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 04-29-2014, 10:47 PM
 
1,057 posts, read 861,553 times
Reputation: 792

Advertisements

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?

 
Old 04-29-2014, 11:14 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,899,935 times
Reputation: 15038
Here we go again....

Do you think that it would be asking too much to use the search feature and find one of the god knows how many threads there are on the civil war, Lincoln and the causes and effects of the war so that we don't have to redeux this discussion every other week?

Last edited by ovcatto; 04-29-2014 at 11:49 PM..
 
Old 04-30-2014, 12:01 AM
 
1,057 posts, read 861,553 times
Reputation: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Here we go again....

Do you think that it would be asking too much to use the search feature and find one of the god knows how many threads there are on the civil war, Lincoln and the causes and effects of the war so that we don't have to redeux this discussion every other week?
So I take it that you rate Lincoln highly? Psychology at work. Feel free to merge the thread. 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.
 
Old 04-30-2014, 12:02 AM
 
3,695 posts, read 4,960,337 times
Reputation: 2069
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?
The rest of the world including the north traded with the south for raw materials before the war. They didn't have much reason to put sanctions on the south. Slavery would have continued and I suspect the southern states would have been weaker for it. One of the reasons why industrial capacity was lacking in the south was because before the war capital often went into land and slaves(not invested in factories or rail). The south was economically lagging behind the north in terms of industry.
 
Old 04-30-2014, 12:11 AM
 
1,057 posts, read 861,553 times
Reputation: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
The rest of the world including the north traded with the south for raw materials before the war. They didn't have much reason to put sanctions on the south. Slavery would have continued and I suspect the southern states would have been weaker for it. One of the reasons why industrial capacity was lacking in the south was because before the war capital often went into land and slaves(not invested in factories or rail). The south was economically lagging behind the north in terms of industry.
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.
 
Old 04-30-2014, 12:26 AM
 
3,695 posts, read 4,960,337 times
Reputation: 2069
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.
I don't think there would be sanctions at all. Here is how slavery worked vs. the US north, south and world. The south produced raw goods like cotton. Cotton was sent north or exported to Europe to be turned into cloth.The cloth and other items were sold around the world. When the south left the union, the factories in England that weaved cotton ground to an halt causing economic hardship in those parts of England until the cotton could be replaced by other sources. There was no reason for England or Europe to put sanctions on the south at all. It would hurt their own industries.

In the north banks loaned the cash that the plantations used to grow cotton and buy slaves. Both north and south economically benefited from slavery the south directly and the north indirectly. There was no reason for the north to put economic sanctions on the south at all for just slavery and last time I checked the south committed treason by taking over federal property like guns, forts, and so on. The north would never have let them leave peacefully.

Last edited by chirack; 04-30-2014 at 12:36 AM..
 
Old 04-30-2014, 01:03 AM
 
3,695 posts, read 4,960,337 times
Reputation: 2069
Now here is what might have happened if the south didn't start the war. Slavery would continue. It might get banned latter but not by Lincoln. He would have lacked the numbers in Congress to do it The most he might have done is attack it around the edges. His campaign position wasn't outright ban it but to stop it’s spread into new territories. The transcontinental railroad would likewise be delayed; the south opposed it because they felt the preferred route was too far north. The south overplayed its hand hoping to get out of the union before the union would grow more hostile to the institution of slavery.

If they had remained slavery might have been slowly abolished or they might have gotten some federal compensation as it ended but that is another story. The south also did not favor high tariffs (to support northern industry over imports from Europe--Europe bought their raw material and they didn't want retaliatory tariffs, plus because they lacked industry they didn't want to pay a bit more to support our home industries.)

In addition, the Dread Scott decision along with the fugitive slave act turn the whole country into an slave state. Northerners might not have been crazy about slavery but they sure as heck didn't want a law that required them to return runaway slaves. Nor were they crazy about a ruling that would let southerners carry slaves through and into states that had banned it. The country was pretty well set for war.
 
Old 04-30-2014, 05:23 AM
 
Location: Wheaton, Illinois
10,261 posts, read 21,646,647 times
Reputation: 10453
It was Lincoln's duty to suppress rebellion and he did so. What would have become of slavery isn't the point, the suppression of rebellion is.
 
Old 04-30-2014, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Peterborough, England
472 posts, read 921,908 times
Reputation: 416
Lincoln set out to defeat secession - and by the end of his first term it was pretty much defeated. If achieving one's aims in four years is evidence of greatness, then clearly he was.
 
Old 04-30-2014, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,793 posts, read 5,627,041 times
Reputation: 5660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
It was Lincoln's duty to suppress rebellion and he did so. What would have become of slavery isn't the point, the suppression of rebellion is.
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.
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.

© 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