Abraham Lincoln's Use of Presidential Power in the Civil War
This essay examines the extraordinary wartime powers exercised by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, including the suspension of habeas corpus, the use of military tribunals, the arrest of civilians, and the closure of newspapers. The paper argues that, despite the unprecedented and constitutionally controversial nature of these measures, Lincoln's actions were justified by the existential threat to the Union. Drawing a comparison to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the essay considers how extreme circumstances have historically prompted extraordinary executive responses. The paper also briefly scrutinizes Lincoln's personal motivations, noting that his record is more complicated than popular memory suggests.
- Introduction: Overview of Lincoln's sweeping Civil War powers
- Justifying Lincoln's Use of Presidential Power: Argument that wartime extremity justified Lincoln's actions
- Lincoln's Motives and Legacy: Critical look at Lincoln's complicated motives
- Conclusion: Extreme times justify extreme executive measures
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses a concrete historical analogy — the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — to frame the moral complexity of Lincoln's decisions, giving the argument comparative depth.
- Acknowledges the counterarguments honestly, noting that Lincoln's motives were not entirely principled, which adds intellectual credibility rather than one-sided praise.
- Connects historical events to contemporary relevance (post-9/11 counterterrorism), demonstrating the enduring significance of the debate over executive power.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative historical reasoning: by placing Lincoln's actions alongside the Hiroshima decision, the author shows how unprecedented and morally contested executive choices can still be assessed as justified by their context and outcomes. This technique allows the writer to argue a position without ignoring its ethical complications.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with a concise overview of Lincoln's wartime measures and his historical reputation. The main analytical section presents a justification argument supported by historical analogy and personal reflection. A short critical turn then complicates the praise by questioning Lincoln's purity of motive. The conclusion restates the central claim — that extreme circumstances can justify extreme measures — and grounds it in present-day implications for civil liberties.
Introduction
Abraham Lincoln asserted and exercised a number of wide-ranging executive powers during the Civil War — powers that were largely unprecedented at the time and have not been replicated since. Despite this, Lincoln is regarded as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, Presidents in American history, largely because he was able to win the Civil War and preserve the Union. His wartime tactics included suspending habeas corpus, convening military courts, arresting civilians, and closing newspapers. While much of what Lincoln did in the 1860s would never be tolerated in today's political climate, his actions were genuinely necessary at the time and ultimately accomplished their intended goal.
Justifying Lincoln's Use of Presidential Power
The central question addressed here is whether Abraham Lincoln's use of presidential power was justified. Given the cataclysmic nature of the conflict, the fact that such measures had never been employed before and have not been employed since, and the fact that they achieved their objective, the answer must be yes. A useful comparison can be drawn to the use of atomic bombs against Japan at the end of World War II. Like Lincoln's measures, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were without precedent and have not been repeated. And, like those bombings, the question of whether Lincoln's actions were called for and justified remains actively debated today.
Even accounting for Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor that drew the United States into the war, the atomic response was widely understood — including by President Truman himself — to have targeted civilian populations in a manner that pushed the boundaries of what is considered acceptable conduct in warfare. Returning to Lincoln: he recognized that the Union was in grave danger of dissolution, and that one side had taken up arms against the nation itself. Much like the challenge posed by terrorism in the modern era, such a new and expansive threat called for unconventional means to eliminate the problem (Course, 2016).
Conclusion
Lincoln deserves credit for his actions during the Civil War, and it is truly remarkable that he was able to go as far as he did while retaining broad support for the Union effort. Simply suspending habeas corpus or shutting down newspapers would provoke an absolute firestorm if attempted today — regardless of the justification — given the perceived or actual violations of multiple constitutional amendments that such actions would appear to entail. However, extreme times call for extreme measures.
References
Friedman, M. (2009). Lincoln as emancipator. IIP Digital. Retrieved May 21, 2016, from
US History. (2016). The decision to drop the bomb. USHistory.org. Retrieved May 21, 2016, from http://www.ushistory.org/us/51g.asp
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.