A new Lincoln book, The Broken Constitution

[David Lockmiller]

(11-13-2021 07:39 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  As for your question, anyone who reads even one of your posts could figure it out.

Best
Rob

My question was: ""How did you know [that it is my] belief that any criticism of Lincoln is akin to criticizing God?"

I truly did not know that "anyone who reads even one of [my] posts could figure it out."

This truly is a revelation, Preacher.

Revelation means "a surprising and previously unknown fact, especially one that is made known in a dramatic way."

I always thought that I had made adequate arguments in support of my opinions that specific criticisms of President Lincoln were unfair and unjust.

For example, my initial post on this thread reads as follows:

One statement that particularly irked me on the Amanpour telecast was the Professor’s statement regarding President Lincoln’s habeas corpus suspension. Professor Feldman argued that only Congress had this constitutional authority. This statement is wrong.

President Lincoln explained his reasoning in his message to the extra session of Congress on July 4, 1861:

Now, it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is vested with this power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the framers of the instrument intended in every case the danger should run its course until Congress could be called together, the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion.

Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act in 1863 and it reads in pertinent part: “[D]uring the present rebellion, the President of the United States, whenever in his judgment the public safety may require it, is authorized to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in any case throughout the United States or any part thereof.”


This statement should be enough to get the attention of any honest person.

---

(11-14-2021 07:09 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  This is a worthwhile critique.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/02/books...ution.html

Best
Rob

Two of the last three sentences of this critique by esteemed American History Princeton Professor Sean Wilentz read as follows:

“The Broken Constitution” displays its author’s usual brilliance and boldness in his contrarianism, and a passionate engagement with the past. What it lacks is historical soundness.

You subjectively describe Professor Wilentz's work as a "worthwhile critique."

Is "historical soundness" important to you?