Yes, because holding an election cancels out having soldiers storm into a statehouse and arrest 1/3 of a state legislature. Lincoln is easily in the top 3 authoritarian US presidents, alongside FDR and Woodrow Wilson.
As Kienan put it in another comment, if you want to argue over whether or not Lincoln was justified we can do that, but he basically used the constitution as toilet paper. Go watch the video, you'll almost certainly learn quite a few things.
Yes, because holding an election cancels out having soldiers storm into a statehouse and arrest 1/3 of a state legislature.
Whether you think it's justified or not, acting against a state legislature doesn't make him a dictator.
Lincoln is easily in the top 3 authoritarian US presidents, alongside FDR and Woodrow Wilson.
Anything else they had in common?
he basically used the constitution as toilet paper.
Which parts? Actually, I think he did make the argument that it was justified, by saying that it's better to violate a part of it than that the whole should die.
Go watch the video, you'll almost certainly learn quite a few things.
I doubt it, and I don't think he's objective. It seems none of the people who did watch it were able to come up with compelling arguments, so there's that.
Whether you think it's justified or not, acting against a state legislature doesn't make him a dictator.
Well, that flat out proves you're not objective and any further discussion is pointless. I don't think there's anything you'd accept as a (as you put it) "compelling argument" short of getting a time machine and recording a video of Lincoln twirling an evil mustache and laughing maniacally about how he is now the king of the US, since all your responses to people giving have been "Well, he was justified!" or "Well, Stalin was worse!". What do you want to see?
I don't think there's anything you'd accept as a (as you put it) "compelling argument" short of getting a time machine and recording a video of Lincoln twirling an evil mustache and laughing maniacally about how he is now the king of the US
Wait, so it's not objective to... not waste your time on someone who is not objective? Come on.
since all your responses to people giving have been "Well, he was justified!" or "Well, Stalin was worse!". What do you want to see?
If you claim that he was a 'dictator', I expect something establishing that.
But most of the responses are in the tune of "he did some bad things". Well, then argue that instead of the hyperventilation!
And what do you think qualifies someone as being a dictator? Because you have said that arresting people without charge, sending the army marching into statehouses, shutting down hostile press and exiling political opponents does not. So, what is the cutoff in your mind?
Yes, because holding an election cancels out having soldiers storm into a statehouse and arrest 1/3 of a state legislature. Lincoln is easily in the top 3 authoritarian US presidents, alongside FDR and Woodrow Wilson.
As Kienan put it in another comment, if you want to argue over whether or not Lincoln was justified we can do that, but he basically used the constitution as toilet paper. Go watch the video, you'll almost certainly learn quite a few things.
Whether you think it's justified or not, acting against a state legislature doesn't make him a dictator.
Anything else they had in common?
Which parts? Actually, I think he did make the argument that it was justified, by saying that it's better to violate a part of it than that the whole should die.
I doubt it, and I don't think he's objective. It seems none of the people who did watch it were able to come up with compelling arguments, so there's that.
Well, that flat out proves you're not objective and any further discussion is pointless. I don't think there's anything you'd accept as a (as you put it) "compelling argument" short of getting a time machine and recording a video of Lincoln twirling an evil mustache and laughing maniacally about how he is now the king of the US, since all your responses to people giving have been "Well, he was justified!" or "Well, Stalin was worse!". What do you want to see?
Wait, so it's not objective to... not waste your time on someone who is not objective? Come on.
If you claim that he was a 'dictator', I expect something establishing that.
But most of the responses are in the tune of "he did some bad things". Well, then argue that instead of the hyperventilation!
And what do you think qualifies someone as being a dictator? Because you have said that arresting people without charge, sending the army marching into statehouses, shutting down hostile press and exiling political opponents does not. So, what is the cutoff in your mind?