Joey cannot let a day pass without cluttering up a thread with sanctimonious foolishness.
*************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Lincoln was far from a tyrant. He, and the 37th congress, were exercising their constitutional powers to suppress the largest insurrection in the countries history."
>>Joey wrote: "Anyone can call anyone a "tyrant", the word is meaningless by itself."
True. To become a bonafide tyrant, you must usurp power from the people, like Lincoln did (feverishly.) Even devout Lincoln apologists, like the late Cornell History Professor, Clinton Rossiter, admit to that historical fact:
"Thus it was that the American government in 1861, brought face to face with the most exacting crisis this country has ever known, had no precedent in its history for emergency rule on a national scale, and no authority in the Constitution to exert extraordinary force in an extraordinary manner except in the inchoate and ill-defined powers of the President. How Abraham Lincoln resorted to those powers and met the rebellion is the most significant chapter in the story of constitutional dictatorship in the United States, and indeed a unique instance in the history of this age-old phenomenon of constitutional government… The four years of the Civil War remain even today the most critical in the life of the Republic. The principle and the institutions of constitutional dictatorship played a decisive role in the North's successful effort to maintain the Union by force of arms… The simple fact that one man was the government of the United States in the most critical period in all its 165 years, and that he acted on no precedent and under no restraint, makes this the paragon of all democratic, constitutional dictatorships. For if Lincoln was a great dictator, he was a greater democrat… This amazing disregard for the words of the Constitution, though considered by many as unavoidable, was considered by nobody as legal."
[Rossiter, Clinton, "Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies." Princeton University Press, 1948, pp.222-224, 226]
*************
>>Joey wrote: "So the apt comparison in this case is Lincoln to Jefferson Davis -- did Lincoln the "tyrant" take any actions which Davis the... uh, "patriot" didn't also take? Answer: other than winning the war, none I can think of."
Joey has a difficult time staying on topic, which is, "was Lincoln a tyrant?" This is also from a Lincoln apologist:
"Yet, in comparison with the Confederacy, the Union government did curtail civil liberties. As soon as the fighting started, President Lincoln, without delaying to consult Congress, suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, at first for a small area in the East, later for the entire nation. At a subsequent date he reported his fait accompli to Congress: "These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon, under what appeared to be a popular demand, and a popular necessity; trusting then, as now that Congress would readily ratify them." Congress had little choice but to ratify, and the disloyal citizen no alternative but to acquiesce. At least 15,000 civilians were imprisoned in the North for alleged disloyalty or sedition. They were arrested upon a presidential warrant and were kept incarcerated without due process of law. It did the disaffected citizen no good to go to court for a writ of habeas corpus to end his arbitrary arrest. On orders from President Lincoln himself, the military guard imprisoning him refused to recognize a judicial writ even when it came from Chief Justice Roger B. Taney."
[Donald, David Herbert, "Why the North Won the Civil War." Collier Books, 1962, pp.86-87]
No where in the constitution, the constitutional convention debates, supreme court rulings -- no where is power authorized to the executive to suspend habeas corpus. It is far to dangerous a power to give to a single individual, as about a million people later found out -- those who were killed or had their lives destroyed in Lincoln's War.
So, was Lincoln a tyrant? The crystal clear answer is, YES!
Mr. Kalamata
Kalamata:
"Joey cannot let a day pass without cluttering up a thread with sanctimonious foolishness." Typical Democrat, accuses his opponent of the very thing he's most guilty of.
In Kalamata's case, his term "Biblical science" pretty much defines "sanctimony".
Kalamata: "Even devout Lincoln apologists, like the late Cornell History Professor, Clinton Rossiter, admit to that historical fact:" {quoting Rossiter, 1948}
"For if Lincoln was a great dictator, he was a greater democrat… This amazing disregard for the words of the Constitution, though considered by many as unavoidable, was considered by nobody as legal."
I'd call that complete 100% bunk, just lunatics babbling nonsense.
In fact Lincoln followed laws (i.e, the 1807 Insurrection Act), precedent (military opposition to the Whiskey Rebellion), and the Constitution (revoking Habeas Corpus) wherever he could.
And Congress at the time reviewed and approved any actions said to be controversial.
What the good Cornell Democrat professor is really doing here is simply trying to use Lincoln's example to help justify his own party's power-grabs before and during the Second World War.
Kalamata: "Joey has a difficult time staying on topic, which is, "was Lincoln a tyrant?"
This is also from a Lincoln apologist:"
Right, like other pro-Confederates Olive-boy wants to claim, "it doesn't matter what good-Davis did, it only matters what evil-Lincoln did."
The fact is that our Lost Causers are tickled & delighted to accept the beams in their own eyes if they can just search out a little splinter in evil-Lincoln's.
Sorry, but that level of loathing is just pathological.
Kalamata: quoting "[Donald, David Herbert, "Why the North Won the Civil War." Collier Books, 1962, pp.86-87]"
"At least 15,000 civilians were imprisoned in the North for alleged disloyalty or sedition."
What this 1962 author doesn't acknowledge in Olive-boy's quote is that Jefferson Davis arrested an equal number of Southerners, and also held them without Habeas Corpus.
He also does not acknowledge that Lincoln's use of the Constitution's Habeas Corpus clause began while Congress was out of session, and that Congress took up the issue when it came back a few weeks later.
After much debate, Congress authorized what Lincoln was doing.
Kalamata: "No where in the constitution, the constitutional convention debates, supreme court rulings -- no where is power authorized to the executive to suspend habeas corpus.
It is far to dangerous a power to give to a single individual, as about a million people later found out -- those who were killed or had their lives destroyed in Lincoln's War.
So, was Lincoln a tyrant?
The crystal clear answer is, YES!"
In fact the US Constitution (and the Confederate constitution) does authorize restricting Habeas Corpus under exactly the conditions Lincoln suffered.
Sure, it's a legal question of whether, in emergencies, the President can do that on his own, but in 1861 Congress took up the question and eventually authorized what Lincoln was doing.
And no Supreme Court ruling ever found Lincoln in the wrong.
The real truth here is that if we define Lincoln as "tyrannical", then Jefferson Davis was equally tyrannical and so this whole exercise is just, yet again, Democrats criticizing the splinter in Lincoln's eye while ignoring the beams in their own. ![]()