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 10-10-2014, 01:25 PM
 
3,570 posts, read 2,506,770 times
Reputation: 2290

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65 View Post
Exactly. Lincoln's purpose was to end the rebellion and keep the Union whole. It had zero to do with Slavery. Had the SOUTH not seceded, Lincoln would not have freed the slaves.. he very well might have been just another name on the Presidents wall that you might or might not even recognize.

The fact that he was the president at the time of war.. a war in which the Union won, would provide any president enough credence to gain the moniker of great... couple that with the fact that he issued the emancipation proclimation (freeing the slaves) is what really puts him head and shoulders above other presidents. Regardless of why he issued the emancipation, he did and he won therfore, he is commonly referred to as the greatest President in US History.

I would argue that he was a great president. He certainly could have allowed the South to Secede without any bloodshed and he might very well have been nothing but a footnote... undoubtedly there would have been some altercation between the two countries and all Lincoln would have been doing is putting off the inevitable. Lincoln chose to act and keep the union whole. That was not necessarily the most popular decision and his actions during the war certainly can draw some criticism but 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.
Many wartime Presidents, even winners, are not considered great. Woodrow Wilson is not given that distinction. Nor are:

Madison (Second Barbary War)
Polk (Mexican-American War)
Buchanan (Utah War)
McKinley (Spanish-American War)
H.W. Bush (Invasion of Panama, Gulf War I)

And this list completely leaves out the wars with Indian tribes that littered the 18th and 19th centuries.

Lincoln makes the list because of the Emancipation Proclamation and the total victory over the Confederacy.

Victory over the Confederacy kept the country whole, which allowed its subsequent rise on the global stage.

The Emancipation Proclamation (along with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments) aligned the nation's laws a little bit closer to its ideals, setting up future transformations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post
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 ?

...........
It has benefitted millions of average Americans, directly, that slavery ended. Indirectly, it has benefitted all Americans.

It has benefitted all Americans that the United States has a single economy and a single currency and a single territory.

 
Old 10-10-2014, 03:16 PM
 
Location: University City, Philadelphia
22,634 posts, read 14,886,015 times
Reputation: 15933
Every expressed in this thread is just an opinion. We even have Karl Marx' opinion. So here is mine: Lincoln was not only a great president ... he was the GREATEST president in US history.
 
Old 10-10-2014, 07:14 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,012,076 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
Many wartime Presidents, even winners, are not considered great. Woodrow Wilson is not given that distinction. Nor are:


Polk (Mexican-American War)
There are plenty of folks who argue for Polk ranking among the greatest presidents, I have been among them.

He didn't really seek the office, circumstances worked in his favor and he took advantage of them. He explained exactly what he planned to do if elected, and promised to get it all done within a single term, he would not seek reelection.

He accomplished all of the things he pledged, settling the Oregon territory dispute, acquiring California and New Mexico, establishing a national treasury and lowering the tariff rates. And as promised he refused all urgings to seek a second term.

He was unquestionably the hardest working president we have ever had, seldom taking a day off, and indeed working himself to death, succumbing three months after he left office.

Polk was a humorless micro manager, had more than a touch of the Machiavellian in him, and he basically picked a fight with Mexico for the purpose of an immense land grab, so he doesn't register on any most popular president polls, but he certainly is in the running for most effective.
 
Old 10-10-2014, 07:14 PM
 
72,845 posts, read 62,260,541 times
Reputation: 21795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pi64 View Post
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.
That would be quite true. One thing to consider is this. No one considers how Blacks, who were slaves in the South, felt about the Union during that time.
 
Old 10-11-2014, 10:14 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,948,035 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
That would be quite true. One thing to consider is this. No one considers how Blacks, who were slaves in the South, felt about the Union during that time.
Considering the number of African's who enlisted in the Union Army and Navy the majority of whom were runaway or former slaves (total of 186.097 or 10% of the Union forces), those who spied for the Union and the 10,000 "contrabands" who fled to Union territory there was considerable understanding at the time about how "blacks" felt about the Union.
 
Old 10-11-2014, 10:32 AM
 
72,845 posts, read 62,260,541 times
Reputation: 21795
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Considering the number of African's who enlisted in the Union Army and Navy the majority of whom were runaway or former slaves (total of 186.097 or 10% of the Union forces), those who spied for the Union and the 10,000 "contrabands" who fled to Union territory there was considerable understanding at the time about how "blacks" felt about the Union.
It was known that Blacks, over all, did not support the Confederate cause. And there were those in the South who probably knew how Blacks felt.

Jefferson Davis of the Confederacy wanted to see Black Union troops and their White commanders treated, not as combatants, but as perpetrators of a slave rebellion. He ordered such persons to be executed when captured.

There were those in the South who knew how Blacks felt. Many southerners objected to Blacks fighting in the war, much less for the Union. Many knew how Blacks felt, and it scared some people. Personally, I couldn't blame Blacks for supporting the Union over the Confederacy.
 
Old 10-11-2014, 03:19 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,948,035 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
It was known that Blacks, over all, did not support the Confederate cause. And there were those in the South who probably knew how Blacks felt.

Probably? John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry which was to be the first step in instigating a full fledged slave revolt in the South scared the beejesus out of the slave aristocracy almost as much as the election of Lincoln.

"...they failed to hide from us the great fact that it was sympathy with the cause of John Brown which gave sanctuary to his confederates. If these men had have fled to Great Britain or France, we would have received them back and inflicted upon them the just punishment for their infamous crimes under our treaties. But they were wiser; they fled among our brethren; we had no treaty with them; we had only a Constitution and their oaths of fidelity to it. It failed us, and their murderers are free, ready again to apply the incendiary's torch to your dwelling and the assassin's knife and the poisoned bowl to you and your family. Do you not love these brethren? Oh! what a glorious Union! especially "to insure domestic tranquility."

Robert Toombs's Speech to the Georgia Legislature, Nov. 13, 1860

"It has, by its John Brown and Montgomery raids, invaded sovereign States and murdered peaceable citizens.

It has justified and "exalted to the highest honors of admiration, the horrid murders, arsons, and rapine of the John Brown raid, and has canonized the felons as saints and martyrs."'

Speech of Tennessee Governor Isham G. Harris January 7, 1861
 
Old 10-14-2014, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Mid Atlantic USA
12,623 posts, read 13,873,504 times
Reputation: 5883
You think you are going to get an answer on the OP question from internet keyboard warriors?

Here, read this wiki article.

In poll after poll of scholars, both economic, historic and political, from both conservative and democrats, the top three are:

Lincoln
FDR
Washington


Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There is no point in asking for, and even listening to the point of view of neo-confederate revisionists with an axe to grind. I'll trust the scholars who do the tedious research.
 
Old 10-14-2014, 05:43 PM
 
Location: Central Nebraska
553 posts, read 593,243 times
Reputation: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by -thomass View Post
Like most Americans students, I was taught that Lincoln was one of the best presidents we’ve had in our relatively short history as an independent nation. Slavery, after all, was ended under his administration.

Lately, however, I’ve been thinking about this perceived mythical greatness that has been bestowed upon Mr. Lincoln. Can we really consider him to be a great president if over 600k people died during the Civil War? Granted, the United States and the rest ofthe world would probably look totally different today had the south been allowed to secede, but surely slavery would have ultimately died of natural causes shortly after the south gained independence. I imagine the North and the rest of the world would have probably imposed tough economic sanctions on the south until the slaves were free.

So what are your thoughts? Am I wrong for questioning the consensus #1 president?
You better believe the United States would have looked totally different! First of all, do you understand the difference between a Confederacy and a Federal Union?

A Federal Union is a form of Government in which the States pass their own laws and largely govern themselves, but there is also a National Government which passes national laws and--at least within certain theoretical limits that have become a subject of considerable discussion under the Current Administration--these national laws take priority over the state laws.

A Confederacy, on the other hand, is a form of government in which the States pass their own laws and govern themselves and there is what--for lack of a better term--is called a national government and it passes what--for lack of a better term--are called laws and each State decides whether or not it will enforce that law and if so what part of the "law" it will enforce and to what extent.

The average American, North or South, actually thought more along the lines of a Confederacy than a Federal Union. Had the South won the Midwest and West Coast would also have seceeded. The United States would have broken down into about twenty seperate countries, each with its own currency and its own foreign policy. There would have been taxes upon travel from one State to the next. It's safe to say there would have been no settlement of the Great Plains and no fields of waving grain. Much of the world would have been in deep and desperate famine by 1900--with no way out, no relief in sight. Cursed with larger armies than they actually had, World War I would have been bloodier than it was. The Nazis would have won World War II.

The North was interested in expanding to the West where many more small family farms could be created. That had been accomplished. The South was interested in expanding to Latin America where more slave plantations could be created. Feature illegal immigration in reverse as the Yanquis conquored Mexico, Central America, the Caribean, and South America fell under the American Empire.

Do you really believe Abraham Lincoln killed the 600,000 men who died in the Civil War? Your thinking is naive and simplistic. Who was responsible for all the lives lost in World War II: FDR or Hitler? America would have broken up into a couple dozen different countries each at odds with the other. The bloodshed in these many Wars Between the States would have far exceeded the 600,000 lost in this one war to preserve the Union.
 
Old 10-17-2014, 11:33 PM
 
2,687 posts, read 2,177,829 times
Reputation: 1478
Quote:
Originally Posted by -thomass View Post
No doubt slavery would have gone on, but 600k people wouldn't have died. My concern (other than the continuation of slavery) would have been the treatment of the slaves after they were ultimately been freed. Genocide could have been a consequence of release under economic sanctions.
Shelby Foote said slavery was America's original sin and the Civil War was payment for it. I don't think I could put it any better than that.
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 11:37 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