A lot us us see Cincinattus as the model of the temporary git-r-done-and-get out dictator.
As for Julius Caesar, he was not appointed dictator in the traditional Roman way. Ordered to Rome to stand trial, he instead marched his legions against the government and siezed power, eventually coercing the disempowered senate into proclaiming him dictator for life, a title without precedent.
So yes, he did destroy the Republic, but not by accepting the normal Roman temporary dictatorship.
“A lot us us see Cincinattus as the model of the temporary git-r-done-and-get out dictator.”
First of all, Lincoln may have got out, but against his will. Not to say he would’ve made himself King for Life or anything, but the Republicans he left behind ruled the South like a colony for more than a decade. Novelties of the war may not have carried on in force and in every detail. The draft ended, the income tax disappeared, there were pardons, martial law in the North left, habeas corpus was restored, the greenbacks stopped coming off the presses. But everyone knows things didn’t revert to what they had been antebellum.
There was a “ratchet effect,” as there is with every big war, especially the War Between the States, WWI, and WWII. Government power did not stay where it was at its high-water mark, but after ‘65 it never was again what it had been in ‘61. This is hardly like Cincinnatus returning peacefully to his farm after bailing out the Republic. It’s more akin to Caesar leaving behind Octavian to declare his principate (progressives, maybe?) and the rest of the Julio-Claudian line to pull it into decay (the New Deal?).
Also, an important point about Cincinnatus is that being dictator was not his idea. The Civil War was Lincoln’s, against the advice in many of his own (admittedly nascent) party. And it’s not as if Rome was supressing rebellion in the provinces, or something. Cincinnatus responded to an army in the field being besieged by neighboring tribes. Presumably if they lost Rome would be open to sacking. The South, contrarywise was not threatening invasion. That was the other way around.
Lincoln is no Cincinnatus. If anyone was, it’s Washington.
“As for Julius Caesar, he was not appointed dictator in the traditional Roman way.”
In what traditional way did Lincoln become dictator? Aside from the fact that there is no such American tradition, he merely declared he was so. Not in so many words, but he just went ahead and did it. Those who disagreed might be jailed or exiled. SCOTUS’ backtalk he ignored. Does that sound more like Cincinnatus or Caesar?
By the way, Rome did not have a written constitution, just one of the many superiorities of our system. Having the Constitution, I must be able to read somewhere in actual words that in such and such circumstances the president has dictatorial powers and you have to listen to him or else. Since I can’t, no such powers legitimately exist.
In other words, however great was Cincinnatus and however unlike his dictatorship was Caesar’s, that venerable Roman tradition is not among ours, and we have no such office.