[Non-Sequitur]

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.

[smug]

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?

Wrong! It is irrelevant whether he violated it deliberately on not. He exceed his constitutional powers. And further more, please explain how the Confederate States of America put the United States government at peril. Those several states that wished to stay with it justified it's authority to them.

[Colt .45]

I'm sorry, I fell asleep while reading your fallacious assrtions. If you had something of importance to say, I might have stayed awake. But once more you have proven how narrow minded your views on subjects pertaining to the Great Emasculator are.

The facts I have put down are facts, your purported facts are nothing more than spin designed to bolster your weak-assed stand.

[NJ_gent]

"the Surpeme Court has never ruled that his actions were unconstitutional"

Yes they did; see: Ex Parte Milligan.

"it would have been, in fact, unconstitutional for Lincoln to consult the court prior to his action"

No it wouldn't have. In fact, it would have been advisable for him to seek professional counsel prior to engaging in potentially illegal actions. What more professional counsel exists on matters of Constitutional law than the justices of the US Supreme Court?

"The court can only rule on actions taken under the Constitution, not actions proposed."

Indeed, but nothing precludes their offering counsel on what their likely response to given proposed actions might be.

"But Lincoln didn't need to go to Congress. You declare war against other countries"

Are the United States of America a sovereign nation? Or are we colonies of Great Britain? If we're a sovereign nation, why? And at what point did we become a sovereign nation?

"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."

So did President Bill Clinton, yet most here agreed he violated his oath of office a great many times, a great many ways, and deserved impeachment and removal from office. It's not enough for the President to have good intentions and think he's in the right. Every dictator in the history of the world has thought he was in the right for exterminating masses of people. Thinking you're right does not make you right, except in multicultural societies where truth and morality are relative terms.

"at a time when the southern rebellion was placing the very existence of the government at peril"

The Confederate States of America had no problem with the United States of America. There was no threat of the South launching a conquering invasion of the North. The only threat to the Union was of other states breaking away from it. If the Union was operating so poorly that the only way to ensure its members stayed put was to force them to do so militarily, then it should have died out as per the two documents most directly responsible for its existence.