Are there any southerners here? Abe Lincoln was the worst President ever. He circumvented the constitution, destryed the southenr nation state, and caused economic harm to our region that is still affecting us. I hate the way posterity has labled him as such a great and noble man. I am only hre generation removed from men who fought the tyranny this man embodied. My great great grandfather had 2 horses shot out from under him at Gettysburg. He suffered the rest of his life from the effects of a leg injury in Mr. Lincolns war. I will never respect or admire that man. To me he is and always will be the worst president ever.
Not to debate the merits of the Civil War but Lincoln's goals were to preserve the USA whether it meant ending slavery or allowing it to continue. If the southern states had been allowed to break away what would the consequences of that be today? Only speculation but Texas might have become a nation by itself. California, Arizona and New Mexico might be a part of Mexico. Did Lincoln forsee this posibility? I don't know but Lincoln was not responsible for the post Civil War economic exploitation of the South. Lincoln was assasinated in 1865. Blame Andrew Johnson for being too weak to prevent it or blame Ulysyes S Grant for actively encouraging it but we will never know what it would have been like had Lincoln lived. Lincoln's greatest achievement was not the ending of slavery but the preservation of the nation. If you feel that strongly about Lincoln I'll be glad to accept all the $5 dollar bills you may find yourself in possession of.
I am a Southerner and a Republican and, while I have conflicted feelings about Abraham Lincoln, to me he is a great president because of the way he handled a crisis situation which basically threatened to destroy the United States and endanger the continued evolution of democracy. First off, my feelings on the Civil War. I have ancestors who fought on both sides of that war (my grandmother was from Michigan. Many Michigan regimental monuments at Gettysburg bear her family's name. We have also confirmed many ancestors who fought for the Confederacy in my family). I do believe the South had legitimate grievances, and legitimate reasons for secession. True historical facts bear this out. By 1860, it was revealed for all to see that the North and the South had irreconcilable differences that could only be settled by A) agreeing to disagree and go their separate ways, or B) slugging it out on the battlefield to see who was better. Slavery was just one of a myriad of differential issues between the two. Differences on culture, customs, religion, trade, tariffs, theories of government, beliefs about the role of the federal govt., etc., etc., were driving the two regions apart. And, due to the actions of the congressional delegations of both regions and the actions of expansionist settlers in the border states and places like Kansas ("Bleeding Kansas"), both also thought the other side was trying to impose it's beliefs and ways on the other. Basically, your beliefs on Lincoln and the Civil War, I would guess, come from a belief that the South was right, and the North was wrong in using military force to put down the Southern rebellion. But a few points that I have come to about the Civil War; 1) War was inevitable between the two regions. Even if the North had let the South go peacefully, the Confederacy would have continued to try to expand, wooing Border states and Western states to secede and legalize slavery to preserve it's agrarian, labor-class economic system. The U.S. then would have been faced with the same choice it faced in 1861; fight to keep the Union together, or stand by and watch it disintegrate. Keep in mind it was the South who fired first at Fort Sumter. 2) The South was a paradox. They were fighting for what appeared on paper to be a much more democratic form of gov't.; a confederacy of autonomous states with a united foreign policy and trade policy, but nothing else in common. A noble cause, and they were right to distrust power-hungry Washington and the elitist cultural ideals of the Northeast. But the South was far from being ideologically pure in the quest for liberty. They fought for states rights. A state's right to what? Well, to brutally enslave, dominate, and subjugate another race. And slavery was really just the tip of the iceberg. Southern plantation owners were seeking to create a European nobility state on American soil, with hard, permanent class definitions and a permanently disenfranchised, subservient underclass of poor whites and blacks, where one could never hope to rise in station no matter how hard he tried. Col. Chamberlain describes it well in Shaara's book "The Killer Angels" when he says, "The South was creating a new aristocracy, a new breed of glittering men, and Chamberlain had come to crush it" and later, "we fight for a nation where you are judged by who you are, not by who your father was." However noble the concept of devolved gov't. power, the evils of slavery and the plantation aristocracy nation concept made the South's rhetoric on liberty and devolved power an empty hypocrisy. 3) This does not in any way demean the sacrifice my ancestors who fought for the South made. After all, Johnny Reb didn't fight for slavery any more than he fought for lower tariffs, or any more than Billy Yank fought against slavery and for a high tariff. Johnny Reb fought for home and hearth, for an idea of a freer govt., and that cause, to him and his breathren, was noble and important, important enough to risk his life for. The cause, and the importance of state's rights and the warning of what can happen if the federal gov't. becomes too powerful, are relevant even today. That is why it is so important to study the Civil War and remember that both sides had their good points and bad points, and that no one side was wholly good or wholly evil. 4) On that point, it is important to recognize Lincoln's role and his motives. I see Lincoln as a true visionary leader, a man who can look beyond the here and now and grasp the true importance and historical significance of what is happening and somehow, without being able to accurately foretell the future, just KNOW that the fate of the world hangs in the balance. You hear it in his speeches, especially the Gettysburg Address. He KNEW the Union had to be preserved, literally at any cost. He somehow KNEW that America would become so important to the spread of democracy and freedom the world over that America HAD to become a stronger, more united, and freer nation right then and there. There were times in the Civil War where literally, his determination and his will to see it through was the only thing that prevented total defeat for the Union. Yes, he declared martial law and suspended the writ of habaes corpus. It was a national crisis, what did you expect him to do? While not all of his decisions made sense, or could even be considered wise and moral, he did what he thought he had to do to preserve a strong, united America. I don't think any of us could fault him for that if we were in that position, and I admire for believing in America so strongly. I shudder to think what would have become of me, of my family, of America, of the WORLD, had Lincoln not done everything in his power to prevent the destruction of the United States of America. And that is exactly what was at stake. Had the South won, the U.S.A. would not exist. What then? Heck, Hitler might have conquered the world with no united, strong, free America to oppose him. We don't know. And I don't want to find out. Lincoln makes my Top Five. He is one of our greatest presidents. And it pains me to say that, as a Southerner who proudly flies the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my ancestors who fought valiantly for a cause they believed in to say that they were on the wrong side of history. But they indeed were. And Lincoln indeed is a great and noble one. There I said it. You can shoot me now.
There have been 43 presidents in U.S. History. My Top Five: Washington (The Father of our country. Enough said.) Lincoln (Held the U.S. together at it's bleakest moment) Jefferson (His theories on liberty influence scholars even today) Teddy Roosevelt (The U.S. became a major world power on his watch) Franklin D. Roosevelt (Saved capitalism, though I believe the New Deal went too far, and guided the forces of freedom and democracy to their greatest victory over tyranny and evil ever) Other greats: Andrew Jackson, James Monroe, Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy The Bottom of the Barrel Herbert Hoover (It's not what he did, it's what he didn't do. Capitalism is pushed to the brink of total collapse while he hides under his desk. Pathetic) Jimmy Carter (Economic ideas were bad enough, but his weakness on foreign policy was unbelievable. If he had won a second term, I'm not sure if we'd all be saying "Greetings Comrade" or "Allah's peace be upon you") Lyndon Johnson (The Mommy State's greatest advocate. Oh, and he didn't have a clue about how to fight a war) James Buchanan (Another do-nothing president. Country moves to the brink of Civil War while the Bachelor twittles his thumbs) Ulysses S. Grant (Great general, terrible president. The most scandalous president ever to serve in office. He is also the one to thank for allowing segregation to take root in the South). Other losers: Franklin Pierce, William H. Taft, Andrew Johnson Richard Nixon? Gets a pass because he got us out of Vietnam, he opened up diplomatic relations with China, and he wasn't really involved in Watergate, he just tried to cover it up and protect his subordinates. Big mistake. But not that bad. No, he was not a nice person either, but that's not necessarily a negative quality in a President. Bill Clinton? The guy was scum, even his most ardent supporters do not deny this. But hey, he knew just enough about the economy to know to leave it alone. Welfare reform was a good thing as well. But if any more scandals come out (like if this politicizing the Kosovo War is true) he's taking U.S. Grant's place on my list as the most scandalous president ever.
Wow...good post Jetstorm. I only disagree on a couple of things. I think you give Woodrow Wilson too much credit, and I'd add Daddy Bush to the list of losers. 41 kowtowed to Dung Xiaopig after Tianenman Square and sent a message that the Chicoms could do whatever they wanted and still get to do business with America. A tougher response could have eliminated Communism from the world. Daddy Bush also had his head in the sand (no pun intended) about Islamofascism and was a disaster for the economy. While I don't particularly like Dubya, I wouldn't put him on the loser list either.
How do you think Bush Sr. should've responded to Tianeman Square? Didn't we sever diplomatic relations briefly with the PRC over that? I think that was the worst we could do short of bombing them, and I'm sure Bush Sr. did not want to break off a piece of that action unless he absolutely had to. Somehow, Clinton ended up taking the credit for "bringing China into the family of nations." I don't know how unless he takes the credit for restoring Chinese relations after they cooled under Bush Sr.
Bush let them keep MFN status. We should have slapped major trade sanctions on them. Clinton was no better on this issue.
A lot of interesting points here. I'll chime in with the Worst I can think of would be Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Lincoln gets an honorable mention in this group also. As a side note on some of these wars and possibly the one we are currently in a good book to read or video to watch is "The Prize" by Daniel Yergan. Not sure of the spelling on his last name.
