central_va: "Lincoln was not the President of 11 states during the period of 1861-1865.
Historically I do not consider him my president, just the dictatorial fuhrer of the enemies of the Confederacy."
afsnco: "In terms of creating our monstrous federal government, I consider Lincoln on the same level as FDR, LBJ and Obama."
The first key point to remember here is that Americans in 1860 were not constitutional dummies.
They well knew what the constitution allows a President during times of rebellion and war, and whenever there was a serious question in their minds (i.e., habeas corpus), Congress took it up and voted to support Lincoln.
At no point did Congress censor Lincoln's actions.
Yes, the US Supreme Court, under pro-slavery chief justice Roger Tanney, did rebuke Lincoln's use of habeas corpus authority, but only so long as Congress had not approved it, which Congress in due time did.
A second key point to remember is that Lincoln's government in 1861 was vastly closer in size & scope to that of George Washington than to any of our modern "liberal/progressive" administrations -- i.e., FDR, LBJ & Obama.
To cite some examples:
No, after the Civil War, the government had huge debts to pay off, and so it took about 20 years (1888) before federal spending again fell to 2.3% of GDP.
It remained at those levels even under allegedly "progressive" Republicans Teddy Roosevelt and Howard Taft.
Government only began inexorable growth under Southern-Democrat President Woodrow Wilson (1915), after passage of Southern-supported 16th and 17th Ammendments.
Those are historical facts.
Sorry if they don't fit the anti-Lincoln narrative.
Obama's peak spending year was 2011, at 25.3% of US GDP.
Of that, only 20% was for defense, meaning that in 2011 80% of federal spending was for non-defense programs.
US defense spending fell from:
Great post. BTTT
It wasn't even the Supreme Court... it was Justice Taney alone acting as a circuit court judge in his ruling in ex part Merryman.
The full court never ruled one way or another on the case and even today it is an open question if the exectutive has the power to invoke Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.
I suspect your 1861 expenditure numbers are actually for 1860.
Spending accelerated greatly, as always, once the war started. The 9 months of war during 1861 would have blown that percentage all to pieces.
In raw numbers, it’s always wise to remember the entire federal expenditure in 1860 was $60M. With the most tyrannical intentions in the world, that just won’t buy much of a dictatorship, even with 1860 dollars.
Righto.
The President takes an oath to " preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Military officers take an oath to defend the Constitution against "enemies foreign and domestic."
The Founders knew well that domestic enemies would likely arise. They provided for temporary suspension of civil rights as necessary to defend the government set up by the Constitution.
To get a good look at what the Founders themselves thought about what was necessary to do to win a civil war, take a look at how they themselves dealt with Tories. Habeas corpus and civil rights did not play a large part in how Tories were handled. Which gives one no reason to assume they would have been appalled by Lincoln's considerably more limited actions against pro-secessionists.
They might very well have thought Lincoln should have allowed the seceding states to leave peacefully, but they would not have been shocked by his methods of making war or dealing with dissenters.
Facts and logic - two things the numbnutted Wannabe Confederates can’t stand.