Naw, Lincoln was very despotic. A lot of people don’t get just how badly the civil war destroyed states rights because it was considered justifiable to end slavery. Just as the first amendment was ripped open because it was considered justifiable to end “racism”.
But what are the examples of his despotism? I find him rather well-behaved as a leader of a country in civil war. For example, I would not be holding elections, especially ones that I expect to lose.
If the civil war destroyed states' rights, how did states manage to 'redeem' themselves and even de facto abrogate the Reconstruction amendments?
You mean like intentionally ceding bases strategically to reinforce fort Sumter after South Carolina seceded? How about ordering a fleet of warships to breach Carolinas waters to resupply and maintain fort Sumter? How about refusing to peacefully surrender and instead increasing arms and weaponry in the fort. How about going back in to take Charleston harbor after fort Sumter was surrendered? Every single attempt at peaceful separation was denied by Lincoln.
You mean like intentionally ceding bases strategically to reinforce fort Sumter after South Carolina seceded?
OK, and? Is Fort Sumter not a federal fort?
How about ordering a fleet of warships to breach Carolinas waters to resupply and maintain fort Sumter?
Since the question was a violation of federalism, is there a violation of federalism for the federal government to "breach" the waters of one of its own states to resupply one of its own forts?
How about refusing to peacefully surrender
What requirement to surrender federal forts is there?
Every single attempt at peaceful separation was denied by Lincoln.
Was there a requirement to accept a peaceful separation?
To go off of the reconstruction aspect of what you said, I recommend researching the election of 1876. It has a lot of the wacky antics and controversy that 2020 had, but with both parties making shady backroom deals to decide the president in exchange for political favors like removing aspects of reconstruction. Not that they would ever do that again...
If the civil war destroyed states' rights, how did states manage to 'redeem' themselves and even de facto abrogate the Reconstruction amendments?
The South didn't abrogate anything. It weakened and eroded some things in some ways since the southerners were willing to constantly attack them, while the Northern states lacked the same degree of political will to perpetually fight back. So over time, the South was able to carve out compromise solutions like segregation that the North simply wasn't willing to "go to war" over. "separate but equal" obeys the letter of the law, and was only overturned much later based on the argument that it wasn't really equal after all.
The Civil War did massively destroy states rights in many ways, because it was the central question of the war: are states the ultimate authority, or the federal government? And the answer was the feds. So federal power massively expanded after the civil war, and was pretty much unchecked. Even now, only a small number of people like Thomas are even trying to hold back the feds in any meaningful way. Judge Roberts upheld Obamacare.
I would point to the nationalization of the "national guard" aka state militias:
Throughout the 19th century the Regular U.S. Army was small, and the state militias provided the majority of the troops during the Mexican–American War, the American Civil War, and the Spanish–American War. With the Militia Act of 1903, the militia was more organized and the name "National Guard" recommended. In 1908, the prohibition on National Guard units serving overseas was dropped. This resulted in constitutional debates within the U.S. government surrounding the legality of the use of the National Guard overseas, culminating in 1912 when U.S. Attorney General George W. Wickersham declared the 1908 amendment to be unconstitutional. The National Defense Act of 1916 contained a provision whereby the president could discharge National Guard members from the militia and draft them into the Army in the event of a war, allowing for their use overseas. This resulted in former National Guard members being discharged from the Army entirely (also losing their status as state troops) when they left service, so the 1920 amendments to the act defined the National Guard's dual role as a state and federal reserve force; the "National Guard while in the service of the United States" as a component of the Army of the United States could be ordered to active duty by the president, be deployed overseas if they so wished, and the Guardsmen would then revert to their status as state troops. The dual state and federal status proved confusing, so in 1933, the National Defense Act of 1916 was amended again. It finally severed the National Guard's traditional connection with the militia clause of the Constitution, providing for a new component called the "National Guard of the United States" that was to be a reserve component of the Army of the United States at all times.
Basically, the next time the US faced a significant war after the Civil War (WW1), the feds just basically federalized the national guard, and finally in 1933 dispensed with the charade of the national guard being anything other than a purely federal force.
The National Guard is an odd duck. NG members are simulataneously members of the "Army/Air National Guard" and the "Army/Air National Guard of the United States". The first being the state-controlled entity and the second being a federally controlled reserve component of the armed forces.
It's this membership in the second component that the feds are using to argue that TX and other states can't refuse to mandate the vaccine.
Habeas corpus? I mean, as far as constitutional violations go, "I'm suspending this without authority because Congress is not in session" ranks rather low.
And his handling of the initial secession of South Carolina was pretty much an egging on of violence.
That is just smart politics. He baited the enemy into firing first and galvanizing patriotic opinion in the North. If anyone made a mistake there, it's Davis for letting himself be baited like that.
Lincoln also was not extraordinary in what he did. Even James Buchanan was sending supplies to Fort Sumter, and in fact, he delayed a good deal less before so doing.
Lincoln offered to give up Fort Sumter if the Virginia secession convention would disband without seceding. Seems incredible to me (a permanent concession for a temporary one), but Lincoln said: "A fort for a state is good business."
His Emancipation Proclamation is an executive overreach that most forgive because slavery bad.
I'd say it can certainly be justified as a war measure. It's certainly no violation of federalism.
And he helped expand the power of the federal government and reduced the powers of the individual states.
In what ways specifically?
(Disclaimer: I'm not ideologically committed to defending Lincoln, though I do find him a rather admirable character, and I'm also not obsessed with slavery as a European. I just see a lot of groundless criticisms of Lincoln)
You can say suspending habeas corpus is no big deal but I would disagree. I don't think it would do me much good to try and persuade you it's a big deal. We will have to agree to disagree on the severity.
I certainly understand why you would think that. But in the grand scheme of things, it is a tiny thing. There's literally a war going on, and business as usual is that laws are silent in times of war.
He had no right to tell Virginia it did or didn't have the right to secessed. It was the right of those states and he violated them.
This presupposes that Virginia has a right to secede. He certainly believed that it did not. It certainly is no violation of federalism.
How is him unilaterally removing the property of foreign citizens not a gross overreach of federal authority? And even if you still consider them as US citizens it's even worse.
In either case, I believe it's justified under his war powers. It's not even controversial when it is about ordinary property. But you have to return it once the war is done, which is why the 13th amendment was passed.
Lincoln also opposed measures like expanding the Missouri compromise or allowing further states to choose to be free or slave states.
I believe you are wrong about this. He opposed allowing territories to allow slavery. He did say that if a territory that banned slavery should then apply to the union as a slave state, it would have to be admitted.
And what exactly is wrong with wanting to ban slavery in the territories?
I do agree that objectively speaking Lincoln has a lot of admirable qualities and was a very accomplished man and was by most measures great
Nice to see that you're objective and not a blind hater (which I didn't expect to begin with, knowing you from your comments).
Any particular examples? I'm pretty sure he was better behaved than Wilson.
Naw, Lincoln was very despotic. A lot of people don’t get just how badly the civil war destroyed states rights because it was considered justifiable to end slavery. Just as the first amendment was ripped open because it was considered justifiable to end “racism”.
But what are the examples of his despotism? I find him rather well-behaved as a leader of a country in civil war. For example, I would not be holding elections, especially ones that I expect to lose.
If the civil war destroyed states' rights, how did states manage to 'redeem' themselves and even de facto abrogate the Reconstruction amendments?
You mean like intentionally ceding bases strategically to reinforce fort Sumter after South Carolina seceded? How about ordering a fleet of warships to breach Carolinas waters to resupply and maintain fort Sumter? How about refusing to peacefully surrender and instead increasing arms and weaponry in the fort. How about going back in to take Charleston harbor after fort Sumter was surrendered? Every single attempt at peaceful separation was denied by Lincoln.
OK, and? Is Fort Sumter not a federal fort?
Since the question was a violation of federalism, is there a violation of federalism for the federal government to "breach" the waters of one of its own states to resupply one of its own forts?
What requirement to surrender federal forts is there?
Was there a requirement to accept a peaceful separation?
To go off of the reconstruction aspect of what you said, I recommend researching the election of 1876. It has a lot of the wacky antics and controversy that 2020 had, but with both parties making shady backroom deals to decide the president in exchange for political favors like removing aspects of reconstruction. Not that they would ever do that again...
The South didn't abrogate anything. It weakened and eroded some things in some ways since the southerners were willing to constantly attack them, while the Northern states lacked the same degree of political will to perpetually fight back. So over time, the South was able to carve out compromise solutions like segregation that the North simply wasn't willing to "go to war" over. "separate but equal" obeys the letter of the law, and was only overturned much later based on the argument that it wasn't really equal after all.
The Civil War did massively destroy states rights in many ways, because it was the central question of the war: are states the ultimate authority, or the federal government? And the answer was the feds. So federal power massively expanded after the civil war, and was pretty much unchecked. Even now, only a small number of people like Thomas are even trying to hold back the feds in any meaningful way. Judge Roberts upheld Obamacare.
I would point to the nationalization of the "national guard" aka state militias:
Basically, the next time the US faced a significant war after the Civil War (WW1), the feds just basically federalized the national guard, and finally in 1933 dispensed with the charade of the national guard being anything other than a purely federal force.
The National Guard is an odd duck. NG members are simulataneously members of the "Army/Air National Guard" and the "Army/Air National Guard of the United States". The first being the state-controlled entity and the second being a federally controlled reserve component of the armed forces.
It's this membership in the second component that the feds are using to argue that TX and other states can't refuse to mandate the vaccine.
No idea who Wilson James is. Woodrow Wilson.
Habeas corpus? I mean, as far as constitutional violations go, "I'm suspending this without authority because Congress is not in session" ranks rather low.
That is just smart politics. He baited the enemy into firing first and galvanizing patriotic opinion in the North. If anyone made a mistake there, it's Davis for letting himself be baited like that.
Lincoln also was not extraordinary in what he did. Even James Buchanan was sending supplies to Fort Sumter, and in fact, he delayed a good deal less before so doing.
Lincoln offered to give up Fort Sumter if the Virginia secession convention would disband without seceding. Seems incredible to me (a permanent concession for a temporary one), but Lincoln said: "A fort for a state is good business."
I'd say it can certainly be justified as a war measure. It's certainly no violation of federalism.
In what ways specifically?
(Disclaimer: I'm not ideologically committed to defending Lincoln, though I do find him a rather admirable character, and I'm also not obsessed with slavery as a European. I just see a lot of groundless criticisms of Lincoln)
I certainly understand why you would think that. But in the grand scheme of things, it is a tiny thing. There's literally a war going on, and business as usual is that laws are silent in times of war.
This presupposes that Virginia has a right to secede. He certainly believed that it did not. It certainly is no violation of federalism.
In either case, I believe it's justified under his war powers. It's not even controversial when it is about ordinary property. But you have to return it once the war is done, which is why the 13th amendment was passed.
I believe you are wrong about this. He opposed allowing territories to allow slavery. He did say that if a territory that banned slavery should then apply to the union as a slave state, it would have to be admitted.
And what exactly is wrong with wanting to ban slavery in the territories?
Nice to see that you're objective and not a blind hater (which I didn't expect to begin with, knowing you from your comments).