[fortheDeclaration]

Well, then we need to look at the circumstances themselves and see if they dictated the suspension or not. And yet with every case that the "circumstances" go against you, you refuse to look at it or invent some silly reason to neglect it as you did with the Merrick incident.

Has anyone ever denied that abuses occured?

The argument centers around Lincoln's motives and goals.

The pro-Southern view is that Lincoln was out to get the South and create some sought of economic new world order.

We hold that Lincoln was forced to take acts due to his own commitment to his oath the Constitution to take actions he did not like to take.

Thus, your constant reference to abuses is irrelevant unless you can prove Lincoln was himself was directly responsible for some crime.

Farber's view is that Lincoln did take extra legal actions but they were justified due to the responsibilties he had assumed as President (unlike Buchanan who let the South get away with illegal activities)

Moreover, Farber states that this is a classical liberal view, held by Jefferson.

Lincoln was not impeached and he was supported by Congress.

[GOPcapitalist]

Has anyone ever denied that abuses occured?

The Harry Jaffa cult comes awfully close!

Moreover, Farber states that this is a classical liberal view, held by Jefferson.

Farber wouldn't know Jeffersonianism if it was stapled to his forehead. That's why he also uses his partisan argument in favor of Lincoln to make similar partisan attacks upon the Jeffersonian (read: conservative) elements of the Rehnquist supreme court.