Lincoln used war to destroy the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a powerful central government.
Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; launched a military invasion without consent of Congress; blockaded Southern ports without declaring war; imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies; arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses; censored all telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states, an act that Lincoln’s own attorney general thought was unconstitutional; ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections; deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln’s unconstitutional behavior; confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
A New Orleans man was executed for merely taking down a U.S. flag; ministers were imprisoned for failing to say a prayer for Abraham Lincoln, and Fort Lafayette in New York harbor became known as "The American Bastille" since it held so many thousands of Northern political prisoners.
Lincoln further arrested legislatures of Maryland who opposed the war and apponted their replacements. He claimed the right to arrest anyone because he had suspended habeas corpus. When the Chief Justus of the Supreme Court declared this unconstitutional Lincoln ordered him arrested too.
Thank God we DON'T have another president like Lincoln in the WHitehouse today!
What else was he supposed to do when you where trying to destroy the Union.
"Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated people --- or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) --- could be said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats --- so transparent that they ought to deceive no one --- when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want." - Lysander Spooner, 1870
You are aware that just about everything in your post was either incorrect or an exaggeration, aren't you?
Yes, a UNIFIED nation rather than two or more weakend countries. If the secessionists had their way, today there would be no USA nor CSA since one of the toltarian Eurpean powers would have defeated us. Most likely we would today be the USSA (United Socialist States of America) under Communist rule.
Excuse me? Congress was not in session when the United States was attacked. When they returned, they approved each and every one of the actions Lincoln took under his powers via the Militia Act of 1793. The first significant battle took place after congress gave full authorization for military action.
Why did Lincoln want to establish a central government and what powerful groups of people do you think backed him?
Think about this:
"And it's a very odd thing that a region, the South, which supposedly believed in states' rights and local autonomy, pressed for this law [The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850] which allowed the federal government to completely override the legal processes in the North: to send marshals in, to avoid the local courts, and to just seize people (they might be free born) and just drag them into the South as slaves. It shows that the South didn't believe in states' rights. It believed in slavery. States' rights was a defense of slavery. But when active federal power was needed to defend slavery, they were perfectly happy to utilize that also.
The Fugitive Slave Law had many features which seemed to violate the liberties of free -white- northerners. It allowed the federal government to deputize citizens, even against their will, and force them to take part in posses or other groups to seize fugitive slaves. It also said that local courts could not adjudicate whether a person was a slave or not. It was federal commissioners who would come in and hear testimony. And the slave was not allowed to testify. It was the testimony of the owner, or the person who claimed to be the owner, of this alleged fugitive. And the commissioner would judge whether the owner's testimony was believable or not, and then send -- as they usually did -- the person back to slavery."
-- Eric Foner
The most intruseive American law in the 19th century was the FSL.
And Lincoln was a) not in office and b) strongly opposed to it.
Walt
No, that honor would go to President-for-Life FDR, who vastly expanded the size of the federal government, gave labor unions dictatorial power over the economy, prolonged the Great Depression to twelve years, outlawed gold ownership, allowed a third-rate military power to wipe out our Pacific Fleet, and made the world safe for Communism. But I suppose not too many 'Southern Sympathizers' will go for that, because it was the South's kneejerk votes that elected FDR to four terms.
Go read up on the history of ex parte Merryman and re-think your statement. Three factual errors in one paragraph is not too bad, though.