By you? Not a ringing endorsement of impartiality.
"Generations of historians have accurately labeled him a 'dictator'.
And generations of reputable historians have disputed that. You can toss all the "amazing disregard for the Constitution" you want and claim all the unconstitutional acts you and your fellow Lost Causers care to. But what you fail to provide are facts backing your claims up. Plenty of opinion - you Southron types are never shy about trotting out opinion and calling it fact. But actual documented proof that Lincoln knew an act was illegal and did it anyway is very much in short supply when dealing with you and your ilk. I mean look at this crap.
Generations of historians have accurately labeled him a 'dictator'
Like who and based on what? Randall?
Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and ordered the military to arrest tens of thousands of political opponents.
Complete and utter bullshit. Documented by legal scholars like Mark Neeley and Sandra O'Conner among others.
At his command, but without a shred of legal authority, ca. 300 newspapers were closed and all telegraphic communications censored; elections in the North were rigged; throughout the Union, Democratic voters were intimidated; in New York City, hundreds of protesters against conscription (a form of slavery) were shot;
Again, complete nonsense without a shred of evidence to support it. Over 300 newspapers closed? Name them! Hundreds of protestors shot? Evidence! You do nothing put spout the same old Southron myth, time and time again.
West Virginia was unconstitutionally carved out of Virginia; and the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, was deported.
Complete crap.
here
More of the same nonsense.
TO THIS: “Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and ordered the military to arrest tens of thousands of political opponents.”
YOU SAID: Complete and utter bullshit. Documented by legal scholars like Mark Neeley and Sandra O’Conner among others.
For your review and self correction:
Revoking Civil Liberties: Lincoln's Constitutional Dilemma
His suspension of habeas corpus is part of what some consider the “dark side” of his presidency
By Justin Ewers
February 10, 2009
Few presidents have interpreted their wartime powers as broadly as Abraham Lincoln, whose presidency—for all of its many successes—did have what some consider a “dark side.” Most famously, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in the first year of the Civil War, responding to riots and local militia actions in the border states by allowing the indefinite detention of “disloyal persons” without trial.
Habeas corpus, which literally means “you have the body,” is a constitutional mandate requiring the government to give prisoners access to the courts.
Lincoln ignored a Supreme Court justice's decision overturning his order, and over the next few years, the Great Emancipator, in one of the war’s starkest ironies, allowed these new restrictions, which also imposed martial law in some volatile border areas and curbed freedom of speech and the press, to expand throughout the Northern states.
As the war drew to a close, though, some historians believe Lincoln may have begun to recognize the dangers of his own unprecedented expansion of presidential war powers. More than 13,000 civilians were arrested under martial law during the war throughout the Union. But it was in Missouri, in particular, nearly a thousand miles from the nation's capital and far beyond the federal government's day-to-day reach, that Lincoln was confronted with the most dramatic example of his internal security measures’ unintended consequences.
In the months before he was assassinated, Lincoln found, to his surprise, that he was unable to convince Missouri's Republican leaders—who had grown accustomed to their newfound powers—to put an end to martial law in the state.
The lesson he learned, historians say, may have been a simple one: “It is much easier,” says Eric Foner, a professor of history at Columbia University, “to put these restrictions in place than it is to stop them.”
For those interested, the rest of the article is here