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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-30-2014, 08:27 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,948,035 times
Reputation: 15038

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by -thomass View Post
I scanned down the first page of the forum, but didn't seen any threads that referenced Lincoln's place amount the nation's best presidents.
That's why there is a search application.

As for your question, there are few things in history that are in less dispute than the ranking of Abraham Lincoln as a great president if not one of the greatest. Whether those polled are historians, or the public and regardless of political outlook or affiliation Lincoln consistently ranks in the top five.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...rvative_raters

Have a nice day.

Last edited by ovcatto; 04-30-2014 at 08:38 AM..

 
Old 04-30-2014, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Berwick, Penna.
16,214 posts, read 11,271,446 times
Reputation: 20827
Washington rejected a prospective dictatorship to participate in the development of the nation, drawing from the values which were emerging at the time as part of the Enlightenment.

(Those who seek to start a rant by playing a racial or similar issue may now do so.)

At the time of that nation's greatest crisis, Lincoln took the reins and guided it, at the eventual cost of his own life, precisely because preservation of the nation was his principal goal. To do this, he ssuspended several Constitutional principles which, thankfully, were restored via the democratic process. I'm not sure that would be the case for any number of prominent figures, on both sides of our current polarization.

That, in my opinion, is sufficient to move him far beyond Washington and FDR as our greatest President.

Last edited by 2nd trick op; 04-30-2014 at 11:12 AM..
 
Old 04-30-2014, 04:35 PM
 
9,981 posts, read 8,552,790 times
Reputation: 5664
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65 View Post
the fact that he chose to do something rather than do nothing is probably what set this country on the path to becoming a world power that it is today.
1. what did he do ? was his "proverbial" on the line at Antietam ? no.
the fact he was assassinated and spoke the Gettysburg address has elevated him
in the eyes of many, greater so than is deserving, imo.

2. how does it benefit me or has it benefitted millions of other average Americans that "we" are a "world power" ? should it make me feel all ruff n' tuff inside ?

...........
 
Old 10-09-2014, 09:16 PM
 
3,661 posts, read 2,493,975 times
Reputation: 6659
Quote:
Originally Posted by -thomass View Post
So what are your thoughts? Am I wrong for questioning the consensus #1 president (Lincoln)?
I think every student of history should scrutinize the themes they're taught.. Ultimately, interpreting history is subjective, no (?)
So here's my subjective take: I don't think there's anything wrong with your scrutiny of Lincoln (or any popular historical figure)..

Modern Americans have glossed over how divisive Lincoln's election & policies were... I mean, what other Pres. was so despised or feared, that they had half the country trying to leave because they were elected (?)
And then Lincoln's attempt to conscript Virginians to fight against the deep South alienated a potential & powerful ally in Virginia.
I believe Lincoln was a well-intentioned man, but I can't think of a President who divided the people more deeply, or fatally than Honest Abe (?)
peace.
 
Old 10-09-2014, 11:00 PM
 
Location: The High Desert
16,040 posts, read 10,605,553 times
Reputation: 31309
Behind Washington, there is six or eight presidents who should be considered as "great" and Lincoln falls in that group along with Jefferson, Jackson, FDR, Madison and probably TR and Polk. The way they are viewed and rated changes over time and with ideology. I personally would always rank Washington as number one. The country we have today would be so significantly different without these presidents that they should considered as great. I suspect that most would not win in an election held today.
 
Old 10-09-2014, 11:12 PM
 
Location: NW Indiana
1,491 posts, read 1,610,658 times
Reputation: 2343
Lincoln did not force the South to rebel. He is not order the attack on Ft. Sumter.

Lincoln ended slavery and defeated the rebellion. He deserves to be considered one of our greatest presidents!
 
Old 10-10-2014, 09:28 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,948,035 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
Washington rejected a prospective dictatorship to participate in the development of the nation, drawing from the values which were emerging at the time as part of the Enlightenment.
Of course that is one of the most remarkable aspects of Washington's presidency. It set the precedence for the peaceful and constitutional transfer of power from one national leader to another. By the same token, Lincoln set in motion the reconciliation of a nation with a rebellious, some would argue a traitorous, faction that rose up against the national government.


Quote:
That, in my opinion, is sufficient to move him far beyond Washington and FDR as our greatest President.
Most historians would agree.
 
Old 10-10-2014, 10:19 AM
 
9,981 posts, read 8,552,790 times
Reputation: 5664
it's one thing for "historians" or the public generations later to say Lincoln
was a good President, it is entirely another thing concerning his contemporaries.
Lincoln had his detractors in the North especially immigrants (on both labor and war)
many grieving families and pretty much the entire South.
So, I wouldn't classify him as anything more than a divisive and bloody statist.
 
Old 10-10-2014, 11:20 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,948,035 times
Reputation: 15038
While looking for something else, I stumbled upon this article written by Karl Marx published in October 12, 1862, Die Presse.

Don't know how germane it is to the topic but I found it interesting nonetheless.
Lincoln’s proclamation is even more important than the Maryland campaign. Lincoln is a sui generis figure in the annals of history. He has no initiative, no idealistic impetus, no cothurnus, no historical trappings. He gives his most important actions always the most commonplace form….His latest proclamation, which is drafted in the same style, the manifesto abolishing slavery, is the most important document in American history since the establishment of the Union, tantamount to the tearing up of the old American Constitution.

Nothing is simpler than to show that Lincoln’s principal political actions contain much that is aesthetically repulsive, logically inadequate, farcical in form and politically, contradictory, as is done by, the English Pindars of slavery, theTimes, the Saturday Review and tutti quanti. But Lincoln’s place in the history of the United States and of mankind will, nevertheless, be next to that of Washington! Nowadays, when the insignificant struts about melodramatically on this side of the Atlantic, is it of no significance at all that the significant is clothed in everyday dress in the new world?

Lincoln is not the product of a popular revolution. This plebeian, who worked his way up from stone-breaker to Senator in Illinois, without intellectual brilliance, without a particularly outstanding character, without exceptional importance—an average person of good will, was placed at the top by the interplay of the forces of universal suffrage unaware of the great issues at stake. The new world has never achieved a greater triumph than by this demonstration that, given its political and social organization, ordinary people of good will can accomplish feats which only heroes could accomplish in the old world!
 
Old 10-10-2014, 11:35 AM
 
393 posts, read 465,699 times
Reputation: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post
Lincoln had his detractors in the North especially immigrants (on both labor and war)many grieving families and pretty much the entire South.
It's highly problematic to say that "pretty much the entire South" disapproved of Lincoln. The South and the Confederacy were not the same thing. Nearly half (possibly more than that) of the people of the Confederacy supported the Union--an overwhelming majority of African-Americans, plus a significant minority of whites.
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.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:04 PM.

© 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