Lincoln and FDR were fascists.

You said: "Both were dictators unconstrained by law...There are even books on Lincoln that CELEBRATE him as a "benevolent dictator." Every historian knows that both Lincoln and FDR were entirely unrestrained by the Constitution and violated it on a daily basis. I disagree. It is obvious that they were constrained by the law because as I have already demonstrated they worked inside the law and their actions, on the whole, and their actions were upheld by the courts. When their actions were overturned by the courts they conceded that they were wrong and stopped that action. This clearly shows that they abided by the law and hence were not fascists. "You say no one stopped protests against Lincoln...Lincoln ordered the destruction of hundreds of northern newspapers and had their editors jailed without charges. It was a crime to speak out against Lincoln in the North. He jailed the entire Maryland legislature before they could take office, and held them for the duration of the war." Show me a credible source for this allegation. I have studied the Civil War intently and I have never come across such a claim. He did jail a few newspaper editors; however, those were charged with inciting a rebellion which under the circumstances were valid charges. "FDR also silenced dissent by centralizing economic decision-making and refusing to hire or grant permits to people who didn't vote for him." Again show me a credible source backing this claim up. Even if you can prove this, that isn't an unusual action. The "spoils system" is a trademark of American politics. "FDR was a dictator because he totally aggrandized the executive branch, beyond even what Lincoln was able to do. When the Supreme Court threatened to stand in his way, he fired back that he would "pack the court" with enough pro-fascism judges to make sure his unconstitutional policies were allowed to pass. That's a dictator!" Calm down. Reread what I said. A dictator works outside of the law. What Lincoln and FDR did was inside of the law because the Constitution allows the other branches to raise the number of judges in the court. That's the law. They followed the law and worked inside of it thus making them not fascists. Again there is a difference between being "pro-fascist" and believing in Keynesian economics or a non-free market philosophy. It's not all or nothing as you portray it to be. "How does a nation build up its own industry without tariffs? Through free-market economics. Duh. Ever heard of Adam Smith and WEALTH OF NATIONS? There is not even one modern economist who is for protectionism. Only idiotic socialist political "scientists" and uneducated dolts support tariffs. You are an advocate for central planning, a hallmark of fascism." Again relax, this is just a debate, no need to get all worked up. I have heard of Adam Smith, he is as one economist recently put it the man who built the foundation of the house that we are now being foreclosed upon. I can't see how one can look at the modern market with a crash every 5 to 10 years and say that it's working. There are better ways and we should be open to the idea of them. China for one has a 25% tariff and their economy is probably going to surpass ours in a short time. Since you called my personal beliefs into question I will respond. I am for the government regulating and boosting the economy to ensure stability, does that make me a fascist? "Wow, the ignorance is overwhelming. You think FDR and the New Deal got us OUT of the Great Depression? I don't even know what to say to that, it's so absurd. Everyone knows that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression, and that we weren't out of it until after WWII, when there was massive wealth redistribution from Europe to the U.S., as part of the rebuilding efforts. The New Deal prolonged the Great Depression, and the vast majority of economists share that view today." While it didn't cure the problem completely "[t]he New Deal helped people to survive the depression. Unemployment was reduced, but remained high through the 1930s. Farm income rose from a low of $1.9 billion in 1932 to $4.2 billion in 1940." (http://encarta.msn.com...). It was mostly the total war that helped lift the economy out of the Great Depression ultimately; however the New Deal lessened the brunt of the crisis for tens of millions of people. "You make constitutional arguments for actions by Lincoln and FDR that you agree were heinous. I would say that just because a power is (allegedly) within the Constitution, it doesn't mean that to exercise it to its fullest degree is not fascistic. Imagine a 100% tariff or a 200% excise tax on food. These would both be constitutional, but horribly authoritarian." You're right those would truly be horrible, because they are completely unnecessary and would hurt America as a whole. However, Lincoln's and FDR's policies helped lift the nation out of tragedy and put them on a new more prosperous path. "Under the Original Intent of the Constitution, membership to the Union is voluntary. Madison and Jefferson agreed. There were threats of secession early in our history, but never any counter-threats of invasion. Certain states, including Virginia, specifically reserved the right to secede when they ratified the Constitution. But regardless, secession is a right under the 9th and 10th amendments, because any power not prohibited to the states is thus reserved to the states or the people, and secession is not prohibited." I disagree. You as a strict constructionist should see that it is not legal for a state to succeed from the Union. "Article VII sets out the provision for original ratification, and that Article IV empowers Congress to admit new States, but that no provision of the Constitution authorizes a state to leave the Union. The juxtaposition of what the Constitution says about states entering the Union and what it does not say about them leaving, indicates that the door to the Union swings in but not out." (http://writ.news.findlaw.com...). "You don't see how controlling the economy makes you a fascist? BECAUSE THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT IT MEANS. You're essentially saying, "I don't know how performing an abortion makes you an abortionist." Lincoln and FDR were both hardcore fascist anticaptialists. You don't even put up a defense, you just concede the point." What I say is that you are too broad in what you distinguish as "fascist". As I have shown before there is a specific definition for a fascist marking a fascist government as one ruled by a dictator. Just because a leader practices protectionism or tries to limit the bad effects of business does not make them a fascist. It makes them a responsible leader who looks out for society as a whole. "The Constitution does not permit the confiscation of gold. That's not for a "public purpose" like roads. And replacing it with worthless paper money is not just compensation. The Constitution says only gold and silver can be legal tender!" Again relax, I'm not attacking you, this is just a debate. Gold is just as worthless as paper. All forms of currency depend on our confidence in their value, none have intrinsic value. The need to have a more inflated currency was for a public purpose namely allowing debtors to pay off their debts more easily. The Constitution says that Congress may coin money but where does it say that only gold and silver can be legal tender? That makes no sense seeing as how the states had already been printing money for years. My opponent seems unable to see the necessary distinctions between fascism and other forms of government. Also the Original Intent was to create a balance between fed and the states not all in either direction. Lincoln and FDR either worked inside of the law or conceded when they were wrong, this means that they were not fascists.