Tyrants of the past

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghost101

If I wanted to, I could Lincoln a tyrant if you really take into consideration how unconstitutional some of his actions were. He did suspend the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil war, along with the freedom of speech in subduing newspapers and anti-war protesters. Potentially, if he had not been assassinated by Booth, he may have been impeached by congress as they review some of his decisions.

---

You also have to take into account he the only person who was willing to treat the South fairly and using government money to help them rebuild, instead they had to do it themselves. This caused alot of discord with in the congress for years later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigilstone17

Congress already imposes it' will upon us. Do you know that most of the Congressmen that were serving during the 50's are STILL THERE? Plus the fact they sent most of our economy to Asia just so they could make some money. And if you need more proof that they're tyrants that destroy the people for their own gain, look up "Gulf Coast Oil Spill". It's pretty easy to find.

---

That's stupidity. The difference between stupidity and tyranny is something that most people don't seem to get. And the reason those Congress men are still in power is because the American people keep voting them in.

Just a side note, I would like to keep this in the past and about tyrannical people, we aren't talking about governments and how they are tyrannical, we are talking about people :)

Granted @ armbarchris and Kaminarii. Lincoln was softer on the South in his reconstruction plan because he wanted to keep the union together, he did not show sympathy for them, but rather wanted to ensure the integrity of the United States. Congress on the other hand wanted to punish the south and prevent the succession from happening again. Both Lincoln and Congress had various ideas on how to ensure that another Civil war would not happen again, but neither of them really cared for the south, just for the unity of the country and were determined to see it happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghost101

Just a side note, I would like to keep this in the past and about tyrannical people, we aren't talking about governments and how they are tyrannical, we are talking about people :)

Granted @ armbarchris. Lincoln was softer on the South in his reconstruction plan because he wanted to keep the union together, he did not show sympathy for them, but rather wanted to ensure the integrity of the United States. Congress on the other hand wanted to punish the south and prevent the succession from happening again. Both Lincoln and Congress had various ideas on how to ensure that another Civil war would not happen again, but neither of them really cared for the south, just for the unity of the country and were determined to see it happen.

---

Maybe, but he wasn't truly oppressive, and isn't that part of the definition of 'tyrant'?

exactly armbarchris. The fact that the state governments are prevented from doing anything in the protection of their coastal waters from the oil is due to the federal government's stupidity. Technically, they would have committed a federal crime because the waters are federal waters, and therefore the state government had no power in the matter. Also, i know about this because i LIVE in Louisiana, where the oil spill has had the most impact...
referring to the one in reference to sigil's comment...was too slow...lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by armbarchris

Maybe, but he wasn't truly oppressive, and isn't that part of the definition of 'tyrant'?

---

The true definition of "tyrant" is "one who takes power by force."

Through the efforts of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, all the separate kingdoms of Spain [The Kingdoms of Castille, Aragon and Leon] were united and the last Moorish kingdom or the Kingdom of Granada in Spain was integrated into the fold of the Spanish Kingdom.

Spanish hegemony reached its apogee during the reign of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V who held the core Austrian lands, the Spanish Netherlands, the Franche Comte, the Duchy of Milan, the Kingdom of Naples, the Kingdom of Trinacria and Spain itself as well as the colonial possessions in the New World with the Viceroyalty of New Spain and the Viceroyalty of Peru.

Lets keep this thread on topic please. We are talking about the tyrants of the past, not about today's government, I will edit as appropriate if it continues.


@ Armbarchris, Tyranny is when you use absolute power to accomplish your means, not exactly oppressive. Lincoln used a tremendous amount of powers to achieve his goals, and some of them definitely not constitutional.

also the congress has the power to over turn a veto from the president. It may be harder to do, but they can, they only reason they don't normally is, because the two parties can't agree to anything besides giving themselves raises

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghost101

@ Armbarchris, Tyranny is when you use absolute power to accomplish your means, not exactly oppressive. Lincoln used a tremendous amount of powers to achieve his goals, and some of them definitely not constitutional.

---

Simply having absolute power is a dictatorship. Tyranny is using absolute power for your own benefit at the expense of the people. There is a distinct difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigilstone17

That is true but it is tyranny to not have limits on how long you can serve, if the President can only be President for 8 years total then the same should be for the law-making bodies. And there was an issue here in PA a few years ago called "Bonusgate". The Pennsylvania Congress made a unanimous vote to nearly triple their salaries at the expense of the taxpayers. Now, in my eyes, that's tyranny.

---

Individual Congressmen don't have nearly as much power as the President does. And how long did those 'Bonusgate' people stay in office after that?