Replies

Very true, but Lincoln darn-sure knew, or at least later found, that Seward and others, both military and civilian authorities, were overreaching. In reaction he did nothing. Being president does not mean being in total control, but it does mean being an effective manager. An effective manager trusts his subordinates to carry out his agenda. The question that requires an answer: Does Lincoln's lack of reaction to the abuses within his government and military a tacit implication of approval?

First, Lincoln did react to overabuse by Fremont by relieving him.

Second, no one claimed all of Lincoln's actions were perfect are not subject to criticism.

They are looked at on balance.

Davis's record on protecting civil rights was no better then Lincoln's.

The fact that in the midst of a bloody civil war, we were able to have most of the nation remain under civil law and not military and to have elections, says a great deal for the Consitution, its checks and balances, and Lincoln's respect for it.

First, Lincoln did react to overabuse by Fremont by relieving him.

Glad you recognize that there are proper limits to abuse beyond which one ought not to go. I gather that laying Atlanta in ashes lay within them, and shooting or raping the occasional Georgian and Carolinian out-of-hand, and carrying off her table setting. It's so hard to strap on a whole State, without falling into overabuse -- I really think Sherman deserved the thanks of Republican politicians and Unionists everywhere, for "keeping it clean".

Davis's record on protecting civil rights was no better then Lincoln's.

I might believe that if someone other than Mark Neely and the Wlat Brigade were telling me.

Yeah, I'm sure that was deeply appreciated throughout the South.