Which would probably be intended more to deal with mass incarceration of rioters or troops than people saying things the President doesn't like or a Federal judge doing his job. It also isn't something the President can just do on his own due to the separation of powers, and thanks to the current 1/6 proceedings we can see how congress can abuse this concept as well.
Okay, I looked this up and as far as I can tell, there is no evidence that Lincoln ordered the arrest of a judge. The closest he even got to that point was
one of his generals, John Adams Dix, arresting Richard Carmichael of Maryland on his own initiative; Lincoln expressed a dislike for Carmichael but had him let go. Lincoln was also alleged to have wanted to
arrest Chief Justice Taney but the allegation came from a single unreliable source, isn't supported elsewhere and isn't taken seriously by historians in the ACW field.
The 'Lincoln arresting pastors for not praying for him' thing Razorfist brought up seems to refer to the case of Mississippian bishop
William Elder, who also wasn't arrested on Lincoln's orders - again it was an overzealous Union commander acting on his own initiative - and who was actually supported by the War Department once the feds learned about it, to the point where Elder thanked Edwin Stanton (Lincoln's Secretary of War) for getting involved and having him released. So now that I've dug into these claims, all I have found is that your & Razor's arguments are even weaker than I originally thought.
Perhaps the federal troops should have left that fort like they said they were going to instead of sticking around and resupplying.
Or maybe the rebels shouldn't have rebelled at all and opened fire on something that wasn't theirs, how about that.
So your contention is that everyone who was killed deserved it basically? There was no one who was just legitimately protesting?
No, lmao, there wasn't. The Baltimore rioters followed 6th Massachusetts troops after first stopping them from continuing on by train and attacked them first not only with bricks but also pistols, the regiment didn't fire until after they were fired upon and those elements of the mob which weren't already packing heat tried to seize their rifles. And the New York rioters literally destroyed the Colored Orphanage and tried to murder the kids within (and actually did kill one of the cops who tried to protect them) on day fucking one of the New York draft riot, while the Union Army didn't go in to NYC until after three days of rioting. There was no legitimate protest going on since the beginning, it didn't even start out peaceful and then get violent a day later or because the NYPD attacked them first or anything like that, it was a city-destroying insurrectionary riot/rampaging lynch mob waged primarily by immigrants so unwilling to fight for the country they moved to that they'd rather take up arms against the government and random innocent civilians instead.
I'll be blunt
- it's a good fucking thing the Army put those lynch mobs down like the dogs they were. Oh and also, speaking as an immigrant from the Third World to a Western country: immigrants ought to put in the bare minimum of fighting for the country they moved to if they intend to become lifelong citizens. Or if you absolutely have to avoid fighting for the cause du jour because you think it's execrable, at least do what the
Germans in Texas did against *drumroll* the Confederacy: flee, make an earnest effort to avoid conflict, and only fight back against pursuing army troops sent to force you into line, rather than start your 'mostly peaceful protest' by going around murdering your neighbors because you really don't like the color of their skin.
You keep saying this, but seem to ignore what he actually did. Also, this country is almost always in a crisis of some kind, so throwing the Constitution out the window because there is a crisis makes it pretty pointless to even have one. Making excuses for doing that also opens things up to using manufactured crises - witness the recent and still ongoing Covid crisis.
Which is what the war was really about. How dare these states leave? Like an abusive spouse.
It's a matter of having the prudence to determine what crisis actually justifies emergency measures of the sort Lincoln used. Like, the Constitution itself (written by Founding Fathers who clearly knew a good deal about limiting governmental power, but also when practicality may require lifting those limitations) justifies suspending
habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion, so if there's no rebellion or invasion ongoing then it should be patently obvious that
habeas corpus cannot be suspended.
Yes, how dare they leave after losing an election despite literally banning the winning candidate from their ballots, with the explicit purpose of eternally enshrining their 'right' to own human beings as chattel and with the hope of conquering additional territories so they can spread slavery further there, after spending nearly 40 years killing an increasing number of people for saying 'slavery bad' and pushing their way into free states - first to chase down their own slaves when said slaves tried to flee to freedom, next to impose slavery on territories hoping to become free states - then putting on their best surprised-Pikachu face when the free starters finally decided to start shooting back. You can practice willful ignorance of the
real reason for the Civil War all you like, I will happily copypaste this rebuttal and the others I've written every single time for the benefit of anyone reading.
Arresting people and shutting down newspapers for having the wrong opinion and holding them without trial is a necessary wartime measure? Arresting a judge for making a ruling you didn't like and holding him without trial is a necessary wartime measure? Sending secret police out to harass people is a necessary wartime measure?
Yes, this is what's called 'suppressing subversion during a state of civil war'. Not that I expect you to understand the concept.
Then I'll remind you of this every time you complain about something the Left does.
OK? I don't give a shit, man. I acknowledge that might making right is a fundamental rule of the world, which is why I have always argued literally from my first post in this thread that ideologies like slavocracy and Communism ought to be opposed and crushed with maximal might. I'm not gonna bitch about the rules because they aren't gonna change until the Second Coming, but I am always going to advocate playing them so well as to beat the enemy in this game.
No, we're arguing on an internet board and you're making an ass of yourself by acting like you're some big world politics player or some shit like that.
So I see you've chosen to be a willfully ignorant moron in even the pettiest matters then.
Whereas I would split off all the red parts of those states West Virginia style and tell the coasts to not let the door hit 'em where the good lord split 'em. Only if they insisted on fucking around with us afterwards would I be inclined to make them find out.
Also, I don't know if you realize this, but a lot of the justification you're using is basically along the same lines as what Russia is saying about Ukraine being an artificial country and actually part of Russia. Do you view Russia as being justified in what it has been doing in Ukraine?
You honestly think they're just gonna let valuable chunks of their states walk? Because they aren't. As the Confederacy notably didn't, not for West Virginia, nor for East Tennessee or the Texas Hill Country all the other Southern Unionist bastions.
Are you seriously comparing the Confederacy to Ukraine? Well the American South doesn't have a history of being an independent nation or nations going back centuries for starters, nor can it be remotely said that they were exploited & oppressed like an internal colony (unless you wanna talk about what the South did toward its own slaves...) as Ukraine was considering the dominant stake they had in the federal government until literally the 1860 election, most of the 15 presidents preceding Lincoln were Southerners.
That won't stop them from claiming what they claim and using it as justification to do what they do, though. And if might makes right, who are you to now complain when that is now being used against you?
As I said above the answer isn't to bitch about the rules of the world because literally nobody else gives a shit, least of all not people who think they have a right to own other people like the Confederacy and the WEF, it's to play by them to the fullest: bring your own might to bear and shatter the enemy.
Here at the end I would also like to point anyone still sticking with this thread and interested in formal video rebuttals to Razorfist's original video to Part 2 of Vlogging Through History's response, an immediate successor to the one posted yesterday. The comment pinned at the top was what directed me to the case of William Elder which I talked about at the beginning of this post, quite hard to track down since 'Lincoln arrests pastor for not praying for him' didn't turn up any relevant results when I searched for it.
