Historians rank Barack Obama 12th best President: survey

New York Daily News ^ | 02/28/2017 | BY JESSICA SCHLADEBECK

[Right-wing Librarian]

BroJoeK, you wrote, "In fact, neither the words "tariff" nor "taxes" nor "revenues" appear in Georgia's Reasons for Secession document. Instead, their complaint concerns "bounties" provided to Northerners for such things as light houses and postal ships."

The one-sidedness of tariffs was a major issue for decades; and Lincoln had a history of supporting heavy tariffs. The things listed in the secession documents were the abuses required for a legitimate secession(s); and they were more than sufficient.

BroJoeK, you wrote, "The real issue was slavery and the future threat against it represented by "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans."

If slavery was the issue, why did Virginia stay in the Union until after Lincoln's act of "coertion"? What about Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky? They seceded because of Lincoln's abuse of power, both demonstrated and promised.

Again, I refer back to my initial posts: Lincoln was an constitution-hating tyrant who was responsible for the lives of over 600,000 brave, mostly freedom-loving men. Even James Randall admited (actually lauded the fact) that Lincoln destroyed federalism and states rights. How anyone could claim he was a great president staggers the imagination.

[Right-wing Librarian]

DoodleDawg, you wrote, "Article I, Section 10 places restrictions on states so the claim that Article I refers to the legislature and the legislature alone is not true."

Habeas Corpus is mentioned in Article I, Section 9, "Limits on Congress"; not in Section 10. The constitution does not limit powers one does not already possess. Therefore the power was vested in the congress. But, in all fairness, the Lincoln apologists at the Heritage Foundation state "it is unclear who has the power, Congress or the President"; even though it is CLEARLY placed under Article I. You can't make this stuff up! Congress finally got around to suspending habeas corpus two years after Lincoln usurped that power from them.

You really should consider taking a course in the Constitution, DoodleDawg. Hillsdale College offers a free on-line course.

http://info.hillsdale.edu/constitution_101_enroll?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=con101

DoodleDawg, you wrote, "And yet James F. Simon, Bernard Steiner, Walker Lewis, Carl Swisher, Charles Smith, and all of the rest of Roger Taney's biographers managed to miss that important fact in their books about the Chief Justice? Why do you suppose that is?"

The history is there for all to see. I have read that some historians have dismissed Lamon's biography because he was a drunk. But it is difficult to dismiss the narratives of Justice Curtis and Mayor Brown.

DoodleDawg, you wrote, "Did you actually read the article? Bearing in mind your claim that "15,000 were thrown into prison for criticizing his government" nothing in the Neely article supports that."

Nor does he dispute it. In his own words: "I have compiled a list of 866 "prisoners of state" or "political prisoners" (as they were very frankly termed by the Lincoln administration) arrested while Seward was in charge of the program".

Neely also wrote, "In sum, at least 81.6 percent of the arrests posed little political threat to the Lincoln administration". What do you think Neely meant by "little political threat"?

It is apparent that Neely is an apologist who even disputes the Lincoln administration's classification of its own prisoners. That is a pretty neat trick for any revisionist historian, if you can get away with it.

[DoodleDawg]

Habeas Corpus is mentioned in Article I, Section 9, "Limits on Congress"; not in Section 10. The constitution does not limit powers one does not already possess. Therefore the power was vested in the congress. But, in all fairness, the Lincoln apologists at the Heritage Foundation state "it is unclear who has the power, Congress or the President"; even though it is CLEARLY placed under Article I.

It's not just the Heritage Foundation. I've seen quotes from William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Conner noting that the question of just who may suspend habeas corpus has not been definitively decided. But that doesn't stop Lincoln Loathers from claiming otherwise, does it?

You really should consider taking a course in the Constitution, DoodleDawg. Hillsdale College offers a free on-line course.

I'm pretty well versed on the Constitution, thank you. But by all means take the course and let me know what you think of it.

The history is there for all to see. I have read that some historians have dismissed Lamon's biography because he was a drunk. But it is difficult to dismiss the narratives of Justice Curtis and Mayor Brown.

Yet you have no problem at all dismissing the narratives of men who spent time researching Roger Taney and wrote detailed biographies of the Chief Justice. None of whom found any evidence to support your claim.

Nor does he dispute it. In his own words: "I have compiled a list of 866 "prisoners of state" or "political prisoners" (as they were very frankly termed by the Lincoln administration) arrested while Seward was in charge of the program".

And then he proceeds to discount your claim that they were arbitrarily arrested for opposing Lincoln. Again, did you not read the paper?

Neely also wrote, "In sum, at least 81.6 percent of the arrests posed little political threat to the Lincoln administration". What do you think Neely meant by "little political threat"?

I think he meant what he said in the paragraphs preceding the quote. As he pointed out, 26.3 percent considered Jeb Davis their president, 40.5 percent were from states where Lincoln's political fortunes were not very high, 8.6 percent were non-voting foreigners, and so no and so forth. So they were not arrested for being a political threat. It's right there in the article.

It is apparent that Neely is an apologist who even disputes the Lincoln administration's classification of its own prisoners. That is a pretty neat trick for any revisionist historian, if you can get away with it.

Anyone who points out just how wrong you are is a "Lincoln Apologist". Got it.