What is your general opinion about Abraham Lincoln?  

Hello Wanblygaleshka,

You'll get no scathing rebuke from me. While I disagree with you on Lincoln's actions and the reasons for them, I share the minority passion that you have presented here. In my case, it is in regard to another U.S. President, FDR. So, I completely defend your right to 'walk to the tune of a different drummer'.

Though, regarding the Civil (or Un-Civil) War, we should remember that slavery was only the tip of the iceberg. The contention initially began over economic practices that supported the view of independent states/territories over the Union. So, while you are right that Federalism did grow as a result of the Civil War, we should also remember that history has provided us a great many examples of territorial or 'clan' economies that prevented their peoples from achieving unified greatness. While I am a strong advocate of State's Rights, I also recognize the need for unified states, regarding the purview of the federal government.

As examples of 'clan' economies, Ireland and Scotlant first come to mind for me. Where both societies spent hundreds and hundreds of years warring among themselves, and subsequently positioning themselves for conquest by other, more unified imperialists, namely the British Empire. The same is true of the rise, and expansion of the Roman Empire.

We should also remember that the North/South contention escalated to full-bore hostility ONLY after the debate over the direction that the new, Missouri Territory would take, specifically whether the support of territorial/slave economics would expand into the Western Territories, or not.

I believe that Lincoln understood the possible ramifications of 'drawing a line in the sand' on socio-economic principles, and chose to follow the age old wisdom that "United we stand, divided we fall".

I agree with you. If the Confederates had not had slaves modern historian would be signing their praise, but it is not politically correct to take the side of the South.

wanblygaleshka- Spoken like a Southerner! Proud of you!
Most people do not realize that the south is actually another world and culture than the north (and it has nothing to do with racism). There are lasting effects to this day. Ask a true born and breed Southerner who they are and where their alligance lies, they will say "I am first and foremost a Southerner, after that I am an American." There is a clear difference. Most people would not understand.

WanblyGaleshka bows to Lilwonders and says, "Why thank you from the bottom of my heart, Ma'am, for your kind words." Such high praise, worded the way it was tells me that you must be a true born and bred Southerner. As I said in my post, I HAVE lived all over this great country, a good deal of the time in the South. I have gotten to understand what true Southern Culture really is (and that pertains to Blacks as well as Whites). I find that many of the values held by Soutnerners to be unequaled almost anywhere else in this Nation.

But (doesn't it always seem like there's a "but" in there somewhere? LOL) The conclusions that I came to which I posted were not based at all on having been in the South or my friendships with Southern Ffolk. Rather they were based upon yrs of study outside of the classroom. Digging and reading things that most ppl have never heard of, let alone would bother studying. Such as; the Congressional Records pre-war, during the war, and post-war. Lincoln's own diaries, letters, etc., copies of newspapers from the era, both Northern and Southern papers, and a host of other things. All these things led me to believe that Mr. Lincoln was, indeed, a Tyrant who had dreams of dictatorship.

I just took the time to read through the rest of the thread and see that there are others out there that have the courage of their convictions to speak up as well. Yes, it is absolutely, most politically incorrect to voice these views. But then I am one of those ppl that cannot abide political correctness anyway.

I do try to see all sides of issues, and to understand where everyone is coming from when discussing things with them. I try to educate myself on various cultures and beliefs, even a few languages. T.S. Lawrence once said, "No matter where you go in this world, learn the language. If you can learn the language, you will understand the people and how they think and why." That was a brilliant man! We'd see a whole lot more harmony in this world if everyone would try to follow that advice and learn about other people. How they think, why they do, what they believe, and why they believe the things that they do. My people have a saying that one should never judge another person until you have walked for a moon in his moccasins. This is something that I have tried to live up to. I hope that it does give me a little better understanding of other ppl.

Hello The_ruler, and others who have responded to this thread,

Since the_ruler is not from the USA, but instead hails from Istanbul, I thought that it would be helpful to frame this debate as other than the North/South cultural-political divide.

In fact, there were a great many variables that caused Abraham Lincoln to win the Presidential Election, and to pursue the terribly costly re-unification of the nation. This was a tremendously rocky period in American History, as it was elsewhere around the globe.

No President preceding Lincoln was able to adequately address the Liberal-Conservative, State’s Rights vs. Federal rights, Sovereign vs. Collective Rights issues. To this day, we still struggle with these issues, and will probably do so as long as Freedom is such a vital principle to all Americans.

So, to add texture to this discussion, I have provided a bit of ‘food for thought’. Perhaps it will help those who are not American Citizens to better understand Lincoln’s terribly precarious position, and help to provide some illumination for the reasons why he did what he did. Of course, any or all are free to disagree with his reasoning, though I dare say that Lincoln's was perhaps the most challenging Presidency in our nation’s history. Would any of us have wished to walk that mile in his shoes?


Below are some quotes from a scathing, though relatively unbiased appraisal of the state of affairs of these United States leading up to, and including the U.S. Civil War. I would urge that it be read in its entirety.

http://ngeorgia.com/history/why.html>

“The ugliness of the political process quickly began to show as parties turned upon themselves….

From 1837 until 1861 eight men became president, but no man served more than a single term in office. One sitting president was not renominated by his own party, and another withdrew his name after being nominated….

The United States had been moving towards a fractured, divisive society for a number of years. Cultural and economic differences served to widen the rift….

The South was wrong to assume Lincoln intended to free the slaves. He had never advocated action to abolish slavery nor did he speak out against the Illinois rules prohibiting blacks from testifying against whites….

In his inaugural address Lincoln made it clear he would not interfere with slavery where it existed. Even though he made this speech after the South seceded he left the door open for their return….

Lincoln quoted "...a house divided shall not stand..." from the Bible ….

A year later Lincoln restated why the war was fought when he said, dedicating a cemetery at Gettysburg

"..... for those who here gave their lives that this nation might live."[/i]

Clearly, the divisiveness of the nation was creating a very great risk that the nation would splinter, thereby leaving itself open to foreign aggression.

Let us all remember what was going on in Europe at this time in history – the Crimean War, with almost universal concerns over Russian imperialist expansion:

http://web.mit.edu/17.423...>

Plus, the surge of Spanish Nationalism following a series of Spanish Civil Wars, and the growing unrest in Spanish occupied Cuba, just 90 miles off the coast of the USA.

All in all, I’d say that Lincoln’s fears for the survival of these United States was more than justified. And, in fact, if the politics of the nation had not been so divisely splintered, Lincoln never would have won the election.

“Few gave him (Lincoln) any chance of success, but 3 other candidates split the popular vote and Lincoln won….”

http://ngeorgia.com/history/why.html>

So, while I clearly understand (and share) the contempt for an overly intrusive federal government, I also recognize the very real possibility that had Lincoln not been willing to place the survival of the nation over regional concerns, that we might very well had not seen the rise of the USA. And yes, the biggest horse pills are always the hardest to swallow! I believe that Lincoln fully understood that his Presidency was quite obviously between ‘a rock and a hard place’.

Where none can argue that the enslavement of another Human Being is wrong, in every way -- I'd say that the Lincoln made the right choice to once and for all quash this terribly egregious economic choice for the attainment of wealth!!!

I’ll also add that where I would generally leave well enough alone, I am personally deeply concerned over the divisiveness that we so clearly see in the USA today. We're still deeply entrenched in the Liberal vs. Conservative, and State's Rights vs. Federal Rights issues this day. Though, let's hope that the current remedy will see a much more civil resolution!

Where the heck is the 1980 U.S. Olympic Hockey Team when ya’ need them?

Oh I understand the real reasons behind the civil war. But that does not make them right. Lincoln did not have a legal or constitutinal right to MAKE us be apart of American if we did not want to be. Reguardless of the long term consequences to everyone involved.

Hello Lilwonders,

While I understand your take on this issue, and respect (and in many cases) share your beliefs regarding States Rights, I'm inclined to point out two things:

First, the original question was: “What is your opinion about Abraham Lincoln, and what was the difference with his leadership?”

We have both freely shared our opinions of Lincoln, and I have offered my perspective of what I believe was unique about Lincoln’s leadership skills. Which brings me to my second point:

Second, as I’m reading it, the question wasn't asking whether the Grey or the Blue was right.

Though, since we're already off-topic, I will beg a little further indulgence from the_ruler.

Since it is quite reasonably a thorn in the side of many of today’s Constitutional Southerners, I will go out on a limb and share my own personal, hypothesized perspective. While I can never truly imagine what it must have been like to live during the time of our greatest national crisis, I believe that I would have sided with the North. I believe that I would have done so for two reasons. They are:

1. It is clear to this day that there can be no compromise between two groups of people, when one believes that it is their right to enslave other Human Beings for reasons of wealth attainment, and where the other believes that greed should never trump the principle of ‘freedom for all’.

-And-

2. Without question, I would have put the survival of the Nation over the rights of one segment of the population to pursue individual liberty, at such a great cost, in spite of the principle of Divinely endowed sovereignty.

To be sure, I don’t say these things lightly. I have considered the deep crevasse that we see dividing our Nation today. It is not so unlike the chasm that divided the nation of our ancestors. In today’s world we still find two groups, where one seeks federal government controls, and the other abhors it. Today, the chasm is called Liberalism (or Collectivism) vs. Conservatism.

While I am squarely entrenched in the Conservative camp, if the survival of the nation were at risk today, I suspect that I would no more support abandoning the vision of our Founding Fathers, for an independent and strong United States, than I would have back then. This is why I admire Lincoln. He understood what was at risk, and sought to put the survival of the nation above all else; a commitment to principle that cost him his own life, and the lives of so many others. Where I'm pretty confident that, being a God fearing man, Lincoln realized that he could never wash all that blood from his hands, or his soul.

The ideological rift is as real today (minus the issue of slavery) as it was during the time of the Civil War. Though I choose to fight the good fight on the battlefield of ideas. I believe it prudent to always remember that the greatest weakness of Liberalism is its inherent dependence on government. That Liberal weakness is the heart of Conservative strength.

So Lilwonders, while I believe that we can 'agree to disagree' on the issue of the Grey vs. the Blue, I hope that all Americans would agree on protecting the vision of our Founding Fathers, who despite the existence of the same ideological rift in their time, agreed to create 'a more perfect union' for the benefit of all.

So, can we agree to disagree?

Should any reader of this thread wish to further research issues like: How did the Confederate/Union aggression begin, and Lincoln’s response, here are some additional resources.

http://blueandgraytrail.c...
http://www.socialstudiesh...

I have not problem agreeing to disagree. In fact I really do not stress about the whole civil war much. It is done and over with. But when talking about President Lincoln you do have to remember he violated laws and the constitution by going to war against the south. He violated the principles that this country was founded on. No matter how he justified it he did not have the right to do it.
As for the country today. Well I still strongly believe in states rights. More control going to the states and less to the federal government.That is why I voted for Ron Paul.

OK, Sorry, just couldn't help putting my two cents worth in after reading Lady Luna's and Lilwonder's posts. A huge resounding Hurrah, Huzza, and Hear, Hear for Lilwonders latest reply. You summed up Mr. Lincoln's crimes quite distinctly, and wonderfully. Couldn't have said it better myself. And that IS the reason that I believe he is the worst president that we've had.

Lady Luna, plz don't take offense, I have come to highly respect you as someone that IS intelligent and thinks things out (a rarity in this day and age). But I do notice that you keep harping back to the slavery issue as a reason why you would have supported Mr. Lincoln. You are aware aren't you that Lincoln was a slave owner himself, and only divested himself of his slaves after his proclaimation? Slavery WASN'T the issue, it never was, it was a smokescreen issue brought up to rile up the constituents of the North so that he'd be given the States Militias in order to invade the South.

We haven't had our primary yet here in PA, so I haven't voted for anyone yet. But I am registered as a Libertarian. Ron Paul still holds to a lot of his Libertarian values. I may be one of the few, but in the general elections I always vote Libertarian and not for either candidate of the Republicrats or the Demopublicans.

The thought just struck me, that since we have gotten onto he topic of the War of Northern Agression, would The_Ruler prefer that we take this to another thread, where we could explore the topic from mulitple angles? Personally, I'd be intrested in hearing how some of the people that live in the rest of the world view this topic.

Hello Wanblygaleshka,

I was waiting to see a ruling from The-ruler in regard to hijacking this thread. Since we have not heard back, I'm going to follow my own inner judgement and respect what I believe to be the original question.

Though, I would like to commend you on your civil tone, and general sense of congeniality in such a divisive discussion. I deeply respect that! Gotta' love a sharp wit, especially when it's presented respectfully!!!

As well, I would like to officially welcome you to MyLot. I suspect that you have much to offer, and look forward to your future participation here.

Yes, you are right to an extent, you lost, get over it. But is it wrong to hold to ideals that are good? Such as the ideal that we were supposed to be a Union of Independant Sovereign States? I also heard many a man and woman state with deep sincerity that "The South shall rise again." History is always written by the victors, but that doesn't always make it correct either. I think it's a good thing that ppl still call it "The War of Northern Aggression". Because that's exactly what it was, and to some extent they are right in saying that they are living under enemy occupation. Just because more than a hundred and forty yrs have passed, doesn't make it any less true.

Do I want to see the country split again? NO! But I can't stand to sit back and watch as outright lies are taught in classrooms about our own history. I know we never like to face our shortcomings. Historically, this nation was born in violence and has had continued violence and outright human rights crimes as it's heritage. Usless S. Grant, while sitting in the Oval Office ordered small pox diseased blankets given to the Native Americans, especially the Women, the old, and the sick, so that they'd die off faster and get rid of the Native problem.

The original question pertained to who we thought was the worst president in the history of the United States of America. We've had many really, really bad ones. In fact, I'd say that perhaps the bad ones far outweighed the good ones. So to come up with who I thought was the worst, I did have to do some real soul searching before answering, Lincoln. I almost said William Jefferson Clinton. But all he did was degrade the Office and drag it and this country through the muck at the bottom of the sewer. Lincoln tried to throw out the Constitution entirely and take over as a despot.

I can't blame any Southerners that hold ill will against the North, even more than 140yrs later. Because the worst crimes against the peoples of the South actually occured AFTER the war. When are we ever going to learn to be gracious in Victory. If we hadn't crushed the South under our heel the way we did after the war, there might not be anywhere near the kind of feelings that they have still today. If we hadn't crushed Germany so badly after WWI, there might not have been a WWII.

Mankind as a whole has GOT to learn to treat ppl like they would like to be treated, even in victory.

Oh most of my fustration with the civil war is because I grew up hearing about it. How the north did not have a legal right to go to war against us. That the south had every right to leave. The inhuman treatment of us after the war. Over and over and over and over again. Fine, we were screwed over and hostily taken over. Either do something about it or shut up already.
Anyone who doesn't think the civil war is not alive and well is fooling themselves. The South still hates the North and still sees itself under occupation. But really what can we do about it? Presidents have apologized for slavery, trying to completely wipe out the Native Americans and other wrongs. Do you honestly think one of them is going to say I am sorry to the South and admit they were wrong? Not in a million years.