Replies

In the American context, we have the example of Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt trampling on the rights of over 100,000 Japanese-American civilians. The US Supreme Court, many years later, ruled it to have been unlawful, but at the time FDR's actions were justified as a necessity of war.

Didn't they rule Lincoln's actions were justified as a necessity of war? Funny how that works. You win, the Courts back you up. :)

That is the proper context to view any of Lincoln's alleged "trampling", none of which was ever officially rebuked by either Congress or the Supreme Court.

When a President kills 600,000 people, you got to be a pretty gutsy court or congressman to call his action's into question. Wasn't he thinking of arresting Justice Taney?

DiogenesLamp: "Didn't they rule Lincoln's actions were justified as a necessity of war?
Funny how that works.
You win, the Courts back you up. :) "

Years after the Second World War, the US Supreme court ruled Roosevelt's actions regarding 100,000+ Japanese Americans to have been unlawful, and Congress awarded them official apologies along with monetary reparations.

By stark contrast, no court ever ruled against Lincoln's Civil War actions, and Congress never paid reparations, except to Southern Unionists who lost property defending the Union.

DiogenesLamp: "Wasn't he thinking of arresting Justice Taney?"

Chief Justice Taney was a tool of the Slave Power, chief author of the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, and deeply opposed to "Black Republicans" like "Ape" Lincoln.
But in the 1860s, Taney no longer spoke for a majority of the Court.
Reports of Taney's arrest were greatly exaggerated.