A typical non-sequitur. It simply does not follow from your premise - that the house didn't impeach Lincoln - that he must not have been a threat to freedom simply because (a) impeachment is a political process that is subject to political influence that could distort and protect a president even if he was a threat (see Clinton's senate vote for another example) and due to (b) the fact that he also happened to be harassing, intimidating, and imprisoning members of the political opposition who spoke out against him.
No, Clinton was Impeached, just not convicted.
...hence my point that the Senate FAILED in its duty with Clinton for political reasons.
The Democrats make the same mistake, saying that Clinton was not impeached.
Are you blind, stupid or both, ftD? I never said that Clinton was not impeached. He was not convicted in the Senate even though he was indisputably guilty of the articles of impeachment and should have been convicted on them (do you dispute that?), thus proving that political considerations can overcome justice in matters of impeachment.
Yea so.... A Civil War was going on. What part of that sentence do you not understand?
...and the Constitution holds firm in both times of war and peace. What part of that sentence do you not understand.
And Davis violated no ones civil liberties?
Quoth the ftD: "Squack! Tu quoque! Tu quoque! Davis did it too! Tu quoque!"
I believe that Vallandighm was released to his beloved South wasn't he?
The south didn't want him nor did he want to be there so he ended up in Canada till the end of the war.
No one says that everything that Lincoln did would pass a strict consititutional test.
...and deporting, harassing, and imprisoning members of the opposition party for criticizing your politics doesn't pass much of any constitutional test.
That is far from saying that he was guilty of being a tyrant.
Lincoln deported his opponents, threw congressmen and state officials in jail, got a senator kicked out of office, overthrew the state government of Missouri, placed judges under house arrest and unconstitutionally suspended their salaries, used military thugs to prevent courts from meeting to hear cases against him, and shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers for being critical of his policy. If not acts of tyranny, exactly what were all those acts?
You really have a soft spot in your head don't you?
Did anyone from the Congress attempt to impeach Lincoln.
I did not say it had to succeed, but the House, terrified at this tyranny being wielded would have had some attempt to mount a movement to stop him.
Unless (drum roll) they supported what he was doing!
So we have come full circle once again, Congress supported Lincoln is in his general approach (not in every particular act)
No, Clinton was Impeached, just not convicted. ...hence my point that the Senate FAILED in its duty with Clinton for political reasons.
And my point that no one brought Lincoln up on any charges-period.
The Democrats make the same mistake, saying that Clinton was not impeached. Are you blind, stupid or both, ftD? I never said that Clinton was not impeached.
OK, so why do you keep bring it up, when Lincoln could have been impeached by the House but wasn't.
He was not convicted in the Senate even though he was indisputably guilty of the articles of impeachment and should have been convicted on them (do you dispute that?), thus proving that political considerations can overcome justice in matters of impeachment.
Yes, and we now have an historical record of the House being opposed to Clinton, unlike that of Lincoln.
Yea so.... A Civil War was going on. What part of that sentence do you not understand? ...and the Constitution holds firm in both times of war and peace. What part of that sentence do you not understand.
I understand that decisions have to be made that stretch the interpretations of the constitution.
I understand that Congress did not oppose Lincoln's use of his presidental powers, even if they might have been for Congress to use.
That was the original point of this discussion, Congress's lack of any real resistance to Lincoln, in fact, supporting him in his efforts to put down the greatest threat this nation had ever faced.
It is nice to sit in your den and pontificate about the purity of the Constitution when you are not facing the decisions that Lincoln faced.
And Davis violated no ones civil liberties? Quoth the ftD: "Squack! Tu quoque! Tu quoque! Davis did it too! Tu quoque!"
Well, where is the outrage?
I am not criticizing Davis for doing it, since he had to make hard decisions also.
The point is during crises, decisions have to be made that would not be made during quiet times.
The Courts have upheld the use of martial law, and they were critical of Lincoln in that he used the suspension when civilian courts were in operation.
Lincoln however, knew that many of those areas were heavily confederate supporters and the guilty would be found innocent.
Was he right in every case, probably not, but it certanly was not tyrannical.
I believe that Vallandighm was released to his beloved South wasn't he? The south didn't want him nor did he want to be there so he ended up in Canada till the end of the war.
Well, I can't blame the South do much, even traitors do not like traitors.
No one says that everything that Lincoln did would pass a strict consititutional test. ...and deporting, harassing, and imprisoning members of the opposition party for criticizing your politics doesn't pass much of any constitutional test.
When you are fighting a civil war, a fight for national survival, you cannot let the enemy use your virtues against you.
No different now in our war against terrorism.
No terrorist is entitled to one protection of the Consitution nor the Geneva Convention.
That is far from saying that he was guilty of being a tyrant. Lincoln deported his opponents, threw congressmen and state officials in jail, got a senator kicked out of office, overthrew the state government of Missouri, placed judges under house arrest and unconstitutionally suspended their salaries, used military thugs to prevent courts from meeting to hear cases against him, and shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers for being critical of his policy. If not acts of tyranny, exactly what were all those acts?
Those were acts to defend the Consitution from destruction by those who would use its law against it to destroy it.
It is very nice to live in a world of the abstract and pristine, but wars are about winning or losing.
Moreover, were there free elections in 62 in which the opposition party gained seats in Congress?
In 64 when Lincoln thought he was going to lose the election?
The marvel of the Civil War was not the abuses (which there were on both sides) but the amount of freedom that was preserved and how normal most of the nation behaved in this bloody war.