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

[gipper]

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 to shut down newspapers because we are at war? Here's a hint: it doesn't.

The Lincoln Cultist will ALWAYS justify his treasonous, murderous, and unconstitutional actions. They think him a saint, when in reality he was a devil. How fucked up is that?

 

[iceberg]

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.

obama was pretty damn bad about press abuse. hell he started a lot of the division when he went after FOX News.

then he went after and spied on any journalist that spoke badly of him or what he was doing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama threatened reporters who dared to look into his arms dealing at Benghazi. We were at war so Obama was allowed a lot of leeway here as well

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Nice juxtaposition..from Lincoln to Obama..coincidence..***snorts*** I think not.

 

[gipper]

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.

obama was pretty damn bad about press abuse. hell he started a lot of the division when he went after FOX News.

then he went after and spied on any journalist that spoke badly of him or what he was doing.

So true, but few Americans know anything about this. Maybe the historians will turn Big Ears into a Saint like they did the blood thirsty Dishonest Abe.

 

[TNHarley]

I love talking about how shitty politicians are. Especially FDR and this faggot.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

obama was pretty damn bad about press abuse. hell he started a lot of the division when he went after FOX News.

then he went after and spied on any journalist that spoke badly of him or what he was doing.

So true, but few Americans know anything about this. Maybe the historians will turn Big Ears into a Saint like they did the blood thirsty Dishonest Abe.

In the next 20 years, he will be top 10. He is black after all. And those historians apparently only consider shit they want to consider.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Evidence? None, of course. The Lincoln cult constantly makes this claim, but they can't point to a single piece of documentation that supports it.

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.

In what sense was the Confederacy "wrong?"

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Yep, either he invaded a soveriegn foreign country, or he murdered his fellow countrymen. Either way, he's a douchebag.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So might makes right, eh, douchebag?

 

[bripat9643]

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

Lincoln invaded soverign states of the union. That's the very definition of tyranny.

 

[WEATHER53]

How come liberals Live in50-150 years ago Plus engage in the fallacy of putting today’s lenses of more advanced perspective on a time when such perspectives did not exist?

 

[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.

So might makes right, eh, douchebag?

Yes..fool. In history..and on the battlefield. The United States won..the Confederacy lost. In the end, that's all that matters. The rest is just self-justifying BS.

As a patriotic American, I'm OK with the outcome. If a modern analogue to the Civil War should arise, I know what side I'm on..the side my family has always been on..The United States.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

How come liberals Live in50-150 years ago Plus engage in the fallacy of putting today’s lenses of more advanced perspective on a time when such perspectives did not exist?

Huh..odd..I was just thinking that about the alt/right types re-fighting the civil war? Did I..yes I did..just post that very same thing a few clicks back.

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump should shut CNN down, they are not "free press"

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So might makes right, eh, douchebag?

Yes..fool. In history..and on the battlefield. The United States won..the Confederacy lost. In the end, that's all that matters. The rest is just self-justifying BS.

As a patriotic American, I'm OK with the outcome. If a modern analogue to the Civil War should arise, I know what side I'm on..the side my family has always been on..The United States.

If that's all that matters, then why are we still discussing it?

You have just enunciated the moral code of Adolph Hitler. Your mother must be so proud!

You are OK with executing people without a trial, putting people in concentration camps, shutting down any newspaper the criticizes the dictator, arresting the entire legislature of the state of Maryland, issuing an arrest warrent for a Supreme Court justice, deliberately starving confederate prisoners and killing thousands of American citizens and destroying their property?

Really?

Most people would be ashamed to make such an admission.

 

[Sahba]

How come liberals Live in50-150 years ago Plus engage in the fallacy of putting today’s lenses of more advanced perspective on a time when such perspectives did not exist?

Huh..odd..I was just thinking that about the alt/right types re-fighting the civil war? Did I..yes I did..just post that very same thing a few clicks back.

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

Hey the ACLU must have been underfunded back then... huhh?

 

[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.

So might makes right, eh, douchebag?

Yes..fool. In history..and on the battlefield. The United States won..the Confederacy lost. In the end, that's all that matters. The rest is just self-justifying BS.

As a patriotic American, I'm OK with the outcome. If a modern analogue to the Civil War should arise, I know what side I'm on..the side my family has always been on..The United States.

If that's all that matters, then why are we still discussing it?

You have just enunciated the moral code of Adolph Hitler. Your mother must be so proud!

You are OK with executing people without a trial, putting people in concentration camps, shutting down any newspaper the criticizes the dictator, arresting the entire legislature of the state of Maryland, issuing an arrest warrent for a Supreme Court justice, deliberately starving confederate prisoners and killing thousands of American citizens and destroying their property?

Really?

Most people would be ashamed to make such an admission.

Gad..you're such a fool. This conversation was about a historical event..and the whys and wherefores of it..not a discussion as to the ethics..and in any event, you come ill-equipped to a real historical/ethical debate..as your conclusions are already preformed...and not amenable to actual historical facts.

It happened..it's over. draw the lessons you need to and move on.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

I agree.

Don't start a war with us.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Because a tyrant killed thousands of his own countrymen to settle it.