Why has this never been mentioned before? I've read a lot of civil war history, and i've never heard of a plot to takeover Washington DC. Where did you get this information?
You may not be able to help being a fool, but you don't need to be snarky about it. Try to keep up with the conversation. You wrote: "Lincoln did not enforce the law as written. He suspended habeas corpus and locked people up willy nilly for simply criticizing him." That is what we were talking about. And while I think more was involved than simply criticism, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus to prevent rebels from taking over Maryland and keep the capital from being surrounded or overrun. He might well have had to do that even if he had let Sumter fall to the rebels.
Using the military force of the United States against the people of America is indeed a Lincoln like tactic, but unlike Lincoln, Ike did it to support the rule of law in the US, instead of to force his own control on the people.
For the segregationists of the 1950s what Eisenhower was doing at Little Rock was similar to or the same as what Lincoln was doing a century before in the eyes of the secessionists. Both stood up for the union and the rule of law.
Lincoln did not believe in equality, and he very much wanted to induce and encourage black people to leave the United States. But this is the sort of stuff people nowadays do not talk about because it makes Lincoln look bad by modern standards.
Lincoln came closer to believing in equality than 90% percent of his contemporaries and closer than some of Eisenhower's contemporaries.
And what do you mean by saying people don't talk about that now? Some people talk about nothing else. At this point the surprising thing is that he was as friendly to African-American aspirations as he was given his era and his background.
Do you know what "circular reasoning is"?
Do you? I have pointed out time and time again that you reject non-material motivations beforehand and then, when you don't see any, conclude that there weren't any. That is circular reasoning. But you never respond to this. It's nice that you've learned the phrase, but disappointing that you don't recognize it in your own postings.
I apologize. You are usually decent in your responses and I should not have done it.
And while I think more was involved than simply criticism, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus to prevent rebels from taking over Maryland and keep the capital from being surrounded or overrun.
Without Lincoln using force to control Maryland, it very likely would have seceded with the other states, though i've seen some evidence to the contrary. In playing "chicken" with South Carolina, he was tampering with events that were going to spiral out of control.
I don't think Lincoln expected the disaster he ended up with, but he should have done.
For the segregationists of the 1950s what Eisenhower was doing at Little Rock was similar to or the same as what Lincoln was doing a century before in the eyes of the secessionists.
Your attempt to link these two men is ironic, because Lincoln was himself a very determined segregationist. Segregation is exactly what he wanted. He wanted black people kept away from white society. It's ugly, but that was what Lincoln spoke and wrote.
It appears to me now that Lincoln regarded black people as pawns in his game to attain power and keep it, but what he did was never done for their sake, it was done for his own purposes.
Lincoln came closer to believing in equality than 90% percent of his contemporaries and closer than some of Eisenhower's contemporaries.
That is not my understanding of Lincoln at all. I don't think Lincoln ever believed in equality. With just a little looking, I can find some examples of things he said and speeches he gave where he demonstrates he clearly regards black people as unequal.
Do you have some particular statement from Lincoln in mind when you say he believed in equality?
Do you? I have pointed out time and time again that you reject non-material motivations beforehand and then, when you don't see any, conclude that there weren't any.
I believe material motivations are the only thing constant in human history, and pretensions of goodness are a smoke screen for efforts to attain and hold power. Now I will not dispute that there are "true believer" kooks out there who drink the koolaid and buy the con, but the movers and shakers who tend to underpin these events are generally motivated by money and power and how to attain and keep it.
Global warming? (Carbon credits, solar, windmills, increased government power, etc.) Sex education? (Planned parenthood, abortions, contraception, medical research on aborted fetuses) Covid 19? (More government control, stealing elections, protecting China.) Black lives matters? ( Stealing elections, intimidating the opposition, creating excuses to arrest people.)
There are true believers in all this stuff, but the big guns behind the scenes are always using it as a vehicle to power.
It's nice that you've learned the phrase, but disappointing that you don't recognize it in your own postings.
I do not recognize it in my own postings. Perhaps your perception of it is too subtle for me to grasp. Can you give me a better explained example of where I have done this?