Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,064
Should War powers extend to your Political opponents? If he could of captured them, he would of thrown them in Prison. Breckenridge is a good example. Also Unionist who weren’t Republicans were treated as Traitors. He didn’t just attack Secessionist.

Many Historians are Lincoln Apologist. That won’t last forever.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
All we are left with is the nation Lincoln helped to preserve, the country we all were born, raised, and lived in all of our lives.

"Out of the many, one."

We could have been left with a lost worse.

Unionblue
I agree. The marvel of Civil War America is that it mobilized for war, instituted reasonable war time restrictions, had elections with vicious attacks by Lincoln opponents, no mass executions and then returned to normal politics.
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
Still Too Close to Call-Rethinking Stampp's the Concept of a Perpetual Union Emphasis mine.
This is not to say that legal historians of the Civil War are predominantly presentist, or that they are only interested in whether Lincoln was right. This is to say that there is in much Civil War history a central presentist preoccupation that does not loom as large in any other era, namely, whether particular legal and constitutional actions were justified in some absolute sense. We historians do not generally ask whether Lord Grenville was right to issue the Stamp Act, or whether Jackson was right to crush the Bank of the United States or whether Wilson was right to sign the Treaty of Versailles. We do not, in other words, usually ask whether a historical actor was right or wrong by our lights. Yet we cannot resist asking this about legal actors during the Civil War, particularly Lincoln. I simply do not know if Lincoln was right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and I maintain we cannot answer this question historically. We might be able to explain why he suspended the writ, or the effects of its suspension then and afterwards. We can also bring to light the competing legal arguments made at the time, and explain why some won and others lost. But we cannot survey the sources and come to a definitive ruling on the merits on these central legal questions any more than we can come to definitive understanding of the original meaning of the due process clause. We will never know if Lincoln was right or justified in his legal actions any more than we will know whether Cromwell and his supporters were right to execute Charles I.
No, that's not true. The Civil war, or history for that matter, is not the exclusive domain of Historians, or those gathering "just the facts." Philosophy & Ethics has no historic boundaries. Jurisprudence has no time limit. Jurisprudence is understanding what is "written" and "what is meant."

To say we can never understand the "meaning" of any past legal action because we don't know the true thoughts of the people involed is like saying "We cannot understand the meaning of the Declaration of Independence written over 200 years ago because Thomas Jefferson isn't alive to explain to us what he really was thinking."

The United States Supreme Court brief is the US Constitution written over 200 years ago....and without being historians, or having the founding fathers to tell them their thoughts, today's Supreme Court Justices are able to interpret the "meaning" of the constitution on their own.

We must not view the Founding Fathers as Gods; or they being the only people able to determine right from wrong, or the meaning of life, liberty, and happiness.

The Principles of the Constitution construed in Lincoln's mind may never be truly known, but the Principles of the Constitution applied and spoken about by Lincoln is open to ethical, moral, and legal discussion.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Philosophy & Ethics
are not history. Ethics is a subset of philosophy.

Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. ... Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime.​
Ethics - Wikipedia

Thought provoking comments--thanks. I would love to see a philosophical discussion of Ex parte Merryman.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,967
Yes, he did suspend all those amendment in the North and South.
But the Constitutional question is "was it necessary in a time of rebellion for the more important aim of Preserving the Union?"
And the Constitution does give him the right to do so in time of rebellion.
Edited.
He had Congress at his inauguration and failed to call them together in an emergency.
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
are not history. Ethics is a subset of philosophy.

Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. ... Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime.​
Ethics - Wikipedia

Thought provoking comments--thanks. I would love to see a philosophical discussion of Ex parte Merryman.
Then it's ok to discuss the jurisprudence of President Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, or the morality of slavery in the South?
 
Last edited:

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,490
We are very fortunate we didn't end up with a dictatorship as a result of Lincoln's actions. Many other nations have not been so fortunate when the man at the top seized powers to get through a crisis.
That is largely to Lincoln's credit. All of the acts violating our Constitution were temporary. Those rights were fully reinstated as the crisis passed.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Then it's ok to discuss the jurisprudence of a President Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, or the morality of slavery in the South?
Morality has the taint of both theology and philosophy about it. Slippery because everyone figures they know all about morality but don't. Jurisprudence is limited, but we can discuss.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,490
The Principles of the Constitution construed in Lincoln's mind may never be truly known, but the Principles of the Constitution applied and spoken about by Lincoln is open to ethical, moral, and legal discussion.
'Where's the beef?' The article you referenced in any no way suggests that Lincoln's actions and statements are above examination and criticism.
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
'Where's the beef?' The article you referenced in any no way suggests that Lincoln's actions and statements are above examination and criticism.
"We will never know if Lincoln was right or justified in his legal actions any more than we will know whether Cromwell and his supporters were right to execute Charles I" is the statement in the post in this thread I responded too.
 
Last edited:

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,064
He thru everybody else in Prison. Even for what someone Thought or for Inaction. Breckinridge knew he was being sought for Arrest. He was forced out of KY. Look what happened to Vallandigham. Republicans viewed McClellan as a Traitor. Not much room for error!

I haven't seen where all of this happened in the South. Got to believe the Northerners where easily manipulated. Lincoln had to be the first leader of the Thought Police!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top