So you believe that he should not have been allowed to espouse an opinion since it was against the war itself?
The opposition Party was allowed to operate
Yeah, under constant harassment with its leaders and elected officials being persecuted, imprisoned, deported, and arbitrarily kicked out of office.
Davis did no less.
And thus you still continue to squack "Tu quoque! Tu quoque!" Davis, BTW, had a very outspoken opposition that he nevertheless did not harass like Lincoln did. The opposition in the CSA senate (which I have no doubt you will #3slander with another #3cheap shot since I simply mentioned their name) was actually more competent on war matters and eventually got Lee named the primary commander.
No, defeating a bill is not the same as activily opposing him.
Then exactly what is it - passively opposing him?
Bill get defeated by Congress all the time, even when the President own party is in charge.
Indeed they do, but Congresses do not kill off the president's top legislative item for the session if not to send a message to the president that the bill sucks (the bill's number was S 1, which is always designated for the most important bill of the session).
If Lincoln was the tyrant you claim, the Congress would have had to bring up charges against him, which they did not.
Once again you've arbitrarily imposed an irrational constraint in which dissapproval may only be expressed by impeachment. Your logic for doing so is circular and your position is not derived from reason. Thus I see no purpose in continuing this any further.
He was doing far more then just being against the war, he was saying that the Federal gov't should be resisted in its war efforts.
The opposition Party was allowed to operate Yeah, under constant harassment with its leaders and elected officials being persecuted, imprisoned, deported, and arbitrarily kicked out of office.
There were elections held in 62 in which the Democrats did very well.
Only those who were Confederate supporters or attempting to obstruct the war effort were dealt with severely.
Davis did no less. And thus you still continue to squack "Tu quoque! Tu quoque!" Davis, BTW, had a very outspoken opposition that he nevertheless did not harass like Lincoln did. The opposition in the CSA senate (which I have no doubt you will #3slander with another #3cheap shot since I simply mentioned their name) was actually more competent on war matters and eventually got Lee named the primary commander.
And again, Davis handled the issues no better then Lincoln did and in some cases worse.
No, defeating a bill is not the same as activily opposing him. Then exactly what is it - passively opposing him?
It is opposing a particular bill.
Bill get defeated by Congress all the time, even when the President own party is in charge. Indeed they do, but Congresses do not kill off the president's top legislative item for the session if not to send a message to the president that the bill sucks (the bill's number was S 1, which is always designated for the most important bill of the session).
And again, that does not mean that Lincoln was held to be a tyrant by the Congress.
had they thought so, they would be under obligation to impeach him as such.
If Lincoln was the tyrant you claim, the Congress would have had to bring up charges against him, which they did not. Once again you've arbitrarily imposed an irrational constraint in which dissapproval may only be expressed by impeachment. Your logic for doing so is circular and your position is not derived from reason. Thus I see no purpose in continuing this any further.
If Congress has a tyrant in the White House, impeachment is how they are to deal with them.
Since they are actually fighting the war to keep the nation together, they might have a little more realistic view of what Lincoln was doing then do the arm chair historians do a hundred years later.