[mkramlich]

I don't think Lincoln qualifies as a tyrant.

He was elected -- though yes a significant percentage went to a third candidate so it wasn't a strong mandate.

He did not end up doing Evil Things like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc -- though he did have the misfortune to become President when half the country tried to secede and therefore a civil war broke out over it, and had the misfortune of being in that situation when a rather imperfectly & ambiguously written document was the official rulebook on what he was and was not allowed to do. A document which, to this day, is still debated by thousands of so-called experts as to it's exact meaning.

Also, being a tyrant is not necessarily a bad thing. One could be a wise, benevolent tyrant. Though reality is shades of grey, I'd argue that Lincoln was _at worst_ a benevolent tyrant.

Anyway, the definition or common usage of tyrant has shifted many times. I don't think he qualifies for the one that equates to Evil Dictator.

[DanielBMarkham]

We agree. "Tyrant" and "Evil Dictator" are two different things. I'm using "tyrant" in the original sense -- a person who takes most of the power of the state on themselves.