No apologies. But a book recommendation: Butterfield’s “The Whig Interpretation of History,” which discusses the tendency of people (in this case, Victorians) to judge the actions and motives of those who came earlier (such as the Romans) by their contemporary (Victorian rather than Roman) standards. It elaborates on the practice of dividing historical figures and actions as the good ones, those who were on the side of truth (as we perceive it now) and the “evil” ones, those who acted before these truths as we now know them emerged. In our current situation, it would be to judge Lincoln’s motives and actions during the civil war by the standards of 21st century ACLU members.
“No apologies. But a book recommendation:... “
Oh, come now! That’s not how the game’s played here. You’re hiding the ball.
Try to be a bit more forthcoming in defense of your statement. I suggest you’re much better than that. :-)
Citing a whole damned book in support of a position would get a rather extended and pregnant silence in most college classrooms. Simply because Lincoln abused the rights of citizens, does not mean there was justification in the Constitution for such actions, or that such abuses should be used as justification for such shenanigans by future governments. That’s why the government is based on the Constitution. It is also why rights of the citizenry are not derived from government (though many pols would have us believe otherwise).
You cited FP #10 in defense of Japanese-American internment (using #10 as a justification for your statement rather stretches that work beyond recognition, IMHO)but if you don’t want to play I can understand.