Oliver Cromwell.
I think you can make a strong argument that Ulrich Zwingli was a dictator. While he may not have held the official title, when he gave commands they were obeyed.
Hastings Banda of Malawi was a Presbyterian and had been an elder of the Church of Scotland.
Those things are true of many people I’d count dictators.
Interesting. Just to muddy the waters on the South/Central American figures,
Wikipedia says he was raised Catholic and switched religions late in life
Not sure about this guy either. The Wikipedia entry says both Pentecostal and Catholic, and this link calls him a Catholic.
More importantly, he wasn’t a Protestant.
What was he then?
Looking at Wikipedia’s List of Dictators in Modern Times (not evaluating their assessment of the nature of rule; and religion is not listed for everyone)
Frank Bainimarama (Fiji) - Methodist
Adolf Hitler (Germany) - Conflicting, raised Catholic, publicly somewhat Protestant, privately confusing
Efrain Rios Montt (Guatamala) - Church of the World (Pentecostal)
Miklos Horthy (Hungary) - Calvinism
Daniel rap Moi (Kenya) - Just lists him as “Christian”
Vidkun Quisling (Norway) - Raised Lutheran, professed a personal creation (“Universism”) as an adult
Josef Pilsudski (Poland) - Born Catholic, went Lutheran, went back to Catholic
Chiang Kai-shek (China) - Methodist
Syngman Rhee (South Korea) - Methodist
Yoweri Museveni (Uganda) - Anglican
He was a Deist.
His wife and kids were Protestant and he was raised in a Protestant family, but he never personally joined a church or expressed specifically Christian personal viewpoints (he did believe in god).
To the extent he was Protestant is was probably more a cultural default than a personal belief.
Kim Ilsung was supposedly raised Presbyterian. Syngman Rhee was Methodist.
Here is Wiki’s List of dictators in modern times. There may be a few there who belonged to one of the Orthodox churches, not Protestant and not Catholic.
He came from a Protestant/Baptist background but was apparently never doctrinally adherent. He did assert vaguely Christian religiosity, and was presumably as devout as many identified with specific churches.
The Constitution, Article I, s. 9, specifically provides that habeas corpus can be suspended “… when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
However, the Constitution doesn’t specify whether the President or the Congress has the authority to suspend it. Lincoln assumed he had the power; when that was questioned, Congress retroactively ratified the suspension by statute. The Supreme Court later held that the suspension by Congress was constitutional, without dealing with whether the President could also do it. See: Ex parte Milligan.
So, it is clear that the Constitution authorises the suspension; it is not clear if the President can do it, since the issue had not arisen before; in Lincoln’s case, Congress later ratified his suspension. Doesn’t sound like the actions of an unconstitutional dictator to me.
That’s an interpretation, at best. He certainly never claimed it. You could just as well call him a Calvinist.
Methodism seems to be an incubator for dictators. 
I noted the same as An Gadai. I wonder what the Wesley brothers would think about that.
Perhaps interestingly, both Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush are Methodists.
You know who else came to power by constitutional means, don’t you? And also ruled until his death? :eek:
Autocratic rulers are dictators. So Lincoln wasn’t, Henry VIII was. Though I don’t know whether Henry was a big P Protestant or not.
There’s something about that Methodist + East Asian combo, at least!
Thank you for this. I’ve seen “Lincoln suspended habeas corpus” so many times used for and against Bush and Obama, it’s nice to hear some proper history.