[rockrr]

He saves his wrath for Lincoln. At least he is consistent in his inconsistency...

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "He saves his wrath for Lincoln. At least he is consistent in his inconsistency..."

achilles2000: "With Lincoln it was a case of systematic disregard for the Constitution that became entrenched and that has gone far beyond anything he would have imagined or endorsed."

It's only achilles2000's studied ignorance of actual history which allows him to make such ridiculous claims.
The fact is that Lincoln did nothing which had not already been done by our Founders themselves, either during the Revolutionary War, or during their own administrations.
In short, there was Founder endorsed precedent for every action Lincoln took.

So now that he has been properly informed, achilles2000 has a choice: he must either:

• 1) accept our Founders' actions as part of their original intent for their constitution, and therefore legitimate precedent for Lincoln's Civil War actions, or
• 2) he must reject the Founders' precedent setting actions, and therefore the Founders themselves & their original intent, and therefore the Constitution (except as he personally defines it).

But if achilles2000 rejects both Founders and their constitution, then he is no longer Conservative, but belongs to a different category of political animals altogether.
That category, naturally, is: pro-Confederate lost-causers.

Of course, we all knew that, but here is the bedrock foundation of why it's so.