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?
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?
Considering that it happened in times of war, yeah, it does not. The Southern states were criminalizing criticism of slavery even in peacetime.
What qualifies someone as a dictator?
LINCOLN WAS JUSTIFIED!
"Do these things qualify someone as a dictator?"
"Not in times of war."