(Quote) William-607613 said:
John,I don't know about all of Thomas's assertions here, but I will sta...
(Quote) William-607613 said:
I don't know about all of Thomas's assertions here, but I will state here that the Abraham Lincoln who the American public believes it knows is nothing more than a construct. The man was a vicious human being who took the presidency of the United States to a level of power that it had never reached either before or after his presidency; if there was ever a dictator in the White House, he was it.
Depending on the source, it is estimated that he had between 13,000 and 38,000 political prisoners arrested. (Could you find some politicians who weren't? Yes, I am sure you can. But that you can doesn't mean he didn't abuse his power like a dictator.)
He had 300 (three hundred) newspapers who opposed him shut down. (Were there some that opposed him that didn't get shut down? Yes, probably. But that doesn't mean he didn't abuse his office and shut down the newspapers like he was someone running a banana republic.)
These aren't conspiracy theories; this information is there to anyone who picks up a book. (Now I personally think we tend to be an illiterate citizenry here in America, but some people do know about these things.)
I would tend to agree with the statement "IF ever there were a dictator in the White House, he was it."
There is not question he kept Maryland in the Union with some pretty heavy-handed tactics. Nobody is denying that there weren't political prisoners.
But notice the difference between your statements and the silliness Thomas is spewing. You actually are giving some facts and figures, he just makes absurd claims that EVERYONE opposed to Lincoln was arrested. That obviously did not happen. When called on it, a rational person would have just said, "okay, yeah, I was engaged in hyperbole there." A conspiracy theory nut just digs in and insists the absurd is somehow the truth.
If he had been content with saying that Lincoln wasn't shy about clamping down on dissidents, I'd have agreed with him. If he had said that Lincoln wielded more personal power to exercise direct government control over the country than any other president, he might well have been right. (Although people don't realize how authoritarian Woodrow Wilson was during WWI. Lincoln probably has him beaten, but that's neither here nor there.) But no, true to extremist form, we can't be content with logic or facts; it has to be out on the fringe. So now we're asked to believe that Lincoln was a dictator who was arresting millions of people. Give me a break!
Now while I personally think you're engaged in some overkill and hyperbole with the characterization of "vicious," you're not being a conspiracy theory net. You're taking a strong stance. I don't agree with it (if it makes you feel any better, I'd agree to "ruthless"), but at least you're backing your stand with some actual facts. You're not making claims that are impossible on their face.