Replies

I'm saying that, while in the process of freeing the slaves, Lincoln trampled everyone's rights and exceeded his legitimate authority as president. Perhaps the end justified the means, perhaps is didn't. It is commonly believed that the slaves were going to be freed soon anyway. Regardless, Lincoln didn't have the right to throw people in jail without a trial, he didn't have the right to shut down the press, and he didn't have the right to declare war on free states without a fully represented congress authorizing it that was not under duress. The point being, (going back to my original statement), Lincoln tyrannized as much as he freed. You can have it both ways. You can free slaves without reducing free men to subjects at the same time. This is what I'm saying. I know that this has nothing directly to do with the article. My original comment was in response to one of yours which as a response to someone else's.

As for the article: My original comment to you was in support of the point that you were replying to that suggested that anything Ashcroft may do will still be minor compared to previous excused breaches of the constitution by past presidents. Not that I excuse any of it, mind you. But it would still be minor. And, as the first poster that you replied to implied, the lefty author seems to ignore this in his attack on Ashcroft. I agree with the author that Ashcroft may be an enemy of the constitution in his own way, but I also see the authors bias and selectivity in singling out Ashcroft.