Was Lincoln What We Are Told He Was?

Answer 1

This says it all “Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy, that our youths will be taught by Northern school teachers; learn from Northern school books THEIR version of the war”. by General Patrick Cleburne. The answer is NO, the responders here like most others are answering on what they have been taught and what they can readily find. They and you should read the newspapers of the day, the diaries his Generals and most importantly Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream By Lerone Bennett, Jr. and Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.

Indeed, many Northerners are "still fighting the war" in that they organize a political mob whenever anyone attempts to display a Confederate heritage symbol in any public place. Americans are still fascinated by the war because many of us recognize it as the defining event in American history. Lincoln’s war established myriad precedents that have shaped the course of American government and society ever since: the centralization of governmental power, central banking, income taxation, protectionism, military conscription, the suspension of constitutional liberties, the "rewriting" of the Constitution by federal judges, "total war," the quest for a worldwide empire, and the notion that government is one big "problem solver."
Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln’s war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln’s war. In 1863, there was an international convention in Geneva, Switzerland, that sought to codify international law with regard to the conduct of war. What the convention sought to do was to take the principles of "civilized" warfare that had evolved over the previous century, and declare them to be a part of international law that should be obeyed by all civilized societies. The Swiss jurist Emmerich de Vattel (1714-67, author of The Law of Nations, was the world’s expert on the proper conduct of war at the time. "The people, the peasants, the citizens, take no part in it, and generally have nothing to fear from the sword of the enemy," Vattel wrote. As long as they refrain from hostilities themselves, they "live in as perfect safety as if they were friends.” Occupying soldiers who would destroy private property should be regard as "savage barbarians”. In 1861, the leading American expert in international law as it relates to the proper conduct of war was the San Francisco attorney Henry Halleck, a former army officer and West Point instructor whom Abraham Lincoln appointed General-in-Chief of the federal armies in July of 1862. Halleck was the author of the book, International Law, which was used as a text at West Point and essentially echoed Vattel’s writing. On April 24, 1863, the Lincoln administration seemed to adopt the precepts of international law as expressed by the Geneva Convention, Vattel, and Halleck, when it issued General Order No. 100, known as the "Lieber Code.” The Lieber Code paid lip service to the notion that civilians should not be targeted in war, but it contained a giant loophole: Federal commanders were permitted to completely ignore the Code if, "in their discretion," the events of the war would warrant that they do so. In other words, the Lieber Code was purely propaganda. The fact is, the Lincoln government intentionally targeted civilians from the very beginning of the war. The administration’s battle plan was known as the "Anaconda Plan" because it sought to blockade all Southern ports and inland waterways and starving the Southern civilian economy. Even drugs and medicines were on the government’s list of items that were to be kept out of the hands of Southerners, as far as possible. As early as the first major battle of the war, the Battle of First Manassas in July of 1861, federal soldiers were plundering and burning private homes in the Northern Virginia countryside. Such behavior quickly became so pervasive that on June 20, 1862 – one year into the war – General George McClellan, the commanding general of the Army of the Potomac, wrote Lincoln a letter imploring him to see to it that the war was conducted according to "the highest principles known to Christian civilization" and to avoid targeting the civilian population to the extent that that was possible. Lincoln replaced McClellan a few months later and ignored his letter.
General William Tecumseh Sherman’s "march to the sea" in which his army pillaged, plundered, raped, and murdered civilians as it marched through Georgia in the face of scant military opposition. However, such atrocities had been occurring for the duration of the war; Sherman’s March was nothing new. In 1862 Sherman was having difficulty subduing Confederate sharpshooters who were harassing federal gunboats on the Mississippi River near Memphis. He then adopted the theory of "collective responsibility" to "justify" attacking innocent civilians in retaliation for such attacks. He burned 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.
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. After the burnings, his soldiers sacked the town, stealing anything of value and destroying the rest. After the destruction of Meridian Sherman boasted that "for five days, ten thousand of our men worked hard and with a will, in that work of destruction, with axes, sledges, crowbars, clawbars, and with fire.... Meridian no longer exists." In The Hard Hand of War historian Mark Grimsley argues that Sherman has been unfairly criticized as the "father" of waging war on civilians because he "pursued a policy quite in keeping with that of other Union commanders from Missouri to Virginia.” Fair enough. Why blame just Sherman when such practices were an essential part of Lincoln’s entire war plan and were routinely practiced by all federal commanders? Sherman was just the most zealous of all federal commanders in targeting Southern civilians, which is apparently, why he became one of Lincoln’s favorite generals. In his First Inaugural Address Jefferson said that any secessionists should be allowed to "stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” However, by 1864 Sherman would announce that "to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy.” In 1862 Sherman wrote his wife that his purpose in the war would be "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people" of the South. His loving and gentle wife wrote back that her wish was for "a war of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing." 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. In his memoirs, Sherman boasted that his army destroyed more than $100 million in private property and carried home $20 million more during his "march to the sea”.
Sherman was not above randomly executing innocent civilians as part of his (and Lincoln’s) terror campaign. In October of 1864 he ordered a subordinate, General Louis Watkins, to go to Fairmount, Georgia, "burn ten or twelve houses" and "kill a few at random," and "let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon. “Another Sherman biographer, Lee Kennett, found that in Sherman’s army "the New York regiments were . . . filled with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of the Old World.” Although it is rarely mentioned by "mainstream" historians, many acts of rape were committed by these federal soldiers. The University of South Carolina’s library contains a large collection of thousands diaries and letters of Southern women that mention these unspeakable atrocities. Shermans’ band of criminal looters (known as "bummers") sacked the slave cabins as well as the plantation houses. As Grimsley describes it, "With the utter disregard for blacks that was the norm among Union troops; the soldiers ransacked the slave cabins, taking whatever they liked.” A routine procedure would be to hang a slave by his neck until he told federal soldiers where the plantation owners’ valuables were hidden.

Answer 2

I don't know what you where told, so I can't say. each generation likes to think they got the truth about a historical person. I have read several books on Lincoln, and each take different views, but there are many traits and characteristics that stay the same between them all. If you alluring to the presnt time of saying everone was gay for some reson or not, I find no evidence what so ever to suggest that (get tired of everyone obsessing over long dead peoples sex lives). Lincoln was a Genius, he really was, hewas extremly well educated by himself, he understood peoples motives and was well above most in his time period, what confused people was his rural upbringing, and lack of formal higher education, yet this wa the American dream. He was the best politician this country ever knew, he dealt with so much chaos and fighting in goverment,and he always had the upper hand. He was a thinker, and saw that complex situations could be discribed in simple phrases, and was able to see the big picture, a failure of most people to see past there own agendas, much like todays politicians and citizens who rail about everything they don't fully have knowledge on, Lincoln never got involved in any arguement or debate, that he was not well studied on from all sides.

Answer 3

All People are subject to interpetation especially those with an inflated reputation. If you are wonderng if A Lincoln was perfect - - - No. But if you are wondering if A Lincoln was that rare sort of political leader who learned from his mistakes and made ever effort to improve then Yes. Lincoln had no brilliant thoughts or theories regarding American blacks but as the war progressed his attitude changed toward one of compassion and understanding that they were indeed Americans.

Lincoln was a astute politician - - - he had been a lawyer for the Railroads which in a lot of ways a lot like Senator Edwards and his work with the Health Care Industry. Lincoln's greatest accomplishment was holding the Union together. A majority of Americans were throughly sick of the South and quite willing to let them break away. It was Lincoln who said No.

Lincoln was an attentive husband, a loving devoted father, a spinner of yarns, a true humorist. He was the right man for the times. One of the only men willing to stand up against slavery.

Peace

Answer 4

DURING THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR there were two principle views regarding President Abraham Lincoln.

Present-day, he is the most written about president in history. So views and opinions vary from FACT TO INFERENCE; meaning, since some authors lacked primary sources and documents, they relied upon logical consequences of assumed premises.

To grasp a well-rounded view of Lincoln, read many books written by different authors. REMEMBER, if the author refuses to cite primary sources don't rely heavily upon the author's view (at least on that particular subject discussed in the book). This is applicable for all publications.

Here is summary of the North and South's view of Lincoln DURING the American Civil War:

http://thomaslegion.net/presidentabrahamlincoln.html

Answer 5

Perhaps it depends upon what you are referring to, exactly. The Smithsonian has a cast made during his life; his hands were huge! He stood 10" to 12" taller than the average man at his time. He grew up "dirt poor"; his mother died. His step-mother was an angel of a woman and taught him his values. He split rails; he walked miles to return coins to a woman that he owed money to while he was clerking at a store in Illinois; he held a patent for a device that would enable riverboats to go over sandbars; he fought river pirates when he took a raft of goods to New Orleans, getting a scar on his forehead; he was incredibly strong, being able to life a 1,000 pound keg of nails. He never fought in the military, but was "Captain" of a volunteer group called up to fight Indians: they never sighted the Indians. He was a lawyer and in Illinois government before becoming President. From what I have read, his income at that time was about $50,000 annually.
One of his friends could quote Shakespeare, any play, long passages.
Does this help?

Answer 6

It depends on what you've been told. There are literally thousands of books and journal articles about Abraham Lincoln. So, a lot has been said about this complex man.

Answer 7

maximum likely Lincoln would tell michael about sara quickly sufficient or a minimum of till they spoil out reformatory... Michael's objective of escaping fairly is for Sara and probably at little bit of LJ yet then because that he would not comprehend that Sara is useless, he'd do his best to flee and spoil whistler out.... and convinced it became sara's head interior the container.... (Speculations say that Sara Callies(tancredi) became compelled to give up the action picture and her settlement wasn't prolonged as a lot because the third season yet some says it became a stupid comic tale executed through the corporation to make Licoln pass speedier so as that he will be afraid that that they had do it to LJ as well...) so perchance we in basic terms ought to look ahead to the subsequent episodes to make certain for ourselves

Answer 8

That depends partially upon what you were told he was. Also, if some historian comes along with his 'new ideas' and 'new interpretations,' by all means, you should be a bit wary. Always be aware of what 'facts' are being presented and what 'facts' are not being presented and what 'facts' are being twisted and, in general, what a particular author's biases and sources are before falling for some 'new interpretation' hook, line, and sinker.

Answer 9

Probably not. History often views people like him through rose colored glasses. ~

Answer 10

Probably not. Is anybody?

But he was tall...