The same kind of violations of civil liberties that people ascribe to Lincoln also happened in the Confederacy. When they were in power and confronted with similar situations, Davis and his government behaved in ways not so very different to the United States (which was and is more than one man).
One reason I reacted as I did is that we already discussed the topics you mentioned back in April. See my responses here and here. I didn't relish having these things thrown at me as though they were new and important information that I absolutely had to look up all over again, regardless of what was going on in my own life at the time.
Okay, so I'm free to respond or not respond as I see fit, but why does my not responding make you so defensive about what you post? And why the snide comment about "the kind of poster" I am if I let you know that I'm not going to engage? It sounds like you've got more riding on this than you let on.
I don't think that, in general, violations of civil liberties were as numerous in the South. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without Congressional approval, Davis had the approval of his congress before each time period in which he suspended habeas corpus.
By the way, I've been reading a fascinating book about the time of the document that first formalized, at least in English law, the concept of habeas corpus against abuses by the king, "1215, The Year of the Magna Carta" by Danny Danzinger and John Gillingham. It is filled with interesting details about life in that time period. I recommend it.
The suppression and destruction of newspapers and arrests of editors, writers, and publishers happened far more often in the North. I've found mention of more than 100 cases in the North in old newspapers, books, and online. Those were caused by mobs, by soldiers, and by orders from Lincoln and his administration. The total would have been higher if I knew how to count the blockage into a state of all Democrat papers a month or two before an election. In contrast, I've only found about six cases in the South, most by mob action and none by the central government. Two of those Southern suppressions actually happened by mob actions before the war. IIRC Davis and/or Lee did complain about press treatment of some subject, and both sides objected to publication of military situations, troop movement, etc., that would give the other side an advantage to know.
One reason I reacted as I did is that we already discussed the topics you mentioned back in April. See my responses here and here.
Thanks for refreshing my memory. We didn't agree then, and we don't agree now. That's fine. I will try to check on previous posts I've made to you before posting to some information to you again. If you bring something up on the thread to me or someone else that I disagree with and you and I have discussed it before, maybe I'll just post links back to our previous discussions.
I didn't relish having these things thrown at me as though they were new and important information that I absolutely had to look up all over again, regardless of what was going on in my own life at the time.
Thrown? I throw, and you post? How about "posted" instead. Post back that you are busy and can't respond right now or don't care to. I'll be more judicious with my reply than I was above. I've had to beg off replying a number of times myself when we had visitors staying with us from out of state, or a deadline on a scientific paper, or a trip out of town, or estate or tax matters to attend to.