Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
In response to Varebs contention that Lincoln was a tyrant, I thought I would begin a new thread dedicated to that theme.
Let's see if we all can provide historical evidence to either support or disprove this question.
Who's first?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
"Tyrant" is a word one uses when all else falls short. One doesn't have to know what it means; it just sounds good.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
If you (Ole, Unionblue) don't mind, I have a definition to pose, to see if Lincoln does or does not fall within the definition.
A tyrant is a ruler with absolute or near absolute power (such as the so-called absolute monarchs...the Sun King, for instance.) who uses it regardless of the law, and for purposes detremental to the welfare of his subjects, usually but not necessarily with the goal of personal gain. A tyrant treats any opposition or disagreement, however mild, as treason, and applies harsh punishment, up to and including execution without trial, to deal with it. A tyrant remains in power through fear of the punishment for overthrowing him, usually one deemed excessive even by the standards of the day in which he lives.
A tyrant is often but not necessarily also in power in the force place only due to brute force or intimidation...a man who came to the throne because he was the rightful heir of the past king can easily behave in a tyrannical manner as defined above, and a democratically elected leader (even an honestly democratically elected leader) can be a tyrant.
Tyrants rarely have much respect for the truth, and never accept blame for disasters, either blaming them on external enemies or finding scapegoats.
This seems to be more or less objective definition, or at least one which one can measure Lincoln's actions against and see whether he demonstrates the traits stated here in or not.
__________________ Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less. - Robert E. Lee
The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just. - Abraham Lincoln
Being a rather simple person, I tend to look at the basics of the word.
I then went and checked my Roget's II; The New Thesaurus (Expanded Edition), just to make sure I got it right. Here's what I found.
tyrant noun
1. An absolute ruler, esp. one who is harsh and oppressive. 1. DICTATOR. 2. One who imposes or favors absolute obedience to authority. 2. AUTHORITARIAN noun.
tyrannical also tyrannic
1. Having and exercising complete political power and control. 1. ABSOLUTE. 2. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority. AUTHORITARIAN adjective.
tyrannize verb
1. To exercise absolute power, esp. arbitrarily or cruelly: The occupying army tyrannized the vanquished. 1. Syn: trample on.--Idiom grind someone's face in the dirt (or mud). 2. To command in an arrogant manner. 2. BOSS verb.
tyrannousadjective
Having and exercising complete political power and control. ABSOLUTE.
I think that just about covers it and I think we are pretty much on the same page.
Now, with these definitions, was Lincoln a tyrant?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I do not put President Lincoln in the position of "tyrant" and or "dictator."
Looking at the Official Records of the Rebellion; using the search engine "Lincoln" -- his correspondences via orders, special orders, telegraph, cypher and the like; it is amazing how many requests for pardons he received as well as granted; even having the condemed transferred to Washington/Federal City as to talk to them himself.
Now, most of the condemed were found guilty by court-martial; some sentences death or less; he was extremely compassionate. Even vouched for some soldiers, knowing family members and the like.
In addition; the way the US Constitution is set up with the 'three powers' if Lincoln was beyond the levels acceptable; he would have been subjected to Impeachment; which President Johnson (Lincoln's former VP) would become the Nation's first Impeachable case before Congress; and by one vote; was found Not Guilty. Hindsight, we (in a general sense) was due to politics and not entirely due to crimes against the United States of America; under the various legal descriptions that would be the criteria of 'impeachment.'
This is part of the genius of the founding fathers in creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Since neither the Administrative Branch, Legislative Branch and or Judicial Branch; have surpreme power on their own; the 2/3 majority favors the sway of the Government as a whole, in my opinion.
I will also add, since the Confederacy used the US Constitution as the framework of the Southern Confederacy in the period of the American Civil War; I have noticed that the Union/Federals had never accused President Jefferson Davis as a 'tyrant' and or 'dictator.'
Although President Davis had 'control' issues; a micro-manager and directed for the most part; he would be seen as one if there wasn't their own form of 'Congress' and "Judicial" branches; which is in the shadows due to the pronounced 'directions' of Davis. However, it is my understanding of the Confederate States of America's 'Constitution'--it was a mirror image of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights with changes that best suited their 'cause' and or foundation principles that justified secession. I would like to think, if President Davis met the criteria of 'tyrant'/'dictator' his own Constitution would put into motion the impeachment procedure.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration;
M. E. Wolf
1864 disproves the allegation of tyranny. Tyrants don't stand for re-election.
Careful, Scribe. While I don't believe that Lincoln was a tyrant, I also can't fully subscribe to your argument. Tyranny of the majority was a major concern of the founding fathers. Notably in Federalist #51 Publius argued....
"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."(Italics mine)
It is largely this fear of tyranny of the majority that caused the founders to ultimately include a bill of rights in the federal constitution.
__________________ David
"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person" diddyriddick
In response to Varebs contention that Lincoln was a tyrant, I thought I would begin a new thread dedicated to that theme.
Let's see if we all can provide historical evidence to either support or disprove this question.
Who's first?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Lincoln's tyranny seems to have come about through use.
He started out sort of clueless, and then decided that HE would have to control things.
He did not like the Constitutional restraints, being a Whig in the House, and had always chafed at the idea of Constitutional restraints.
He had always been a consolidationalist collectivist.
This requires more power than one ought to have, in a
state's right representative republic...
WAR POWERS and other ideologies were of course fabrications on his part.
His failure to recognize the Confederate South was his way of looking at his rival political party, whom they actually were, and whom he had nothing but derision for, either as a Flying Congressman going out the window, back in the day, or as a president bent upon starting trouble at Sumter.
I will say this:
Vareb and others who hold his tyranny to be a fact could use Lincoln's efforts towards ending slavery as a type of tyranny.
Even offering the South the 12 to 16 hundred million dollars it would have actually cost to free the slaves...
realistically...
this was also a type of tyranny.
Slaves were property.
Legal property.
And Lincoln and company knew if they went through channels to free these people, with amendments, the prices for them would have to be paid. By the government.
Much cheaper to steal them through 'acts of war'.
The Emancipation Proclamation was theft from citizens who were being punished for the Confederate government's existence.
This is the act of a tyrant.
The Federal's response to Sumter was the act of an arrogant tyrant. (And please take due note of the type and quality of those who support Lincoln to this day... They have no problem with forced Abolition, theft of slaves, insufficent 'compensated' emancipation, destruction of slave-based economies with no regard for the Southern economy, and setting the forced moral tone of the nation, when it is not the nation's place to set these things...).
This is indescribable Tyranny.
Lincoln and the entire North, in every answer they give to the South, live and breathe absolute TYRANNY.
So, yes, being their representative, he's a tyrant.
And as far as I can see, one of the absolute best.
Lincoln's tyranny seems to have come about through use.
Examples?
He started out sort of clueless, and then decided that HE would have to control things.
Examples, Incidents of, etc?
He did not like the Constitutional restraints, being a Whig in the House, and had always chafed at the idea of Constitutional restraints.
And Lincoln demonstrated this 'chaffing' against Constitutional restraints when?
He had always been a consolidationalist collectivist.
(Sigh) When and where did Lincoln demonstrate this "consolidationalist collectivst" trait?
This requires more power than one ought to have, in a
state's right representative republic...
And Lincoln claimed additional power how? Where? When?
WAR POWERS and other ideologies were of course fabrications on his part.
WAR POWERS cannot be fabricated in a country where armed rebellion is taking place? And what "other ideologies" did Lincoln "fabricate?"
His failure to recognize the Confederate South was his way of looking at his rival political party, whom they actually were, and whom he had nothing but derision for, either as a Flying Congressman going out the window, back in the day, or as a president bent upon starting trouble at Sumter.
Examples of Lincoln declaring such in his speeches, writtings, etc., would be appreciated.
I will say this:
Vareb and others who hold his tyranny to be a fact could use Lincoln's efforts towards ending slavery as a type of tyranny.
As Vareb has yet to reply to this thread and its topic, it remains to be seen as to how he will present Lincoln as a tyrant. But I am sure it will at least contain parts of historical documentation, quotes and the like, unlike the lack of such in this post.
Even offering the South the 12 to 16 hundred million dollars it would have actually cost to free the slaves...
$400,000,000.
realistically...
Reality usually is based in some sort of historical evidence, document, report, letter, etc.
this was also a type of tyranny.
I think you should refer to the above definitions in order to be more clear about what tyranny is.
Slaves were property.
Yes.
Legal property.
Until 1863.
And Lincoln and company knew if they went through channels to free these people, with amendments, the prices for them would have to be paid. By the government.
Your source for this claim?
Much cheaper to steal them through 'acts of war'.
Over 620,000 lives lost seems "cheaper" to you?
The Emancipation Proclamation was theft from citizens who were being punished for the Confederate government's existence.
One cannot begin an armed rebellion, withdraw from the protection of the Constitution, and not expect to be harmed.
This is the act of a tyrant.
Hmmm. Seems more like the act of a people who payed the price for placing their cause in the 'trial by combat' arena.
The Federal's response to Sumter was the act of an arrogant tyrant.
This will have to be explaned in far more careful detail, at least to me. How is it a federal fort, manned by soldiers in service to their government, carrying out their sworn duty, when resupplied by their government so they don't starve or are left helpless in the fact of a determined enemy, is the act of a tyrant? Perhaps we should check the definitions at the start of this thread once more?
(And please take due note of the type and quality of those who support Lincoln to this day... They have no problem with forced Abolition, theft of slaves, insufficent 'compensated' emancipation, destruction of slave-based economies with no regard for the Southern economy, and setting the forced moral tone of the nation, when it is not the nation's place to set these things...).
(I submit your above statement is sour grapes/personal opinion with no basis in any supportable fact, and in fact is what we here in the 'colonies' call a "cheap shot." Perhaps we should stick to the primary purpose of this thread, Was Linclon a TYRANT? Instead of "Are all the people who support Lincoln to this day, etc., etc.")
This is indescribable Tyranny.
It is, as it seems to be pretty indescribable to any known definition by the dictionary or thesaurus of the word "tyranny."
Lincoln and the entire North, in every answer they give to the South, live and breathe absolute TYRANNY.
Could you provide examples of these answers that the "entire North, in EVERY answer they give" that breathed absolute TYRANNY?
So, yes, being their representative, he's a tyrant.
A "representative tyrant?" Is that like the term "jumbo shrimp?"
And as far as I can see, one of the absolute best.
With the decided lack of evidence provided vice the large slices of personal opinion, I cannot see how you come to this "absolute best" conclusion.
Tory
BUT that's just me.
Perhaps you can do better by your next post.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Lincoln, a TYRANT? 
Linear Mode
