Why is Lincoln considered such a great president?

Question

He let our country tear itself apart with a civil war
Seems like a failure to me

Answer 1

OK Randy, I HAVE done my homework. I've actually read numerous Lincoln scholars (whom you so blithely and condescendingly dismiss as 'the victors writing the history'), as well as the sloppy half-baked jobs of writers like diLorenzo, as well as reading Lincoln's OWN works. Unfortunately, your remarks --or slanders-- are based on second-hand, out-of-context quotes which happen to have a great many of their basic FACTS wrong.

In response:
> Abraham Lincoln is considered by many as a great President because he was the leader of the winning side of the American Civil War of the 1860s.<
* Well, his ability to sustain the war effort against numerous obstacles -- esp. incompetent generals, a large block that didn't want to fight (starting with the Copperheads), and a savage press -- should at least gain him SOME respect! His political skill, understanding the right timing for major changes (such as the Emancipation Proclamation and lining up support for the 13th amendment), his careful use of his rhetorical gifts to inspire people, and his ability to actually LEAD and get the best out of a cabinet filled with his rivals, who had thought THEY should be President, were remarkable.

Now Lincoln made some significant mistakes --as EVERY President has-- such as overestimating pro-Union sentiment in the North, underestimating Southern resolve and skill and overestimating some of his early generals (things about which almost everyone in the North would have agreed). But he LEARNED from these and overcame them.

(As for the nation's 'falling apart' -- that happened BEFORE he took office. But where Pierce and Buchanan bungled and only made matters worse, Lincoln, inheriting a much worse situation, took firm action.)

> Primarily the winning side writes the history.<
* This is a cheap dismissal of the arguments and evidence of numerous scholars -- an ad hominem, not an argument. Note too that a great many have tried to write on the other side, but their work simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

> Throughout his life he never believed that blacks were the equivalent of whites.<
* You're referring, of course, to one or two quotes from the Lincoln-Douglas debates, used by anti-Lincoln writers to show his "racism". Well, he might not match up to what we would expect of a leader today -- but he was actually FAR ahead of most in his day. He also DID believe that slavery was absolutely morally WRONG -- a wrong against fellow HUMAN BEINGS, and he argued repeatedly, from at least 1854 on, that the rights referred to in the Declaration DO belong to blacks as well. He showed NO animosity toward them. And by the end of his Presidency clearly regarded many quite highly (even suggesting that at least the educated ones, and those who had fought, deserved the franchise [Booth's hearing Lincoln say this was apparently the 'final straw' that pushed him from his kidnapping plan to one of assassination.])
* I highly suggest you find the FULL text of the typical 'anti-black' quotes in the L-D debates, and read the WHOLE of the speech they appear in. If you are at all open-minded, you'll see that the cherry-picked quotes you've been shown very much misrepresent his viewpoint.

> Further, at one time he advocated shipping blacks back to Africa. <
* [It was called colonization] As did many politicians North and South in the early 19th century, but in his case (made very clear if you actually read what he wrote) his feeling that racism would make it impossible for blacks to live SAFELY in the midst of whites was key. Considering the murder of many freed blacks by Southern whites to scare them away from the polls and "redeem" their states from Reconstruction. . . his fear was not altogether unfounded.

> He never really freed anyone. Slavery was legal within the Union until the passage of the 13th Amendment which occurred after his death. The emancipation proclamation freed only slaves within States under Union control and at the time it was issued, none of the slave States was under Union control.<
* Nonsense. The Emancipation Proclamation IMMEDIATELY declared the freedom of slaves who had escaped (assuring they would NOT be returned), freed others as soon as Union armies entered their territories, and set the foundation for the 13th amendment -- which passed Congress in JANUARY 1864 with the help of a LOT of pressure and dealing by Lincoln! (I also find it ironic that you later appeal to the Constitution, without noting that Lincoln's authority as President ONLY included "war powers" -- he could not simply declare slaves everywhere free just because he wanted to... then he WOULD have been the sort of dictator you apparently take him for.)

> He caused the war to begin by provocations he initiated which forced the firing on supply ships for Fort Sumter, which was the actual start of the war. His acts were a violation of the Sovereign State of South Carolina.<
* He was provisioning FEDERAL forts, and only with foods. . NO troops or weapons, so how was that "forcing" the firing?

> He rode rough shod of the Constitution of the United States with such acts as the suspending of habeas corpus and the jailing without due process of Northern politicians for simply speaking out against the war.<
* There is extensive literature on this. Most conclude that he did go too far in SOME cases -- but isn't it easy to sit in your armchair and in hindsight, to take shots at his acts trying to hold together the country in deep crisis. (Excellent evaluation of his war acts -- *Lincoln's Constitution* by Daniel Farber. )

> He authorized the Union attacks against the civilian population of the Confederacy.<
* I assume you are speaking of such things as Sherman's campaign. Actually, it's called "total war"... which proved, unfortunately, to be necessary (and is the very thing that justified declaring their slaves free). But do note that even when it was judged necessary to undermine the civilian population's will to fight, by destroying PROPERTY (including, e.g., crops used to sustain the Confederate Army), they did NOT target the PERSONS of civilians.

> The right for a State to secede was Constitutional.<
* That's an absurdly bald-faced assertion -- stating as proven one of the key questions the war started over! This was a much-debated issue for decades before the war. . . and by no means settled. (You might profit from reading Farber's book above --he has a chapter discussing and critiquing Lincoln's argument against the right of secession.)
* Note also that the BASIS for secession was the fact that a political party, following Constitutional rules, succeeded in electing its candidate as President. If some ACT had actually been taken against the South's "rights" -- or at least threatened! -- there would be legal (certainly moral) justification. But to secede over election results??!

> The precedent for secession was established by the States when they seceded from Great Britain and when they seceded from the Articles of Confederation.<
* Neither of these was a "secession" - the first was a WAR (revolution), so if that is a precedent, the North had the right to oppose it! The Articles are not exactly the same as the UNION , but in any case, ratifying the Constitution was an act of the states COLLECTIVELY vs. secession.. in which each state individually votes WITHOUT the agreement of the others. (Lincoln made this argument forcefully -- IF the Union was created by agreement of ALL the parties, how could it be undone by the action of just ONE?)

>Thee was neither a Constitutional nor a legal justification for the Union to go to war against the Confederacy, because the Confederacy was a separate and sovereign county. <
* Again, a circular argument. That was precisely the question at issue.

> For this you can refer to the fact that after the war when Jefferson Davis was placed under house arrest, he was eventually allowed his freedom without going to trial because the best legal minds of the day opined that he had done nothing wrong. Rather he had simply acted as President of a foreign county.<
* Sorry, that wasn't the reason. I don't think you've actually read what they wrote. Davis had become a sympathetic figure and the POLITICAL cost --esp. to efforts to HEAL the North-South rift-- was simply not worth it. (Note that the same was true of the end of Reconstruction -- the North lost the will to pursue it against the murderous acts of the "redeemers". That hardly means that the efforts to insure the safety and right to vote of the freedman had been mistaken, as much of the South maintained.) Also, the restoration of rights to leading Confederates was by declarations of PARDON, which means they WERE regarded as having rebelled. (The acknowledgment that it was a rebellion is even found in the Constitution.)

Answer 2

I agree that people should do their homework.

Abraham Lincoln is considered by many as a great President because he was the leader of the winning side of the American Civil War of the 1860s. Primarily the winning side writes the history.

Not all people believe he was a great president. Throughout his life he never believed that blacks were the equivalent of whites. Further, at one time he advocated shipping blacks back to Africa. He never really freed anyone. Slavery was legal within the Union until the passage of the 13th Amendment which occurred after his death. The emancipation proclamation freed only slaves within States under Union control and at the time it was issued, none of the slave States was under Union control.

He caused the war to begin by provocations he initiated which forced the firing on supply ships for Fort Sumter, which was the actual start of the war. His acts were a violation of the Sovereign State of South Carolina.

He rode rough shod of the Constitution of the United States with such acts as the suspending of habeas corpus and the jailing without due process of Northern politicians for simply speaking out against the war. He authorized the Union attacks against the civilian population of the Confederacy.

His single and sole intent was to force all States to remain in the Union even though the right for a State to secede was Constitutional. For this you can refer to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions written by Presidents Jefferson and Madison. The precedent for secession was established by the States when they seceded from Great Britain and when they seceded fron the Articles of Confederation.

Thee was neither a Constitutional nor a legal justification for the Union to go to war against the Confederacy, because the Confederacy was a separate and sovereign county. For this you can refer to the fact that after the war when Jefferson Davis was placed under house arrest, he was eventually allowed his freedom without going to trial because the best legal minds of the day opined that he had done nothing wrong. Rather he had simply acted as President of a foreign county.

Answer 3

Wow. I certainly won't get best answer for this. That real long answer will get it because that one agrees with the questioner. But since that one is so wrong, I feel compelled to reply.

Lincoln was born in 1809. His attitude toward slaves and blacks in general evolved. People who castigate him for not believing blacks were equal to whites or believing blacks should be shipped back to Africa are disingeuous at the least. As he educated himself, his attitudes changed, as they should. Anyone who believes everything at 56 he did at 18 means he didn't learn much. He had a closed mind.

Well, that was not Lincoln. As he learned, he first realized that slavery was evil. Then he grew to realize that even though he felt blacks were not equal to whites intellectually, they deserved equal rights. His back to Africa views were a product of being concerned that too many bigoted whites would not allow blacks to live in peace. But through his meetings with the likes of William Lloyd Garrison, he came to believe in the equality of the races.

As to the original question, he did not allow the country to tear itself apart. That's like asking a rape victim how she allowed the armed man who broke into her house to rape her. He told the south he swore an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Union. The Southerners did not swear an oath to destroy it. But they tried to destroy it, he didn't. He just told them they couldn't leave the Union. They fired the first shots.

And he had no choice. The South decided they were going to leave the Union BEFORE Lincoln was inaugurated. He merely told them he would whatever he could to preserve the Union. They tried to secede, his job was then to try and stop them.

He succeeded. The Union exists today, over 140 years after the war ended. Slavery does not exist in this country. Our country is so well thought of, people from all over the world are trying to get in, legally and illegally. How many other countries boast that fact?

Lincoln was not only a successful President, history so far views him as the best, and rightly so.

Answer 4

He stood for the premise of all men being created equal. He knew that it may tear the country apart (and it did), but he made a decision based on principle and stood by it. He was 100% dead-on when he took a stand against slavery, and it was because of that stand he took and his leadership that the slaves were liberated.

Answer 5

He's hell of a lot better than Obama, Confederacy attack the U.S (Union).

Answer 6

Your school is failing you. He faught the war to keep southern states from leaving the union.

he "freed the slaves." they like that.

do some homework.