” So, if I understand, your point is that Lincoln was in no sense a “dictator”, but rather a constitutional President who lead by the consent & active support of his voters?”
My point is that he led by the consent and active support of his voters, and for all I know those who didn’t vote for him but opposed secession, and the Northern States. It wasn’t just him.
As to he “was in no sense a ‘dictator’”, I wouldn’t use those words. For one thing, I don’t want to try to refute every allegation that he was in some particular instance. For another, he was Commander in Chief of the military and in the military, particularly in time of war, rebellion, insurrection, some actions of any military commander can be construed as dictatorial. Anyway, if he was a dictator or not, he still led by the consent and active support of his voters, and maybe those who didn’t vote for him but opposed secession, and the Northern States. That’s my point, it wasn’t just him.
As to “rather a constitutional President”, he was elected twice, constitutionally as far as I am aware. Did he violate the Constitution? I’ve seen arguments on both sides. I don’t recall any efforts to impeach him. But whether he was a constitutional President or not, he still led by the consent and active support of his voters, and maybe those who didn’t vote for him but opposed secession, and the Northern States. That’s my point, it wasn’t just him.
As an aside, I sometimes wonder what would have happened if after secession and the firing on Fort Sumter, Lincoln had taken the position: “Okay. Bye.” Would the North have gone along with that or opposed him? Would they have tried to impeach him? Would he have won a second election or would some firebrand have been elected and the war started four years later when the South was stronger, or weaker? Or would the war have started in the West instead of the East, in the Kansas-Missouri region? Seems like those people really didn’t like each other. What happened happened so it doesn’t matter, but I wonder. I don’t know enough to do more.
“Sorry, sir, if I had misunderstood earlier.”
That’s OK. Perhaps I haven’t been clear enough.
Thanks, we're getting down to just fine points of definitions here, and that's pretty good.
So the word "dictator" is almost always a pejorative, never a neutral or complementary term, certainly not in the USA.
A "dictator" is essentially a sovereign king without the panoply of family history & ceremony.
But the term implies arbitrary, capricious, sovereign and unrestricted -- and none of that applies to our President, even as commander in chief.
As commander in chief the president is still subject to every duly passed law & regulation and to the constitutional limits of the office.
So by definition he cannot be a "dictator".
Yes, of course, political opponents always label strong presidents as "dictators" to win political points and money contributions.
But neither Lincoln nor, for example, Franklin Roosevelt ever met in any way the definition of a real dictator such as this thread's originator, Adolf Hitler or any number of others who quickly come to mind.
The claim of Lincoln as "dictator" comes basically from his decision to call up troops in April 1861, to deny habeas corpus and to arrest pro-Confederates (aka "copperheads") in Union states.
All such actions were anticipated by our Founders' constitution and their Militia Act of 1792, as responses to rebellion and were approved by Congress at the time.
Even the Supreme Court whose chief justice Taney censured Lincoln on habeas corpus, the court as a whole never did so.