I see I’ve started a monster. An entertaining monster, I’ll admit, but a monster nonetheless. I will refrain from addressing my O.P. as I’m sure it will only result in more egg (egg I’m sure that will be used in the baking of a cake) on my face. Thanks for trying Tracer, but I’m gathering it’s a lost cause.
I think that his actions were justified in that case. The Constitution allows Habeus Corpus to be suspended in times of national emergency. The debatable question is, “Who has the power to suspend it; Congress or the President” I think Lincoln’s thoughts at the time were, “Well, the capital is surrounded by the traitors, and the troops that are supposed to come down to protect Washington are being blocked in Maryland. Meanwhile, traitors are formally meeting in Maryland, and probably plan to declare secession. Congress isn’t in town, so they can’t suspend habeus corpus. Aw, fuck it. I’m going to arrest them. I’ll deal with the consequences, because I’m not going to have the capital isolated. They want to impeach me or something, let them.”
You could say that Lincoln wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
So, pretty clear justification for suspension by someone (“when in Cases of Rebellion…the public Safety may require it”). I will note that the paragraph in question is contained in the article dealing with the powers of Congress (and more specifically, with a section dealing with stuff Congress can’t do, like suspend habeas corpus, unless there’s a really overriding need to do so). So, Lincoln appears to have overstepped his bounds there. Whether or not this makes him a cruel tyrant, maddened by power-lust, his hands covered with the blood of innocents, worse than Caligula, worse than Attila the Hun, worse than Genghis Khan, worse than Nixon, etc., etc., etc., is more debatable.
Lincoln used the suspension of the writ also for newspaper editors he disagreed with. But I hardly think that his suspension of the writ, which IIRC Congress did not try to override or object to, is the extent of the case for Lincoln being a “least favorite” President, that doesn’t keep this thread from being a troll in any way. It’s peanuts. MMMMMMmmmmm peanut butter cake.
Nor does this make him a tyrant. A tyrant is someone who exercizes a power that no one has. Technically he usurped a power that Congress had. That makes him a usurper in this instance.
If people want to go ahead and feed the troll, well alright. But a better response would be a thread about Lincoln, the good, the bad and the ugly (poor guy).
Looky here, Sparky. If you want a debate, don’t rely on other people to read your mind. I’d say shit or get off the pot, but clearly you’ve already decided upon the latter.