Revoking Civil Liberties: Lincoln's Constitutional Dilemma

Reader Comments
Back to article

1. Mr. Lincoln was a circuit lawyer. Of 5000+ case he handled approx. 130 railroad cases. of those, he opposed the railroads in about 60 of those cases. hardly classifies him as a 'railroad lawyer'.
2. Um, yeah, okay... this definitely applies to the Bush administration
3. If Mr. Lincoln decided to secede the DC area from the Union, then i guess he was responsible for the war. But that's not what happened.
4. Try to engage in unrestricted warfare and not destroy your enemies economy. Stupid idea.
5. see #2 above
6. the emancipation proclamation freed ALL slaves held in rebellious states not 'volunteers' willing to fight for the Union.
7. i was not aware that the Andersonville was a Union prison, as it was opened in Sumter Co. Georgia by the confederacy, but accuracy doesn't seem to be an impediment to anyone who would consider this screed true.

Bob of FL 4:05AM February 22, 2009

I was born and raised in Kansas, however I do not hold a grudge against the Missouri bushwackers that burned crops, farmsteads, slaughtered cattle as well as the killing of the innocent. It was horrible, true enough, however war is a nasty business and Lincoln did the best he could with what he had. I don't think he had much control over Sherman. In retrospect if anyone should have been tried for a war crime it would be Gen. Sherman.

lreece of WA 7:03PM February 17, 2009

> A politician with a agenda to save the union.
He said he was, but politicians lie. Saying he wanted to free the slaves
would have been politically dangerous at the time: pretending all he
cared about was the union made sense.
> It is clear that his proclomation was a political ploy to gain favor
> with the northeners
I don't think so, or at least not mostly. The northerners who wanted
slavery abolished were already on his side anyway.
Gaining favour with the British and French was part of it: he needed to
keep them out of the war. And he wanted to stir up trouble in the south:
if the slaves knew they'd be free when the confederacy fell, they would
be more likely to make a nuisance of themselves: sabotage, go slow, etc..
> The document refers to all states that are in rebellion.
Which was nearly all the slaves since it was the slave states that had
revolted. He might not have felt he had the legal authority to abolish
slavery in Maryland. Anyway Maryland abolished slavery itself not long
after.
If your own ancestors were slaves in Maryland then I can understand you
feeling he let them down. But he was probably doing as much as he felt
he could get away with.
Lincoln wasn't perfect. But nobody is, and he deserves credit for doing
far more than others of him time did.

David Bofinger 6:34PM February 15, 2009

loncoln
My comment is a question. I am an African American. I hear people call Mr. Lincoln an emancipator but who did he emancipate. It is clear that his proclomation was a political ploy to gain favor with the northeners and not upset those who wanted slavery in the north. The document refers to all states that are in rebellion. If I am not mistaken Jefferson Davis was the southern states president. So the proclimation had no effect. Why is he lauded as a savior instead of what he was? A politician with a agenda to save the union.

Tom Looney of TN 9:22AM February 15, 2009

Just face the fact that the myth and the reality of 'Old Honest Abe" are from two different universes.
Lincoln was a railroad lawyer - about the equivalent of a modern corporate attorney for Big Oil or Big Pharma.
He violated his oath of office - by failing to defend the Constitution, and to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.
He is responsible for a war in which a greater percentage of Americans living at the time died than from any other cause, ever.
He destroyed the economy of the South, great parts of which have still not recovered. (See: Mississippi)
He gladly turned a blind eye to war profiteering of a scale that makes Halliburton and Blackwater look like amateurs.
The precedent for the Emancipation Proclamation was set by the British during the Revolution - they also offered freedom to slaves in the 'rebel colonies' - who volunteered to serve with them.
And he set a new precedent for the British to follow - Andersonville - which they perfected by creating an entire system of concentration camps, not just for combatants, but also for civilians, during the Boer War.
Yes children, it was not Hitler who invented the 'concentration camp' it was the bloody English, who learned the concept from Ol' Abe himself.
Sic semper tyrannis.

Jon Empey of TX 1:44AM February 14, 2009

Today we have people in Washington DC who say Bush should be tried for War crimes because he did not give American rights to the terriost who are tring to kill us and that he may have tortured some of them. These politicians should read this article It clearly shows how Abraham Lincoln did that and more and not to some forign terrorist but to his own people. I am from the south and I get asked the question sometimes from people from the north why southerners still bring up the civil war.Well let me tell you a little more about this beloved Abe Lincoln.he aint so loved in the South. Talk about war crimes he allowed Sherman to Rape, Pillage ,Burn and destroy his way through the south all the way to Atlanta and when he got there and Atlanta surrendered he " under Lincolns orders " burned the whole city of 300 thousand to the ground . Many thousand died from starvation and the eliments. All of this happened to Woman and Children not soldiers. And Obama wants to be 'Just like ABE.' Here we go again.

Joe Reb of MS 5:34PM February 13, 2009

I wish that all of the pundits who complained of Bush's "unConstitutional" actions would actually read the Constitution before they preach it. Grant too took Habeaus Corpus away from the KKK, in accord with the Constitution. FDR cetainly cam close.
None of those Presidents would ever have dreamed that the day would come when our military enemy would be granted access to our courts in time of war.

Sternberg of SC 9:23PM February 11, 2009

Charlie Rose on his show one day asked the rhetorical question, why are our greatest presidents wartime presidents? The show was on Lincoln, as I recall (not on George Bush), and if I'm not mistaken the guest was Doris Kearns Goodwin.
I though about that, and I reached the conclusion:
1. That violence sells books.
2. Historians like to sell books.
3. Therefore historians are deeply indebted to violent presidents who sell a lot of books.
I mean, who wants to read about peace and prosperity presidents, though logic might tell you they are the successful presidents.
Then there is the "big impression" factor. A Hollywood cliche is the love story where the girl meets a seemingly arrogant, inconsiderate guy and hates him on sight, and then falls in love. Seemingly love isn't dependent on whether someone makes a good impression or a bad impression, but only a big impression. Is history any different?
Then there are the factors of time and distance. If Mafia henchman were to behead your beloved Labrador or Beagle and put the head on your pillow, you might be less amused than moviegoers who see this depicted whimsically as "making an offer you can't refuse." Similarly Civil war violence is probably much more fascinating today than it was at the time.

Luther of IL 10:44PM February 10, 2009

Charlie Rose on his show one day asked the rhetorical question, why are our greatest presidents wartime presidents? The show was on Lincoln, as I recall (not on George Bush), and if I'm not mistaken the guest was Doris Kearns Goodwin.
I though about that, and I reached the conclusion:
1. That violence sells books.
2. Historians like to sell books.
3. Therefore historians are deeply indebted to violent presidents who sell a lot of books.
I mean, who wants to read about peace and prosperity presidents, though logic might tell you they are the successful presidents.
Then there is the "big impression" factor. A Hollywood cliche is the love story where the girl meets a seemingly arrogant, inconsiderate guy and hates him on sight, and then falls in love. Seemingly love isn't dependent on whether someone makes a good impression or a bad impression, but only a big impression. Is history any different?
Then there are the factors of time and distance. If Mafia henchman were to behead your beloved Labrador or Beagle and put the head on your pillow, you might be less amused than moviegoers who see this depicted whimsically as "making an offer you can't refuse." Similarly Civil war violence is probably much more fascinating today than it was at the time.

Luther of IL 10:44PM February 10, 2009

Add Your Thoughts Comment Name State Email

Please enter the two words below into the text field underneath the image.

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Back to article

Revoking Civil Liberties: Lincoln's Constitutional Dilemma

Reader Comments Back to article

Reader Comments
Back to article