Is Lincoln America's worst ever President?

[The Dark Lord]

Consider:
His racist views and inability to deal with the slavery issue before/during his Presidency
His inability to appoint a great general to rival Robert E. Lee until 1864
The fact that he nearly lost the 1864 Election to George McClellan
The fact that it took the Union 4 years to defeat the much weaker/smaller Confederacy

Any Thoughts?

[Rutherford The Brave]

No way, Hoover by far is the worst president ever hands down. He stood there and watched as the great depression happened. He had plenty of oppertunities to stop the fall and yet he didn't he was an awful president who had no clue how to lead the country. He was a business man and treated the country like one.

[Rainstorm]

Consider:
His racist views and inability to deal with the slavery issue before/during his Presidency
His inability to appoint a great general to rival Robert E. Lee until 1864
The fact that he nearly lost the 1864 Election to George McClellan
The fact that it took the Union 4 years to defeat the much weaker/smaller Confederacy

Any Thoughts?

The entire country was divided on the Slave issue. Including Congress. Lincoln couldn't just snap his fingers and expect everyone to go along with his views. He had to attempt to keep the Union together, though it was pretty much destined to fail for a short while.

Many of the Great Generals sided with Lee and the South, leaving Lincoln with very few options. He watched and studied, and picked a General he knew would help the North.

Almost losing an election doesn't make you a Bad President...

Could we say King George III was a bad King because it took him 8+ years to attempt to beat the Colonists, and still lost? The North was fighting in the Southern territory, meaning they had to deal with things that the Southern forces knew well, including weather and geography. The South was also backed at the start by countries of Europe for products because they supported slavery. However, as the South began to lose, the Allies of Europe backed out so they wouldn't become to involved.

Lincoln was a great president. Without him, the Civil War would have gone for many more years.

[Underground_Network]

Lawl @ ignorance.

Lincoln was certainly not this country's best president, but he was a key player in his time and a springboard for civil rights. Yeah, he was racist, but look at Buchanan, he fucking took the oath to the KKK in the Oval Office while slavery was a hot-button issue.

Lincoln achieved a lot, though he did restrict civil liberties and was far from perfect, he solved an issue any other president would have tried to avoid for as long as possible.

Unless you like slavery, Lincoln was not a bad president in the least bit. Hoover and Buchanan are probably tied for the worst, though Buchanan wasn't really bad, he just didn't do anything.

And I mean if we want to base it on who lasted the shortest in office we could say William Henry Harrison was the worst, couldn't we?

And hell, every president who was formerly a general, even Andrew Jackson, was not very good at his job.

[Azunite]

I am not an american and I am not as familliar as you guys about American history butt..
I thought Lincoln was a good president because he helped the slaves and all other black people becoming american citizens?

And today I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 today and now I think W. Bush is the worst president ever.

Of course, no stupid people can surpass the stupidity of our current Prime Minister ( equal to president ) Recep Erdoğan

[Jess]

nope there were worse presidents. Hoover. G.W. Bush.

[Amnesiac]

Protecting the Union is enough to save Lincoln from being called a "bad president". There have been much worse presidents throughout history, such as the Bushes and Nixon (in my opinion, of course). Nearly losing an election doesn't make a president bad, just unpopular. Racism was common and even scientifically accepted back then. Finding a capable general wasn't easy for Lincoln, and I don't blame him for previous generals not being able to live up to the job. The strategic problems the North faced during the war are what made it stretch out for such a long period of time.

[The Dark Lord]

If you look at the economic strengths of the North in comparison to the South the North should have won the war within a matter of months.

I think Lincoln was a very successful President who coped well in difficult circumstances, but I think his greatness is grossly exaggarated

[Rutherford The Brave]

If you look at the economic strengths of the North in comparison to the South the North should have won the war within a matter of months.

I think Lincoln was a very successful President who coped well in difficult circumstances, but I think his greatness is grossly exaggarated

I like to compare Lincoln to FDR. Only because both of them inherited the burdens and issues of the man that came before them. In the face of huge issues they both turned things around using as much as they good fromt what they were given.

[Amnesiac]

If you look at the economic strengths of the North in comparison to the South the North should have won the war within a matter of months.

I think Lincoln was a very successful President who coped well in difficult circumstances, but I think his greatness is grossly exaggarated

The South had an amazing amount of confidence going into the war, unlike the North which as divided over the entire situation. Combined with successful generals the South was able to at least drag out the war and cause some problems for the North.

[huginnmuninn]

no he isnt there are plenty of worse presidents and if you want to get into racist plenty of other presidents before him were racist it was just how people thought back then. he couldnt get a good general because a lot of the good generals were in the south which is the same reason why it took four years for the union to defeat the confederacy. and nearly losing an election is in no way a reason why he is a bad president it just shows that the majority liked him better than the other guy.

[scuba steve]

Consider:
His racist views and inability to deal with the slavery issue before/during his Presidency
His inability to appoint a great general to rival Robert E. Lee until 1864
The fact that he nearly lost the 1864 Election to George McClellan
The fact that it took the Union 4 years to defeat the much weaker/smaller Confederacy

Any Thoughts?

i'm just jumping straight into this couldn't be assed reading through all the posts so this may have been covered, but: wasn't the confederacy more advanced technologically? I thought their weapons where in general far superior to the Union...:confused:

[deadpie]

Oh look, this thread again!


Andrew Johnson is obviously the worst president to ever exist. He created the fucking Jim Crow lows for satan's sake. Shouldn't that be enough?

And he only did this bullshit just because he knew he could.

[swimmerjeff]

The South had an amazing amount of confidence going into the war, unlike the North which as divided over the entire situation. Combined with successful generals the South was able to at least drag out the war and cause some problems for the North.

This is true. However, the North, from the very beginning, was fooling itself through cockiness also: they marched into Bull Run with the women and children behind them, ready for a quick victory as their families held picnics in the background.

Your assertion that he didn't do anything for the slavery issue is correct- the times were obviously ripe with slavery. But you have to understand that one could do nothing about it. Congress had to issue a Gag rule after tensions became so high that members of Congress carried weapons with them on the floor, and the chambers of congress even saw the beat-down of a member by another's cane. The Civil War wasn't about slavery, a common misconception. The Civil War didn't become about freeing slaves until the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, and meanwhile, his post-Civil War reconstruction plans would have seen a much freer South than his predecessors henceforth allowed. It's often said that the greatest disservice the South ever received was the assassination of Lincoln because of this fact.

It took time for Lincoln to figure out which generals were going to work best, it was only natural. This is the equivalent of saying that Obama is a crappy president because he had to remove McCrystal from command in Afghanistan.

And, also, Lincoln easily won the 1864 election.

[Sith Lord 13]

This is the equivalent of saying that Obama is a crappy president because he had to remove McCrystal from command in Afghanistan.

Well, Obama did make a bad move in making McCrystal step down. You don't remove a man who was doing his job well on account of him being critical of your administration.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Well, Obama did make a bad move in making McCrystal step down. You don't remove a man who was doing his job well on account of him being critical of your administration.

No, he fired a man who honestly shouldn't have such an important job, seeing as there shouldn't be a war in my opinion. Atleast it was like back in the day, he'd be tried for treason.

[Sith Lord 13]

No, he fired a man who honestly shouldn't have such an important job, seeing as there shouldn't be a war in my opinion. Atleast it was like back in the day, he'd be tried for treason.

Well whether or not there should be a war, while a valid question, is immaterial here since firing him did nothing to end the war, and, if anything, prolonged it. You don't sacrifice assets, and thereby lives, for your own pride.

[Perseus]

If you look at the economic strengths of the North in comparison to the South the North should have won the war within a matter of months.

I think Lincoln was a very successful President who coped well in difficult circumstances, but I think his greatness is grossly exaggarated

lolwut? The North were fighting in the South against people who knew the landscape and the South had better generals. Lincoln was a good president because he wanted to preserve the Union, which he succeeded in doing. Maybe he shouldn't have let the military fire upon Fort Sumter, which pretty much started the war, but he did what he had to do. Destroying the South and freeing the slaves was part of that. The Civil War was started because of states' rights, though.

[Amnesiac]

This is true. However, the North, from the very beginning, was fooling itself through cockiness also: they marched into Bull Run with the women and children behind them, ready for a quick victory as their families held picnics in the background.

*scissors*

And, also, Lincoln easily won the 1864 election.

The north also had a bit too much confidence going into the war, yes.

Lincoln won the election because, in the months leading up to it, there were major victories for the North in the war. If those battles hadn't been won, Lincoln's reelection would have been much more difficult.

[The Dark Lord]

lolwut? The North were fighting in the South against people who knew the landscape and the South had better generals. Lincoln was a good president because he wanted to preserve the Union, which he succeeded in doing. Maybe he shouldn't have let the military fire upon Fort Sumter, which pretty much started the war, but he did what he had to do. Destroying the South and freeing the slaves was part of that. The Civil War was started because of states' rights, though.

Grant was a better General than Lee, the South only had one great general (Jackson). The North should have won the war within months considering the economic and man power superiority then had over the South.

[Perseus]

Grant was a better General than Lee, the South only had one great general (Jackson). The North should have won the war within months considering the economic and man power superiority then had over the South.

General Robert E. Lee was a very good general. What are you talking about? Lincoln asked Lee to lead the entire Union army, but Lee declined because Virginia was seceding from the Union.

[The Dark Lord]

General Robert E. Lee was a very good general. What are you talking about? Lincoln asked Lee to lead the entire Union army, but Lee declined because Virginia was seceding from the Union.

If you look at Lee's performance at Gettysberg, there where several flaws in his plans. Without Jackson, Lee badly struggled and ultimately Grant got the better of him after 1863. Lee had some great victories but I don't think he was a great general, considering who he fought against (McCllellan and Burnside)

[willrod]

I wouldn't say he was the *best* president- that honor goes to FDR, but he definitely wasn't the worst either. By far the worst was definitely George W. Bush (if you want I can go into specifics about why he's the worst). Lincoln definitely wasn't a die-hard abolitionist, but he personally didn't like slavery either. However, he felt that the preservation of this country was more vital than ending slavery. Also keep in mind that Robert E. Lee wasn't immediately the top general on the Confederate side either- he debated on whether to join the Union or the Confederacy.

On the other hand, he disapproved of secession from the Union, but yet allowed West Virginia to secede from Virginia without its consent, which is against the constitution. He also suspended the writ of habeas corpus (or however it's spelled), which meant that people could be arrested without formal charges, or something like that (sorry, it's been a while since history class last year LOL).

Also:
No way, Hoover by far is the worst president ever hands down. He stood there and watched as the great depression happened. He had plenty of oppertunities to stop the fall and yet he didn't he was an awful president who had no clue how to lead the country. He was a business man and treated the country like one.

Hoover definitely gets a bad reputation in our history books. If you look back at 1929, pretty much everyone had no clue that a crash was about to happen. Why would they? The stock markets were at their highest ever, and continued to boom, fueled by the false hope that things were going well. If the government tried to step in early and declare that things were bad, *boom*, the crash would've happened sooner. It was inevitable. However, after the crash, Hoover tried a few things to soften the effects of the coming depression. But as is seen time and time again, they were too little, too late. Enter FDR, who rebuilds our infrastructure and gets us ready to fight World War II. The only reason we really found our way out of the Great Depression is the fact that Europe and Asia were bombed to rubble, and the only other superpower (the Soviets) had bombed out their own infrastructure during World War II to stop the advance of Hitler. We were set to be #1, the Soviets held on far longer than they should have, and the end result of the Cold War should've been extremely obvious.

[Daniel_]

Idk, but he had an awesome beard.

My favorite president is Reagan.

[quartermaster]

If you look at Lee's performance at Gettysberg, there where several flaws in his plans. Without Jackson, Lee badly struggled and ultimately Grant got the better of him after 1863. Lee had some great victories but I don't think he was a great general, considering who he fought against (McCllellan and Burnside)

Grant was a better General than Lee, the South only had one great general (Jackson). The North should have won the war within months considering the economic and man power superiority then had over the South.


I am going to have to disagree with you on these two point.

First point:

Though Jackson was without a doubt the best Civil War commander, he was by no means the South's only effective general. Even if I were to agree about Lee (which I do not), Longstreet, Ewell, Hill, Armistead, Forrest and even Stuart were all effective brigade and division commanders. Moreover, some generals like Hood are given unwarranted reputations as bad commanders—because they were not good division or corps commanders—despite the fact that many of them were masterful brigade commanders (a distinction that should always be made). Of course, they all made tactical blunders (even Jackson made some apparent errors during the Seven Days Battles that luckily did not come and "bite him").

Second Point:

As for Lee, he made some large errors to be sure, but he was still a very effective general; better than any of which the Union had forged. Lee's errors at Gettysburg were much more poignant after the fact; however, his errors were made out of ignorance of the enemy force. Indeed, Lee's errors at Gettysburg can be mostly attributed to the fact that he did not know the terrain very well and that he did not understand the size, makeup and movements of the enemy force. That also coupled with the fact that he was at his best when he was defending and meeting the enemy’s attacks as they came, not when he was on the offensive.

Effectively, he should have understood these limitations and should have not engaged; however, misunderstanding his limitations does not mean he was not a great general. To his demise, he began believing his army's own hype and just like Napoleon at Waterloo, he over-extended and destroyed his army (Lee's decisive moment was the ill-fated Picket's charge; Napoleon's was the march of his Imperial Guard across the battle line). Believing his own hype and the strength of his army meant that he overlooked the basics: know your enemy and know the terrain. Both of these key features were unknown to the Confederate high command soundly because Jeb Stuart and his cavalry had been missing for close to two days of combat. Of course, it would have been prudent, in the face of the fact that Stuart was not there to provide intelligence, for Lee to have withdrawn. All that said, it is believed that Lee would probably have still won the battle if Ewell had taken the heights at the Cemetery and Seminary ridges.

After the battle of Gettysburg, Lee was in a very tenuous position. His army had sustained massive casualties, and he had lost, almost in its entirety, Longstreet's division (certainly all of Pickett’s brigade). Though the Union had lost just as many men as the Confederacy did in the battle (and they were defending!), the Army of Northern Virginia could not afford to lose so many men. Though losing the war was not a forgone conclusion for the Confederacy after Gettysburg, running an effective campaign against the Union was simply an unimaginable proposition. Lee's only hope, by then, was not to win decisive offensive battles, but simply not get cut-off and surrounded (which is exactly what happened at Appomattox). It should also be noted that Lee was given an even harder task by 1863, as the Confederates had already effectively lost the war in the West (thanks to blunders by Bragg and Buell). Indeed, his reasons for invading Pennsylvania was to find a decisive victory in the Union's own backyard, as to force a peace settlement before the full scope of the South’s failure in the West could become clear to Washington. Nonetheless, due to his failure, he was facing even larger and more organized Union incursions into his theater of war by late 1863.

All this said, I believe it is an unjustified remark to say that Lee was not a "great general." Soundly, if all of the evidence shown is because of his tactical errors at Gettysburg and his performance after Gettysburg, where he had an army that was by no means the army of 1862, but still had to face an army twice its size. Lee's brilliance came from his willingness to listen to his division commanders (vis-à-vis, Longstreet and Jackson) and his willingness to give his commanders freedom to make the necessary adjustments that they needed. Lee did not "hold" any of his commander's hands, but he laid out a plan and effectively in many battles, allowed his generals to readjust and handle it as the situation presented itself. Lee's command structure did not boast a lot of rigidity like in McClellan, Burnside and even Grant's armies; of course, that did have negative consequences with Stuart at Gettysburg, but on balance, it was a very effective strategy. Jackson, of course, provided Lee with sound tactical advice, but it was much more a partnership of two effective generals, than it was one general simply using the battle plans of another.

Last point:

Grant was NOT a better General than Lee; I dispute the fact that Grant can even been considered a “great” commander. Grant’s victories as a field commander cannot be attributed to some tactical prowess, but to the resourcefulness of the North and Grant’s willingness to use that to his advantage. Grant, effectively, sacrificed thousands of Union soldier’s lives because he knew he had the resources to do it. Grant waged a war of attrition, which is not a war of the best “tactics,” but a war of political will and resources. If you actually look at the battle statistics, Grant actually secured very few victories against Lee (losing several battles) and usually lost several thousand more men than Lee did.

That said, Grant did what McClellan and Burnside were unwilling to do and simply kept attacking—despite having lost several battles—until the Confederate resources were depleted. Grant used the power and industry of the Union to defeat the Confederacy and wasted thousands of lives through ruthless onslaughts. Cold Harbor, for instance, was an absolute travesty of command by Grant (over six times Union casualties than Confederate), but Grant still kept up the offensive. Make no mistake; I am not saying it was not smart, I am simply saying that throwing waves of men at fixed positions does not mean that you are an effective tactician; it just means you have more resources to expend. At the end of the day, Grant simply exhausted Lee’s resources, but he really did not defeat him tactically in battle.

[The Dark Lord]

Second Point:

As for Lee, he made some large errors to be sure, but he was still a very effective general; better than any of which the Union had forged. Lee's errors at Gettysburg were much more poignant after the fact; however, his errors were made out of ignorance of the enemy force. Indeed, Lee's errors at Gettysburg can be mostly attributed to the fact that he did not know the terrain very well and that he did not understand the size, makeup and movements of the enemy force. That also coupled with the fact that he was at his best when he was defending and meeting the enemy’s attacks as they came, not when he was on the offensive.

Effectively, he should have understood these limitations and should have not engaged; however, misunderstanding his limitations does not mean he was not a great general. To his demise, he began believing his army's own hype and just like Napoleon at Waterloo, he over-extended and destroyed his army (Lee's decisive moment was the ill-fated Picket's charge; Napoleon's was the march of his Imperial Guard across the battle line). Believing his own hype and the strength of his army meant that he overlooked the basics: know your enemy and know the terrain. Both of these key features were unknown to the Confederate high command soundly because Jeb Stuart and his cavalry had been missing for close to two days of combat. Of course, it would have been prudent, in the face of the fact that Stuart was not there to provide intelligence, for Lee to have withdrawn. All that said, it is believed that Lee would probably have still won the battle if Ewell had taken the heights at the Cemetery and Seminary ridges.

Lee's tactics at Gettysberg where fatally flawed. Pickett's charge, given the improved rifle muskets the Union fought with, was suicidal. Regardless of Stuart's position, Lee shouldn't have sent his army into battle without full knowlegde of Union strength and terrain. Considering he was Winfield Scott's main scout in Mexico, it is unforgivable to have fought at Gettysberg without full knowledge of enemy strength. The point regarding Ewell epitomises Lee's leadership: instructions too vague and too much responsibility held with Jackson and Longstreet. Also Longstreet opposed Pickett's charge, meaning Lee should have taken his advice. Lee should have seen the flaws in that charge and his view that his army was invinceable. I accept that Robert E. Lee was a very effective and talented General, however, his role in the Civil War and his talents are grossly exagerated and idealistic. He should have destroyed the Army of the Pomatc at the 2nd Bull Run and should never have fought at Gettysberg. He was, with the exception of Jackson and Grant, the best General of the War but not the God-like figure he is portrayed as.