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).
Forcing a state to stay in a union in which it doesn't wish to belong is a big violation of states rights, which is paramount to federalism.
Only if one assumes that the states have a right to secede to begin with. Otherwise, it is just the national government upholding its rights. Unilateral secession seems pretty weird to me. You just leave without making an arrangement for, e.g. the national debt, part of which was spent in your territory?
Lincoln and the Republicans did argue against the spread of slavery but again the people of the territory should have control of what they did in their states.
So if what Lincoln and the Republicans did was wrong, did the original Founding Fathers also violate federalism by passing the Northwest ordinance prohibiting slavery in a series of territories? Was the Missouri Compromise itself wrong, as it prohibited any state north of 36'30 from allowing slavery?
By the way, the whole point of a territory is that they are not 'states'. States have complete power over their domestic institutions. Territorial governments are creatures of Congress. That is why Congress can prohibit slavery in territories, but not in states.
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).
Only if one assumes that the states have a right to secede to begin with. Otherwise, it is just the national government upholding its rights. Unilateral secession seems pretty weird to me. You just leave without making an arrangement for, e.g. the national debt, part of which was spent in your territory?
So if what Lincoln and the Republicans did was wrong, did the original Founding Fathers also violate federalism by passing the Northwest ordinance prohibiting slavery in a series of territories? Was the Missouri Compromise itself wrong, as it prohibited any state north of 36'30 from allowing slavery?
By the way, the whole point of a territory is that they are not 'states'. States have complete power over their domestic institutions. Territorial governments are creatures of Congress. That is why Congress can prohibit slavery in territories, but not in states.