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?
Notice everything you just said violates federalism, but you accept it because a now foreign country claiming land in the largest city of your state and the waters around said city is not acts of war…. If Germany no longer recognized our military base there do we have the right to claim it the airspace and waterways as our land?
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.
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?
Notice everything you just said violates federalism, but you accept it because a now foreign country claiming land in the largest city of your state and the waters around said city is not acts of war…. If Germany no longer recognized our military base there do we have the right to claim it the airspace and waterways as our land?
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.