Was Abraham Lincoln really a good president?

[WaffleSingSong]

Hi.

I have always thought that Abraham Lincoln was always the only Republican President I actually liked (Besides Reagan, and this is coming from a Marxie.) and thought he was cool and what-not.

Heh heh, things change. It's constant, like Death, Taxes and the rotting of pop stars. Anywhom, I discovered a book called "The Real Lincoln" on Amazon and it interested me, so, I thought I would read it. Turns out, Lincoln was actually one of the most Authoritarian presidents we have ever had.

First, He went to war without consent of Congress. Next, He created three new states, all without consent of Congress. He installed Martial Law, with out consent of Congress. Extended Habeaus Corpus without consent of Congress and he censored a lot of anti-war protesting. No, not pro-slave, anti-war. He used troops to interfere with northern states to inflate Republican votes and he nationalized A LOT of different things. Also, he was not Anti-Racist, as many would believe.

So, What do you think?

[Noirtier]

Yes, Lincoln was authoritarian as hell during one of the darkest times in this nation's history, because that was the only way he or anyone else at the time saw to preserve the Union. The ONLY way. His major goal was NOT to abolish slavery. He wrote on several occasions that his goal was to preserve the Union. Had he not taken authoritarian powers--which are debatably within his constitutional reach in times of dire crisis such as the Civil War--we may have had a Confederate States of America remaining to today, with bitter relations still existing. Furthermore, America likely wouldn't have been involved in conflicts such as WWI or WWII, and who knows what could have happened had we not gotten involved in WWII. We provided a TON of manpower during that war. So, Lincoln did what he thought he had to do to preserve the Union of the United States. Was it the right thing to do? Maybe, maybe not. Did he succeed in preserving the Union though? Yes, he did.

[WaffleSingSong]

Yes, Lincoln was authoritarian as hell during one of the darkest times in this nation's history, because that was the only way he or anyone else at the time saw to preserve the Union. The ONLY way. His major goal was NOT to abolish slavery. He wrote on several occasions that his goal was to preserve the Union. Had he not taken authoritarian powers--which are debatably within his constitutional reach in times of dire crisis such as the Civil War--we may have had a Confederate States of America remaining to today, with bitter relations still existing. Furthermore, America likely wouldn't have been involved in conflicts such as WWI or WWII, and who knows what could have happened had we not gotten involved in WWII. We provided a TON of manpower during that war. So, Lincoln did what he thought he had to do to preserve the Union of the United States. Was it the right thing to do? Maybe, maybe not. Did he succeed in preserving the Union though? Yes, he did.

Dude, Why would WWII happen if the Central Powers won WWI? Or even more plauable, A stalemate :D Hitler would never rise to power because the German Empire would still exist. And I think a monarchist Germany is a lot better than a Nazi one (and Germany might still become slowly democratic anywhom)

Also, The Confederacy kinda deserved to leave. It was a issue to be handled only by states and we broke that stick like a broom bought at GoodWill. And I really do not think we would be bitter twords each other. Look at U.S and U.K, We go along together just fine. In fact, Winston Churchill had some American roots.

[Noirtier]

America though helped very little if even any in WWI, aside from the peace negotiations. And I'm not saying the Confederacy didn't deserve to leave--though they had no constitutional right to do so. The only thing I was saying is Lincoln took control of the situation and accomplished what he intended to, holding the Union together. Do I agree with everything he did? Hell no, 625000 Americans died in the Civil War. But the man did do what he intended to, and held the Union together. I say there is the possibility of bitterness towards each other were there to be a Confederate States of America still today by looking at other countries who had CIVIL wars, not rebelling colonies--2 totally different types of wars. I don't defend everything Lincoln did, but I defend his integrity as a person and his dedication to the country that he served. He did what he thought was best in order to preserve the Union. I don't agree that everything he did was best to do that, but you can't change history.

[WaffleSingSong]

America though helped very little if even any in WWI, aside from the peace negotiations. And I'm not saying the Confederacy didn't deserve to leave--though they had no constitutional right to do so. The only thing I was saying is Lincoln took control of the situation and accomplished what he intended to, holding the Union together. Do I agree with everything he did? Hell no, 625000 Americans died in the Civil War. But the man did do what he intended to, and held the Union together. I say there is the possibility of bitterness towards each other were there to be a Confederate States of America still today by looking at other countries who had CIVIL wars, not rebelling colonies--2 totally different types of wars. I don't defend everything Lincoln did, but I defend his integrity as a person and his dedication to the country that he served. He did what he thought was best in order to preserve the Union. I don't agree that everything he did was best to do that, but you can't change history.

Well, Of course he did what he could do. But still, I really do not think FDR was really that dictatorial about WWII (Alright, Wilson was, but he was a dick, he wanted to re-segregate the White House!) so yes, He did leave the Union intact. And I think your breaking any kind of constitution when you declare Independence from another nation without the former rulers consent, like what we did to King George III :D Again, Georgie was an ass. And we deservedly declared our Independence, shouldn't the Confederacy deserved the same chance?

[Noirtier]

FDR didn't have to be dictatorial about WWII though. Things weren't as fragile at home as they were during the Civil War. And yes, Wilson was a dick :P But in reality, FDR was essentially a dictator. He had a full Democrat Congress the entire time he was in office, was extremely popular, and the Democrats in Congress were his bitches. They would do just about whatever he wanted, which is how he was able to seize control of the Great Depression like he did. Yes, the Confederacy did deserve a chance. In all reality, they got that chance though. We declared our independence and had to fight a war to gain it. The Confederacy fought a war to try and gain it--the difference was the Confederacy lost, whereas during the Revolutionary War, the English Parliament gave up on getting us back. Lincoln wasn't going to give up, however. Again, I'm not defending everything he did.

[Cicero]

America though helped very little if even any in WWI, aside from the peace negotiations. And I'm not saying the Confederacy didn't deserve to leave--though they had no constitutional right to do so. The only thing I was saying is Lincoln took control of the situation and accomplished what he intended to, holding the Union together. Do I agree with everything he did? Hell no, 625000 Americans died in the Civil War. But the man did do what he intended to, and held the Union together. I say there is the possibility of bitterness towards each other were there to be a Confederate States of America still today by looking at other countries who had CIVIL wars, not rebelling colonies--2 totally different types of wars. I don't defend everything Lincoln did, but I defend his integrity as a person and his dedication to the country that he served. He did what he thought was best in order to preserve the Union. I don't agree that everything he did was best to do that, but you can't change history.

America did help a lot. Ever heard of D-Day, that was mainly the US. Though they weren't in the initial beginning years, toward the end they helped a lot. They fought in Nazi Germany. Germany feared America getting involved in the war, that's why they were negotiating with Mexico.

[Amaryllis]

Honey, Albraham Lincoln was a Vampire Hunter.

Jks. Seriously, though. He wasn't a -terrible- president. He helped end slavery (I think) and lead the Americas through civil war. He's famous for a reason. I don't know much about American politics as I'm not American but his name has been one I've known ever since I was little. He supported and signed many Acts that've supposedly by most improved the US.

He wasn't a perfect president but nonetheless, he's one of the more liked and respected presidents in America's history.

[WaffleSingSong]

America did help a lot. Ever heard of D-Day, that was mainly the US. Though they weren't in the initial beginning years, toward the end they helped a lot. They fought in Nazi Germany. Germany feared America getting involved in the war, that's why they were negotiating with Mexico.

Er-hem...WWII, Much? I think he was talking about WWI.

[Noirtier]

America did help a lot. Ever heard of D-Day, that was mainly the US. Though they weren't in the initial beginning years, toward the end they helped a lot. They fought in Nazi Germany. Germany feared America getting involved in the war, that's why they were negotiating with Mexico.

You're thinking of WWII bud. I said WWI :P

[WaffleSingSong]

Honey, Albraham Lincoln was a Vampire Hunter.

Jks. Seriously, though. He wasn't a -terrible- president. He helped end slavery (I think) and lead the Americas through civil war. He's famous for a reason. I don't know much about American politics as I'm not American but his name has been one I've known ever since I was little. He supported and signed many Acts that've supposedly by most improved the US.

He wasn't a perfect president but nonetheless, he's one of the more liked and respected presidents in America's history.

Actually, He really did not free the slaves. See, in the U.S some people create a bill and send it do D.C to see if it passes. That's what happened there, and Congress passed it.

Also, Did you read what he did XD But, I will cut off a lot of slack, since you are not an American/Nor I really do not think you care about politics that much.

*P.S, I heard that movie was terrible XD

[Korashk]

Yes, Lincoln was authoritarian as hell during one of the darkest times in this nation's history, because that was the only way he or anyone else at the time saw to preserve the Union.
It was only one of the darkest times precisely BECAUSE he tried to preserve the Union. Had the South been allowed to peaceably seceded most of those ~625,000 people would still be alive.

You also mention how the South had no constitutional right to secede, where in the US Constitution does it outlaw secession?

[Guillermo]

You also mention how the South had no constitutional right to secede, where in the US Constitution does it outlaw secession?

I think that's a very interesting point. Because it doesn't say anything about it in the constitution.

Let's take a look at his First Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861:

Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.

Lincoln obviously took it differently because he thought that the constitution called for the Union to "defend, and maintain itself."

http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plan/first-inaugural-address-1861mdashdefending-american-union

So, was it his right to preserve the Union because of this rebellion? Technically and constitutionally speaking, no. The original 13 states broke away from the UK's ruling, which was a monarchy lead by King George III. And hell, that was a monarchy that we were seceding from then. With the case of the Confederacy and Union the, it was a democracy seceding from a democracy...

However, I think personally that Lincoln did what was right. And because of this war slavery was abolished, which was something that obviously needed to be done. Honestly, it'd be weird to have two different countries in the US today, also. There'd probably be a lot of hostility between the two, just like there is between Serbia and Kosovo and others. Granted though, their hostilities are based on religion. Our hostilities probably would have been based on slavery, obviously, if the confederacy seceded successfully.

But that's the something to think about with having a democracy though; the people decide.

[Thanatos]

The essence of the debate comes down to whether or not the Confederacy had the right to secede because that is what so many of Lincoln's actions hinged on. If there was a process written out, or even a mention of secession in the Constitution then the entire event would have gone differently. What happened instead was that one man, chosen by the people, had to make that choice. Lincoln believed in the Union, and that the USA could only succeed if the states stuck together, and so he fought to make that happened.

As for the may haves, and could haves, we can only speculate as to whether or not it was the 'right' decision. I believe it was the correct one. As for how he went about doing it, he did what he felt he had to. Though in my history class we did a full on trial and I prosecuted and won :P

[Puma_concolor]

Yes, he was a good president. He did what he thought was better for the people and the Union, even if it was controversial. It is well known that the war was nit about slavery; no revelation there.

[Jonathan1998]

Whoever mentioned the Ongoing Conflict between Serbia and Kosovo, their Hostilities are not religious, they're political hostilities because Serbs believe the Kosovar Independence is an illegal act, and Kosovo belongs to them as an integral territory, which I disagree, Kosovo has its rights to independence as a country, the Serbs cannot stop them.

[darkwoon]

Of course he was a great president! He repelled (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/abraham_lincoln_vampire_hunter/) all those vampires from invading America!

[level_up]

Wait, you're a Marxist and you like Reagan? The avowed anti-Marxist and Ayn-Randian free market guy? confuzzled.

But anyway. Lincoln gets kind of a saintly reputation for freeing the slave, but he did it for practical reasons I'm pretty sure, not humanitarian ones. I think he was a great President though; he preserved the union through a civil war and he deserves props for that. Sure, he was authoritarian, but you have to remember that the south seceded and that includes all of the southern Congressmen, so he wasn't really in a position to do things the conventional way in those extenuating circumstances.

[Korashk]

All of you people defending Lincoln's actions during the American Civil War should also defend King George the Third's actions during the Revolutionary War.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

His actions were a bit much. At times he was good others not so great. The history books speak of the greater deeds.

[BrittneyB]

Look, none of us were alive during the time of Abe Lincoln, so its hard to truly determine whether or not he was a "good" president. The social and government protocol was probably a lot different, and besides that, its hard to understand people from different time periods because we as a nation have evolved. But either way, nobody is perfect so never expect abolute perfection :)

[level_up]

Look, none of us were alive during the time of Abe Lincoln, so its hard to truly determine whether or not he was a "good" president. The social and government protocol was probably a lot different, and besides that, its hard to understand people from different time periods because we as a nation have evolved. But either way, nobody is perfect so never expect abolute perfection :)

that is sage lol

[root]

Hi.

I have always thought that Abraham Lincoln was always the only Republican President I actually liked (Besides Reagan, and this is coming from a Marxie.) and thought he was cool and what-not.

Heh heh, things change. It's constant, like Death, Taxes and the rotting of pop stars. Anywhom, I discovered a book called "The Real Lincoln" on Amazon and it interested me, so, I thought I would read it. Turns out, Lincoln was actually one of the most Authoritarian presidents we have ever had.

First, He went to war without consent of Congress. Next, He created three new states, all without consent of Congress. He installed Martial Law, with out consent of Congress. Extended Habeaus Corpus without consent of Congress and he censored a lot of anti-war protesting. No, not pro-slave, anti-war. He used troops to interfere with northern states to inflate Republican votes and he nationalized A LOT of different things. Also, he was not Anti-Racist, as many would believe.

So, What do you think?

yeah, he was a bitch but i think that he did what he had to do. The problem with the U.S govt is that all the politicians are worried about not getting re-election. They are pressured to make the popular decision. We need a leader who can make the right but unpopular decision. Today's politicians don't really care about what's right. It's all about power.So, I think, he is a good president because he did what he had to do. It takes a lot of courage to make the unpopular decision.

[Countryboy789]

The republican party was a lot different 150 years ago. Lincoln was nothing more than a liberal abolitionist bent on destroying southern agriculture to further promote the growth of northern manufacturing.