I would say Abraham Lincoln was a far more deft politician considering the situation. With the Civil War, you had fellow countrymen fighting each other over the legitimacy of the Confederate government. I would imagine it is far easier to fight a war against a guarenteed evil man rather than people who are just like you and share much of the same values, diverging at obvious points. Lincoln also had to deal with the Constitutionality of secession, which was taught at many schools, even West Point, as legal. While FDR had to declare war on an enemy who attacked us first; Lincoln had to lead a war that no one in the North wanted to fight.
2007-08-15 10:37:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The crises (Great Depression and World War) that FDR faced were far less threatening to the nation than the Civil War that Lincoln faced. I don't see that that's even open to debate.
In addition, while Americans varied greatly in their views on how to confront the challenges both of the Depression and the war, both crises unified the nation with a single goal, return to prosperity on the one hand and defeat the Axis powers on the other. By stark contrast, not only did Lincoln have an armed enemy to fight, many Northerners didn't even support Lincoln in his effort to win the Civil War, and even more didn't support his efforts to make the freed slaves full Americans.
For proof of this, just look at the mid-war reelection each faced. FDR was hardly even challenged, even though he was clearly unlikely to survive his term in office, whereas Lincoln almost lost his reelection bid and only won by the skin of his teeth, thanks to the recent victories his armies had won in the field and the fact that the Union army voted for him overwhelmingly.
Take Lincoln out of office during the Civil War, and the North almost surely would have lost. We'd be two nations now. Take FDR out of office, and we would have muddled through both crises, though we might not have emerged quite as strong as we did.
2007-08-14 21:19:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by johnny_sunshine2 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Depends on what "best" you're looking for. Popularity or administrative effectiveness. As far as roll up your sleeves and just get it done Reagan was easily the best with Eisenhower a close second. And by the way, Frank Roosevelt was more of a demagogue than a president. The American people and American business brought this country back to life when the "poor me" crowd were forced to find work for themselves. Carter was perhaps the most intelligent, Dick Nixon was the hardest working, Johnson was just the wrong man at the wrong time, Ford was too weak, Clinton was seedy and dishonest, Bush (#1) was too self centered, #2 is ignorant of world realities, Jack Kennedy was a dangerous playboy that came within hours of destroying most of the life on earth, and Truman was a mediocre leader who happened to have world affairs and technology on his side. Unless you've either lived through these administrations or have at least studied both sides of the issues of their times you're probably not qualified to opine. Anything based on textbook history is rather questionable (as you'll find out with age) because that's as variable as the political convictions of the various authors.
2016-05-18 02:07:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
FDR was the best. Linclon was a lier
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
An address by Abraham Lincoln at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857 [Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol II, pp 408-9, Basler, ed.]:
2007-08-15 02:27:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by harlin42 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
I agree that FDR was one of the best presidents US ever had...though he had some problems, too...and got quite serious at his last days when he began to lose reason
2007-08-14 23:45:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sure why not...
He was crippled from Polio and fought that his entire political life. Has any other President ever worked against such odds?
Nope.
And he did a good job with that whole war around the world thingie too.
g-day!
2007-08-15 01:22:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by Kekionga 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
FRD was one President that I admire greatly. In my college history I drew him for an essay, I was put out over it, I thought what the heck. I started looking into his history and I became enamored. I fell in love with his administration and wish it was still here.
2007-08-15 03:11:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by cowboydoc 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
No I think it was JFK with the Cuban Missile crisis
2007-08-14 23:35:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by molly 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
YES - - - - unequivocal hands down the best man to have at the helm of a burning ship--
Peae......................
2007-08-14 20:53:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by JVHawai'i 7
·
0⤊
0⤋