#1: James Randall, "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln" -- 1926 (Revisionist School)
#2: Clinton Rossiter, "Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies" -- 1948 (Revisionist)
#3: Edmund Wilson, "Patriotic Gore: studies in the literature of the American Civil War" -- 1962 (literature, Lost Causer)
>>BroJoeK wrote: "With help from these scholars, Kalamata claims that Lincoln was a dictator and tyrant."
Ignorance is bliss:
"We northerners like to read about Lincoln the martyr and the dying god, but do we want to know about Lincoln the dictator who circumvented the Constitution to wage war on the South? His best generals would have a difficult time avoiding conviction by a war crimes tribunal according to the laws of war at that time for their plunder of Southern civilization. Would such a treatise find favor with the dyed-in-the-wool northern apologists who don't want to see any tarnish on the northern assault and conquest of the South? Is America ready for that kind of insight and history? I think so. I for one, as a northerner educated in sanitized Civil War history, find a more truthful account of that war as refreshing as our honest accounts of Vietnam."
[Charles W. Adams, "When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession." Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, p.3]
Joey has never read either of the three books he listed; but he knows he doesn't like them because the authors do not kiss Lincoln's behind 100% of the time.
Joey's posts are always deceitful. This is more from Adams on Lincoln the dictator:
"There are other similarities between Caesar 's story and that of Lincoln. Both held command of the military. Both suspended civilian authority. Both had indeed ridden roughshod over their respective constitutions. Both set up military rule and dictatorship. Both intimidated the civil authorities and tossed the constitution out the window in the interest of public safety. Both were assassinated as tyrants..."
"After the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln assumed dictatorial powers. He circumvented his constitutional duty to call Congress in times of emergency by delaying the meeting for almost three months. In the meantime, he made the decisions, which, according to the Constitution, the Congress should have made. The first thing he did was to call out the militia from the states to put down what he said was an insurrection in the South. Even assuming this to be true, it is the duty of Congress to make such a decision according to Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: "The Congress shall have the power... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppressing Insurrections and repel Invasions."
"Lincoln, through his secretary of state, called out the militia of twenty-four states, using as authority a 1795 act of Congress that gave the president authority to do so, providing that the authority would cease thirty days after the beginning of the next session of Congress. In other words, it was a temporary measure in the case of an emergency, to be ruled on by Congress as the Constitution requires. With the craft of an attorney, Lincoln delayed calling Congress for almost three months, in effect giving him four months to operate his military forces without any determination by the Congress. By then, he had the war in full operation, and the Congress could do little else than sanction his caesarian acts. Six of the governors saw through this subterfuge, refused his call for troops, and rebuked his constitutional gamesmanship…"
"If Lincoln had respected the provision in the Constitution that puts the power of calling out the militia with the Congress and not the president on his own, who knows what would have happened? The border states that joined the Confederacy after Lincoln 's call for troops would have had a voice in the Congressional debate that would have followed. War may have been averted, for it seems clear that an abundance of the people in both the North and South did not want war but a peaceful solution to the crisis."
"Under the Constitution, it is the duty of the president to call the Congress into session during "extraordinary occasions." Sumter, like Pearl Harbor, was such an occasion. Why didn 't Lincoln follow the commands of the Constitution and call the Congress forthwith? Why did he, on 15 April 1861, call Congress to meet almost three months later in July? And then only after he had driven the nation headlong into war? Obviously, he did not want Congress to get involved-did not want the Constitution to get involved. Lincoln was assuming all the powers of a dictator." [Ibid. pp.36-37]
Joey has never read either of the three books he listed; but he knows he doesn't like them because the authors do not kiss Lincoln's sorry behind 100% of the time.
Mr. Kalamata
Reminds me of this.
October 23, 1787
"Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly."
https://thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-29
Great foresight they had.