Post Hoc ergo propter hoc. To go into a detailed explanation of how Lincoln set the stage for Subsequent Federal power grabs would be enjoyable, but it would take a lot of messages in and of itself. Not sure I want to get into it in this thread. I find it hard to understand why I would need to explain it.
It was not until the progressive era under Teddy Roosevelt and then under Woodrow Wilson that we saw the expansion of Federal power emerging followed by the growth of the federal dependent class.
How was Lincoln responsible for any of that?
He was the beginning of the Imperial Presidency, and of Federal Supremacy. He was the first to violate or ignore constitutional law to get what he wanted. He demonstrated that a President does not have to be constrained. He used Federal power as a club, and Others (Roosevelt, Wilson, etc) followed the path he blazed.
How so. Even the Emancipation Proclamation was carefully constructed so it did not usurp the courts or the Constitution. It only applied to areas in rebellion which the Militia Act of 1797 gave him every constitutional right to do.
George Washington surly didn't think that when he put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Are you saying that a President today should be powerless to put down a rebellion?