Not a Lincoln-hater, but I didn't like some things he did. He took liberties with the Constitution that put him in league with the biggest of the big-government Presidents we've ever had.
On the other hand, he did preserve the union. I might have done differently than Lincoln, but at what cost? The States divided might have been ripe for the picking by a foreign power like Russia, France or Britain. We might now again be British colonists, but for Lincoln.
King Obama, King George, what is the difference?
We need to push the refresh button.
It has been wisely said that while the Constitution was designed to handle an enormous range of issues, it was not designed to handle a civil war.
That is, of course, why the Founders allowed for suspension of civil liberties in cases of insurrection or invasion. It is notable that this is permitted by simple majority vote of Congress. The courts cannot overrule it.
I have never quite understood those who claim that no emergency justifies suspension of liberties. If liberties are suspended and the body politic survives, then there is at least the possibility of reviving them.
If the body politic is permanently destroyed, so are the liberties it was designed to protect.
This is well shown by the original Roman institution of the dictatorship. In extreme existential emergency the Senate appointed a dictator to exercise all functions of the state for a limited period. When this period was over he reverted to ordinary status.
But the Romans were wise enough to see that limited short-term loss of liberty is better than its permanent loss.
The USA has of course never been in this type of crisis, though the Civil War is the closest we've come. When compared to any other great civil war, ours had fewer atrocities and suspension of liberties. That's the logical comparison, not to time of peace.
Russia was probably the reason why France and Britain did not intervene on the South’s side during the American Civil War, Alexander III was a liberal tsar who emancipated the serfs in Russia and he was smarting for revenge over the Crimean defeat a few years before, he was extremely pro-American and authorised the sale of Alaska a few years later...
“the States divided might have been ripe for the picking by a foreign power like Russia, France or Britain. We might now again be British colonists, but for Lincoln.”
You don’t hear that one all too often. Usually it’s more about how the North and South would’ve fought eachother over the West, though it’s never been explained to me why a fight sooner was better than later. Anyway, they were busy enough at the time. They prefered countries less able to fight back.
Remember Lincoln’s speech to the Young Men’s Lyceum, and remember we were still buffeted by the two oceans and cradled by the vastness of our continent. Us being one country instead of two was never alone the reason Europe stopped trying to conquer us after 1812 or so. Because they could’ve done it nonetheless, bygum. The major reason they didn’t in 1812, I should think, is due to us being but a sideshow in the war on Napoleon.
The North and South could take on comers seperately or together. Why couldn’t we have been allies, if not fellow countrymen, after the break? We had no trouble licking the Mother Country’s boots for two world wars, nor making them lick our boots afterwards. And that was after the humiliating for them War for Independence.
“They prefered countries less able to fight back.”
That is, until went crazy and attacked eachother.