You have little problem with insulting others, but seem to take great offense when someone points out your shortcomings.
You might note that I am not pinging you, but you are pinging me.
I am simply replying.
Now, as for the rest of the hot air you are putting out, save it.
You are attempting to prove what is unprovable since it is wrong.
Lincoln was not a tyrant by any objective usage of the word.
Congress was not opposing him in his efforts to save the Union, including in the suspension of the Writ.
And by any objective usage of the word, Jefferson Davis was a traitor to the United States of America.
He chose loyalty to his state above that of his nation, and thus, was a traitor to it.
All the double talk in the word cannot change those facts.
Offended at what? Your childish behavior? Please. You give yourself far too much credit.
You have little problem with insulting others
And I insulted you exactly how? By accurately describing your antics for what they are? Yet you're the one accusing me of thin skin...
You might note that I am not pinging you, but you are pinging me. I am simply replying.
Would that be a #3ping?
(NC - take note above. Sound familiar?)
You are attempting to prove what is unprovable since it is wrong. Lincoln was not a tyrant by any objective usage of the word.
I see you've picked up El Capitan's habit of affirming the consequent. In this case you construct an argument in which the association between Lincoln and tyranny is arbitrarily designated as "wrong," followed by an attempted proof of it on its very own consequent - your arbitrary assertion that Lincoln was not a tyrant! Funny how those things work out that way...
Congress was not opposing him in his efforts to save the Union, including in the suspension of the Writ.
Then why on earth did they kill his bill asking for a suspension?
And are you getting a little bit tired about the "affirming the consequent" fallacy line - when he has the formula wrong!?
Has anyone, at any time, ever used the word "tyrant" objectively?