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.
The dissent was not 'private'. The Democratic Party was running on a pro-peace platform.
Co-opted dissent doesn't mean freedom. Had they been Democrats in Mississippi, they would have been jailed.
I do recall that the famous phrase
And that case is what lead to the internal dialogue in the court which lead to it's interpretation being loosened and dismissed.
It's the way of the world.
That's not the way of any civilized world, only the way of war. Bismark was a marauder (yes that's the correct word I intended). Your government is not supposed to be at war with it's people, that's why it's a tyranny.
And the thing is, he didn't "invade". He waited for them to fire the first shot.
There had been gunfights and militias taking place all over the country. Nobody really knows who fired the first shot. Fort Sumter was just an excuse, which is why Razor covered it.
Hell, even if we go back to what could be considered the first shot in Kansas, it's even stupider than that.
You want to know what the first shot of Bleeding Kansas was? Two guys getting in a drunken bar fight. It wasnt started over their ideals. It wasnt started over religion. They had had previous beef with each other over a territorial dispute, they bumped into each other in a bar, and a fight broke out that saw one shoot the other.
It just so happens that the shooter was a leader in a local Pro-Slave-State militia, while the victim was a member of a Pro-Free-State militia. And it just so happened the local sheriff was Slave-State, so he just arrested the leader of the local Free-State militia and trumped up charges to execute him for the "murder". At which point the local militia broke him out of jail and it turned into a stand-off that was only broken up after the Territorial Governor sent in the cavalry to break it up.
Even then, while the Slave-Staters fired the first shot, it was the Free-Staters who escalated, specifically John Brown. Since his response to the 1st Sacking of Lawrence (which left much of the town destroyed but managed to only have one person die), and the attempts to deescalate after it, was to go and brutally massacre several Slave-Staters in their homes, execution style while ranting out biblical verses.
Which caused the Slave-Staters to escalate with their own retribution attacks, which caused the Free-Staters to launch retribution, and oh look, now we have Bleeding Kansas, and both the North and South believe the slavery issue is now a matter of literal life and death.
EDIT: Of course, on the other hand, its also worth remembering even before the first shot, the Slave-Staters had used vast intimidation and corruption to run a rigged election to try and force being a Slave-State. But that one was at least met with condemnation by all but the most openly partisan because it was a bit too obvious what they were doing.
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.
Co-opted dissent doesn't mean freedom. Had they been Democrats in Mississippi, they would have been jailed.
And that case is what lead to the internal dialogue in the court which lead to it's interpretation being loosened and dismissed.
That's not the way of any civilized world, only the way of war. Bismark was a marauder (yes that's the correct word I intended). Your government is not supposed to be at war with it's people, that's why it's a tyranny.
There had been gunfights and militias taking place all over the country. Nobody really knows who fired the first shot. Fort Sumter was just an excuse, which is why Razor covered it.
Hell, even if we go back to what could be considered the first shot in Kansas, it's even stupider than that.
You want to know what the first shot of Bleeding Kansas was? Two guys getting in a drunken bar fight. It wasnt started over their ideals. It wasnt started over religion. They had had previous beef with each other over a territorial dispute, they bumped into each other in a bar, and a fight broke out that saw one shoot the other.
It just so happens that the shooter was a leader in a local Pro-Slave-State militia, while the victim was a member of a Pro-Free-State militia. And it just so happened the local sheriff was Slave-State, so he just arrested the leader of the local Free-State militia and trumped up charges to execute him for the "murder". At which point the local militia broke him out of jail and it turned into a stand-off that was only broken up after the Territorial Governor sent in the cavalry to break it up.
Even then, while the Slave-Staters fired the first shot, it was the Free-Staters who escalated, specifically John Brown. Since his response to the 1st Sacking of Lawrence (which left much of the town destroyed but managed to only have one person die), and the attempts to deescalate after it, was to go and brutally massacre several Slave-Staters in their homes, execution style while ranting out biblical verses.
Which caused the Slave-Staters to escalate with their own retribution attacks, which caused the Free-Staters to launch retribution, and oh look, now we have Bleeding Kansas, and both the North and South believe the slavery issue is now a matter of literal life and death.
EDIT: Of course, on the other hand, its also worth remembering even before the first shot, the Slave-Staters had used vast intimidation and corruption to run a rigged election to try and force being a Slave-State. But that one was at least met with condemnation by all but the most openly partisan because it was a bit too obvious what they were doing.