You keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile the whole world can see plainly that you are so devoted to upholding your Lincoln idol that you will not even answer a simple mathematical question over whether 38,000 exceeds 4,000 for fear that it would reflect poorly on your side.
Yet, that is still not the entire story
You keep saying that, and every single time you keep claiming there is something more, but whenever pressed you've got nothing more to offer beyond vague, unsubstantiated, and unscholarly speculation. It's time to either put up or shut up, ftD. Your failure to do so only embarrasses you further.
Not at all.
That one number exceeds the other is not the crucial issue.
And it wouldn't be if the numbers were reversed and the South had the 38,000 number.
What is also important is the severity of the charges (which you also said, favored the North)
And, also, the justification for the suspension.
Out of the 38,000 how many were not defensible and likewise, out of the 4,000?
To say one number is larger then the other and therefore the conclusion must be that the North was more abusive then the South is simply simplistic thinking.
What the numbers represent must be looked at as well.
The only one being embarrased is you with your overly simplistic approach to the question.
Yet, that is still not the entire story You keep saying that, and every single time you keep claiming there is something more, but whenever pressed you've got nothing more to offer beyond vague, unsubstantiated, and unscholarly speculation. It's time to either put up or shut up, ftD. Your failure to do so only embarrasses you further.
No, because, I want to see Bensel's book and find out what those numbers represent.
I have ordered it and I should receive it soon.
The numbers are only part of the story.
As Bensel himself stated, alot of the suspensions of civil liberties came not from the suspension of the Writ but via marital law.
Finally, it may have been that the South erred in not suspending the Writ more, since she was weakened by internal dissent, while the North got it right, even if some abuses did occur.
Not at all.
That one number exceeds the other is not the crucial issue.
And it wouldn't be if the numbers were reversed and the South had the 38,000 number.
What is also important is the severity of the charges (which you also said, favored the North)
And, also, the justification for the suspension.
Out of the 38,000 how many were not defensible and likewise, out of the 4,000?
To say one number is larger then the other and therefore the conclusion must be that the North was more abusive then the South is simply simplistic thinking.
What the numbers represent must be looked at as well.
The only one being embarrased is you with your overly simplistic approach to the question.
Yet, that is still not the entire story You keep saying that, and every single time you keep claiming there is something more, but whenever pressed you've got nothing more to offer beyond vague, unsubstantiated, and unscholarly speculation. It's time to either put up or shut up, ftD. Your failure to do so only embarrasses you further.
No, because, I want to see Bensel's book and find out what those numbers represent.
I have ordered it and I should receive it soon.
The numbers are only part of the story.
As Bensel himself stated, alot of the suspensions of civil liberties came not from the suspension of the Writ but via marital law.
Finally, it may have been that the South erred in not suspending the Writ more, since she was weakened by internal dissent, while the North got it right, even if some abuses did occur.
The following is from Farber's work, Lincoln's Constitution,
Lincoln's invocation of necessity was not unprecedented. According to Jefferson, 'a strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. Rather, Jefferson claimed, the 'laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving out country when in danger, are of higher obligation'.For to lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those enjoying them with us; thus abusurdly sacrificing the end to the means....Jefferson followed the classic liberal approach to the problem of emergency decisions. The executive had a moral duty to respond to grave emergencies, despite legalities, but necessity was not a legal defense for his actions. Even actions taken in good faith could result in damages or other sanctions such as impeachment, unless Congress ratified the action and shielded the executive, usually by indemnifying him from any damage award....Lincoln's defense of arguable illegal actions fell into two parts. First, he argued that his actions'whether strictly legal or not'were taken in response to public demand and public necessity, 'trusting, then as now, that Congress would readily ratify them'. Second, he argued that actions such as suspending habeas, even if illegal, were not inconsistent with his oath to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed'. Here, Lincoln argued that he lacked the ability to execute all of the laws. Instead, he was faced with the choice between violating a 'single law' 'to a very limited extent' or seeing every law, 'failing of execution, in nearly one-third of the States' Thus, his oath required him to choose the lesser of the two evils in terms of observance of the law....Congress did respond with legislation ratifying the president's military actions. Later, it augmented its support of the president with an immunity statute....The Supreme Courth upheld this statue in Mitchell v Clark When the Civil War began, the Court explained, no legal authority had existed to deal with dangerous, disloyal individuals, thus requiring officals to take extralegal action....This immunity covered most of Lincoln's actions. The transfer of money to private hands, the expansion of the military, the suspension of habeas, all were well within the power of Congress. Congress did not however, have power to authorize military trials of civilians in the North such as Milligan. Here, however, the officals responsible could rely for protection on the statue of limitations and the opportunity to remove suit against them to federal court. Thus in the end, Congress ratified as much as the executive's actions as it could, excusing the lack of prior authorization and tried to ensure a fair legal procedure for dealing with the remaining cases. Nowhere was there any thought that necessity alone gave the president an exemption from the legal consequences of violating statutory or constitutional requirements. Lincoln does not seem to have claimed such legal immunity. Nor did he claim that pressing circumstances overrode the 'take care'duty to follow the law. He merely observed that he was faced with the utter impossibilty of full compliance and had to choose the lesser of two evils. We tend to read his statements differently as if they claimed more, only because we no longer see them in their original context (p.192-195)
So your constant harping on what Lincoln did that was illegal is simply beating a dead horse.
He did take some illegal actions, but Congress supported them due to the circumstances that the nation found itself in.