Advertisement

Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 439–451 | Cite as

The temporalities of exception. The long shadow of the American Civil War

  • Sabine MischnerEmail author
Aufsatz
  • 49 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, it is argued that one should take a closer look at the temporalities the ‘state of exception’. In rhetoric legitimizing a state of exception, it is usually a clean-cut periodization that is implied. I will show that this implicit proposition is fundamentally flawed. As a case study, I analyze the American Civil War during which the extent of presidential war powers has been vigorously tested, setting precedents whose repercussions can still be felt today. First, the focus will be on political actors arguing for exceptional measures by pointing to their temporary nature. Second, the impact of such war measures on the US after the war will be highlighted, as well as the legal problems surrounding the question of how to define the duration of the war. Finally, general conclusions are offered and a contemporary example given which underpins the need to be critical of simple timeframes when it comes to the state of exception.

Die Temporalitäten der Ausnahme. Der lange Schatten des Amerikanischen Bürgerkrieges

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Artikel wird argumentiert, dass die Temporalitäten des ‚Ausnahmezustandes‘ genauerer Untersuchung bedürfen. Rhetorik, die einen Ausnahmezustand legitimiert, geht meist implizit von einer klaren Periodisierung aus. Ich werde zeigen, dass diese implizite Annahme fundamentale Fehler enthält. Als Fallbeispiel wird der Amerikanische Bürgerkrieg analysiert, während dessen die Reichweite der präsidentiellen War Powers ausgetestet wurde. Dadurch wurden Präzedenzfälle geschaffen, die bis heute nachwirken. Erstens wird der Fokus auf politischen Akteuren liegen, die außergewöhnliche Maßnahmen verteidigen und fordern, indem sie sich darauf zurückziehen, dass diese Maßnahmen nur temporär sind. Zweitens wird herausgearbeitet, welche Wirkungen diese Kriegsmaßnahmen nach dem Krieg hatten, genauso wie die juristischen Probleme, die sich aus der Frage ergeben, wie die Länge des Krieges zu definieren ist. Schließlich werden generelle Schlüsse gezogen und ein aktuelles Beispiel herangezogen, welches unterstreicht, wie wichtig es ist, zu einfache Zeitrahmen kritisch zu hinterfragen, wenn es um den Ausnahmezustand geht.

References

  1. Agamben, Giorgio. 2014. Ausnahmezustand. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  2. Appel, Kurt, and Erwin Dirscherl (eds.). 2016. Das Testament der Zeit. Die Apokalyptik und ihre gegenwärtige Rezeption. Freiburg: Herder.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, Jean H. 1995. Lincoln’s narrative of American exceptionalism. In ‘We cannot escape history’. Lincoln and the last best hope of earth, ed. James M. McPherson, 33–44. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bentham, Jeremy. 1952. The handbook of political fallacies. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  5. Berdahl, Clarence A. 1920. War powers of the executive in the United States. University of Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences IX.Google Scholar
  6. Brandwein, Pamela. 1999. Reconstructing Reconstruction. The Supreme Court and the production of historical truth. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, Thomas (ed.). 2006. Reconstructions. New perspectives on the postbellum United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carnahan, Burrus M. 2010. Lincoln on trial. Southern civilians and the law of war. Louisville: University Press of Kentucky.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cimbala, Paul A., and Randall M. Miller (eds.). 2010. The great task remaining before us. Reconstruction as America’s continuing Civil War. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Couderc, Michel. 1981. La bataille parlementaire contre le temps. Revue française de science politique 31:85–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Currie, David P. 1984. The constitution in the Supreme Court. Civil War and Reconstruction, 1865–1873. The University of Chicago Law Review 51:131–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dahlberg, Rasmus, Rubin Olivier, and Morten Thanning Vendelø (eds.). 2016. Disaster research. Multidisciplinary and international perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. David, Steven H. 2013. Ex parte Milligan and the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. A legacy lost. Indiana Magazine of History 109:380–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards, Laura F. 2015. A legal history of the Civil War and Reconstruction. A nation of rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fallon, Richard H. 2004. The dynamic constitution. An introduction to American constitutional law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farber, Daniel A. 2003. Lincoln’s constitution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fisher, Louis. 2003. Nazi saboteurs on trial. A military tribunal and American law. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  18. Fiss, Owen M., and Trevor Sutton. 2015. A war like no other. The constitution in a time of terror. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  19. Foner, Eric. 1988. Reconstruction. America’s unfinished revolution 1863–1877. New York, London: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  20. Goodin, Robert E. 1998. Keeping political time. The rhythms of democracy. International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale de Science Politique 19:39–54.Google Scholar
  21. Habeas Corpus. 2017. Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School June 2017. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus. Accessed 1 Nov 2017.Google Scholar
  22. Hartz, Emily. 2013. From the American Civil War to the war on terror. Three models of emergency law in the United States Supreme Court. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Hartz, Emily, and Rasmus Ugilt. 2011. The problem of emergency in the American Supreme Court. Law and Critique 22:295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Howell, Kenneth W. (ed.). 2012. Still the arena of Civil War. Violence and turmoil in Reconstruction Texas, 1865–1874. Denton: University of North Texas Press.Google Scholar
  25. Howlett, Michael, and Klaus H. Goetz. 2014. Introduction. Time, temporality and timescapes in administration and policy. International Review of Administrative Sciences 80:477–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huysmans, Jef. 2008. The jargon of exception. On Schmitt, Agamben and the absence of political society. International Political Sociology 2:165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ivie, Robert L. 2005. Democracy and America’s war on terror. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jacquin, Jean-Baptiste. 2017. La Ligue des droits de l’homme attaque la loi post-état d’urgence. Le Monde 15/11/2018. https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2017/11/15/la-ligue-des-droits-de-l-homme-attaque-la-loi-post-etat-d-urgence_5215132_3224.html. Accessed 31 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  29. Jacquin, Jean-Baptiste, and Julia Pascual. 2017. Deux ans après, la fin de l’état d’urgence. Le Monde 02/11/2018. https://www.lemonde.fr/police-justice/article/2017/10/31/la-fin-de-l-etat-d-urgence_5208400_1653578.html. Accessed 31 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  30. Jaffa, Harry V. 2000. A new birth of freedom. Abraham Lincoln and the coming of the Civil War. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Johannès, Franck. 2018. Le Conseil constitutionnel censure à nouveau la loi sur l’état d’urgence. Le Monde 12/01/2018. https://www.lemonde.fr/police-justice/article/2018/01/11/le-conseil-constitutionnel-censure-a-nouveau-la-loi-sur-l-etat-d-urgence_5240612_1653578.html. Accessed 31 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  32. Johnson, Andrew. 1866. Proclamation 157. Declaring that peace, order, tranquillity, and civil authority now exists in and throughout the whole of the United States of America, 20/08/1866. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=71992. Accessed 1 Apr 2018.
  33. Johnson, Andrew. 1865. Proclamation May 9th, 1865. New York Times May 10th, 1865: 1.Google Scholar
  34. Kaldor, Mary. 2018. Global security cultures. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kleinerman, Benjamin A. 2009. The discretionary president. The promise and peril of executive power. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  36. Le Monde. 2017. Après l’état d’urgence, ce que prévoit la nouvelle loi antiterroriste. 02/11/2017. https://www.lemonde.fr/police-justice/article/2017/10/31/apres-l-etat-d-urgence-ce-que-prevoit-la-nouvelle-loi-antiterroriste_5208414_1653578.html. Accessed 31 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  37. Le Monde. 2018. Attentats de l’Aude: Laurent Wauquiez réclame le rétablissement de l’état d’urgence. 26/03/2018. https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2018/03/26/laurent-wauquiez-reclame-le-retablissement-de-l-etat-d-urgence-a-la-suite-des-attaques-dans-l-aude_5276470_823448.html. Accessed 31 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  38. Lewis, D., and J. M. Strine. 1986. What time is it? The use of power in four different types of presidential time. Journal of Politics 58:682–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lincoln, Abraham. 1861. First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861. The Avalon Project at Lillian Goldman Law Library (Yale Law School). http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp. Accessed 10 Nov 2016.Google Scholar
  40. Lincoln, Abraham. 1905. Letter to A. G. Hodges, April 4, 1864. In Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, II, ed. John G. Nicolay and John Hay, 508. New York: F. D. Tandy Company.Google Scholar
  41. Linz, Juan J. 1998. Democracy’s time constraints. International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale de Science Politique 19:19–37.Google Scholar
  42. Masur, Louis P. 2015. Lincoln’s last speech. Wartime reconstruction and the crisis of reunion. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. McGinty, Brian. 2008. Lincoln and the court. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McGinty, Brian. 2011. The body of John Merryman. Abraham Lincoln and the suspension of habeas corpus. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McPherson, James M. 1988. Battle cry of freedom. The Civil War era. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. McPherson, James M. 2009. Tried by war. Abraham Lincoln as commander in chief. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  47. Meierhenrich, Jens, and Oliver Simons (eds.). 2016. The Oxford handbook of Carl Schmitt. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Mourtada-Sabbah, Nada, and Bruce E. Cain (eds.). 2007. The political question doctrine and the Supreme Court of the United States. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  49. Murray, Robert Bruce. 2003. Legal cases of the Civil War. Mechanicsburg: Stackpole Books.Google Scholar
  50. Neely, Mark E., Jr. 1991. The fate of liberty. Abraham Lincoln and civil liberties. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Neely, Mark E., Jr. 2011. Lincoln and the triumph of the nation. Constitutional conflict in the American Civil War. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  52. Neff, Stephen C. 2010. Justice in blue and gray. A legal history of the Civil War. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Palonen, Kari. 2008. The politics of limited times. The rhetoric of temporal judgement in parliamentary democracies. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  54. Pascual, Julia. 2017. Les contrôles d’identité et les fouilles de l’état d’urgence déclarés contraires à la Constitution. Le Monde 02/12/2017. https://www.lemonde.fr/police-justice/article/2017/12/01/les-controles-d-identite-et-les-fouilles-de-l-etat-d-urgence-declares-contraires-a-la-constitution_5223038_1653578.html. Accessed 31 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  55. Pfander, James E. 2017. Constitutional torts and the war on terror. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rable, George C. 2010. God’s almost chosen peoples. A religious history of the American Civil War. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  57. Ranney, Joseph A. 2006. In the wake of slavery. Civil War, civil rights and the Reconstruction of southern law. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  58. Rehnquist, William H. 1998. All the laws but one. Civil liberties in wartime. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  59. Rodríguez, Havidán (ed.). 2006. Handbook of disaster research. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Ross, Michael A. 2003. Justice of shattered dreams. Samuel Freeman Miller and the Supreme Court during the Civil War era. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Rossiter, Clinton L. 1948. Constitutional democracy. Crisis government in the modern democracies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Ryan, Allan A. 2015. The 9/11 terror cases. Constitutional challenges in the war against Al Qaeda. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  63. Schedler, Andreas, and Javier Santiso. 1998. Democracy and time. An invitation. International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale de Science Politique 19:5–18.Google Scholar
  64. Schenk, Gerrit Jasper. 2007. Historical disaster research. State of research, concepts, methods and case studies. Historical Social Research 32:9–31. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-291428.Google Scholar
  65. Schmitt, Carl. 1917a. Die Einwirkungen des Kriegszustandes auf das ordentliche strafprozessuale Verfahren. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 38:783–797.Google Scholar
  66. Schmitt, Carl. 1917b. Diktatur und Belagerungszustand. Eine staatsrechtliche Studie. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 38:138–161.Google Scholar
  67. Schmitt, Carl. 1921. Die Diktatur. Von den Anfängen des modernen Souveränitätsgedankens bis zum proletarischen Klassenkampf. Leipzig, München: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  68. Schmitt, Carl. 1922. Politische Theologie. Vier Kapitel zur Lehre von der Souveränität. Leipzig, München: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  69. Schmitter, Philippe C., and Javier Santiso. 1998. Three temporal dimensions to the consolidation of democracy. International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale de Science Politique 19:69–92.Google Scholar
  70. Simon, James F. 2006. Lincoln and chief justice Taney. Slavery, secession, and the president’s war powers. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  71. Smith, John David (ed.). 2016. Reconstruction. Kent: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Sumner, Charles. 1874. The proclamation of emancipation. Its policy and necessity as a war measure for the suppression of the rebellion (speech in boston, Oct. 6, 1862). In The works of Charles Sumner, VII, 217–236. Boston: Lee & Shepard.Google Scholar
  73. White, Jonathan W. 2011. Abraham Lincoln and treason in the Civil War. The trials of John Merryman. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Winterman, Denise. 2008. Why is Alistair Darling quoting Guy Fawkes? BBC News Magazine 26.11.2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7747759.stm. Accessed 1 Apr 2018.Google Scholar
  75. Wolfe, Wojtek Mackiewicz. 2008. Winning the war of words. Selling the war on terror from Afghanistan to Iraq. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  76. Woodworth, Steven E. 2010. Manifest destinies. America’s westward expansion and the road to the Civil War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  77. Wormuth, Francis D., et al. 1986. To chain the dog of war. The war power of congress in history and law. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Historisches SeminarAlbert-Ludwigs-UniversitätFreiburg i. Br.Germany

Personalised recommendations