Is the United States still under Lincoln's martial law?

Some believe Abraham Lincoln's martial law from the American Civil War is still in effect.

Hostilities technically ended about a month after Lincoln's assassination, with a proclamation made by new President Johnson on May 10, 1865.

armed resistance to the authority of this Government in the said insurrectionary States may be regarded as virtually at an end

On April 2, 1866, another proclamation declared the insurrection at an end in all States but Texas.

there now exists no organized armed resistance of misguided citizens or others to the authority of the United States in the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida, and the laws can be sustained and enforced therein by the proper civil authority

On Aug 20, 1866, a third proclamation confirmed that civil government was officially resumed in all states that had seceded from the Union.

I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at an end and that peace, order, tranquillity, and civil authority now exist in and throughout the whole of the United States of America.

Ergo, Lincoln's martial law can confidently be said to be no longer in effect.

Sources: Bartleby, The American Presidency Project

  • pgbiener

    Except for a Presidential proclamation is only effective if Congress agrees and Andrew Johnsons congress was the first in a long line of corrupt bodies that sold us all out to the world bankers and globalists. Speaking of Presidential orders, Obama declared war on the people of the US in 2012 so though I could say 'close but no cigar, you're not even close enough for that, I am done with you. Message left in honor of Trent Goodbaudy, we're everywhere and you cannot ban us all for speaking the truth!!

    • pseudolaw.com

      Hi pgbiener, I have no intention of banning people for speaking their mind or challenging my statements. Please note that all I claimed (or rather, deduced) was that Lincoln's martial law had ended, so Obama has nothing to do with it. Also, as far as I know, the government accepts Johnson's executive proclamations declaring the resumption of civil government in all States and what Congress did back then. I trust you are aware that judging such things as valid or invalid is not for us as individuals but the Supreme Court in accordance with Article III of the Constitution. If you have any evidence that the Supreme Court struck down the proclamations or Congress' approval thereof please post it. Thanks for your comments!

      • massagrabber

        pseudolaw.com
        don't need to strike down a proclamation as it isn't law only a statement of intent.
        Provide proof that the declaration was made into law, as anything else is without the full force of law.
        A promulgation; the official announcement of a new law or ordinance whereby the law or ordinance is put into effect

        • pseudolaw.com

          You don't seem to be the first with such concerns. Here's an interesting article: http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/abraham-lincoln-and-civil-liberties-in-wartime

          • massagrabber

            There is no comfort reading of a rogue president considered as infallible as a papal bull by selected historians or some other. False flags has loomed large over USA causing what is perceived a bastion of freedom to have had great chinks in its foundation. They are then exploited for financial profit even from the earliest times. Fault ridden rifles sold to the Union by Morgan (Rothschild agent) would have meant defeat if not for the misplaced trust of Robert E Lee at the gates of the capital. If he forged on the entire history of the US would be considerably more interesting. Perhaps no congressional hearing with Smedley Butler or underhanded manipulations creating a Federal Reserve. No altruism survived that McCormack-Dickstein Committee of 1933
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

          • pseudolaw.com

            Well, I don't see a cure for your concerns, considering how long ago it was and how the current generation has acquiesced to the events. Onward, forward, no?

          • massagrabber

            I think that the technocratic pseudo science used to embalm American brains was foundational to the situation/distress pervading humanity. Pavlov, Skinner, Kinsey and Milgram provided touchstones to the rate of progress ingrained. John Taylor Gatto speaks at length to our debilitation. Human beings have predators.
            They have been so trusting and foolish in doing so.

    • Ken S.

      The congressional act authorizing the suspension made it applicable only "during the present rebellion," which I know has been referred to as a concluded event by both the Executive and the Supreme Court consistently since the 1860s. I'm not aware of any specific references by Congress, but I expect they're scattered around. You'll need to present some evidence to back up that assertion about Obama, though. Especially if that theory centers around chemtrails, Level 8 beings, and the Diamond Authority from the Andromeda galaxy.

  • Jason Parsons

    Why are you such a freedom hating liar? Everything you say is spin. You like to pick and choose the information to further your anti-American cause but refute anything, even founding documents and case law written in plain English, when it doesn't further your agenda. You can't just pay attention to what you want to see and throw the rest away. Law doesn't change because you omit or deny facts..

    Lawyers are legal liars people. If you learn the truth they lose their job. The entire corrupt corporate legal system depends on you believing these lies. We are meant to be free. Don't let them take freedom from us.

    • pseudolaw.com

      Care to rebut something or make an argument supported by facts, or are you just here to throw a tantrum?

      • Jason Parsons

        I'm not going to amuse you by reinventing the wheel. The information is already out there. I'm just here to make sure people don't blindly follow your misinformation. I don't want them to believe you or I either one at face value. They need to learn things for themselves. My problem with you is you are trying to stop them from learning the truth.

        • pseudolaw.com

          So let them learn for themselves. Do you have any comments about Lincoln's martial law from the civil war (the article)?

          • Jason Parsons

            No, I read your whole site looking for something true and not spun out of context. This article was the last thing I had to read so, when I finished it, I left my comment here.

            Hopefully someday you will quit hating freedom.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Hopefully someday you realize the untenability of anarchy. PS The point of this site is not to express an opinion for or against government, but to analyze and understand the application of lawful force in the world today.

          • Jason Parsons

            If that is the case quit lying to further a deceptive political agenda.

            I've said my peace and have only tried to convince everyone to check for themselves. You people on the other hand seem hell bent on proving yourselves right. I think each of our motives are clear. You pursue an agenda and I just care about people and want them to be free.

          • pseudolaw.com

            The burden of proof is on the claimant. What did I lie about? I claimed Lincoln's martial law had ended throughout the US. I linked to presidential proclamations supporting the claim. If you can rebut that, please do so. If not, take it elsewhere. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisee_and_the_Publican

          • GerryL

            "I've said my peace"
            ——————————————-
            I have a real problem accepting anything from a functionally illiterate person. Learn to write before you argue for or against anything. Why is it that so many of these sovereigns hare that same illiteracy. Education?

        • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

          The information that's out there unequivocally refutes you. If you want to argue otherwise, it's going to take some evidence. You're only leaving the research as an exercise for the reader because you know that we can, have, and will continue to tear every one of your bogus pseudolegal claims to ribbons.

          • Jason Parsons

            Oh look, another lawyer. You know, there's a reason you people are often compared to car salesmen. They lie for a living too.

            I'm not here to convince people you are wrong. I am here to promote they find that out for themselves. I know the idea of people discovering your fraud frightens you to panic and you desperately want to argue with me hoping you might be able to exploit something I say and spin it to further your agenda but you will have no such luck today.

          • pseudolaw.com

            Is this because I forgot the disclaimer at the bottom that says "question this, think for yourself" like I have on my other articles? The truth doesn't fear being questioned. So ask some questions or make a rebuttal. No-one's stopping you.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            I'm not a lawyer, I just debunk y'all as a hobby. I'm very happy when people look at the text, learn about it, and reach the correct conclusions about what it means. That's why my comments go directly to the text so often. ๐Ÿ™‚

  • Forrest Taylor

    Why are you such a freedom hating liar? Don't you realize that freedom can only be protected by claiming that this country is run by a military without any functioning rule of law? All great Americans know that there is no core value in this country more important than not having to wait in line at the DMV or being allowed to drive real fast if you feel like it

    • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

      Robert E. Lee did not die upon the cross so that people had to demonstrate competence before flinging two tons of steel around in public at 70 mph!! Tell these shills like it is, Forrest!!!

  • Illegible

    The military authority was made into a civilian authority. All wars have victors and losers, and the American Civil War was a political revolution fought on the open battlefield.

    for better and worse, things did not return to antebellum conditions nor could they. Why is the flag now bearing a military gold fringe? There any denying that life has gotten more controlled more regulated and more militarized over the years since then? Maybe this is a function of technology and industrialization, but its still a fact. A fact that includes a much stronger central goverment, military drafts, countless taxes and ordinace, and after many following and equally revolutionary wars, today an America in many ways opposite to the foundation.

    • pseudolaw.com

      "Jurisdiction is a matter of law, statute, and constitution, not a childโ€™s game wherein oneโ€™s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman." http://archive.adl.org/mwd/suss4.html#fringe

    • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

      Why is the flag now bearing a military gold fringe?

      It isn't.

  • D Kidd

    We are still under Martial Law because only an armistice took place, not a peace treaty.

    • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

      How could there be a peace treaty if it was a cornerstone of the Union position that the Confederate States of America were essentially organized American criminals, not a genuine sovereign state? Lincoln would not have accepted a peace treaty that recognized the CSA as a sovereign country. Texas v. White and other federal sources show that the United States consider the end of the Civil War as the end of a major criminal rebellion, not the end of a war between two independent countries with the power to sign treaties.

      • D Kidd

        If the Civil war was just a bunch of criminals and not a sovereign state, then why would congress turn D.C. into a corporation in 1878 under Article 1 section 8 clause 17? Prior to the Civil war, the south was acting in its own best interests which infuriated the North….the South was exercising its States' rights as a sovereign nation; The Civil war was about states' rights…

        The constitution set-up the states as a Federation of nation states with sovereign power. You better believe the Government recognized the South as a sovereign power….that's what started the Civil war….Can you say secede? Brexit is the beginning of the succession movement here in the Republic…get ready, Ken, it's coming to a State near you….and you can't stop it.

        • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

          If the Civil war was just a bunch of criminals and not a sovereign state, then why would congress turn D.C. into a corporation in 1878 under Article 1 section 8 clause 17?

          The reorganization of DC had nothing to do with the Civil War. I disagree with a lot of the decisions made during and after the war, but legally, the USA never recognized the CSA as an independent country with the authority to enter into treaties. From the beginning, it was categorized as a "rebellion" that couldn't stand on an equal footing with the USA diplomatically. While some in the Union urged recognition of the CSA, the USA never did recognize the validity of secession or the independence of the Confederacy. All that was required for the "rebellion" to end was the defeat of the Confederate military. The formal surrenders of the various armies were accepted out of convenience and courtesy, not because the USA needed the CSA's formal agreement to end the war.

          • D Kidd

            The reorganization of D.C. as a corporation had everything to do with the Civil War just like the EU had everything to do with WW11. Your argument that the South was a rouge territory is false….you are saying the South was a territory. The South was part of the Union which means it had power to be sovereign just like the North had power to be sovereign. The problem was that the South was economically independent from the North and gaining power as a result of not paying taxes. Lincoln wanted a 40% tax on imports to the Southern states under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861. Lincoln said " I have no purpose, directly or in-directly,to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists in the united states….I believe I have no lawful right to do so." The statement that he felt he ad no lawful right strongly suggests that the South was recognized as independent to do as it wished.

            Today , we are seeing this same thing play out. We as a people in our federation of nation states will not be taxed to death at the hands of a corrupt Corporation. The South felt the same way. The world is starting to see what the South was seeing….a rouge Government headed by the UN and the EU that taxes the people without representation. So, yes, the reorganization of D.C. into a corporation was to control the rest of the Nation States by taking their power away by taxation without representation to the people.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            You've asserted that the reorganizing of DC was related to the Civil War, but you provide no evidence or argument in support of that position. I won't waste time trying to prove a negative.

            The statement that he felt he ad no lawful right strongly suggests that the South was recognized as independent to do as it wished.

            This was prior to the 13th Amendment. At that time, each individual state had the power to allow or prohibit slavery, and the federal government had no power to forbid it. The statement shows recognition of state powers, not recognition of the Confederate States of America as a separate, sovereign government. The United States never did and never have officially recognized the validity of the southern states' secession. I'm no fan of Lincoln or the way he prosecuted his war, but your argument that the a United States are still under martial law don't stand up to examination.

          • D Kidd

            lol…You never answer anything with regard to the corporation in D.C. and the EU after WW11…..both are one in the same and came into existence after wars to control their respective countries through taxation and policy….can you say anti-Federalists.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            What? The incorporation of the District of Columbia is not the same thing as the formation of the European Union. The 1871 Act dissolved the separate municipalities that existed in the District before, and established a single government for the entire District. The word "incorporation" in this context refers to the establishment of a governmental entity in a geographic area, not some shady for-profit deal. Nothing in that act changed the structure of the federal government or the relationship between the federal government and the states. All it did was roll Georgetown and other towns into a single District government.

          • D Kidd

            We the people have nothing to do with that Corporation….show me where we the people consented to be part of the corporation. Show me where we consented??? The EU was set -up to hopefully end war….like WW11. The corporation was set-up to to do the same thing. The problem was that they used fraud and deceit to make the people part of the corporation….we did not consent knowingly to this and we want our sovereignty back. The domino effect of succession will prevail in this country just like in Europe….the Corporation will be destroyed and the federation of nation states will be restored to make their own policies that the people choose….not the corrupt corporation, inc. Good-bye corporate Government and hello States' right s with power to the people to choose our own destiny…..we don't need a corrupt Government taxing us and telling us what to do….the destruction of this corrupt Government is happening right in front of your eyes and you refuse to see it….that's fine. You will have no choice….the end of the UNITED STATES, INC is dying. The federation of nation states will be born. The end of the Federalists has already begun….We do not consent to this foreign enemy in Washington. If you want to read more on this, go read Anna Von Reitz….a U.S Judge who will tell you want time it is.

            ….what are you going to do when Trump takes office? He is for destroying Washington D.C. just like Jackson did. The Civil War was about sovereignty to the States; The South is rising again and the rest of the States will follow their exit with TEXIT.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Yes, most Americans don't have anything to do with the local government of the District of Columbia. The rest of your post is rambling nonsense that relies on completely false premises like confusing the corporate nature of a government with a for-profit business incorporated by a government, or confusing Ms. Reitz with an actual judge. Literally, without exaggeration, her entire list of qualifications consists of "I decided to call myself a judge."

          • D Kidd

            Yes. Anna Von Reitz is a judge according to common law. She and a few others operate as common law Judges of the land. She's operating an actual Public law court required by amendment V11 as part of the American Common Law Continental court system that predates all Federal and territorial courts by 200 years. She' s not a judge of the corporation…She's not a member of the bar association because no member of the bar can operate jurisdiction over the land.
            All bar association members owe their allegiance to a foreign Government and are here by treaty….see Bar association treaty of 1947. They are precluded from holding any Public office by the constitution…..read it and weep.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            …wow. You have no idea what common law is, you have no idea what bar associations are, and I can't find any credible, non-kook source for this supposed "treaty" by a particular voluntary organization. Not that any of this conspiracy diarrhea is relevant to the article — the United States are not under Lincoln's martial law, and your arguments claiming otherwise are laughable.

          • D Kidd

            You haven't proved any of what I said as being wrong…You simply say that it is without proof….that's laughable.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            I can't reason you out of delusions you didn't reason yourself into. I also can't explain imaginary numbers to somebody who knows for a fact that there are no such things as negative numbers.

          • D Kidd

            Again….your distractions to the facts will not work…..you've proven nothing.

          • GerryL

            Sorry, my friend. You haven't a clue what common law is or what that term means.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Also, you realize that the state governments are and have always been corporate, right? The government of the United Kingdom is corporate, city governments are corporate, and so on. The government of Texas is corporate.

          • Steve Anderson

            As planned because of the commie infestation. States rights and President Trump will make us whole 1933 bankrupt all over no more. We are collateral!

            I am lost at sea and loosing my wallet to float…

          • James Everett

            The CSA was never an "Independent Country" they were Independent States united in a Confederacy. Further it is not the charge that a foreign government recognize a government existing at the will of the people thereof, deriving its just powers from the consent of the people thereof. Do you deny this simple self evident truth expressed in our Declaration of Independence? When I say "OUR" Declaration of Independence I mean the Southern States as the true rightful heirs to that Declaration, as the occupying Yankee Government has denied those self evident truths by their actions against our Southern Confederate States of America.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that the United States never recognized the CSA or the secession of its member states. That's why there's no treaty.

          • Lord Walker El

            +If the Civil war was just a bunch of criminals and not a sovereign state, then why would congress turn D.C. into a corporation in 1878 under Article 1 section 8 clause 17?

            The reason this happened was because the lawful government was overthrown and everyone was made slaves!!! aka the real meaning of emancipation!!! The passing over of property!!!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Huh? Are you another one of the "SECRET CONSTITUTION!! CORPORATIONS!! COMMON LAW!! DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!" nutjobs?

          • pseudolaw.com

            To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; (Source)

            It was the federal creation of a new state-like government, and it was created with the voluntary consent of the States, not by conquest.

      • James Everett

        The governments of the Southern Confederate States were in place before each of their ordinances of secession were made, therefore they were recognized as legitimate governments. Further the Confederate States were accepted as foreign States and governments by the occupying governments congresses requirement that they ratify the 13th amendment before being allowed to "Re- enter the "union". Either they were out of the "union" or not, one cannot say they were not recognized as Sovereign Nation/States, united in a Confederacy outside the union, if indeed they were required "Re-admittance". The FACT is that our Southern State governments were forced into a state of exile and replaced by the Yankee occupiers political puppet institutions under "new" State CONstitutions wherein no Confederates or Confederate sympathizers were allowed participation, therefore these are unlawful imposed institutions, indicating the beginnings of the occupation.

        • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

          The United States required re-admission because, in the view of the United States, the seceded states' legitimate governments had been interrupted by a criminal rebellion and had to be reestablished. The United States view the secessions as periods of interrupted government, not of foreign (i.e., Confederate) government.

          Your political opinions aside, the United States consider "the present rebellion" referred to in the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act to be over, and that Act no longer in force. No signed treaty is necessary, nor would Lincoln have signed one.

  • EARL SERIO

    andrew johnsons proclamation 146, july 1864, declared an end to martial law in kentucky. presidential proclamations do not have force of law unless authorized by congress. proclamations are merely an issued statement on public policy. after searching congressional acts, authorizations, nothing found. moreover, johnson faced impeechment during reconstruction from general staff for inconsistancies in opinion of military tribunals assosiated with military powers of martial law. on the surface, as of 1868, martial law was imposed at some form, in some jurisdictions. in addition, in what year were federal courts operating in the southern states? martial law would be needed until buisiness as usual was restored throughout the states.
    i have google searched, 'when did lincolns martial law end', 'what potus', ect., even wikipediahas no results. checked presidential library site, constitution site, nothing.
    I find it hard to believe, a perpetual state of martial law exists in USA currently. after exhaustive searches, I would like to hear a SCOTUS opinion now. SCOTUS, in 1868 stated Linclons 1861 declaration was illegal and unconstitutional, until congress in 1863 authorized martial law. Nothing after these dates officially declaring an authorized end to martial law in whole.
    Is there a congressional authorization that you have found since a presidential proclamation on its own is merely a public statement. You mentioned you are confident, I would like to be confident as well, and argue this to those who believe this martial law declaration still affects us all today.
    Thank you for the platform to find truth online.

    • pseudolaw.com

      Hi, thanks for your comment. Great observations. Upon further investigation, see e.g. this article and this article, it becomes more clear. Congress can either pre-authorize martial law or the president can make a non-binding declaration that may or may not be ratified by Congress. Martial law displaces civil law, and vice versa. Where the civil courts are operational martial law cannot be lawfully imposed or maintained. So it would seem Lincoln's martial law may have simply "expired naturally" by the resumption of civil authority and not by the authority (or non-authority) of President Johnson's proclamations. I may have to update the article. Well done. ๐Ÿ™‚

      Also note Ken's comment here, which I haven't verified yet:

      "The congressional act authorizing the suspension made it applicable only "during the present rebellion"

      • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

        Here's the Act authorizing the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus: http://legisworks.org/sal/12/stats/STATUTE-12-Pg755.pdf

        • Lord Walker El

          LMFAO No one, I repeat, NO ONE can suspend Habeas Corpus not even a natural disaster would stop the Constitution from being enforced. Or so says the United Nations and many other International Treaties!!!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            1) The U.S. Constitution specifically stated that the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended.
            2) The United Nations Organization is not sovereign over the United States, and has no lawmaking authority over us.
            3) Can you cite a single treaty that supercedes Article I of the U.S. Constitution?