English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I have heard the Democrats Claim He was really a Democrat Because He freed the Slaves Which He did , as A Republican. During the American Civil War He Waged another less reported War. The One against the Northern Democrats. That War cost around 33,000 Lives In New York Alone! He Paid No heed to the Democrats call for and end to the war! Be Burned Down Liberal Newspaper buildings and suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus. He had Liberals SHOT and Put in jail for Antiwar activity. He Let War Widows March across the Street dragging Coffins and WOULD NOT MEET with them! He Let His Generals open the Rules Of Engagement to ensure his Goal Of Winning at all costs! The democrats said he had No real war expirience and even ran a Popular War hero against him! He was drawn as and called a MONKEY!
He did win and HE BECAME ONE OF AMERICAS MOST BELOVED PRESIDENTS

read some more here is a link to some of it
http://www.southernevents.org/lincolnWar.htm

2007-04-26 23:02:34 · 13 answers · asked by ThorGirl 4 in Politics & Government Politics

Yes the GW link is very solid, 1 for 1 it is a Mirror for those well educated in the History of ABE. He did say that about the slaves although he did not truely believe that.
It was not the emancipation proclamation either. It was the 13th Amendement that he sat in Congress everyday to ensure passage. He made every deal and ever threat needed to ensure a 3 day passage making slavery Illegal forever He deserves ALL of that credit.

2007-04-26 23:22:28 · update #1

Flyindis> Lincoln Lost way too many battles before Gettysburg. the first few years were a disaster! 23,000 men lost in 1 day at Antietam! compare that to GW's 3k in 4 years.....

2007-04-26 23:48:50 · update #2

Babydoll put the mirror down sweetie you have no Idea how silly you sound.

2007-04-26 23:49:50 · update #3

13 answers

You are obviously educated on Mr. Lincoln.I can only tell you why I respect Him. I saw pictures of Abe(for short) when He first became president and pictures of His last year of life. He looked like He had aged30 years. The simple man from Kentucky suffered for our country. He took the blame for his atrocities(war is hell) and didn't pass the buck to the next in line. Old Honest Abe has always fascinated me. This answer is bias because I love Him. I am part Indian and think We were an ignored,abused people. Be that it may, I still think Mr. Lincoln was a great man and damn it He tried.

2007-04-27 03:43:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

The correlation is obvious and correct. Democrats believe that George Bush will go down in history as the worst and most hated President ever, but I am sure Democrats believed the same thing about Lincoln in the 1860s and look how that turned out. The lesson is that history does not remember the political sentiment of the day, but rather the major deeds of the time period. History is always much kinder in it's remembrance than people ever believe it will be. For the record I believe Lincoln was a great man and no matter what his reason for doing so he brought great change to the country as a result.

2007-04-26 23:12:51 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 3 1

Another good post which brings up interesting issues! Yes, Lincoln is idolized too much, as Dilorenzo states, but many historians have written balanced accounts which show his flaws and attributes in context.

Here are a few distinctions between Lincoln and the current administration, and that show that Lincoln was a great, but not perfect man.

Lincoln used his political instincts to try to keep the nation together not divide it.

Instead of surrounding himself with sycophants for advisers, he picked bitter rivals for key posts such as Stanton for Secy of War. Why? Lincoln wanted the best man for the job and Stanton was efficient, hardworking and a great leader. He fired another cabinet secy for using his office for partisan purposes.

True, Lincoln didn't start out wanting to end slavery, but he felt blacks should be freed gradually and he changed his opinions and policies as required by the exigencies of the civil war.

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus to deal with insurrection and division outside of the south. For example, he repressed the copperhead democrats, a group which wanted to scrap the entire US Constitution and substitute a loose federation of states. Lincoln put these northern protesters, (some would call them traitors), in military prisons because the civil courts could not be trusted to support Lincoln's position - which was to preserve the union and the constitution written in 1787.

When the Supreme Court restored habeus corpus in 1866, they stated that military trials in areas where civil courts are capable of functioning are illegal.

Ask yourself, when you compare the two presidents, what are the reasons Bush kept prisoners in military custody for trial by special military tribunals that were not even set up for several years? Why is the administration arguing even now that Gitmo prisoners should only have one visit by a lawyer between the time they are incarcerated that the time of their trial, and why should they have limited or no access to review the evidence against them? Why can't the US federal courts charge and try these "detainees". The US federal district courts are not under the control of insurgents and traitors, they under the control of duly appointed federal judges who apply the law.

2007-04-27 00:39:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

He also authorised the largest mass execution in American History! That being 39 Santee Sioux. He was a tyrant, and really didn't care about slavery, as he said if he could free some and keep some in slavery to preserve the union he would. He was a politican all the way

2007-04-26 23:07:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 3

I agree with you on many points, but........

Lincoln fought a war and he won !

History generally sides with winning parties,
it tends to judge losers very harshly.

2007-04-26 23:39:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

He is well thought of by most historians, thing that stood out was his belief that America had a destiny to full fill and he was right.
Say what you might he had his own principle and he would not be deterred by anyone or anything.
I truly believe we would not be here today if not for just a handful of determined leaders, he is definitely one of them.

2007-04-26 23:14:35 · answer #6 · answered by Jack L. W. 3 · 5 1

Lincoln was a good President and it is the reason that he was hated by many because most people are bad.

2007-04-26 23:40:02 · answer #7 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 2 1

The slaves were American!! They slaves believed and wanted democracy!! There lays the difference. A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

2007-04-26 23:28:12 · answer #8 · answered by wondermom 6 · 1 3

Yup, he saved the Union. But I think since he got himself re-elected, he couldn't have been hated that much.

2007-04-26 23:07:56 · answer #9 · answered by BOOM 7 · 4 1

There's a lot of parallels between the two.

2007-04-26 23:38:36 · answer #10 · answered by libstalker 4 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers