Don't know. A few of them like Vallandigham openly denounced his crimes on the constitution, but we all know how Saint Abe responded to exercises of free speech that didn't shower him in praises.
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.
They did - by defeating his bill. He kept on arresting people as if nothing had changed though.
Unless (drum roll) they supported what he was doing!
Then why did they kill his bill?
So we have come full circle once again
Circular arguments of the sort you employ tend to do that.
And my point that no one brought Lincoln up on any charges-period.
At least one federal court charged him with arresting the process of the judiciary and several ruled against him on cases.
OK, so why do you keep bring it up If you could read you would know that I mention it as evidence that the Senate failed to do its duty since the impeachment process is fundamentally political.
Yes, and we now have an historical record of the House being opposed to Clinton, unlike that of Lincoln.
The last I checked the Congressional record said that they killed his habeas corpus bill.
I understand that decisions have to be made that stretch the interpretations of the constitution.
You may think you understand that but the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise and I'll take their word over yours.
I understand that Congress did not oppose Lincoln's use of his presidental powers
Then why did they kill his bill?
Lincoln however, knew that many of those areas were heavily confederate supporters and the guilty would be found innocent.
So New York (Ex Parte Benedict, federal district court striking down Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus - he ignored the ruling) and Boston (In Re Winder, federal circuit court striking down Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus - he ignored the ruling) were secessionist hotbeds in 1862?
Well, I can't blame the South do much, even traitors do not like traitors.
Yet again I give you a factual response and yet again you have nothing to offer beyond a venomous cheap shot. Go figure.
When you are fighting a civil war, a fight for national survival, you cannot let the enemy use your virtues against you.
That's a nice lofty sounding generalization. It still does not explain or justify how anybody could harass, imprison, or deport any member of the opposition party who spoke out against him and NOT be a tyrant by any honest and reasonable definition of the word. Then again, you are neither honest nor reasonable, hence your insistence that I somehow show that the opposition members in Congress attempted to impeach Lincoln simultaneous to your sanction of political persecutions against any member of that very same opposition who so much as spoke out against Lincoln, much less tried to impeach him. What a strange, bizarre, illogical world you Lincoln cultists live in...
Gee, a President who gets criticized, what a shock!
Ofcourse, the fact that Vallandigham was activily opposing Lincoln's war efforts is a little more serious then just being in opposition.
The opposition Party was allowed to operate, just not hinder war operations with actions that could have led to Union deaths on the battlefield.
Davis did no less.
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. They did - by defeating his bill. He kept on arresting people as if nothing had changed though.
No, defeating a bill is not the same as activily opposing him.
Bill get defeated by Congress all the time, even when the President own party is in charge.
That does not mean the Congress is opposing him, just in disagreement on some particulars of that bill.
If Lincoln was the tyrant you claim, the Congress would have had to bring up charges against him, which they did not.
Unless (drum roll) they supported what he was doing! Then why did they kill his bill?
Because they did not support that bill.
If they had that he was not acting in the correct role of President, they would have charged him as such, like Clinton was.
Looking at a bill that doesn't get passed as a sign that Congress was opposing Lincoln is beyond a stretch.
You are maintaining Lincoln was a tyrant, and if he was, then we have means in the Constitution to deal with it, to impeach
So we have come full circle once again Circular arguments of the sort you employ tend to do that.
Not a circular argument, such come back to the beginning, after you have failed to show that Lincoln was a tyrant and that Congress opposed him as such.
And my point that no one brought Lincoln up on any charges-period. At least one federal court charged him with arresting the process of the judiciary and several ruled against him on cases.
And was that Congress?
No doubt that Courts had problems with some of his acts, but the Courts today being full of liberals are also fighting against our war on terror, no doubt acts you support also.
OK, so why do you keep bring it up If you could read you would know that I mention it as evidence that the Senate failed to do its duty since the impeachment process is fundamentally political. Yes, and we now have an historical record of the House being opposed to Clinton, unlike that of Lincoln. The last I checked the Congressional record said that they killed his habeas corpus bill.
And the last time I checked there was no bill of Impeachment.
That is the recourse that Congress makes against Tyrants, not defeating a bill the President sent up.
I understand that decisions have to be made that stretch the interpretations of the constitution. You may think you understand that but the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise and I'll take their word over yours.
The Supreme Court had had many bad rulings, Dred Scott, Roe vs Wade, so they are not always the final say in what is right and what is wrong.
Jefferson warned of a judical tyranny that would be worse then any political one.
I understand that Congress did not oppose Lincoln's use of his presidental powers Then why did they kill his bill?
Because they did not like that particular bill, but they did not impeach him for sending the bill to them now did they?
Lincoln however, knew that many of those areas were heavily confederate supporters and the guilty would be found innocent. So New York (Ex Parte Benedict, federal district court striking down Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus - he ignored the ruling) and Boston (In Re Winder, federal circuit court striking down Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus - he ignored the ruling) were secessionist hotbeds in 1862?
Again, the courts were in large part hostile to Lincoln, as they are today against Bush.
The question was was Congress, representing the people hostile to Lincoln.
The answer was no, Lincoln had their support.
Well, I can't blame the South do much, even traitors do not like traitors. Yet again I give you a factual response and yet again you have nothing to offer beyond a venomous cheap shot. Go figure.
Again, an overreaction to a tongue in cheek reply.
When you are fighting a civil war, a fight for national survival, you cannot let the enemy use your virtues against you. That's a nice lofty sounding generalization. It still does not explain or justify how anybody could harass, imprison, or deport any member of the opposition party who spoke out against him and NOT be a tyrant by any honest and reasonable definition of the word. Then again, you are neither honest nor reasonable, hence your insistence that I somehow show that the opposition members in Congress attempted to impeach Lincoln simultaneous to your sanction of political persecutions against any member of that very same opposition who so much as spoke out against Lincoln, much less tried to impeach him. What a strange, bizarre, illogical world you Lincoln cultists live in...
Lincoln allowed a great deal of opposition, including some from his own generals.
Now, all you would have to show was that a large group of men who were planning to impeach were prevented from doing so by arrests.
You live in a fantasy world that wants to ignore the same abuses in the South, while blowing Lincoln up to Stalin status.
Threats are sometimes so great that actions must be taken to protect those very laws that protect freedom.
Most Americans did not live in any fear of the gov't and elections were held and live went on normally.
Lincoln used his power sparingly and what abuses there were were few in comparsion to the threat facing the nation.
I trust this finishes our discussion?
I really do not need to hear again how a defeated bill translates into opposition by Congress to a tyrannical President and then whining that the Impeachment standard is too high to meet to prove Lincoln a tyrant in the eyes of Congress.
Impeachment, not defeat of a bill, is what Congress uses to protect the Constitution from Presidents who abuse their power.