Abraham Lincoln

[bombshoo]

Many polls show Lincoln to be the all time best rated U.S. president, even beating Washington. However I've noticed not everyone is in love with the guy. I have heard him been called an opportunist, a meglomaniac and even a racist. I'm just curious how do you rate him as a president? (Please say why you voted how you did)

 

[privatehudson]

I like him the best of all the presidents, if for no other reason than his humour and "homely" remarks that he was so often criticised for. To a present day person his remarks during the Douglas-Lincoln debates are racist, but in the context they were made in and the time he made the remarks they represent both a moderate position and a much more pleasant viewpoint than a great many politicians of his time on the issue of slavery. Its worth remembering that to support active Emancipation (i.e. deliberately trying to bring an end to slavery as soon as practicable as opposed to waiting for it to die out naturally) in the 1850s was considered an extremist point of view, and one that Lincoln went to great pains to avoid being associated with at that stage.

In my opinion he guided the country through the difficult period of the civil war, avoiding for the most part being influenced too much by extremists around him. He did about as well as any politician could be expected to do in such a situation, and a great deal better than most. That's not to say he didn't make mistakes, his choices of Generals were often unwise, and his heavy handling of states that had copperhead sympathies was regretable, but he did restore the union and if he'd have had his way the reconstruction may well have been a good deal better than what happened.

 

[.Shane.]

He had flaws, but he and Washington are rightly and consistently noted as the 2 greatest PotUS.

Get ready for the Southern apologists to tell you how evil he is.

 

[bombshoo]

Get ready for the Southern apologists to tell you how evil he is.

Thats what I'm waiting for...

 

[Azale]

I'm Southerner and I'm glad Lincoln handed the CSA its arse on a silver platter, it deserved it.

I would place him in a top 5, but he is not my number 1 because he never got to go through with his reconstruction and other faults that privatehudson pointed out.

I really hope most southerners do not have sour grapes over a war that happened 150 years ago and prevented the birth of a corrupt, backwards nation that supported an inherently evil institution.

 

[dutchking]

"He is in the top few, but not the best."

He had flaws, but he and Washington are rightly and consistently noted as the 2 greatest PotUS.

Every president had his flaws. Some had more than others. I'd say FDR is the greatest one but that's just because I'm an insane hippy liberal who can't keep his mouth shut (apparently).

Get ready for the Southern apologists to tell you how evil he is.

Already have my popcorn.

 

[Godwynn]

He had flaws, but he and Washington are rightly and consistently noted as the 2 greatest PotUS.

Get ready for the Southern apologists to tell you how evil he is.

ZOMG ILLEGAL WAR!!!111seven

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

Are there even any souther apologists here? I wouldn't think intellectual forums such as these would be of any concern for them.

 

[admiral-bell]

Every president had his flaws. Some had more than others. I'd say FDR is the greatest one but that's just because I'm an insane hippy liberal who can't keep his mouth shut (apparently).

Yep. FDR all the way. The New Deal. The Manhattan Project. Social Security. Winning World War II. Being elected to four terms. Roosevelt has everything going for him.

 

[admiral-bell]

Hey bombshoo, why is this private? We need to hunt down the person who said he is the worst US president ever.

 

[skadistic]

He had flaws, but he and Washington are rightly and consistently noted as the 2 greatest PotUS.

Get ready for the Southern apologists to tell you how evil he is.

You mean like holding the city of Baltimore hostage with orders to open the battlements of Ft. McHennry on the city and its civilians if the elected congressional delegates dared to leave their illegal house arrest and vote ( you know voting what they were elected to do) for what their citizens of the state wanted.

Maybe we can go over the suppression of Habius Corpus? Yup its true. If Bush is so evil for doing it then so is Lincoln right?

And that "honest Abe" title isn't there because he was honest. Its there for the same reason you call a fat guy Tiny.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.

-- Abraham Lincoln January 12, 1848

No state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union. Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. --Abraham Lincoln

Hmmmm can you smell the hypocrisy. I guess unless that government is Lincoln its ok to revolt.

Then there is the whole special interest aspect of why he changed his tune. If he let the states go on their own the northeastern manufacturing corps that payed for his election campaign would have lost lots and lots of money in tariffs.

Then there is the deliberate infusion of christian dogma into the secular government. "In god we trust", yup that Abe's doing.

What about Sherman's march?That was a real war crime. But the burning of private property killing of civilians and all around pillaging were nothing new. The north those tactics from the beginning. Then there was Sherman's burning of the entire town of Randolph, Tennessee, to the ground. He also began taking civilian hostages and either trading them for federal prisoners of war or executing them. Oh and Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, were also burned to the ground by Sherman's troops even though there was no Confederate army there to oppose them. The Geneva Convention of 1863 condemned the bombardment of cities occupied by civilians, but Lincoln ignored all such restrictions on his behavior. The bombardment of Atlanta destroyed 90 percent of the city, after which the remaining civilian residents were forced to depopulate the city just as winter was approaching and the Georgia countryside had been stripped of food by the federal army.

Oh and it doesn't stop there. The Unions policy of targeting civilians was wide spread. After the Confederate army had finally evacuated the Shenandoah Valley in the autumn of 1864 Sheridan's 35,000 infantry troops essentially burned the entire valley to the ground. As Sheridan described it in a letter to General Grant, in the first few days he "destroyed over 2200 barns . . . over 70 mills . . . have driven in front of the army over 4000 head of stock, and have killed . . . not less than 3000 sheep. . . . Tomorrow I will continue the destruction." In letters home Sheridan's troops described themselves as "barn burners" and "destroyers of homes." One soldier wrote home that he had personally set 60 private homes on fire and opined that "it was a hard looking sight to see the women and children turned out of doors at this season of the year." A Sergeant William T. Patterson wrote that "the whole country around is wrapped in flames, the heavens are aglow with the light thereof . . . such mourning, such lamentations, such crying and pleading for mercy [by defenseless women]... I never saw or want to see again."

As horrific as the burning of the Shenandoah Valley was, Grimsley concluded that it was actually "one of the more controlled acts of destruction during the war's final year." After it was all over Lincoln personally conveyed to Sheridan "the thanks of the Nation."

Sherman himself admitted after the war that he was taught at West Point that he could be hanged for the things he did. But in war the victors always write the history and are never punished for war crimes, no matter how heinous. Only the defeated suffer that fate.

Under Lincolns orders the union aggressors laid waste to civilians, civilian crops, civilian property, civilian industry and civilian livestock.


The only apologists I see are ones who try to explain away the war crimes of the north and Linconl

 

[.Shane.]

Don't have time to digest your whole post but the bellyaching about him suspending habeas corpus kills me. Why do people always leave out this part of the Constitution?

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

Now, we can argue the validity of secession, but clearly, from the standpoint of the Union/North, it was rebellion. Hmmm... never thought about this, but isn't this wording, potentially, an argument against the idea of the right of secession? Well, that's for another day.

And, had Maryland went to the Confederacy, then the US capital would've been BEHIND enemy lines. At that point, it would've been game over. So, suspending HC SAVED THE UNION.

In the case of Bush, he's not contending w/ either rebellion or invasion... so that comparison fails horribly.

--
--
So... I found some time... not much, but before I turn in...

Ok, the quote game... Look, do you want me to dig up contradictory quotes from Reagan? Clinton? Bush? Nixon? FDR? Jefferson? You name it, I can find it.

As for the whole "Northern War Crimes" stuff, again, if you want to be fair, we can dredge up all the Southern offenders as well. Mind you, this doesn't mean I'm saying any of them were or were not war criminals, that's another debate, I'm just saying to only paint the North with that brush is disingenuous at best.

 

[.Shane.]

I wouldn't think intellectual forums such as these would be of any concern for them.

"Intellectual forum"? Thanks for the chuckle.

Hey bombshoo, why is this private? We need to hunt down the person who said he is the worst US president ever.

His post follows yours.

--
--

@Dutchking, I'd put both Roosevelts in the top 10, maybe even top 5.

 

[skadistic]

Don't have time to digest your whole post but the bellyaching about him suspending habeas corpus kills me. Why do people always leave out this part of the Constitution?

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

Now, we can argue the validity of secession, but clearly, from the standpoint of the Union/North, it was rebellion. Hmmm... never thought about this, but isn't this wording, potentially, an argument against the idea of the right of secession? Well, that's for another day.

And, had Maryland went to the Confederacy, then the US capital would've been BEHIND enemy lines. At that point, it would've been game over. So, suspending HC SAVED THE UNION.

In the case of Bush, he's not contending w/ either rebellion or invasion... so that comparison fails horribly.

--
--
So... I found some time... not much, but before I turn in...

Ok, the quote game... Look, do you want me to dig up contradictory quotes from Reagan? Clinton? Bush? Nixon? FDR? Jefferson? You name it, I can find it.

As for the whole "Northern War Crimes" stuff, again, if you want to be fair, we can dredge up all the Southern offenders as well. Mind you, this doesn't mean I'm saying any of them were or were not war criminals, that's another debate, I'm just saying to only paint the North with that brush is disingenuous at best.

So threatening civilians in clear violation of the GC is ok as long as it preserves the union. Gotcha. Apologists anyone?

Disingenuous? The union had orders sent down by Lincoln to burn loot and destroy civilians and their property. That brush stroke is well placed and equally well deserved. But by all means expane how it was ok to commit war crimes to save the union. Apologists anyone?

And Lincoln wasn't facing a rebellion. The south had the legal right to succeed under the same articles that brought them together. As would any other state. They could legally vote to leave. Lincoln used force to stop them from legally going. The only invasion was by the north. So Bush and Lincoln are very much the same.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

"Intellectual forum"? Thanks for the chuckle.

Meh. More or Less.

Oh yeah and I voted for above average. Though he created war he finished it quickly and more or less ended the institution of slavery.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

So threatening civilians in clear violation of the GC is ok as long as it preserves the union. Gotcha. Apologists anyone?

Disingenuous? The union had orders sent down by Lincoln to burn loot and destroy civilians and their property. That brush stroke is well placed and equally well deserved. But by all means expane how it was ok to commit war crimes to save the union. Apologists anyone?

And Lincoln wasn't facing a rebellion. The south had the legal right to succeed under the same articles that brought them together. As would any other state. They could legally vote to leave. Lincoln used force to stop them from legally going. The only invasion was by the north. So Bush and Lincoln are very much the same.

Skad you are just defending this world from apologists right and left aren't you?

I actually agree with you on this one, the states came into the union voluntarily and they can leave voluntarily.

 

[skadistic]

Skad you are just defending this world from apologists right and left aren't you?

I actually agree with you on this one, the states came into the union voluntarily and they can leave voluntarily.

I just using the word.

 

[privatehudson]

I dislike the term "appologist" since it implies that if someone merely takes a point of view which understands why people took a decision they somehow agree with the actions, or believe them justifiable. Understanding why something took place is not the same as believing it good or the correct course of action at the time. You can appreciate why the allies bombed Germany in WW2 without actually believing it a wise course of action after all.

Anyway on secession Southern policiticans took their states out of the war on little more than a fear of what Lincoln might do when in power. They didn't even have the decency to wait until he'd taken action against slavery before seceding, many just up and left before he even took office. This is despite the fact that Lincoln even went as far as to say he wouldn't have even objected to the ammendment to the constitution at the time to retain slavery in the southern states in perpetuity. Whether they were legally allowed to secede or not is a moot point for me, they over-reacted and split the country in two for no good reason, and I don't see a problem at all with the North and Lincoln trying to stop them.

On the argument of the secession though I do tend to agree with Lincoln's view that to follow the secession argument to an end could lead to anarchy when smaller and smaller areas or groups of people decide to just up and quit every time another group does something they don't agree with. Where do you draw the line? If the South's slaves had by some miracle suddenly rose up and drove out white people from an area do you think the politicians of the south would happily just let them go, or do you think they'd march in an army and smash the rebellion then and there? Note I'm not suggesting that was likely, just pointing out that the South's politician's tended to believe what suited them.

What about Sherman's march? That was a real war crime. But the burning of private property killing of civilians and all around pillaging were nothing new. The north those tactics from the beginning. The Geneva Convention of 1863 condemned the bombardment of cities occupied by civilians, but Lincoln ignored all such restrictions on his behavior. The bombardment of Atlanta destroyed 90 percent of the city, after which the remaining civilian residents were forced to depopulate the city just as winter was approaching and the Georgia countryside had been stripped of food by the federal army.

I'd say both sides from the used the tactics widely frankly, the burning of bridges, tearing up of railways, guerilla raids, and requisition of farm goods by both sides was commonplace during the conflict. As is often the case the dictates of Geneva or similar rarely represent reality during wartime, and are often broken by both sides in a conflict.

I tend to agree overall with the view that the war was unlikely to be brought to a swift end while the Southern population still actively supported the armies in the field. To limit operations to just attacking an enemy army was unlikely to bring the desired effect. Whilst its neither pleasant nor desirable that a civilian population is to be targetted it is sometimes unavoidable that some actions aimed at undermining the enemy's ability to resist will impact on the civilian population. Destroying a railway supply line to a city under seige for example will impact on both the city's civilian population and its military garrison.

I also rather think you overstate how commonplace it was to target civilians. During Sherman's campaign through North Carolina for example his troops were much better behaved than in Georgia or South Carolina. This suggests that his motivation in the latter two was more than simple spite or malice. The march to the sea (and for that matter Sheridan's efforts in the Shenendoah) for example all but crippled the South's struggling economy, which like it or not did have the effect of hindering its war machine and ending the war sooner.

On the issue of Atlanta Sherman arranged a truce with Hood to allow the population of the city to pass into the Southern lines. Not mentioning this implies that he merely turfed them out to fend for themselves, a clear misrepresentation.

Call it appologist or call it seeing another side to the story, but I don't think either side were innocent of the escalations which turned the strife following the 1860 election into a costly, divisive and harshly executed civil war.

Disingenuous? The union had orders sent down by Lincoln to burn loot and destroy civilians and their property. That brush stroke is well placed and equally well deserved. But by all means expane how it was ok to commit war crimes to save the union. Apologists anyone?

Could we have some links to these orders to investigate further? I suspect I know what you're talking about but would like to make sure.

 

[skadistic]

I'd say both sides from the used the tactics widely frankly, the burning of bridges, tearing up of railways, guerilla raids, and requisition of farm goods by both sides was commonplace during the conflict. As is often the case the dictates of Geneva or similar rarely represent reality during wartime, and are often broken by both sides in a conflict.

How many towns and cities did the south destroy completely?

Could we have some links to these orders to investigate further? I suspect I know what you're talking about but would like to make sure.

A small force left behind in Mississippi by Rosecrans was captured by Forrest. The commander of this force was one General Sherman. Among papers found with Sherman were plans from the Lincoln government for a war of terrorism to be waged systematically against women and children in the South. These included detailed instructions, with illustrations for the soldiers. Houses were to be pillaged and then burned, along with all farm buildings and tools and standing crops. Livestock was to be killed or carried away and food confiscated or destroyed.
Particular emphasis was laid on destructions of family heirlooms – pictures of dead loved ones, Bibles, wedding dresses, and pianos. There were also directions as to how to persuade, or coerce if persuasion failed, black servants into divulging the whereabouts of hidden valuables.

The revelation of these papers shocked the world and played a significant part in the later war crimes trail of Lincoln. Sherman had issued additional orders, urging his soldiers to "make the damned traitorous rebel women and children howl." At his trial later, Sherman defended himself. His actions had been called for, he said, because Americans had too much freedom and needed to be brought under obedience to government like Europeans. The trial of the United States vs. Sherman resulted in a famous precedent-setting verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/wilson2.html

Sherman didn't just go and burn his way to the sea on his own accord. Lincoln gave his permission to do it even after some hesitation.

 

[privatehudson]

The south's spent most of the war on their own ground, and when it launched large scale invasions generally didn't want to antagonise the Northern population, especially since that would alienate them from possible european support. Burning towns or cities therefore would have been counter-productive to their aims. On the other hand they could be considered productive to the North's aims, hence why they used the tactic.

That said however the south had no compunction with using small scale versions of the same, namely guerilla bands, so just because they lacked the incentive to repeat Sherman's feats doesn't mean they lacked the will to hit back at the north in a similar but smaller fashion.

As for your link are you aware that the article is in fact counter-factual history? (also known as a "what if"). In the following link he subtitles that article as "The path history should have taken." To my knowledge Wilson is not definately suggesting that Lincoln did give out such an order. He may well be speculating that such an order existed, but there's no evidence for it contained in his article.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson-arch.html

Even leaving that aside Sherman's march to the sea was undertaken whilst leaving both Grant and Lincoln in the dark as to where he was and what he was doing at any one time during it. Given that Grant was very firm about saying that Lincoln rarely enquired about the conduct of the war I think we'll need better evidence that Sherman's less savoury conduct was part of a deliberate plan of Lincoln's.