{"id":3943,"date":"2015-09-04T18:00:02","date_gmt":"2015-09-04T18:00:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/lincoln\/?page_id=3943"},"modified":"2020-09-16T23:57:11","modified_gmt":"2020-09-16T23:57:11","slug":"chronology-of-powers","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/lincoln\/warpowers\/chronology-of-powers\/","title":{"rendered":"Chronology of Powers"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Lincoln's<\/a>Historical Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

Americans routinely invoke the \u201cseparation of powers\u201d when describing constitutional authority, but that phrase has been misunderstood, particularly in the context of national security. The phrase \u201cseparation of powers\u201d itself never appears in the Constitution. Instead, over the years, we have translated Montesquieu\u2019s great enlightenment principle in ways that political scientist Richard Neustadt famously summarized as \u201cseparated institutions sharing<\/i> powers.\u201d<\/p>\n

This concept of shared (and thus invariably contested) powers certainly seems to describe the evolution of war powers in American history. \u00a0The constitutional text on this issue is just vague enough to allow for plenty of overlap and interpretive conflict. \u00a0The Framers openly debated allowing Congress the power to “make war,” but instead settled on “declare war” in order to give the president flexibility to “repel sudden attacks.” \u00a0They prohibited states from attempting to “engage in war” on their own, but also allowed them discretion\u00a0in cases of invasion or “imminent Danger” to act without federal authorization. \u00a0The commander-in-chief clause and the presidential oath in Article II both\u00a0offer platitudes more than prescriptions for exercising military power.<\/p>\n

Critics of what is now often labeled the \u201cimperial presidency\u201d are thus often\u00a0especially unimpressed by Lincoln\u2019s invocation of broad executive power, or what they dismiss as his appeals to an\u00a0“emergency constitution,” and the inevitable claims of necessity that surrounded his most aggressive actions.\u00a0\u00a0 These have become all-too familiar battlegrounds in the contest over separation of powers issues during a modern age dominated by the growing national security state. But it is important to remember that nineteenth-century America was a much different place with a far weaker government apparatus and that the Civil War was a uniquely dangerous conflict. It is also critical to acknowledge that despite his sweeping claims for executive action, especially for his own\u00a0initiative, Lincoln never envisioned that his wartime decisions would go unchallenged. In other words, Lincoln quite consciously accepted a chronology of powers.<\/p>\n