So how was it that Abraham Lincoln turned out to be right and his critics wrong?

Question

Even though the war ground on without an end in sight, with casualties mounting, that others persisted in pursuing a strategy that he insisted would bring about eventual victory. Hardly anyone, including many in his own cabinet, shared that President's optimism.

For those readers who are a little history impaired, that war was the American Civil War and that President was Abraham Lincoln.

So how was it that Abraham Lincoln turned out to be right and his critics wrong?

Answer 1

He was using a army to fight an opposing army. He wasn't using an army to fight against an ideology.

You can tell the difference. The US Civil war took a shade over 4 years. The Southern army was filled with many of the best trained officers of the USA. There was a much bigger military tradition among southern troops than in the north. The South had better organization and had great success at the beggining of the war. A couple years into the war, though, the tide was definitely turning. After Gettysburgh, it became apparent that the industrial and numerical superiority of the North was bound to win.

In contrast to that, the Iraq is being waged against a diffuse, disorganized, poorly trained foe with no industrial capacity. We are bringing the greatest military force ever known to the world. Yet, the Iraq war has dragged on for LONGER than the Civil War and there is still no end in sight.

Just as Bush's analogies to Vietnam helped to highlight the awful position we are in with this current war, your invocation of the US Civil was also points out the negative more than you even realize.

Answer 2

Simple, he won the war and wrote and his supporters got to write the history books. Go down south though, and even today people will say he wasn't right. They'll claim state rights instead of racism, but the point is, not everybody considers him right. Its also interesting that he was the first president to suspend Habis Corpus for the entire country. So anybody wondering where Bush got the right to suspend your rights.. Just ask Mr. Lincoln. Then you have the fact that he ended slavery... which is a good thing, even if that wasn't his intention at the beginning of the war, or the middle...

Answer 3

Because Lincoln had a clearly defined goal -- and a specific enemy that also had a clearly defined goal.

Lincoln wanted to prevent secession by the states and ensure a single United States -- he had one single opposing group that was trying to break away.

Given a clearly defined enemy, and a clearly defined objective with a measurable success-or-failure standard, it was a simple matter of seeing how things turned out.

That is completely different than the Iraq situation -- where there is no single opposing force (there are many separate factions) -- and where we have no measurable objective determination of victory -- other than a a vague "no more conflict in the region" -- which will take decades at best.

Not a parallel situation.

Answer 4

There are always naysayers. Even in WW2. That time is looked back upon as a time of totally comoradory against an enemy. But, just like today, there were Nazi sympathizers and opponents of the war. They were just quieted after America won. Iraq is the starting ground for better things in the mideast if America stick with it. Things won't change in that area unless someone forces change upon them.

It's not the P.C. thing to say, but if Islamic terrorism hadn't come to us, we would never had gone to Islamic terrorism. But since they have, Afghanistan and Iraq are the first steps towards a better future for people in the Middle East.

Answer 5

1. Because Lincoln wasn't a delusional congenital idiot like Bush.

2. Because Lincoln knew what he was fighting for and why his enemies were fighting him, unlike Bush.

Answer 6

I almost peed my pants and threw up in my mouth at the same time over your insinuation that G.W. Bush is in any way the caliber of leader that Lincoln was.