Replies

"He did have such authority in the areas in rebellion, hence the Emancipation Proclamation."

And you Yankees are such blind boneheads. The Emancipation Proclimation was only a political ploy to gain popular support for a war that the North was losing by getting whipped in the field up to that point. Now I know there are the usual Holy Temple of Lincoln crowd on here who will try to skew the facts (taking their clues from him no doubt), but up until that point, the North had failed to win any major battle, and Lincoln had sacked McClelland and Burnside for their failures.

Yes, Lincoln was a dictator, he suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus in direct violation of the Constitution (he didn't consult Congess, who had the Constitutional authority to do so nor the Supreme Court). When called on it by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the "Highest Court in the Land" who settles all disputes on Constitutionality of issues, laws and etc, Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice.
Lincoln declared war on the South without going through Congress for a Declaration of War.
Lincoln suppressed free speech by imprisoning those who disagreed with his war.
Lincoln caused the war by trying to reinforce Fort Sumpter in direct violation of an agreement with the Confederates. Those are facts that you just can't skew. There was no proviso that gave Lincoln the unlimited power to do what he wished. And either the Constitution stands as the LAW of the Land, or its not even worth the paper its written on. If Lincoln violated the Constitution, which he did on a regular basis, he should have been arrested as a domestic enemy of it, or at the very least sacked for failure to uphold his oath of office. Lincoln waged an illegal war to forcibly suppress a sovereign nation, the South who had peacably broken away and formed their own government using the same ideals that the Founders' laid down in the Declaration of Independence "the cornerstone of American Beliefs".

But the South lost and even though the self-determination they fought for was right, the North writes the history books. But then all Southerner's know that with Yankee hammerheads the status quo is always "Do as I say, not as I do" and "our Laws are written in pencil for quick changes when its expedient to do so."

Yes, Lincoln was a dictator, he suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus in direct violation of the Constitution (he didn't consult Congess, who had the Constitutional authority to do so nor the Supreme Court).

So you say. But the Surpeme Court has never ruled that his actions were unconstitutional, and it would have been, in fact, unconstitutional for Lincoln to consult the court prior to his action. The court can only rule on actions taken under the Constitution, not actions proposed. You should know that.

When called on it by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the "Highest Court in the Land" who settles all disputes on Constitutionality of issues, laws and etc, Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice.

So you say. Inspite of the fact that there is no solid evidence to support the claim, and no evidence at all other than hearsay.

Lincoln declared war on the South without going through Congress for a Declaration of War.

So you would have us believe. But Lincoln didn't need to go to Congress. You declare war against other countries, not rebellious sections of your own. Lincoln had all the constitutional and legislative authority he needed to take his inital actions against the southern insurrection.

Lincoln suppressed free speech by imprisoning those who disagreed with his war.

So you say. You may not believe his actions were Constitutional, that isn't the issue here. You have yet to show where Lincoln deliberately violated the law as he understood it. He acted, in all cases, within what he saw as his authority as president. His actions were subject to review by the Supreme Court. That wasn't the case in other areas.

Lincoln caused the war by trying to reinforce Fort Sumpter in direct violation of an agreement with the Confederates.

What agreement? Details please.

Those are facts that you just can't skew.

Yet you continue to try.

If Lincoln violated the Constitution, which he did on a regular basis, he should have been arrested as a domestic enemy of it, or at the very least sacked for failure to uphold his oath of office.

On the other hand, if Lincoln did not deliberately violate the Constitution, which he did not, then he should be respected for remaining within the bounds of that document at a time when the southern rebellion was placing the very existence of the government at peril. Right?

But the South lost and even though the self-determination they fought for was right, the North writes the history books.

And the losers write the myths, as you and your cohorts demonstrate on a daily basis.