(merged) Lincoln: Hero or Villain

[Johnny Punani2]

I am starting to do some indepth reading about the Lincoln Presidency and the Civil War in general. I wanted to get some input concerning what people really thought of Lincoln. I remember in a C-SPAN poll Lincoln was voted the most popular president in US History. I wanted to get a different view point of the Lincoln Presidency and boy did I ever! After reading "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas Dilorenzo I changed my opinion of Lincoln as being one of the best Presidents in US History to the worst President in US History. It's a real eye opener.

What is your own opinion of President Lincoln? Was he a hero in American History or a Villian?

Here is a link to the book I read and some editorial reviews...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761536418/ref=ase_lewrockwell/102-1904137-2594519?v=glance&s=books

Editorial Reviews

Review

"A devastating critique of America's most famous president."

—Joseph Sobran, commentator and nationally syndicated columnist

"Today's federal government is considerably at odds with that envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Thomas J. DiLorenzo gives an account of how this came about in The Real Lincoln."

—Walter E. Williams, from the foreword

"A peacefully negotiated secession was the best way to handle all the problems facing America in 1860. A war of coercion was Lincoln's creation. It sometimes takes a century of more to bring an important historical event into perspective. This study does just that and leaves the reader asking, 'Why didn't we know this before?' "

—Donald Livingston, professor of philosophy, Emory University

"Professor DiLorenzo has penetrated to the very heart and core of American history with a laser beam of fact and analysis."

—Clyde Wilson, professor of history, University of South Carolina, and editor, The John C. Calhoun Papers

[Guest Gichin13]

I have thought of picking that very book up.

I personally think he was a great President. Perhaps the best and he came during our sorest trial as a nation. Did it come at the expense of early conception of states rights? Did it put the Jeffersonian model of Democracy to rest in favor of central Federalism? Yes probably on both counts ... but it had to happen for us to move forward instead of disintegrating from my view.

[Thiebear]

Now read this one: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/037540158X/102-2375619-6376100?v=glance

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Thiebear

Now read this one: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/037540158X/102-2375619-6376100?v=glance

I'll have to buy that one as well...

[twa]

It depends on whether you believe the HUGE loss of life was worth preserveing the Union. IMO a better leader would have allowed sucession and then worked to reconcile the two. I feel we started and should have remained a Republic based country. Lincoln's best move was covering his butt with the slavery issue,which despite popular opinion was not the MAIN reason for the Civil war.

[PokerPacker]

Originally posted by twa

It depends on whether you believe the HUGE loss of life was worth preserveing the Union. IMO a better leader would have allowed sucession and then worked to reconcile the two. I feel we started and should have remained a Republic based country. Lincoln's best move was covering his butt with the slavery issue,which despite popular opinion was not the MAIN reason for the Civil war.

i've heard from a source i greatly respect, that lincoln actually planned on shipping the freed slaves off to africa (i think specifically liberia or libia, or something like that)

[twa]

Originally posted by PokerPacker

i've heard from a source i greatly respect, that lincoln actually planned on shipping the freed slaves off to africa (i think specifically liberia or libia, or something like that)

Heres a link with a little info

n/chronol.htm'>http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedme

n/chronol.htm

another tidbit

hhs/html/union.htm'>http://www.cyberlearning-world.com/n

hhs/html/union.htm

This is also about relocation

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

[Predicto]

Originally posted by twa

It depends on whether you believe the HUGE loss of life was worth preserveing the Union. IMO a better leader would have allowed sucession and then worked to reconcile the two. I feel we started and should have remained a Republic based country. Lincoln's best move was covering his butt with the slavery issue,which despite popular opinion was not the MAIN reason for the Civil war.

I hate unsubtle revisionist history.

First, do you think that Lincoln or anyone else expected the huge loss of life that ultimately happened in the Civil War, which was much bloodier than any war that had ever happened in the Western world until that time? Hindsight is 20-20.

Second, do you think he is somehow responsible for those deaths? He was not the one who fired on Fort Sumter and took up arms to secede.

Finally, and most importantly, just because Lincoln did not originally state the intent to immediately free all the slaves in the country does not mean that the Civil War was not about slavery. The slavery issue was THE main reason for the Civil War, or more particularly, the spread of slavery to the new states in the west. The Southern states feared that they were becoming too outnumbered as the nation grew and that they would ultimately lose their "peculiar institution." So when Lincoln was elected after stating that he would not allow slavery to spread to new states, the South revolted.

Why did they revolt? To protect their "right" to keep other men as slaves. No other reason.

[PokerPacker]

Originally posted by twa

Heres a link with a little info

n/chronol.htm'>http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedme

n/chronol.htm

another tidbit

http://www.cyberlearning-world.com/nhhs/html/union.htm

first link didn't work

[twa]

I was addressing Lincoln and his actions as president.

Here is a nice excert from a debate...

Overview of Lincoln's Beliefs

Many of Lincoln's anti-slavery sentiments were exhibited in the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, and even that early Stephen Douglas criticized him as being inconsistent, saying he altered his message and position on slavery and on the political rights of freed blacks in order to appeal to the audience before him -- as some parts of Illinois were more supportive of slavery than others.

It can be stated with relative certainty that Lincoln morally opposed slavery on a personal level as a profound evil which should not be allowed to spread into the territories. He believed that African-Americans, like all other men, had an inalienable right to liberty – as declared in the Declaration of Independence. He did not, however, believe they had a right to complete equality with white American citizens. From his debate with Douglas on August 17, 1858

http://www.answers.com/topic/abraham-lincoln-on-slavery

"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 which I believe will forever forbid the two races 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."[1] (http://www.bartleby.com/251/41.html)

Lincoln maintained that the federal government did not possess the constitutional power to bar slavery in states where it already existed and backed the aforementioned Corwin Amendment to affirm this principle.

Lincoln further maintained that he would allow slavery to preserve the union....read on....typical politician..imo of course;)

[Thiebear]

Lincoln maintained that the federal government did not possess the constitutional power to bar slavery in states where it already existed and backed the aforementioned Corwin Amendment to affirm this principle.

________________________________________________

He also worked behind the scenes to get states to abolish slavery until he had the numbers to MAKE it federal....

[Thiebear]

http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/biography/TheBoysLifeofAbrahamLincoln/chap7.html

online reading

Edit:

Hmmmmmm

Lincoln = villian (view of people that owned slaves)

Lincoln = hero (view of people that didnt)

So yeah, i guess you can have it both ways...

[a_good_brotha]

Originally posted by Predicto

I hate unsubtle revisionist history.

First, do you think that Lincoln or anyone else expected the huge loss of life that ultimately happened in the Civil War, which was much bloodier than any war that had ever happened in the Western world until that time? Hindsight is 20-20.

Second, do you think he is somehow responsible for those deaths? He was not the one who fired on Fort Sumter and took up arms to secede.

Finally, and most importantly, just because Lincoln did not originally state the intent to immediately free all the slaves in the country does not mean that the Civil War was not about slavery. The slavery issue was THE main reason for the Civil War, or more particularly, the spread of slavery to the new states in the west. The Southern states feared that they were becoming too outnumbered as the nation grew and that they would ultimately lose their "peculiar institution." So when Lincoln was elected after stating that he would not allow slavery to spread to new states, the South revolted.

Why did they revolt? To protect their "right" to keep other men as slaves. No other reason.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[twa]

Originally posted by a_good_brotha

I couldn't have said it better myself.

You want history

http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.html

In the twentieth century, this critical view of Lincoln's actions gained a wide audience through the writings of Charles W. Ramsdell and others. According to Ramsdell, the situation at Sumter presented Lincoln with a series of dilemmas. If he took action to maintain the fort, he would lose the border South and a large segment of northern opinion which wanted to conciliate the South. If he abandoned the fort, he jeopardized the Union by legitimizing the Confederacy. Lincoln also hazarded losing the support of a substantial portion of his own Republican Party, and risked appearing a weak and ineffective leader.

Lincoln could escape these predicaments, however, if he could induce southerners to attack Sumter, "to assume the aggressive and thus put themselves in the wrong in the eyes of the North and of the world." By sending a relief expedition, ostensibly to provide bread to a hungry garrison, Lincoln turned the tables on the Confederates, forcing them to choose whether to permit the fort to be strengthened, or to act as the aggressor. By this "astute strategy," Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing the first shot.

..............................................................

Hows that for revision :laugh:

I would like to make clear that I think slavery was a abomination and probally the only GOOD thing to come out of the Civil War......But Lincoln getting credit is wrong.

[Guest Gichin13]

Originally posted by Predicto

I hate unsubtle revisionist history.

First, do you think that Lincoln or anyone else expected the huge loss of life that ultimately happened in the Civil War, which was much bloodier than any war that had ever happened in the Western world until that time? Hindsight is 20-20.

Second, do you think he is somehow responsible for those deaths? He was not the one who fired on Fort Sumter and took up arms to secede.

Finally, and most importantly, just because Lincoln did not originally state the intent to immediately free all the slaves in the country does not mean that the Civil War was not about slavery. The slavery issue was THE main reason for the Civil War, or more particularly, the spread of slavery to the new states in the west. The Southern states feared that they were becoming too outnumbered as the nation grew and that they would ultimately lose their "peculiar institution." So when Lincoln was elected after stating that he would not allow slavery to spread to new states, the South revolted.

Why did they revolt? To protect their "right" to keep other men as slaves. No other reason.

On one level I agree with you. Slavery certainly was the flashpoint and the cause of initial friction.

I think a more subtle and overlooked contributing cause of the war is how many people viewed themselves in those days. RE Lee was not a fan of slavery and was quite torn about entry into the conflict -- he thought it was a horrible idea. He was actually invited to be the main general of the north at the beginning. He elected not to not based on support of slavery, but based on the fact he could not go to war against his state. People viewed themselves as Virginians, in his example, first before Americans. The union at that point really was a union of states where the states were dominant.

Another factor is industrial economy versus agrarian (albeit propped up by slaves).

From Lincoln's point of view, he was not going to war to free to slaves. That is very clear -- he only signed the Emancipation Proclamation years into the war. He was going into war to preserve the union and the control of the federal government over the states. If the states were predominant, presumptively a state could secede, but that is pretty much a dead issue now.

[Darth Tater]

Revisionist history has taught us to think that the war of northern aggression had much to do with slavery. The south NEVER revolted, they defended themselves against a slight to their sovereignty. If you insist on calling it a rebellion, it was more of a tax rebellion than anything. Study of the civil war is one of the best ways to understand the reaction of the third world to the US with the third world being akin to the south.

[Guest Gichin13]

Originally posted by twa

You want history

...

I would like to make clear that I think slavery was a abomination and probally the only GOOD thing to come out of the Civil War......But Lincoln getting credit is wrong.

There was plenty of prodding and poking on both sides leading up to the first shot being fired. I would acutally agree with the basic premise that Lincoln manuvered the south into firing the first shot.

[yank]

Originally posted by Darth Tater

Revisionist history has taught us to think that the war of northern aggression had much to do with slavery. The south NEVER revolted, they defended themselves against a slight to their sovereignty. If you insist on calling it a rebellion, it was more of a tax rebellion than anything. Study of the civil war is one of the best ways to understand the reaction of the third world to the US with the third world being akin to the south.

In the words of the times, this is poppy****.

The run-up to the Civil War was ALL about slavery. It was not a flashpoint by any means - it was everything.

The dash to add southern slave states to balance the new western states had laughable associated events.

Mercenaries were sent by southern cotton magnates to colonize Nicaragua and Cuba with the hopes of adding new southern slave states - only to be rebuffed by overwhelming resistance by the local population. To state that the northern states were the Third World dominators of today is laughable.

The canard that the Civil War was about "states right" is only half true - it was about "states rights" to own slaves.

Slavery was the basis for the agricultural economic engine of the south and the social culture that resulted.

Sure whites from Virginia were Virginians first and foremost. They saw the madcap race in Washington to match newly added states with newly added slave states - see Texas.

The national government was racing toward inevitable conflict which would end their way of life and they supported their side. Nobility in that for sure - see RE Lee who abhored slavery.

But what is the point here? That the south should have been allowed to secede? That Lincoln started it?

Absurd.

This conflict had been going on since the drafting of the Articles of the Constitution in 1780s and became hot in the the 1820's at least.

Loss of life - 600,000 - as much as all other wars combined.

Absurd.

But to think that the south would not be a vital part of America today, that African Americans would not be a vital part of America today if Lincoln had not done what he did.

Absurd.

The ironic thing is that southern (and mid-western) whites and African Americans form the basis for today's American military.

There is no point here. Move along. It's over. Get over it.

[PokerPacker]

i think that's "articles of confederation"

[luckydevil]

It one thing to defend the civil war, but to defend Lincoln is unconscionable.

The man suspended habeas corpus and jailed his political opponents. To be blunt, the man was a thug.

Now as far as the civil war goes

99% of the time, I will defend the right of succession, (yes I realize there were other factors) but not in the case of the civil war (being that succession was mostly about preserving the institution of slavery)

[twa]

"

But what is the point here? That the south should have been allowed to secede? That Lincoln started it?""

.............................................................

My point is the eight states should have been allowed to seceed and Lincoln should have worked to peacefully reconcile the union. Your assertion that the Civil war was ALL about slavery is a little weak in light of Lincoln stating he would allow slavery to continue to preserve the Union.

The North and South share the blame for 600,00 lives lost and untold sufferering by the lack of compromise.

Slavery was a dying institution here at that time and would have ended soon anyway imo,of course

The fact he is celebrated as the Great Emancipator is almost comical when you look at his writings.

Of course the winners write the history

[Prosperity]

It was a very nasty time period, there were no real good sides. The South was filled with backwards racist that wanted slavery and the North wanted to keep states inside the country for no other reason than that they just wanted too. IMO The greatest evil here is slavery, if the South was fighting for ANYTHING ELSE I would defending them.

[twa]

Racism was alive and well in BOTH the north and south,even the District of Columbia and Deleware,missouri and Kentucky all of which stayed with the Union were slave states.

A good read..

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

[yank]

Originally posted by twa

"

But what is the point here? That the south should have been allowed to secede? That Lincoln started it?""

.............................................................

My point is the eight states should have been allowed to seceed and Lincoln should have worked to peacefully reconcile the union. Your assertion that the Civil war was ALL about slavery is a little weak in light of Lincoln stating he would allow slavery to continue to preserve the Union.

The North and South share the blame for 600,00 lives lost and untold sufferering by the lack of compromise.

Slavery was a dying institution here at that time and would have ended soon anyway imo,of course

The fact he is celebrated as the Great Emancipator is almost comical when you look at his writings.

Of course the winners write the history

The competition between the south and north to add slave states is what the decades before the war and the war itself was about.

The south seceded to preserve their right to maintain slavery. Period.

Agreed that Lincoln didnt fight the war to end slavery - he fought it to keep the south in the Union and the south fought it to separate from the Union to maintain slavery in order to maintain their cotton-based economy which kept their social status in place.

So, no it isnt weak to affirmatively state that the war was about slavery. What is weak is to state that it was about the North dominating the South as if it were a third world country. Get a grip.

[twa]

"The south seceded to preserve their right to maintain slavery. Period."

Then why did Lincoln always assert that he had neither the right or inclination to abolish slavery in the south...........Untill he was losing :laugh:

I had kin on both sides,including slaves, so in the end it worked out....But I still say Lincoln was NOT a great leader when his choices cost us ALL so dearly.