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. ![]()
>>Kalamata wrote: "Joey cannot let a day pass without cluttering up a thread with sanctimonious foolishness."
>>Joey wrote: "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"."
That is one of the nicest things a hard-left progressive has ever said about me, Joey.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "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."
>>Joey wrote: "I'd call that complete 100% bunk, just lunatics babbling nonsense."
Rossiter was a pretty reliable Lincoln fanatic, Joey; but I have noticed that he occasionally committed an act of 'history.' Professor James Randall was also guilty of committing an act of 'history,' as follows:
"In referring to his proclamation of May 4, 1861, calling for enlistments in the regular army far beyond the existing legal limits, Lincoln himself frankly admitted that he had overstepped his authority. It was such acts as these that gave rise to the charge of "military dictatorship," and this charge seemed to gain weight from the President's deliberate postponement of the special session of Congress until July 4, though the call for such session was issued on April 15. The alleged "unconstitutionality" of this conduct of President Lincoln was urged as a leading argument by those who contended that the whole process by which the "war" began was illegal… War, it was argued, must begin with a declaration; Congress alone has the power of declaring war; the President's power of suppressing an insurrection is not tantamount to the war power; and his right to promulgate a blockade order becomes valid only after war has become a legal fact through a congressional declaration. War, therefore, did not lawfully exist, it was said, when these early captures were made; hence there could be no valid blockade and no prize jurisdiction in the Federal courts."
[Randall, James G., "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln." D. Appleton & Company, 1926, pp.52-53]
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "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."
No objective historian would claim Lincoln's actions were legal, Joey.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Joey has a difficult time staying on topic, which is, "was Lincoln a tyrant?" This is also from a Lincoln apologist:"
>>Joey wrote: "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."
Davis would be only a tiny blip in history, if not for Lincoln's treachery.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "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."
I know what a 'Burner and Plunderer' is, Joey; but what is a Lost Causer?
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: 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."
You just admitted to Lincoln's tyranny (highlighted.) How careless of you, old man?
Professor Donald also made this statement which seems to contradict your assertion about Davis:
"It is true that in January, 1862, the Confederate Congress did pass a law forbidding the publication of unauthorized news of troop movements, but even this slight regulation was bitterly protested and flagrantly ignored. No Southern newspaper was ever suppressed by the Confederate government for its opinions, however critical or demoralizing. The ardent wish of Secretary of War George W. Randolph was realized: that "this revolution may be... closed without suppression of one single newspaper in the Confederate States." More significant militarily was the Confederacy's insistence upon maintaining the cherished legal rights of freedom from arbitrary arrest and upon preserving due process of law. This sentiment was so strong that, though the Confederacy was invaded and Richmond was actually endangered, President Davis did not dare institute martial law until he had received the permission of his Congress. While General George B. McClellan was about to assault the Confederate capital in 1862, the Southern Congress debated the question and concluded that their President was "subject to the Constitution and to the laws enacted by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution. He can exert no power inconsistent with law, and, therefore, he cannot declare martial law." Grudgingly Congress permitted Davis to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for three brief periods—once when McClellan was within sight of Richmond, again during the Fredericksburg- Chancellorsville threat, and once more when Grant was pushing through the Wilderness. Even then he was allowed to suspend the writ only in limited areas, not throughout the Confederacy. When he came to Congress for a renewal of his authority during the grim winter of 1864-1865, he was refused, lest too much power in the hands of a dictatorial president curb the democratic rights of the people."
[Donald, David Herbert, "Why the North Won the Civil War." Collier Books, 1962, p.85]
The devout Lincolnite, James Randall, was less likely to commit an act of 'history;' but even he could not ignore the difference between Davis's lawful acts and Lincoln's usurpations:
"Davis overlooked the suppression of civil liberties in parts of the Confederacy, especially East Tennessee, where several hundred Unionists languished in Southern 'Bastilles.' Five days after Davis's inaugural address, Congress authorized him to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in areas that were in 'danger of attack by the enemy.' Davis promptly declared martial law in several places, including Richmond. Provost marshals enforced a requirement of passes for travel, banned sales of liquor, and jailed several 'disloyal' citizens, including two women and John Minor Botts, a prominent Virginia Unionist and former United States congressman. At the same time, however, Davis did curb the excessive enforcement of such measures by some of his generals who commanded military departments. And unlike Lincoln, who suspended the writ on his own authority, Davis acted only when Congress authorized him to do so—for a total of seventeen months on three different occasions during the war. Nevertheless, the leading historian of civil liberties during the Civil War, Mark Neely, has found records of four thousand political prisoners in the Confederacy. The records are incomplete, and there were surely several thousand more. 'Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis acted alike as commanders in chief when it came to the rights of the civilian populace,' Neely concluded. 'Both showed little sincere interest in constitutional restrictions on government authority in wartime. Both were obsessed with winning the war.'"
[James M. McPherson, "Embattled Rebel: Jefferson Davis as Commander in Chief." Penguin Press, 2014, Chap.2]
"Historians could not help but notice the differences in Confederate and Union ideologies and policies—the Union restricting liberty from the earliest moment to the very end of the war, while the Confederacy made a great point of its maintenance of civilian rights in the midst of war almost to the very end. Dwelling more on what the presidents said than what they did, historians assumed that Confederates valued white civil liberties more than Northerners did and that Confederate leaders had more reverence for the constitution." [Mark E. Neely Jr., "Southern Rights: political prisoners and the myth of Confederate constitutionalism." University Press of Virgiinia, 1999, pp.166-167]
Imagine that? Davis was the good guy?
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "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 too 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!"
>>Joey wrote: "In fact the US Constitution (and the Confederate constitution) does authorize restricting Habeas Corpus under exactly the conditions Lincoln suffered."
Only the Congress is authorized that power, Joey.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "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 Republican Congress usurped the constitution when it rubber-stamped Lincoln's tyranny, Joey. Further, no Supreme Court has recognized the power over habeas corpus belonging to anyone, but the Congress, Joey.
Chief Justice Taney issued an opinion that Lincoln's suspension was unconstitutional, citing John Marshall and Joseph Story, and had it delivered to Lincoln. Lincoln ignored it.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "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."
You don't know what you are talking about.
Mr. Kalamata