How come Lincoln got away with shutting down hundreds of newspapers and jailed journalists

[TNHarley]

and trump cant whine about fake news without being accused of being a tyrant? Lincoln actually WAS a tyrant.
Geez, americans are so disingenuous
America's Greatest President: Abraham Lincoln
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w304644/ajha/americanjournalism/fall09.pdf
Im not even going to get started on lincoln sending out sherman to rape, murder pillage and kill livestock and all of his other unconstitutional acts
Im very interested. TIA

It's not 1865 any more.

I know right? Its 2018.. about time we face the truth.
Thanks for pointing that out

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Excellent.
There was a supreme court ruling on this but it happened AFTER the fact.

Ex Post Facto?

How convenient, right?

 

[NightFox]

Ok, i get what you are saying now. But now i feel like that is a false equivalency lol
Trump was talking about kicking out an outlet from the WH press briefing. Lincoln jailed and shut down newspapers.
Has trump mentioned arrest, suspension of habeas corpus without congressional approval or shutting down outlets?
Is what Trump mentioned unconstitutional? Will it involve wrongful imprisonment?
Maybe im getting too semantic but i feel like the differences are huge.

Again you appear to be attempting to diminish or mitigate what Trump is doing by comparing it to what Lincoln did.

Trump using the bully pulpit of his office in an attempt to selectively intimidate journalists and the organizations they work for is immoral as well as in complete violation of the original intent of the first Amendment not to mention unethical , period, end of story, nothing any former President did mitigates that fact.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

and trump cant whine about fake news without being accused of being a tyrant? Lincoln actually WAS a tyrant.
Geez, americans are so disingenuous
America's Greatest President: Abraham Lincoln
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w304644/ajha/americanjournalism/fall09.pdf
Im not even going to get started on lincoln sending out sherman to rape, murder pillage and kill livestock and all of his other unconstitutional acts
Im very interested. TIA

Ahhh..a history question..cool.

The last first--The Confederate States were, at the time, a sovereign power that we were at war with..thus the Constitutional argument has no sway. Sherman's acts were acts of war..and legal under the laws and codes of the time.

Now, to Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus--in his capacity as Commander in chief..and head of state--once he declared martial law..and once the Congress gave him the authority...he had the power to suspend Habeus Corpus---and was able to jail anyone he wished with impunity. It is interesting to note that FDR did the much same thing before and during WWII and no one or almost no one, had an issue with it.

Abraham Lincoln: Proclamation 113—Declaring Martial Law and a Further Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in Kentucky

 

[TNHarley]

and trump cant whine about fake news without being accused of being a tyrant? Lincoln actually WAS a tyrant.
Geez, americans are so disingenuous
America's Greatest President: Abraham Lincoln
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w304644/ajha/americanjournalism/fall09.pdf
Im not even going to get started on lincoln sending out sherman to rape, murder pillage and kill livestock and all of his other unconstitutional acts
Im very interested. TIA

Ahhh..a history question..cool.

The last first--The Confederate States were, at the time, a sovereign power that we were at war with..thus the Constitutional argument has no sway. Sherman's acts were acts of war..and legal under the laws and codes of the time.

Now, to Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus--in his capacity as Commander in chief..and head of state--once he declared martial law..and once the Congress gave him the authority...he had the power to suspend Habeus Corpus---and was able to jail anyone he wished with impunity. It is interesting to note that FDR did the much same thing before and during WWII and no one or almost no one, had an issue with it.

Abraham Lincoln: Proclamation 113—Declaring Martial Law and a Further Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in Kentucky

He had it suspended for 2 years before congress gave him the OK, actually.
Being a sympathizer doesnt mean you arent a citizen. You also need a conviction.
Lincoln did this to american citizens and businesses. Not just ones in states that seceded.
No one cared because people like tyranny if their agenda is going forward. Seems to me anyways. I mean, some arent.. but not enough.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

and trump cant whine about fake news without being accused of being a tyrant? Lincoln actually WAS a tyrant.
Geez, americans are so disingenuous
America's Greatest President: Abraham Lincoln
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w304644/ajha/americanjournalism/fall09.pdf
Im not even going to get started on lincoln sending out sherman to rape, murder pillage and kill livestock and all of his other unconstitutional acts
Im very interested. TIA

Ahhh..a history question..cool.

The last first--The Confederate States were, at the time, a sovereign power that we were at war with..thus the Constitutional argument has no sway. Sherman's acts were acts of war..and legal under the laws and codes of the time.

Now, to Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus--in his capacity as Commander in chief..and head of state--once he declared martial law..and once the Congress gave him the authority...he had the power to suspend Habeus Corpus---and was able to jail anyone he wished with impunity. It is interesting to note that FDR did the much same thing before and during WWII and no one or almost no one, had an issue with it.

Abraham Lincoln: Proclamation 113—Declaring Martial Law and a Further Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in Kentucky

He had it suspended for 2 years before congress gave him the OK, actually.
Being a sympathizer doesnt mean you arent a citizen. You also need a conviction.
Lincoln did this to american citizens and businesses. Not just ones in states that seceded.
No one cared because people like tyranny if their agenda is going forward. Seems to me anyways. I mean, some arent.. but not enough.

Times of war are tough on liberties..no doubt. Feelings run high..like the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent--seems horrible, today--but the majority of Americans swallowed it without a problem.

One thing..people are a lot more educated today...and with the net..information is right at our fingertips..if Trump, or some future President attempted to do the same thing as Lincoln, he'd better have a crisis comparable to the Civil War AND a compliant Congress.

 

[there4eyeM]

This has been gone over before and never refuted, so, of course, it is forgotten and we have to go over it again for the obtuse.
It has to do with language and the meaning of words and actions. It was so discreet, so intertwined that later people missed it, but it was there at the time.
The Articles of Confederation formed a Perpetual Union, and all the States signed. Those signing were educated people (all white male landowners, by the way) who understood English well, quite well compared to most of what we see in threads here.
Some time later, it was judged wise to modify the agreement and form a 'more perfect Union'. Notice that "more" is a comparative term. The Union that existed was being improved, not abrogated. It was not another union, it was a logical continuation of the Perpetual Union, as all at the time understood. Otherwise, these astute, educated men would have mentioned creating a new union.
Now, the only reason to reject this is the argument that the new Constitution was not legal because it was not really approved in the fashion described in the original articles. In that case, the Perpetual Union was and is in effect because the later document is null.
It is an insult to the intelligence of those who wrote and approved the documents to maintain they didn't understand what they were doing.
P.S. link:Our Federal Union! It Must Be Preserved! - Dictionary definition of Our Federal Union! It Must Be Preserved! | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary
"OUR FEDERAL UNION! IT MUST BE PRESERVED!" was President Andrew Jackson's volunteer toast delivered at the annual Democratic Jefferson Day dinner on 13 April 1830 in response to the South Carolina senator Robert Hayne's pronullification speech. Hayne's speech and the toasts that followed were intended to display a united front for states' rights within the party. Jackson became aware of the plan before the dinner, and he decided to pronounce finally his position on nullification and win back the initiative. To the attendees' shock, Jackson, often identified with states' rights, declared his opposition to nullification and proclaimed his belief in a supreme, perpetual Union. This episode foreshadowed Jackson's successful confrontation with the South Carolina nullifiers, led by Vice President John C. Calhoun, in 1832–1833.
Jackson, an otherwise "states rights" Southerner said this because he understood the spirit, original intent and the very words that established the Union.
People can rebel, and often have. People can break their words and promises, and often have.
Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't.

 

[buckeye45_73]

So the end justifies the means? Even when it involves trashing civil, human and constitutional rights?
ONE MAN trashed our rule of law to do what ONE MAN thought was right. Which begs the question; why didnt congress suspend Habeas corpus? I mean, he was in a civil war!!!
If any other ruler does that in todays standards, he is a dictator. A tyrant. He is probably getting overthrown by the CIA and MI6 too..

Well that is an extreme situation, I would have opposed it at the time.....but it worked out....so he took extreme measures, but he didn't keep that power.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The last first--The Confederate States were, at the time, a sovereign power that we were at war with..thus the Constitutional argument has no sway. Sherman's acts were acts of war..and legal under the laws and codes of the time.

Does not make it right.

Now, to Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus--in his capacity as Commander in chief..and head of state--once he declared martial law..and once the Congress gave him the authority...he had the power to suspend Habeus Corpus---and was able to jail anyone he wished with impunity. It is interesting to note that FDR did the much same thing before and during WWII and no one or almost no one, had an issue with it.

Doesn't make it right.

What-aboutisms are always used to justify wrong-doing.

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln had the Civil War to deal with and FDR had WW2. Both presidents received lavish praise by historians even though they may have committed unconstitutional actions while in office. That's the way the system works. FDR authorized the incarceration of American citizens without due process. Nothing could be worse than that but the media supported him and that's all it took. The media hates the current president and that's all it takes to influence opinion.

Where does the Constitution give the president the authority to shut down newspapers because we are at war? Here's a hint: it doesn't.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

The last first--The Confederate States were, at the time, a sovereign power that we were at war with..thus the Constitutional argument has no sway. Sherman's acts were acts of war..and legal under the laws and codes of the time.

Does not make it right.

Now, to Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus--in his capacity as Commander in chief..and head of state--once he declared martial law..and once the Congress gave him the authority...he had the power to suspend Habeus Corpus---and was able to jail anyone he wished with impunity. It is interesting to note that FDR did the much same thing before and during WWII and no one or almost no one, had an issue with it.

Doesn't make it right.

What-aboutisms are always used to justify wrong-doing.

It's just history dude..cut and dried. Everything must be judged in the context of the times..not by our current standards. As for Sherman's march..he broke the back of the South--from a purely military point of view..it was a success. Moral of the story..don't rebel, unless, of course, you can win.

There is no 'right or wrong' in war...just winning and losing.

 

[bripat9643]

The last first--The Confederate States were, at the time, a sovereign power that we were at war with..thus the Constitutional argument has no sway. Sherman's acts were acts of war..and legal under the laws and codes of the time.

Does not make it right.

Now, to Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus--in his capacity as Commander in chief..and head of state--once he declared martial law..and once the Congress gave him the authority...he had the power to suspend Habeus Corpus---and was able to jail anyone he wished with impunity. It is interesting to note that FDR did the much same thing before and during WWII and no one or almost no one, had an issue with it.

Doesn't make it right.

What-aboutisms are always used to justify wrong-doing.

It's just history dude..cut and dried. Everything must be judged in the context of the times..not by our current standards. As for Sherman's march..he broke the back of the South--from a purely military point of view..it was a success. Moral of the story..don't rebel, unless, of course, you can win.

According to you, the Holocaust was "just history." It's nice to know you will excuse virtually anything so long as someone you approve of is doing it. According to the context of the times, Lincoln was a tyrant and a dictator who wiped his ass on the Constitution.

Lesson of the story: Like all snowflakes, you're a shameless unprincipled douchebag.

 

[there4eyeM]

The legal method to secede would have been a Constitutional amendment. The pro-session clique knew what that would mean. They knew they would lose a republican form of decision, so they chose violence to wrest themselves from their obligations.
This is no defense of Lincoln, the North , the Articles of Convention or the Constitution. This is an explanation. It does not reflect even approval of the Union or the existence of the American nation.
The Confederacy and slavery were wrong. That doesn't mean directly that the Union was or is right. Seeing how detoured, how subverted that powerful country has become makes one wonder if an alternative history might not have been better. If the American War for Independence had no been lost by England, history could arguably have been much improved for all the world. That is just an alternative history, fiction subject, and not for here. Don't take it as an attack on all that's holy. It is just a comment. It can be explained fully, but not here.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

The last first--The Confederate States were, at the time, a sovereign power that we were at war with..thus the Constitutional argument has no sway. Sherman's acts were acts of war..and legal under the laws and codes of the time.

Does not make it right.

Now, to Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus--in his capacity as Commander in chief..and head of state--once he declared martial law..and once the Congress gave him the authority...he had the power to suspend Habeus Corpus---and was able to jail anyone he wished with impunity. It is interesting to note that FDR did the much same thing before and during WWII and no one or almost no one, had an issue with it.

Doesn't make it right.

What-aboutisms are always used to justify wrong-doing.

It's just history dude..cut and dried. Everything must be judged in the context of the times..not by our current standards. As for Sherman's march..he broke the back of the South--from a purely military point of view..it was a success. Moral of the story..don't rebel, unless, of course, you can win.

According to you, the Holocaust was "just history." It's nice to know you will excuse virtually anything so long as someone you approve of is doing it. According to the context of the times, Lincoln was a tyrant and a dictator who wiped his ass on the Constitution.

Lesson of the story: Like all snowflakes, you're a shameless unprincipled douchebag.

Not big on history eh? No worries..most American aren't. I would challenge you to find anywhere where I indicated I either agreed or disagreed. Either would be stupid..as history is what it is. Smart people draw lessons from it. stupid ones try and fight the same battles over and over again.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This has been gone over before and never refuted, so, of course, it is forgotten and we have to go over it again for the obtuse.
It has to do with language and the meaning of words and actions. It was so discreet, so intertwined that later people missed it, but it was there at the time.
The Articles of Confederation formed a Perpetual Union, and all the States signed. Those signing were educated people (all white male landowners, by the way) who understood English well, quite well compared to most of what we see in threads here.
Some time later, it was judged wise to modify the agreement and form a 'more perfect Union'. Notice that "more" is a comparative term. The Union that existed was being improved, not abrogated. It was not another union, it was a logical continuation of the Perpetual Union, as all at the time understood. Otherwise, these astute, educated men would have mentioned creating a new union.
Now, the only reason to reject this is the argument that the new Constitution was not legal because it was not really approved in the fashion described in the original articles. In that case, the Perpetual Union was and is in effect because the later document is null.
It is an insult to the intelligence of those who wrote and approved the documents to maintain they didn't understand what they were doing.
P.S. link:Our Federal Union! It Must Be Preserved! - Dictionary definition of Our Federal Union! It Must Be Preserved! | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary
"OUR FEDERAL UNION! IT MUST BE PRESERVED!" was President Andrew Jackson's volunteer toast delivered at the annual Democratic Jefferson Day dinner on 13 April 1830 in response to the South Carolina senator Robert Hayne's pronullification speech. Hayne's speech and the toasts that followed were intended to display a united front for states' rights within the party. Jackson became aware of the plan before the dinner, and he decided to pronounce finally his position on nullification and win back the initiative. To the attendees' shock, Jackson, often identified with states' rights, declared his opposition to nullification and proclaimed his belief in a supreme, perpetual Union. This episode foreshadowed Jackson's successful confrontation with the South Carolina nullifiers, led by Vice President John C. Calhoun, in 1832–1833.
Jackson, an otherwise "states rights" Southerner said this because he understood the spirit, original intent and the very words that established the Union.
People can rebel, and often have. People can break their words and promises, and often have.
Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't.

Then, Jefferson was wrong when he stated that the original 13 colonies were "free and independent" states?

"Perpetual" as used in the Articles of Confederation could not have meant never-ending without the ability to reform or dissolve. It only meant that the union did not have a sundown on it, nor a need to renew it. If "perpetual" meant what you say, the Constitution could not have been enacted. There is no such language in the Constitution.

Either way, none of this nonsense justifies the actions of Lincoln. None of it. Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of the "good intentions" behind such tyranny.

 

[there4eyeM]

Is not trying to tear a nation apart so you can rule a part of it "tyranny"?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

The legal method to secede would have been a Constitutional amendment. The pro-session clique knew what that would mean. They knew they would lose a republican form of decision, so they chose violence to wrest themselves from their obligations.
This is no defense of Lincoln, the North , the Articles of Convention or the Constitution. This is an explanation. It does not reflect even approval of the Union or the existence of the American nation.
The Confederacy and slavery were wrong. That doesn't mean directly that the Union was or is right. Seeing how detoured, how subverted that powerful country has become makes one wonder if an alternative history might not have been better. If the American War for Independence had no been lost by England, history could arguably have been much improved for all the world. That is just an alternative history, fiction subject, and not for here. Don't take it as an attack on all that's holy. It is just a comment. It can be explained fully, but not here.

And is quite interesting. If Lord North had taken his head out of his ass and gave the colonists what they desired, Parliamentary representation, history would have been far different. A strong and vibrant UK...poised to slap France down as itcontinued to funnel the riches of the world through London. I think the slavery argument would still have risen...to the point of war/ Who knows? One thing is certain....we would not be having this argument about Habeus Corpus...LOL!

 

[TNHarley]

Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power. (Letter from Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestly, January 29, 1804

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

This has been gone over before and never refuted, so, of course, it is forgotten and we have to go over it again for the obtuse.
It has to do with language and the meaning of words and actions. It was so discreet, so intertwined that later people missed it, but it was there at the time.
The Articles of Confederation formed a Perpetual Union, and all the States signed. Those signing were educated people (all white male landowners, by the way) who understood English well, quite well compared to most of what we see in threads here.
Some time later, it was judged wise to modify the agreement and form a 'more perfect Union'. Notice that "more" is a comparative term. The Union that existed was being improved, not abrogated. It was not another union, it was a logical continuation of the Perpetual Union, as all at the time understood. Otherwise, these astute, educated men would have mentioned creating a new union.
Now, the only reason to reject this is the argument that the new Constitution was not legal because it was not really approved in the fashion described in the original articles. In that case, the Perpetual Union was and is in effect because the later document is null.
It is an insult to the intelligence of those who wrote and approved the documents to maintain they didn't understand what they were doing.
P.S. link:Our Federal Union! It Must Be Preserved! - Dictionary definition of Our Federal Union! It Must Be Preserved! | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary
"OUR FEDERAL UNION! IT MUST BE PRESERVED!" was President Andrew Jackson's volunteer toast delivered at the annual Democratic Jefferson Day dinner on 13 April 1830 in response to the South Carolina senator Robert Hayne's pronullification speech. Hayne's speech and the toasts that followed were intended to display a united front for states' rights within the party. Jackson became aware of the plan before the dinner, and he decided to pronounce finally his position on nullification and win back the initiative. To the attendees' shock, Jackson, often identified with states' rights, declared his opposition to nullification and proclaimed his belief in a supreme, perpetual Union. This episode foreshadowed Jackson's successful confrontation with the South Carolina nullifiers, led by Vice President John C. Calhoun, in 1832–1833.
Jackson, an otherwise "states rights" Southerner said this because he understood the spirit, original intent and the very words that established the Union.
People can rebel, and often have. People can break their words and promises, and often have.
Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't.

Then, Jefferson was wrong when he stated that the original 13 colonies were "free and independent" states?

"Perpetual" as used in the Articles of Confederation could not have meant never-ending without the ability to reform or dissolve. It only meant that the union did not have a sundown on it, nor a need to renew it. If "perpetual" meant what you say, the Constitution could not have been enacted. There is no such language in the Constitution.

Either way, none of this nonsense justifies the actions of Lincoln. None of it. Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of the "good intentions" behind such tyranny.

Scholars view the Civil War as the final determination between Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian philosophies.
Jefferson lost.

 

[TNHarley]

If secession was not legal to begin with, that means Abe shit on the constitution even more by taking up arms against his own countrymen.
There was one amendment that was rejected that was going to give the fed gov the power to attack a state. It failed and was never looked at again.