point out that today the Pittsburg Steelers beat the Minisota Vikings who were up until now un defeated.
ReplyDeletePope, my comment is a lot like colby's I really liked your oppinion. I liked your point about needing to why we are the America we are today. I agree that is important that we study our history and learn from things like this so that a president can't abuse the power that they are given like I belive Mr. Abraham Lincoln did in this circumstance.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteI loved how you really went into depth with explaining the case in your essay. Your point of view really opened my eyes to it. When I was reading and researching about Lambdin Milligan and the four others, I quite didn’t understand it that much. (But that happens a lot haha(: )Your essay really helped me to understand this. Good job David! I lovedd your essay.
David, over all you had a great report. But I have a differing oppinion about when you said that it "sort of wasn't lincoln's place." I think that Linclon was completly out of line when he did this and if it was not a time of great distress for our country and he tried to do this he would have gotten in a lot of trouble.
ReplyDeleteMichael Harrel,
ReplyDeleteEven though your essay was long, it was amazing. I loved how you put the background into it; it gave me a really different mindset of it. I agree with you on the part of him being a jerk. If he did things differently then he wouldn’t have been accused for doing that stuff. I’m not just saying this but your essay was reallyyy good. I absolutely loved it.
Sam,
ReplyDeleteI like how you point out the war was almost over anyway and that some crazy guy thought he would overturn the northern states. Shows how stupid some people can be. And I too agree that something should have been done about them but that the courts had no right to suspend habeas corpus. No matter how guilty or how crazy the crime/criminal is, they still have rights guaranteed by the constitution which we can never overlook.
Five traitorous men stood before an Indiana military commission to await their fate. They had plotted against the Union, planning to overtake Union held prisoner-of-war camps, release and arm the confederate soldiers inside, and march on Indiana claiming it for the Confederacy. That was their plan. But, it was discovered and prevented, placing their lives before a military court. The decision was found that the traitors would die by hanging. It very much seemed as though their fates were sealed, but the same Union they had plotted against had a powerful system called democracy and a Constitution. You see, these men, though incendiary rebels, were technically civilians. Was it even legitimate for them to be tried by a military court? That was the question which would determine either their vindication or their extermination. That was the question brought before the United States Supreme Court in the case of Ex Parte Milligan.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, the Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional to try civilians by a military commission. Which means that when the cop is shining his light in your eyes, asking for license and registration, and telling you that you didn’t stop at the stop sign, you may feel like you’re being interrogated by the military, but you have many more rights than a war prisoner. You won’t be taken before a shady tribunal of Generals and ordered to be shot for your traffic violation. You’ll simply get a ticket, or a warning if you’re lucky, cute, or pitiful, and then move on with your life, being more careful the next time. (Hopefully) The only torture that will come of this experience will be in your wallet when you pay the ticket. No water-boarding whatsoever. Our Constitution is intended to provide a balance wherein we can be kept safe from dangers and still hold onto our individual rights. Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither…” As Americans, we hold our Constitution and our government in high regard, hoping and cautiously guarding our rights, to make sure that this balance remains.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1056.html
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/casesummary.asp
Emily.I really enjoyed reading your essay. You maintained something rare. An objective perspective. You really didn't say whether the individuals were guilty or not, or whether they deserved death or not. You just told the plain and simple facts as they were and didn't let any sort of personal bias shine through your essay. An excellent trait of good journalism. I admire your writing style and the wonderful points you made throughout your essay.
ReplyDeleteBiggin. I liked your essay as well, but for different reasons. You did an excellent job of telling the story and giving interesting facts about the people involved in the scheme. It was very thorough and showed that you put some time and effort into your essay. I did enjoy reading it.
Anna. I liked your whole essay, but particularly the way you ended it. I agree completely with you. 100%. Even though they ruled it unconstitutional to have tried him and sentenced him in a Military Court, they should've never let a guilty man go free. However I have a genuine question about this. In fact, if someone could answer this for me, it would be greatly appreciate it. I agree with you, Anna, that logically, I would think he should've been tried again in civil courts. But my question is this: Would that have been Double Jeopardy???? I'm just sayin. lol. I'd kind of like to know.
Jarred, I liked how you pointed out that the law is ignored in times of crisis- like war. I agree with you that he should’ve been tried in civil courts in the first place. Your post made a complicated subject understandable. =]
ReplyDeleteDavid, you’re right, even though Lambdin could have completely changed the outcome of the Civil War if he had succeed in his plan, the government should not have illegally suspended his right of habeas corpus. I know if it had happened to me, I would be pretty mad.
ReplyDeleteMichael, I’m with Charity on her comment. I really liked this essay. For some reason, I find it funny the way you bluntly say he was stupid and such, and the fact that all he got from suing General Hovey was a mere five dollars. Like Charity said, you put a lot of background information that I did not know. Good job, I liked it.
ReplyDeleteAnna, I liked how you said that the Supreme Court should've punished the military court and retried him in lower court, but then as Vanessa said that may be double jeopardy. Even though I think he and the other men deserve to be retried it’s something that can't be done.
ReplyDeleteMaxwell, you said you disagree with suspending Habeas Corpus because it’s a constitutional right, but the Constitution clearly says it can be suspended. The only problem with the suspension, in this case, was that Lincoln suspended it not Congress.
This is a comment on Madyson’s comment on Jacob’s essay, just to be clear. Mady, I think the government can’t do anything truly wrong (in a secular opinion) that’s not unconstitutional-unless it hurts the country. See, we know abortion is wrong but in the eyes of an atheist who agrees with abortion the government approving abortion isn’t wrong at all and it’s not harming our country. So really the only things that are bad are unconstitutional or harm our country.
The Milligan ex parte, was an unconstitutional and wrong ruling in my opinion. For some background, in 1866 Lambdin P. Milligan was tried by the military courts, along with other accomplises for planning to steal union weapons and invade a prisoner of war camp held by the unions. The military court ruled guilty and semtnced them to the death penalty. Unfortunately, this ruling was in 1864 and the execution date was set to May 1865. So Milligan had a chance to go to the Supreme Court with this decision. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Milligan, unfortunately, stating that when citizen courts are available, a citizen cannot be held trial and givin a conviction ruled by military tribunals. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled it legal to diregars habeus corpus, which is obviously a stict violatiion of the constitution. As christians we are to all believe and know that this is wrong, because we are to follw all laws, rules, and regulations made for us. But I do agree with one piece of their ruling, that because the five men were not part of the military they should not be tried by military tribunals with military consequences. But overall, the court was wrong to disregard habeus corpus in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteVanessa,
ReplyDeleteYour essay was phenominal. The creativeness you used was great, and you do a wonderful job of getting your opinion across. I love your use of the cop with a ticket. When writing my essay I never would have thought to compare it to something like that. But once I read yours I thought, the constitution is just for big cases its for the little ones that effect us too. I appreciate the effort you put into this to make it understandable to all of us.
Tatertotstotts,
ReplyDeleteI love the explanation of habeus corpus. It was a good rundown of what it does and what it is used for. Your showing of what can occur once it is suspended was also good. But I can’t say that I agrre with your opinion of the courts decision. Regardless of whether they get convicted or not or whether the plan goes through, to me this case boils down to whether habeus corpus should have been suspended or not, and I don’t think it should have.
In 1864 Lambdin P. Milligan was tried by the military courts for disloyalty. Along with him were four other men who were apart of the same crime. They had planned to steal weapons form the Union and were also going to invade the prisoner war camps and use the prisoners there to fight for Indiana's government. When tried for this all five of them were sentenced to the death penalty by hanging. However they were not going to be hung until May of 1865 and it was still 1864. This gave Milligan and the other men time to plead their case. They went before the supreme court and argued the point that they were civilians which meant that they were not subject to military law and therefore petitioned for habeas corpus. This left the court with a decision to be made. The question was did the military courts have the authority and legal power to punish Milligan? The courts answered no and decided to ignore the law of habeas corpus which was a complete disobedience to the constitution. They agreed that martial law couls still be used by the president only when necessary and when the courts and justices are not able/available at that time. The decision of whether they lived or were hung was the civil courts decision to make. It rested souly on their shoulders.
ReplyDeleteMy source was wikipedia
ReplyDeleteMorgan I thought you wrote a good essay. It was thorough and had good detail to it. And I like how you said that habeas corpus shouldnt have been suspended. Again like you said it is a right that we have and no matter what the case everyone has their rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with anna in that they should not have let Milligan go free when he wasnt innocent. Sure it wasnt a decision for them to make. They were a military court and Milligan was a civilian who should have been tried by a civil court. The military court let him go free eventually because of this but like anna said they shoudlnt have. He was guilty and should have been tried by a civil court.
ReplyDeletelambden milligan was a citizen of the united states, but then became a tratior. he was supposed to be tried by a military tribunal during the civil war. but nobody was sure if civilian courts have jurisdiction over a military tribunal? The main problem was milligan was wanted to be released because he claimed habeas corpus, but during the war president licolin had temporarily suspended habeas corpus. the chief justice ruled that the military tribunals were unconstitutional where civil courts already existed and therefore marshal law does not apply to these areas.
ReplyDeletethis is what I believe about the subject that we must balance the things we establishand put into place and the amount of government control over them. We have a right as Americans to put people into office that will do the the things that are best for the country and not what is best for them.i believe that under the givin extream surcumstance marshel law was nessesary. However that being said before the warthe civil courts and habeas corpus must keep their original power, while the military tribunals are used for just that, that they try those who are within the united states army and the civil courts handle all other cases. our founding fathers created a system that has checks and balances that must be up held, when these checks and balances are partially eliminated or simply ignored there is an open door to change in the very america that has grwon into the america we know today, these changes are what we can begin to see even today. that is why as americans we must look back and read/study our past and why we are the america we are today, so that if corrections or other desitions must be m
sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1865/1865_0/
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/071-002a.htmade to uphold our great nation.
Vanessa,
ReplyDeleteYour essay was fantastic. The way you explained everythinb was amazing and you do a wonderful job of letting everyone know exactly how you feel on these matters. I love your use of the cop with a ticket. When writing my essay I never would have thought of something like that. But once I read yours I thought, the constitution is just for big cases its for the little ones that effect us too. I appreciate the effort you put into this to make it understandable to all of us
David,
ReplyDeleteI liked how you went into great detail on you essay. What you had to say really made me realize things I never knew befre. When I was reading and researching about Lambdin Milligan and the four others, I quite didn’t really get it but Your essay really helped me to understand this. And what you said gave me a lot of things I could put in mine that I didn’t know thanks dude
In 1864, Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were arrested and tried by the military courts and were convicted of planning to steal Union arms, invade prison camps and use the prisoners to overthrow the government of Indiana and sentenced to death by hanging. But since the hanging wasn't until May, 1865 they had time to argue in the court system. They argued if that the military courts had the authority to punish Milligan. And the fact that a civilian isn't subject to military law, and ignoring habeus corpus. The court ruled that the military court had no right to convict them, because they were not in the military.
ReplyDeleteNow i do agree that something should have been done with the five men. But habeus corpus
is a right to all and should always be a right to all. But i think it would have been different if they actually went through with the plan.
Sam, I complete agree with your statement about habeus Corpus, and how it should always be a right since it is guaranteed in the Constitution. I also like how you think that the president shouldn't have the authority to suspend habeus corpus.
ReplyDeleteI liked what Anna said, about how they should not have let milligan go free when he and the four others were in fact guilty. After pledging to the Union and then planing to steal gun and let prisoners go free for their own army they were guilty and should have been tried in a civil court.
ReplyDeleteEx parte milligan was a supreme court case about the right to susoend habeas corpus. The Supreme Court decided,in this case,that the suspension of habeas corpus was lawful, but military tcourts did not apply to citizens in states that had upheld the authority of the Constitution and were to be tried in an area where civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution of the United States provided for suspension of habeas corpus, but only if the civilian courts are actually forced closed. In a general sense, the Courts ruled that military courts could not try civilians in areas where civil courts were open, even during times of war.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, habeas corpus should not be removed, when trying a US citizen.
Sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan
Maxxwell, i really liked your essay, and how you covered the background of the case.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteI liked the detail you put in on yhis essay and how you wrote about it. What you said was really enlightening and interesting.Your essay really helped me to understand this. And you said a lot of things that I didn’t know
A man by the name of Lambdin Milligan, and four others, decided to steal Union weapons and also invade some Union prisoner of war camps. In Wikipedia it says that "he planned to liberate these soldiers and then planned to use them to fight the government of Indiana and other surrounding states." He was wanting to use these soldiers to free other confederate soldiers. But word got out that they were going to do this and they were to be tried by a military court. They decided that they would be hung to death. hang them.
ReplyDeletePresident Lincoln suspended haebus corpus to these five mean which was not lawful. The Supreme Court decided in a 9-0 vote that what Lincoln had done could not be done and it was over turned.
I am so glad this happened. That our constitution was upheld. If something like this happened in this day it is good to home that we have a right to an attorney and a trial and a jury. I think Lincoln was thinking a lot about the Union winning the war and let that get in the way of his decision. I had never heard of this case before and it was very interesting to me.
Vanessa you have another good post. giving the example about being stopped by a policeman because you are speeding is a great one. yes we do have rules and laws to live by and we have to be punished if we break them but being hung for a traffic ticket would be just crazy. how great it is to live here in America where we do have the rights that we have. And if we break a law we will have a fair trial.
ReplyDeleteMadyson - Many of the posts givve the same info which has really helped me to understand it all. I like your essay about what happened. It was very good and gave lots of details. I agree with you that Lincoln should not have ruled in the way he did. The men were doing wrong but two wrongs don't make a right. Good post Madyson.
ReplyDeleteMr. Akers I forgot to tell you what my sources were that I used:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3401801434.html
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/americanhistoryterms/g/d_habeascorpus.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1865/1865_0