2007-11-26 20:31:15 · 11 answers · asked by Shary 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Fair.
If you need a fuller understanding of the period, the people, and what constitutes a "tyrant" - make sure you get both sides of the story. "In Confederate War Department records and others sources, author Mark E. Neely Jr. found evidence of some 4,108 civilians held by military authorities."
Do you really think Lincoln's (or Davis') government restricted civil liberties more severly than most modern democratic nations have done in times of war?
2007-11-27 02:55:15 · answer #1 · answered by WMD 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lincoln did what most presidents do in times of national crisis. For example, during the First World War President Wilson enacted laws curbing communist influence. During the Second World War, stricter controls were placed on communists and fascists and japanese were sent to internment camps. After 9/11, GWB introduced the Patriot act which monitored what americans read and did.
Is Lincoln really that bad in comparison to other acts during times of crisis? The building of the 'security state' has come along way since lincoln.
2007-11-26 20:45:21 · answer #2 · answered by Big B 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He did what he had to do. Most of the time he hated it, but he knew that if he didn't take courses that were repugnant even to himself, the Union would be dissolved. he took an oath to protect the Union at all costs, and he admitted many times that he sometimes did as a wartime mkeasure what would never been acceptable in peactime. He was not a tyrant, regardless of the definition you choose for it. he was the perfect leader --- he did what he had to do. His popularity in his day was much worse that President Bush's is now, by the way. Even those who voted for his re-election, in many cases did it not because they supported him, but because the alternative, they felt, was worse. He was reviled in the papers, lampooned across the country, and had it a lot worse than any modern president in that regard.
Does the end justify the means --YES, IF THE END IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH.
2007-11-27 04:19:59 · answer #3 · answered by Rich 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think that considering he was president during a time of war he was fair, however, if he had been in charge during peace time he would have been a tyrant.
2007-11-27 06:51:39 · answer #4 · answered by hicks.jenn 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In times of war, do you expect something else?
I guess you would just sit there smiling till someone shot you.
O yeah, guess what, he was shot by the same type of people who he needed to watch out for.
2007-11-26 20:41:55 · answer #5 · answered by Carl P 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Lincoln did what he had to to save the nation. There were supporters of the CSA within he's lines and he couldn't allow them to take down his armies.
2007-11-26 23:47:38 · answer #6 · answered by Johnny 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely a tyrant.
2007-11-26 20:34:34 · answer #7 · answered by double_nubbins 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I believe he was the right President at that time of U.S. history. His steerage of the government contributed to what is U.S. today.
2007-11-26 21:15:47 · answer #8 · answered by henry 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
he was very unpopular in his time but now he is credited with restoring the union and ending slavery. now think of our current president...how do you think he will be remembered?
2007-11-26 20:36:12 · answer #9 · answered by Shelby L 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
99% of politicians are evil. Most of our presidents have done things too terrible for us to accept.
2007-11-26 20:34:33 · answer #10 · answered by enividaliehs 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋