What was so good about Abraham Lincoln?

Question

He did a terrible job as a strategist, he had the most divided nation ever, he freed the slaves ONLY in the south, ONLY as a political move to gain support for his war (Which, incidentally killed more Americans that any war ever), He unjustly imprisoned political dissenters, and his exit strategy was even worse than Bush's. If our current president gets shot in the back of the heas, will our grandchildren have to celebrate HIS birthday on President's day? Please tell me I'm not crazy. If you have any serious disagreements please state them calmly, and I will consider them.

Answer 1

You're right about pretty much all of what you said, but you ignored some important things.

He managed to unite a horribly divided North into putting together a force that could beat the South.

He managed to make himself a legacy that would endure in history by what he said while he was in the fire.

His side won, ensuring him a hero's place in the history books (which are always written by the winner).

He showed a level of decency rarely seen by a victor in not punishing the South as much as others wanted. Just look at what happened to Johnson for trying to continue that tradition after Lincoln's death, he was almost impeached.

I don't like much of what he did and I don't think that he should be given as much glory as he has, but he wasn't a total fool, like some would portray him.

Answer 2

He did not do a terrible job as a strategist - look at what Jefferson Davis did if you want to see a "terrible job."
He was a such a shrewd politican that when he freed the slaves in the Confederate territories, he achieved something that even today people still do not understand.
The losses that occurred in the Civil War are a result of the way war was fought at the time, and even greater numbers died of DISEASE.
The C.S.A. also imprisoned its political dissenters too, which is the subject of a recently published book. I have heard this accusation against Lincoln before - but always from those who have done little research on the Confederacy's similar actions. I think comparisons about an "Exit Strategy" and Bush are a waste of time. The best arguments stick to the subject and same time period.

What was so good about your argument? Nothing.
But at least you say you are willing to listen to disagreements.

Answer 3

Like all great Presidents, indeed, like all great men, Lincoln was able to remain focused on a single overriding idea and subordinated everything else to it: preservation of the Union.

As you correctly point out, freeing the slaves was a tactical move, but he never pretended otherwise. He said if he could save the Union by freeing all the slaves, he would; if he could save the Union by freeing none of the slaves, he would; and if he save the Union by freeing some of the slaves and not others, he would do that, too.

As a strategist, at the beginning of the war he was no worse than any of the generals who remained loyal to the North. He urged McClellan to attack at Mananas prematurely (but, of course, any attack at any time seemed premature to McClellan). By 1863, however, he was the only one (besides Lee, of course) to understand the North's true strength and the South's true weakness. In Grant, he finally found a general with the grit to act on the arithmetic.

As for his exit strategy (and Bush's): it was the same as that for every President who has had to lead during a war: victory. Exit strategies are for battles, not for wars. When planning a battle, you want to have a route open for retreat, if possible, in case things go badly. That is not possible in the larger scope of a war, where retreat simply invites the enemy to follow.

That the country was divided (much worse than it is today; there were deadly riots in New York and Boston) and the war was bloody are actually marks in his favor. It takes no great skill or courage to do what is popular and easy. As Kipling suggested, Lincoln kept his head while all about him were losing theirs and blaming it on him.

Answer 4

Regardless of politics, of course he was right; almost by definition. In fact this situation does exist as law (the Logan Act, ref 1) and it was enacted in 1798, so it existed when Honest Abe was in office. quote: President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries (ref 2). end quote Fortunately for our current congress, but unfortunate for our military, the Bush administration tries to negotiate with the democrat political opposition rather than punish them (at least it appears that way). Aside: Note that J Murtha is being sued for his comments about soldiers committing murder; at least someone is being held responsible for his statements

Answer 5

To fully understand the greatness of the man you need to read "Abraham Lincoln, the War Years" by Carl Sandburg.
You'll discover most of your tirade is based on misinformation, half truths, and ignorance. Do yourself a favor and read the book, then make your comments.

Answer 6

You forgot one thing my friend; it was Abraham Lincoln who pardoned the first Thanksgiving turkey from being slaughtered.
Don't you ever forget this!

Answer 7

one time Abe Lincoln roundhouse kicked Chuck Norris

Answer 8

In response to the main accusations against Lincoln:

1) Lincoln's emergency call up of troops in the crisis after Sumter was hardly "illegal". In addition, he did NOT wait for Congress to meet in December (their first scheduled session) to place his actions before them. He called a special emergency session to which he spoke on JULY 4. And Congress, at that time, gave its approval to the actions he had taken.

Frankly, I cannot imagine anyone seriously expecting the executive NOT to act in the face of the emergency of war (insurrection) but to wait MONTHS for Congress to meet and act. (Indeed, he would be liable to impeachment for NOT acting and keeping his oath to protect the Union and Constitution!)

2) Suspension of habeas corpus was NOT "breaking a law". As a matter of fact, the Constitution EXPLICITLY allows for this when confronted with an insurrection (precisely the circumstances Lincoln found himself in). ** What had never been worked through (since we'd never HAD this kind of crisis!) was WHO was authorized to suspend habeas corpus -- the President or Congress? Again, for him to act in an emergency (when Congress, which was not in session COULD not!) was not law-breaking.

**Article 1, sec 9 --"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Also, if you look at the actual CASES where Lincoln took these steps, you find that he was much more hesitant than his staff about such steps. He did, however, believe it absolutely necessary in some cases, and argued for it in his July 4 message to Congress with the famous words, "Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"

The same sort of issues actually go for the whole array of accusations against Lincoln. It was NOT an issue of "breaking the law", but about determining what the limits of his Constitutional authority were and how they applied in this unprecedented situation. Many have since concluded that he, at least in some instances, went too far. But again, that doesn't mean he broke the law (and certainly not that he was criminally liable for attempting to carry out the duties of his office). And do keep in mind, in all this, that the issues are about the HOW of conducting war, not about the President acting to harm to Union or to benefit himself to the detriment of others.

3) As far as the taking/freeing of SLAVES --

Note that though Lincoln expressed sympathy with the slaves he actually COUNTERMANDED orders by military leaders declaring them free. He insisted that, Constitutionally, only the PRESIDENT might have the authority to free them.. and then only as Commander-in-Chief under "military necessity". The argument that the President had such authority in waging war had been made as far back as the 1830s by John Quincy Adams, and was held by several in Lincoln's own cabinet before he came round to that view himself.

(He actually worked on his OWN plan beginning late in 1861 to urge the loyal border states to emancipate their OWN slaves, for which he sought financial assistance from Congress. If that had succeeded, he wanted to expand it to the border Confederate states, like Virginia, and so to defuse the underlying cause of the war and make way for peace. Doesn't quite fit the anti-Lincoln caricature!)

In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation specifically appealed to his this authority ('war powers'). It is ALSO the reason why Lincoln ONLY declared slaves free in territories then in rebellion. When others asked him to expand it, he explained that this destroyed the only legal justification he had -- that this was a legitimate to use against those at WAR with (in rebellion against) the federal government.

Lincoln was actually quite meticulous in the legal formulation of the Proclamation, because he WANTED it to stand up against any legal challenge. (He fully expected it to be challenged before the Supreme Court, presided over by the same Roger Taney who authored the Dred Scott decision.) His caution here, together with all the other steps he was taking and would take later (esp. pushing the Thirteenth Amendment) to handle this issue LEGALLY, shows that, far from callously disregarding the law, he sought strong legal arguments for what he believed was NECESSARY to win this fight and preserve/restore the Union.

Here are the key parts of the Proclamation itself, so you can see his basic argument:

"Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion. . . .

"And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God."
http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipatio...

Answer 9

He was completely overrated who did they think he was????