Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-23-2007, 04:52 PM
 
6,565 posts, read 14,252,922 times
Reputation: 3229

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Niners fan View Post
I have always wondered how effective Lincoln could have been with the press of today. I am NOT comparing George W. Bush to Lincoln in a general sense but as an example - the warrentless wiretapping that Bush authorized. That was pretty minor compared to Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. I can only imagine what the press would do with that now.

I admire Lincoln's devotion to God. But I also think that he knew that any state had a right to secede. Any state that entered voluntarily into the Union could also then withdraw voluntarily.
This is where I've always stood on Lincoln. I agree with the Southern cause for the most part, but believe Lincoln was a great man and a great President who did what needed to be done to achieve his ultimate goal......

Good point on what a modern press would do with what Lincoln pulled in Maryland..... Let's assume that half the North would have freaked out along with that stunt, but hey, he didn't live with today's press..... He was willing to do what it took to preserve the Union and did... I have no issue with that, regardless of my stance on states' rights and Southern independance....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-23-2007, 05:02 PM
 
14,986 posts, read 23,767,018 times
Reputation: 26473
These are all good thought out responses.

The thing that amazes me about Lincoln is just how far sighted he was, as if he could see 50, 100 years in the future and make the exact right decision at the right time. He was a very unpopular president during his time, the civil war was an unpopuler war, half of the north was about as pro-slavery as the south, political differences between the parties was about as bad as it is today - his emancipation proclamation was not popular by either the abolishinists groups or anyone else. It was a meaningless gesture on the surface, it only freeing the slaves in the occupied south. Yet is single handedly changed the meaining of the war from one of preserving the union and the constitution, to "the war to free the slaves".

Every decision he made was calculated and suggests foresight that far exceeded his background as a country lawyer - letting the south fire the first shot at Fort Sumter, the timing of the emancipation proclamation, the gettysburg address, the appoitment of U.S. Grant as commanding general.

Someone mentioned the death of his young son, during the war. From all accounts that I have read he seems to have changed at that point - more religous, more convinced that the events of the day were influenced by God, also more convinced in the equality of man such that, while he believed in the status quo regarding slavery before the civil war (his issue was in the political effects of having the nation divided between slave vs. free states) I think he grew to understand that freedom for all men was the core issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2007, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Boise, ID
1,356 posts, read 6,013,314 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAFury View Post
Good point on what a modern press would do with what Lincoln pulled in Maryland..... Let's assume that half the North would have freaked out along with that stunt, but hey, he didn't live with today's press.....
When I was in grad school I had a seminar with a well-known Civil War historian. He liked to discuss hypotheticals, particularly what the country would be like if the South had won. I guess I liked that too because I find myself thinking about historical hypotheticals. Recently I attended a lecture by another Lincoln historian / grad school professor of mine and I asked him to compare Lincoln's actions with those of Bush in the war on terror. He was always good at staying out the political fray (I never did figure out his political leanings) and so he didn't take the bait.

I have also always admired the Gettysburg address but maybe for a different reason than a lot of people. Can you imagine a modern politician delivering an address that short? Brevity is the soul of a lot of things! Today's politician would make it a 30 minute address and it be lost in history, not to mentioned cluttered up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2007, 12:47 PM
 
Location: earth
463 posts, read 643,322 times
Reputation: 62
Lincoln to me was a visionary, and the best republican president this country has ever had.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2007, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,712 posts, read 13,426,143 times
Reputation: 4317
I read a book not to long ago on Lincoln. I think it was written back in the 1930's, but I'm not entirely certain. The name of it was Lincoln the Unknown, written by Dale Carnegie. It was a fantastic insight into Lincoln but it also seemed to demonize Mary Todd. In fact, even though it was a biography of Abe, you almost ended up hating Mary Todd by the end of it as if it were a work of fiction. I'm fairly neutral on Lincoln. I think he suffered from severe depression. I think he made some wonderful decisions, but I also think he did some things that in this day and age he would have been crucified for in the media. Different times for a different country I suppose...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2007, 04:32 PM
 
6,565 posts, read 14,252,922 times
Reputation: 3229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Vito View Post
Lincoln to me was a visionary, and the best republican president this country has ever had.
Not directing this at you because I'm not sure how it was intended, but that's always a source of great laughter to me when Republicans today take credit for Lincoln as though the party then and what it stood for has ANY similarities to the Republican party of today.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2008, 06:56 AM
 
902 posts, read 712,234 times
Reputation: 184
Personally, I don't think more of Lincoln than many other Presidents. He chose to shred the Constitution as many others have and do today. He did good things but overall, to me anyway, his actions with the War for Southern Independence was terrible and nothing but an means to end, the one he wanted and all about greed and not great feelings for the slaves. in fact, he was very racist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2008, 09:02 AM
 
Location: Just a few miles outside of St. Louis
1,921 posts, read 5,608,038 times
Reputation: 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozark-Baby View Post
Personally, I don't think more of Lincoln than many other Presidents. He chose to shred the Constitution as many others have and do today. He did good things but overall, to me anyway, his actions with the War for Southern Independence was terrible and nothing but an means to end, the one he wanted and all about greed and not great feelings for the slaves. in fact, he was very racist.
Lincoln may have meant well, and I do think that had he not been assassinated, it may have been better for the Reconstruction South. He seemed to be more benign in his attitude toward the South, when the war was over, as opposed to others in Washington, who followed through with their vindictve plans, when Lincoln was gone.

However, I have always thought of him as more politician than statesman. A prime example of this is the Emancipation Proclamation. This was purely a political move, on his part, and had nothing to do with his seeming concern over slavery. He waited until the middle of the War to make to this proclamation, in order to negate any possible support, on the part of England and others, for the Confederacy. There seems to be some debate about this support, but I think that Lincoln believed that it was possible; thus the proclamation, which would then place the War in terms of "righteousness" on the part of the North, and place the South in the unenviable position of the "unrighteous". Obviously, England would then not want to support the Confederacy, as she would not want to have been seen as a supporter of slavery. Nevermind that England had no problem using the cotton, coming from slave labor.

Lincoln used the proclamation merely to weaken the South. If one reads it carefully, there is not one word indicating freedom for slaves in the North, of which there were still many. If Lincoln meant to free all the slaves, this is something he should have addressed both in his timing and his wording of the proclamation. He did not; he only "freed" them in the Southern states, where he did not have the authority to do so. Whether people agree with secession or not, the South had taken advantage of the Constitutional right to do exactly that, and Lincoln knew it, but it was politically expedient for him to ignore this fact.

I have also read accounts of his thoughts toward black people, and although I can't say that it appeared that he hated them, as such, he did seem to consider them inferior. He even suggested sending them to an island somewhere, so that they might have their own country. It appears that he didn't think blacks and whites could live together.

When someone throws newspaper editors in jail, closes the newspapers, jails anyone who objects, lifts Habeas Corpus, etc., yes, I would have to agree that Lincoln did play fast and loose with the Constitution. Perhaps he thought he was doing the right thing. But, when you start turning the Constitution on it's head, even seemingly for a good purpose, you're on the wrong track.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2008, 09:11 AM
 
902 posts, read 712,234 times
Reputation: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticLady1 View Post
Lincoln may have meant well, and I do think that had he not been assassinated, it may have been better for the Reconstruction South. He seemed to be more benign in his attitude toward the South, when the war was over, as opposed to others in Washington, who followed through with their vindictve plans, when Lincoln was gone.

However, I have always thought of him as more politician than statesman. A prime example of this is the Emancipation Proclamation. This was purely a political move, on his part, and had nothing to do with his seeming concern over slavery. He waited until the middle of the War to make to this proclamation, in order to negate any possible support, on the part of England and others, for the Confederacy. There seems to be some debate about this support, but I think that Lincoln believed that it was possible; thus the proclamation, which would then place the War in terms of "righteousness" on the part of the North, and place the South in the unenviable position of the "unrighteous". Obviously, England would then not want to support the Confederacy, as she would not want to have been seen as a supporter of slavery. Nevermind that England had no problem using the cotton, coming from slave labor.

Lincoln used the proclamation merely to weaken the South. If one reads it carefully, there is not one word indicating freedom for slaves in the North, of which there were still many. If Lincoln meant to free all the slaves, this is something he should have addressed both in his timing and his wording of the proclamation. He did not; he only "freed" them in the Southern states, where he did not have the authority to do so. Whether people agree with secession or not, the South had taken advantage of the Constitutional right to do exactly that, and Lincoln knew it, but it was politically expedient for him to ignore this fact.

I have also read accounts of his thoughts toward black people, and although I can't say that it appeared that he hated them, as such, he did seem to consider them inferior. He even suggested sending them to an island somewhere, so that they might have their own country. It appears that he didn't think blacks and whites could live together.

When someone throws newspaper editors in jail, closes the newspapers, jails anyone who objects, lifts Habeas Corpus, etc., yes, I would have to agree that Lincoln did play fast and loose with the Constitution. Perhaps he thought he was doing the right thing. But, when you start turning the Constitution on it's head, even seemingly for a good purpose, you're on the wrong track.
Thank you and I do agree. Lincoln is not and was not what is portrayed by the revisionists out there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2008, 11:11 AM
 
14,986 posts, read 23,767,018 times
Reputation: 26473
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticLady1 View Post
He waited until the middle of the War to make to this proclamation, in order to negate any possible support, on the part of England and others, for the Confederacy.

Whether people agree with secession or not, the South had taken advantage of the Constitutional right to do exactly that, and Lincoln knew it, but it was politically expedient for him to ignore this fact.

I have also read accounts of his thoughts toward black people, and although I can't say that it appeared that he hated them, as such, he did seem to consider them inferior.

When someone throws newspaper editors in jail, closes the newspapers, jails anyone who objects, lifts Habeas Corpus, etc., yes, I would have to agree that Lincoln did play fast and loose with the Constitution. Perhaps he thought he was doing the right thing. But, when you start turning the Constitution on it's head, even seemingly for a good purpose, you're on the wrong track.
Celtic lady good post, some are opinons and I offer my opinion:

Emancipation Proclamation - The intent was multifunctional, not only to keep England and France out of the war (from all I have read, it was never really much of a risk at all) but to start the beginning of the end for slavery as an institution. It was a careful balancing act, he didn't want to allienate the slave states that stayed in the Union like Maryland so he did it for the rebellion states only. He did it during the middle of the war because he was still hoping to preserve the union and let slavery die a natural death. He was also waiting for a semi-union victory (Antitiem).

Sucession - All subject to interpretation but it never really specifically says that a state is allowed to suceed. As Lincoln said in so many words - it doesn't make sense that a constitution would allow a clause for it's own self destruction.

Black people - From what I read his feelings changed from one of ambivalence to the issue of the black man before the war to one of near aboloshinist during the course of the war with almost a religous fervor. The Gettysburg address specifically mentioned "freedom for all" and Fredrick Douglas did say he was the first white man he ever saw that looked him in the eye and treated him as an equal.

Suspending rights - welll, the constituion does allow for suspending certain rights, the right of habeous corpus, during civil resurrection. So he wasn't really trampling over the consitituion. This sure constituted civil ressurection. Of course it's all subject to debate by consitutional theorists that know more than me. In his defense, he also did tell some of his more zelous subordinates to cool it from time to time (i.e. - his instructions to Burnside while stationed in Ohio to, more or less, stop arresting everyone).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top