President Abraham Lincoln is often critiqued for the way he guided the United States during the Civil War; historians still argue whether his efforts were justified under the Constitution which only strengthens his legacy as a leader. Aside from the nationally disputed subject on the institution of slavery, a plethora of unresolved issues existed which ultimately brought our country to war in the year 1861. Both economic and social differences between the North and South, the hankering fiery dispute about the rights of individual states, and unfair taxation was all on the plate of Abraham Lincoln once sworn into office. During his presidency, Abraham Lincoln was harshly criticized for the way he was guiding the United States; it was not until after his assassination that his actions defined his great accomplishments.  

   In order to begin, it is necessary to illustrate the historical foreground encompassing the South’s decision to secede from the Union. Across the nation, a political boiling point created by a series of compromises had finally reached a threshold in 1860. Southern states chose to secede from the Union because they firmly felt the Republicans would fight for freedom of the slaves which would terminate the culture and economic structure of the South. “By early 1860, seven states of the Deep South had gone on record demanding that the Democratic Platform pledge to protect slavery in all territories that had not yet been admitted to the Union as states” (Foner 473). This often-overlooked historical point is what ultimately led the Southern states to withdraw from the Union shortly after the election of President Abraham Lincoln. Furthermore, this division is the very genesis of legal issues in the context of the United States Constitution that historians use to challenge the actions of Lincoln. “The United States Constitution made provision for the conduct of war and anticipated the cases of rebellion, insurrection, and domestic violence. It neither anticipated nor provided for revolution, however, a political event that the framers considered beyond “any ordinary rules of calculation” and antithetical to the nature and purpose of constitutionalism” (Belz 15). 

   Moving forward, by the time the Civil War began, with the first shots fired on Fort Sumter, President Lincoln was faced with the struggle of gathering and mobilizing troops within the Union. “In 1861, the Regular army had 1,105 officers, but 296 of them resigned to either join the Confederacy or take no part in the conflict, leaving 809 to serve in the Union army” (Work 7). To clarify the significance of this, being the commander-in-chief placed President Abraham Lincoln at the center of everything; therefore, it was his sworn duty to guide and reunite the country. To put it another way, President Lincoln was a victim of circumstance in the sense that he was essentially coerced to take executive action based upon the national events circulating him. In Abraham Lincoln, Constitutionalism, and Equal Rights in the Civil War Era, Herman Belz, quotes a critic of Lincoln, William Archibald Dunning: 

“In the interval between April 12 and July 4, 1861, a new principle thus appeared in the constitutional system of the United States, namely, that of a temporary dictatorship. All the powers of government were virtually concentrated in a single department, and that the department whose energies were directed by the will of a single man.” (Belz 18)

Since Lincoln was the leader of the executive branch, and the historical dates coincide with the first months of the Civil War a contention can be made that William Archibald Dunning was referencing how the Union army was assembled. “Thus, Lincoln appointed generals in ways designed to secure the loyalty of three basic groups: his own Republican Party, the rival Democratic Party, and ethnic groups, specifically the Germans and the Irish” (Work 9-10). David Work mentions that, “President Abraham Lincoln had historical precedent in the nomination of generals dating back to the War of 1812 and the Mexican War” (Work 228).

   Next, it is necessary to focus on the dire determination and essential style of devotion required to reunite the country through the eyes of Lincoln. In Give Me Liberty! An American History Eric Foner states: “In a war, of this kind, the effectiveness of political leadership, the ability to mobilize economic resources, and a society’s willingness to keep up the fight despite setbacks are as crucial to the outcome as success or failure on individual battlefields” (Foner 482). In other words, President Lincoln’s demeanor and conduct defined his decisiveness as a leader during the Civil War. More compelling evidence of Lincoln’s adamant conclusiveness as a man and a leader parallel the previously established manner in which he constructed a military from almost nothing.  

     Norman G. Flagg states that, “even though Abraham Lincoln was no Einstein, he was blessed with the ability to think before he acted, and that is what steered our country through the Civil War” (Flagg 125). Not only did President Lincoln embrace gatherings among various military leaders throughout the war for battle updates, but also to acquire valuable military intelligence that would help him draw a secured beneficial decision for the country. Kirt Wilson states that, “Abraham Lincoln always gathered information from people whom both agreed and disagreed with him before he responded or took any political action” (Wilson 460). According to Kirt Wilson, “President Lincoln was a middle man, a go-between, “a dialogue rhetorician who seemed intent on prompting others on discussion and action” (Wilson 461). At our nation’s most grim and darkest hour, these great leadership qualities of Abraham Lincoln shine through and define his outstanding legacy in the history of our country.  

   In light of President Abraham Lincoln’s leadership, his political stance on slavery indirectly led the South to secede from the Union. Despite this fact, he still delivered the Emancipation Proclamation with a graceful tone of articulate fluency, on September of 1862. The Emancipation Proclamation was a distinctively brilliant political move put into play by President Abraham Lincoln. “The Commander-in-chief, in time of war, is authorized and bound to use and all accessible means not forbidden by the laws of war, which in his judgment may be useful or necessary to subdue the enemy,” Grosvenor Lowrey patiently explained, and if emancipating slaves subdued the enemy, then proclamations emancipating them were fully consistent with the president’s powers as commander-in-chief” (Guelzo 193).

   Additionally, the principle objective of the Emancipation Proclamation was to convince the South to call a cease-fire to the war in hopes they would rejoin the Union to make the nation whole once again. According to Kirt Wilson, “numerous historians have looked back on the life of Abraham Lincoln, and they contend that “Lincoln worked ceaselessly within the limits of the Constitution to free the slaves” (Wilson 459).

   In Debating the Great Emancipator: Abraham Lincoln and our Public Memory, Kirt Wilson quotes Lincoln: 

“I adhere to the Declaration of Independence. If Judge Douglas and his friends are not willing to stand by it, let them come up and amend it. Let them make it read that all men are created equal, except Negroes.” The Declaration of Independence may not mean that black and whites are the same in color, Lincoln declared, “still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man, white or black.” (Wilson 459) 

   The last important parallel of Lincoln’s leadership is shown on November 19, 1863, when he delivered one of the most eloquent and famous speeches ever to be heard in all of American history. According to Norman G. Flagg, “the Gettysburg Address is a fulgurous and lovely work of art with bare direct English” (Flagg 123). The Gettysburg Address was in fact both a eulogy and an explanation of why the country was fighting this war, and the speech itself also expressed the strong need to keep United States unified as one nation. Eric Foner explains that, “Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address despite being only three minutes long was able to share his interpretation of the Civil War and reinforce the importance of unity as a nation” (Foner 499-500). The Gettysburg Address is a well painted perfect illustration of how President Abraham Lincoln contemplated any troubling issue before he made any decisions.  

   Given these points, the debate over whether Abraham Lincoln breached the Constitution as President of the United States revolves around the suspension of habeas corpus and martial law in connection with powers of the presidency. In the first place, habeas corpus is the right a due and fair process once placed under arrest. “The Suspension Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2), states: “The Privileges of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless when in Cases of Rebellion of Invasion the public Safety may require it” (Cornell University Law School ). As previously mentioned, the Southern secession can be viewed and ultimately was interpreted as an act of rebellion. “The purpose of the initial suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is clear from the circumstances of its issuance: to keep the military reinforcement route to the nation’s capital open” (Jr. 9). It must be remembered that Abraham Lincoln’s goal was to reunite the nation, and as president, his main objective ensuring the safety of Washington D.C. was the only way this could come to fruition. “It cannot be believed,” Lincoln said, “the framers of the instrument intended, that in every case [of rebellion or invasion], the damage should run its course until Congress could be called together; the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion” (Jr. 12).

   Secondly, martial law also played a vital role in President Lincoln’s goal to protect the nation’s capital. “As of January 1, 1863, Lincoln proclaimed the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth-City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk” and “the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia” fully under Union military control” (Jr. 76). Once again while demonstrating the characteristics that defined him as a leader, President Lincoln’s decisive actions challenge the fabric of the Constitution. In fact, an argument can be made that Lincoln’s decision to place violators in the border -states under arrest via martial law allowed the Union to hold onto land that allowed them to protect Washington D.C. “Of the 1,001 cases in the 1863-1864 period where place of arrest is known, 709 took place in Virginia” (Jr. 76).  

   In the final analysis, as the Civil War drew to a close, slavery was incorporated into the United States Constitution. In Give Me Liberty! An American History Eric Foner mentions, “On January 31, 1865, Congress approved the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery throughout the entire Union” (Foner 519). This establishes that President Lincoln’s challenges to the Constitution were valid and just. After years of violent battles and war ravaging through our country, we, as a nation could finally begin to heal. The nation heard the cry for unity in the Gettysburg Address and that cry, that prayer, that undying hope President Abraham Lincoln had, was answered with the surrender of the Southern army in Virginia later that year.  

   The PBS American Experience biography Abraham Lincoln notes, “after Lincoln’s re-election he remained dedicated to reuniting the country and carefully proceeded to do so as the Civil War ended, by acting only after careful thought” (American Experience Abraham Lincoln ). President Lincoln profoundly viewed the Civil War as a trying challenge to see if our great nation could stand, as one, in this time of disagreement. Joshua Shenk Wolf mentioned, “that in President Lincoln’s second inaugural address he believes the war was a tribulation from God and compelled the nation to unify “with malice towards none, charity for all” (Wolf). This challenge Lincoln believed in, makes it transparently clear that unity was the central theme of the Gettysburg Address. It was soon after President Abraham Lincoln’s reelection that our country withstood this challenge.    

   Ultimately, the brilliance of President Lincoln to not react without having all the facts first is a true staple to his character. His excellent clock-work like timing of the Emancipation Proclamation to keep more states from leaving the Union is a lucid example of this brilliance. Abraham Lincoln’s decisive action has defined his legacy for over 200 years. In the Gettysburg address, he yet again showed his calm demeanor as he expressed his wish for the war to end. “Throughout the entire Civil War President Lincoln tried to end slavery and reunite our divided nation because his belief and vision for the United States was that “all men should be free” (Foner 499).

Works Cited

American Experience Abraham Lincoln . n.d. 9 4 2015. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/biography/grant-lincoln>.

Belz, Herman. Abraham Lincoln, Constitutionalism, and Equal Rights in the Civil War Era. New York City: Fordham University Press, 1998.

Cornell University Law School . n.d. 17 April 2013. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8. >.

Flagg, Norman G. “Abraham Lincoln.” Journal of the Illinois State Historicial Society 10.No. 1 (1917): 123-126.< https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40006234>

Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty! An American History. New York City: W.W. Norton, 2005.

Guelzo, Allen C. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation . New York,NewYork: Simon & Schuster, 2004.

Jr., Mark E. Neely. The Fate of Liberty Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties . New York,New York: Oxford University Press , 1991.

Wilson, Kirt. “Debating the Great Emancipator.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs (1917): 460.<https://www.jstor.org/stable/41936461?seq=1>

Wolf, Joshua Shenk. The True Lincoln. 04 July 2005. <http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1077281,00.html >.

Work, David. Lincoln’s Political Generals . University of Illinois Press, 2009.