Retarded is describing it lightly. Castro held no election that he could lose. That is the metric of a free country: can the election actually change something, or not? Lincoln though he was going to lose to a party that ran on a peace platform.
Castro held no election that he could lose. That is the metric of a free country: can the election actually change something, or not? Lincoln though he was going to lose to a party that ran on a peace platform.
Yes, and he had his goon squad arrest the editors of their newspapers, barred them from delivery via the US Mail, had the literal army interrupt their attempts at private delivery, and then seized their ballots when all that wasn't enough.
Freedom of the press in these once-United States was in the 1860s separated only from the USSR in the 1940s by the fact that dissenters were shipped to Canada instead of Siberia.
Anyone who advocated against Stalin in the 1940s would be shot. And yet there was an entire political party opposing Lincoln, which won seats in the 1862 election.
There were several states that opposed Lincoln and many, mamy people were shot for it.
He didn't fight the civil war to end slavery. That was a happy side effect. The states had a right to secede from the union. The union committed war crimes during the civil war, violating the bill of rights and particularly trampling the 9th and 10th amendments, and the entire framework of the US government.
You are calling people "spoiled" for correctly identifying a point in US history that started the decline of the US and removing rose colored glasses from a president that caused it. The hell is your problem? These things are objective truths. Lincoln treating the states as subservient property of the federal government was bad.
If the civil war had actually been about slavery, if the fighting had been to the extent of smacking the south over that, it would have played out very differently. It also would have ended with the US staying separate countries.
It did not. Lincoln was no great heroic champion of rights. He started that war to force the southern states back under the boot of the federal government, and the precedent of federal power followed.
There were several states that opposed Lincoln and many, mamy people were shot for it.
Name five people who were "shot for opposing Lincoln".
He didn't fight the civil war to end slavery. That was a happy side effect.
Obviously, no one would go to war to end slavery. Nor did he have the authority to "end slavery".
The states had a right to secede from the union.
Did they though? Even the Confederacy explicitly forbade it.
The union committed war crimes during the civil war, violating the bill of rights and particularly trampling the 9th and 10th amendments, and the entire framework of the US government.
Violating either, even if established, is not a war crime. But do feel free to show how Lincoln violated the ius in bello as understood by people in the 1860s.
You are calling people "spoiled" for correctly identifying a point in US history that started the decline of the US and removing rose colored glasses from a president that caused it. The hell is your problem? These things are objective truths. Lincoln treating the states as subservient property of the federal government was bad.
I'm calling people spoiled for using the word 'dictator' for someone who clearly wasn't. Anything else you want to argue, perfectly fine. But then argue that and not something that is not true.
If the civil war had actually been about slavery, if the fighting had been to the extent of smacking the south over that, it would have played out very differently. It also would have ended with the US staying separate countries.
Obviously, no political leader anywhere is going to invest political capital in something that does not benefit him, and no one's going to fight a war to "end slavery". So much should be obvious.
It did not. Lincoln was no great heroic champion of rights.
He was though.All he said was that slavery should not be extended into the territories, and when he won, the sore losers seceded.
He started that war to force the southern states back under the boot of the federal government, and the precedent of federal power followed.
Man, how was Lincoln gonna lose the election in 1864 when he criminalized dissent, held people without charge, closed newspapers, and didn't allow even Republicans in southern states to send electors?
Remember, he said that they weren't at war. Rebellion, but not War, because that would have identified that the Confederacy was a foreign country. The Uninionists had set up parallel governments. Officially speaking, the South was still allowed to vote in this election. The state governments were officially in rebellion, but that doesn't mean that every single person in the state was not. Tennessee & Louisiana were simply not counted. Now, there was no functioning legal Democratic Party in either state because they would have been declared seditious if they had, and would have been arrested by the military government of these states... which, uh, by the way, is illegal.
This is kinda the problem here. If the South wasn't a foreign country, then you have to count their votes, and guess what? Lincoln's not gonna win that election. But if you recognize the South seceded, then you don't have to count their votes, but you do have to admit that you are invading a foreign country to conquer it. Even if you say "okay but the states are in rebellion", that's only those governments. The people aren't officially in rebellion unless they declare themselves as part of it, and that's on an individual basis. In the Whiskey Rebellion, it was specific people, not the Pennsylvania. The people may still vote as they wish for their own Unionist government. Judging by Kentucky, that would have gone very badly for Lincoln, so he just ignored the law (like he normally did), and just did whatever he wanted.
Man, how was Lincoln gonna lose the election in 1864 when he criminalized dissent
Did he? He had many critics, even within his own party.
Remember, he said that they weren't at war. Rebellion, but not War, because that would have identified that the Confederacy was a foreign country. The Uninionists had set up parallel governments. Officially speaking, the South was still allowed to vote in this election.
The legal niceties are always very amusing. First, the Union argued that secession was illegal. Then, when it suited them to argue that there had been a secession so they could have a Reconstruction, they argued the exact opposite.
Now, there was no functioning legal Democratic Party in either state because they would have been declared seditious if they had, and would have been arrested by the military government of these states... which, uh, by the way, is illegal.
Is it?
This is kinda the problem here. If the South wasn't a foreign country, then you have to count their votes, and guess what? Lincoln's not gonna win that election.
So if the South had not seceded, Lincoln would not have won the 1864 election. Not very smart to secede then, is it?
Same reason why I said that it was a mistake to attack Fort Sumter. The secession was going fine up to that point. Why rock the boat? Lincoln even offered to depart from Fort Sumter if the Virginia secession convention would disperse without a vote.
Yes. Adolf Hitler didn't kill every Democratic Socialist in Germany. Just because some people are allowed to live, and occasionally dissent in a very private way, it does not make it not censorious tyranny especially by American standards, where we allow Communists to condemn our participation in WW1, and even advocate for the overthrow of the government..
The legal niceties are always very amusing
Yes, this is the definition of a tyranny: when you find the law "an amusing nicety".
Is it?
Yes.
So if the South had not seceded, Lincoln would not have won the 1864 election. Not very smart to secede then, is it?
He could have not invaded in the first place, since secession was legal, and the SCOTUS would have said so had they been allowed to take a case.
Yes. Adolf Hitler didn't kill every Democratic Socialist in Germany. Just because some people are allowed to live, and occasionally dissent in a very private way, it does not make it not censorious tyranny especially by American standards
The dissent was not 'private'. The Democratic Party was running on a pro-peace platform.
where we allow Communists to condemn our participation in WW1,
I do recall that the famous phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" came in a case where the conviction of Jewish socialists attacking WW1 participation was upheld, and that Eugene Debs was in prison for the same thing.
That said, you do have much more free speech than we do.
Yes, this is the definition of a tyranny: when you find the law "an amusing nicety".
It's the way of the world. You no doubt know the Bismarck quote that the great questions are not settled by words and debates, but with iron and blood.
He could have not invaded in the first place, since secession was legal, and the SCOTUS would have said so had they been allowed to take a case.
Probably. It was dominated by Democrats, after all. And the thing is, he didn't "invade". He waited for them to fire the first shot.
Retarded is describing it lightly. Castro held no election that he could lose. That is the metric of a free country: can the election actually change something, or not? Lincoln though he was going to lose to a party that ran on a peace platform.
Yes, and he had his goon squad arrest the editors of their newspapers, barred them from delivery via the US Mail, had the literal army interrupt their attempts at private delivery, and then seized their ballots when all that wasn't enough.
Freedom of the press in these once-United States was in the 1860s separated only from the USSR in the 1940s by the fact that dissenters were shipped to Canada instead of Siberia.
Which ones, and for what reason?
Anyone who advocated against Stalin in the 1940s would be shot. And yet there was an entire political party opposing Lincoln, which won seats in the 1862 election.
That's somehow bad.
You guys are very spoiled.
There were several states that opposed Lincoln and many, mamy people were shot for it.
He didn't fight the civil war to end slavery. That was a happy side effect. The states had a right to secede from the union. The union committed war crimes during the civil war, violating the bill of rights and particularly trampling the 9th and 10th amendments, and the entire framework of the US government.
You are calling people "spoiled" for correctly identifying a point in US history that started the decline of the US and removing rose colored glasses from a president that caused it. The hell is your problem? These things are objective truths. Lincoln treating the states as subservient property of the federal government was bad.
If the civil war had actually been about slavery, if the fighting had been to the extent of smacking the south over that, it would have played out very differently. It also would have ended with the US staying separate countries.
It did not. Lincoln was no great heroic champion of rights. He started that war to force the southern states back under the boot of the federal government, and the precedent of federal power followed.
Theu trampled 1 through 10. The 3rd and 4th were killed and drawn and quartered while the 6th was summarily executed
Name five people who were "shot for opposing Lincoln".
Obviously, no one would go to war to end slavery. Nor did he have the authority to "end slavery".
Did they though? Even the Confederacy explicitly forbade it.
Violating either, even if established, is not a war crime. But do feel free to show how Lincoln violated the ius in bello as understood by people in the 1860s.
I'm calling people spoiled for using the word 'dictator' for someone who clearly wasn't. Anything else you want to argue, perfectly fine. But then argue that and not something that is not true.
Obviously, no political leader anywhere is going to invest political capital in something that does not benefit him, and no one's going to fight a war to "end slavery". So much should be obvious.
He was though.All he said was that slavery should not be extended into the territories, and when he won, the sore losers seceded.
He did not fire on Fort Sumter.
Man, how was Lincoln gonna lose the election in 1864 when he criminalized dissent, held people without charge, closed newspapers, and didn't allow even Republicans in southern states to send electors?
Remember, he said that they weren't at war. Rebellion, but not War, because that would have identified that the Confederacy was a foreign country. The Uninionists had set up parallel governments. Officially speaking, the South was still allowed to vote in this election. The state governments were officially in rebellion, but that doesn't mean that every single person in the state was not. Tennessee & Louisiana were simply not counted. Now, there was no functioning legal Democratic Party in either state because they would have been declared seditious if they had, and would have been arrested by the military government of these states... which, uh, by the way, is illegal.
This is kinda the problem here. If the South wasn't a foreign country, then you have to count their votes, and guess what? Lincoln's not gonna win that election. But if you recognize the South seceded, then you don't have to count their votes, but you do have to admit that you are invading a foreign country to conquer it. Even if you say "okay but the states are in rebellion", that's only those governments. The people aren't officially in rebellion unless they declare themselves as part of it, and that's on an individual basis. In the Whiskey Rebellion, it was specific people, not the Pennsylvania. The people may still vote as they wish for their own Unionist government. Judging by Kentucky, that would have gone very badly for Lincoln, so he just ignored the law (like he normally did), and just did whatever he wanted.
Did he? He had many critics, even within his own party.
The legal niceties are always very amusing. First, the Union argued that secession was illegal. Then, when it suited them to argue that there had been a secession so they could have a Reconstruction, they argued the exact opposite.
Is it?
So if the South had not seceded, Lincoln would not have won the 1864 election. Not very smart to secede then, is it?
Almost like they don't have the benefit of hindsight or being an outside observer like you. Because all your defenses are just that.
Obviously, I judge by hindsight.
Same reason why I said that it was a mistake to attack Fort Sumter. The secession was going fine up to that point. Why rock the boat? Lincoln even offered to depart from Fort Sumter if the Virginia secession convention would disperse without a vote.
The stupidity is just mind-boggling.
Yes. Adolf Hitler didn't kill every Democratic Socialist in Germany. Just because some people are allowed to live, and occasionally dissent in a very private way, it does not make it not censorious tyranny especially by American standards, where we allow Communists to condemn our participation in WW1, and even advocate for the overthrow of the government..
Yes, this is the definition of a tyranny: when you find the law "an amusing nicety".
Yes.
He could have not invaded in the first place, since secession was legal, and the SCOTUS would have said so had they been allowed to take a case.
The dissent was not 'private'. The Democratic Party was running on a pro-peace platform.
I do recall that the famous phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" came in a case where the conviction of Jewish socialists attacking WW1 participation was upheld, and that Eugene Debs was in prison for the same thing.
That said, you do have much more free speech than we do.
It's the way of the world. You no doubt know the Bismarck quote that the great questions are not settled by words and debates, but with iron and blood.
Probably. It was dominated by Democrats, after all. And the thing is, he didn't "invade". He waited for them to fire the first shot.
Is that even true?
Which though?