We never really were able to return to normal. The original Constitution, with its Bill of Rights, was an amazing work of philosophy and a culmination of human knowledge dating to Ancient Greece. Never before have human freedoms been so codified. On the contrary, humans have lived almost exclusively in some form of tyranny. Thus, I must conclude, tyranny is the normal human condition. With every stretch, due to extraordinary times, the return to normal was closer and closer to tyranny. At first, it wasn't obvious, now a blind man can see it. Lincoln had set several unsavory precedents. Wilson created social safety nets that resulted in closing the borders to open immigration that built this country through an influx of people seeking to be productive. That was over time replaced with people seeking welfare. This is Wilson's legacy. FDR created the basis of today's welfare state. We are enjoying it now. After so many stretches, the band is about to break.

there are patent attys like other lawyers who try to get away with obfuscation. but in balance, most of them are the ones who are trying to blur definitions, so they don't have to pay (their clients) for someone else's property rights. some write patents like that, but the vast majority do not do that. Litigators are mostly not patent attys and don't have the skills to read patents. They just litigate.

People do not respect property rights. Then when they build something, they whine someone is enforcing property They themselves ignored. see Data Treasury.
"obfuscation"- patent attys all day long get down to the meaning of a word. They put words together like an equation. Those words must have value. The problem is, people including judges, don't take the time to read the claims. To read claims in a patent, requires skills-like learning biochem or electro magnetics. It's not any more obscure than those fields are obscure. It requires multiple degrees, and time, and experience to do that job. Most judges and the commentators on patents don't have that.

Amendment III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Looting would hardly be prescribed by law. Was very common. Humiliating the Southerners on purpose would also not be prescribed.

There are recorded instances of executions of civilians (Southern sympathizers). One that I mentioned happened on orders of Adm Farragut in New Orleans. This was fully supported by the Union government. Summary execution of a civilian (not a spy) without a trial is directly against the 5th Amendment, war or not.

With regard to the Second Amendment, the Union forces confiscated arms in MD and MO, states that were officially on the Union side. Otherwise, what good is the Second Amendment if it could be stricken at any excuse, such as riots or disturbances (think of New Orleans during Katrina). It's purpose is to hold government abuses in check, not hunting on a weekend. The same applies to the 4th Amendment, which was ignored in the Union states.

Clearly, you will agree that closing newspapers that argued against the government was a violation of the First Amendment?

An argument can always be made that special circumstances justify various violations. Perhaps. But it is always a slippery slope. But what bothers me, is the revisionist "history" that teaches that Lincoln abolished slavery and that the reasons for the Civil War were primarily due to slavery. That is just not true. Slavery was an issue, very important to some, but secondary to Lincoln and most of the people responsible for the war on both sides. I have noticed this revision in textbooks dating back to around 1980. Many of the young public school teachers today have been so indoctrinated that they only know the slavery issue as the cause of the war and the states' rights are either not talked about or are secondary. That is socialist revisionism.

who was a patent attorney, btw

I am no fan of Lincoln - first income tax, legal tender laws, conscription, but I think it is inaccurate to say that he violated the 3rd and 5th Amendment. These amendments are clear that they only apply in time of peace.

I also think it is arguable whether the 2nd, 4th and perhaps the 6th amendment apply in times of war.

He certainly violated the 9th and 10th amendment with the income tax, legal tender laws, and conscription.

it has, just around the edges. Consider a post. I think it would garner lots of interest

It is interesting that so few American's know this. I even heard Sean Hannity sticking up for Marbury when an intelligent caller pointed this out.

OA's comment was not inconsistent. I raised factual objections, based on history from original sources at the time of the events.
The statement by Robbie puzzled me. First, I don't know what are anti-Lincoln types (maybe there are; I'm not aware of it) and to refuse to discuss facts, presumably because they are inconvenient, is not what an Objectivist would do, nor a student of history. If this issue has been discussed here before, I was simply not aware of it.

nope. Some are, some are Conservative, some libertarian...
OA is a student of philosophy and History. I do not see that his comments are inconsistent with Objectivism on Lincoln.

I thought that members of this blog are Objectivists.

My apologies for coming into this uninvited, but I don't know who are those anti-Lincoln types? I happen to have a fairly good knowledge of history (at least certain areas) and made a comment regarding facts. I find it curious that an Objectivist would throw a general label and refuse to acknowledge facts.

"Despite his actions..." Aren't the "actions" what a man is judged by? I have posed a question expecting a factual answer; yet you have given a passionate reply that boils down to the only demonstrable fact that Lincoln was an able lawyer and a better speechwriter than the current Ivy League graduates and community organizers.

Lincoln is known for suspending habeas corpus, but in fact, he has suspended the First Amendment – he shut down all newspapers that were not on the side on the Union and there were instances of executions of those that spoke against the Union; he suspended the Second Amendment – homes were searched and weapons confiscated in Maryland and Missouri (perhaps elsewhere as well); he suspended the Third Amendment – Union soldiers simply occupied the conquered homes and disposed of the property at will (looted); he suspended the Fourth Amendment – Union troops regularly searched the homes of Confederates or of suspected sympathizers in the Union states; he suspended the Fifth and Sixths Amendments by executing civilians at will (Adm. Farragut in New Orleans, for example); and, arguably, the Tenth Amendment by assuming powers never intended for the Executive by the Framers. Officially, he did not suspend the Bill of Rights; just like the current president, he simply ignored it.

You mention, passionately, slavery. But Lincoln was not opposed to slavery. He did not like it personally, that is true, but as a matter of policy, it was not of great importance to him. The break up of the Union was certainly fueled by Abolitionists who were passionate about the cause, but Lincoln himself in on the record as stating that he would keep or abolish slavery, either way, as long as it preserves the Union. Of course, the undeniable facts are that DC, Maryland and Missouri were Union states (they were 50/50 states, but conquered early in the war), but retained slavery until 1865. Slavery did not even become a central issue in the war until the second year, when the Union experienced shocking failures and needed a propaganda cry. I am not, as you may have implied, a proponent of slavery by any means (including modern); I am presenting historical facts, which differ much from current revisionist “history.” I would say that if your American history comes from a text written anytime after about 1980, you have not been taught history.

In summary, despite his speeches, he was the first American Despot and set a precedent for others to follow. Respectfully, I would submit that Lincoln’s true legacy are the erosion of the original freedoms and the seeds of the next civil war.

Hello strugatsky,

Despite his actions, you find no wisdom in his words contained within the Lincoln- Douglas debates? the Gettysburg address? the Emancipation Proclamation? You are not a proponent of slavery are you? Slavery is a vile collectivist atrocity. Would maintaining slavery have been a benefit to our nation?
His governance and actions contrary to the Constitution were reprehensible, but that does not mean the man never had a wise thought. Even an idiot can have a brilliant thought.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Although Lincoln is credited with much wisdom in the current "history" books, could you please enlighten us as to any specific and factual wisdom that Lincoln did posses (and that is, presumably, a benefit to this country)?

Great book. At least it offered some constructive direction.

I wish I still lived in OK.

Hello davidkachel,
It is good to hear from you. Quite right. I am not a big fan of Mr. Lincoln either, knowing the history the PC crowd doesn't want people to know about. I do believe, he, like many others, did posses some wisdom. Unfortunately he seems to have forgotten much of it after the war began.
Yes, his penchant to dispense with the constitution as he saw fit does seem rather Obama like.
Regards,
O.A.