Politics Abraham Lincoln: worst president ever?

[Sinobas]

I've been watching the Civil War series by Ken Burns, and am coming to think that Lincoln is probably our worst president ever, rather than the saintly image our society has bestowed upon him.

Escalation of the Civil War was his fault. He could have simply withdrew federal troops from the south and let them go in peace. Slavery was dying a natural death all over the western world, and the US could have put pressure on the south to stop it via blockade or sanctions.

Instead, he raises an large army and launched a full on invasion of the south. His purpose was not to end slavery, but to preserve the union, he said this flat out. The civil war was the biggest blood bath in our nations history. More americans died than in Civil War than all other wars combined, which is even bigger when you consider the population of the time.

Union troops razed and looted cities. He imprisoned northern jouranlists who were critical of the war. He was really a total tyrant. John Wilkes Booth was justified in shooting him in the head.

 

[MarAzul]

I've been watching the Civil War series by Ken Burns, and am coming to think that Lincoln is probably our worst president ever, rather than the saintly image our society has bestowed upon him.

Escalation of the Civil War was his fault. He could have simply withdrew federal troops from the south and let them go in peace. Slavery was dying a natural death all over the western world, and the US could have put pressure on the south to stop it via blockade or sanctions.

Instead, he raises an large army and launched a full on invasion of the south. His purpose was not to end slavery, but to preserve the union, he said this flat out. The civil war was the biggest blood bath in our nations history. More americans died than in Civil War than all other wars combined, which is even bigger when you consider the population of the time.

Union troops razed and looted cities. He imprisoned northern jouranlists who were critical of the war. He was really a total tyrant. John Wilkes Booth was justified in shooting him in the head.

AH! The Judge agrees with me.

The time to free the slaves in the Constitution by amendment was right after the States succeeded. The remaining state easily ratify the Amendment. Then entise the southern state back into the Union by offering to buy the Slaves. No war needed.

The good judge is spot on. But then, it was not about slaves to begin with.

 

[Sinobas]

Also, read about how he dealt with the Indians....http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ulysses-grant-launched-illegal-war-plains-indians-180960787/

I can't think of a more over-rated person in human history.

 

[Sinobas]

AH! The Judge agrees with me.

The time to free the slaves in the Constitution by amendment was right after the States succeeded. The remaining state easily ratify the Amendment. Then entise the southern state back into the Union by offering to buy the Slaves. No war needed.

The good judge is spot on. But then, it was not about slaves to begin with.

Or what if they just blockaded cotton exports till slaves were freed and converted to paid laborers?

 

[MarAzul]

blockaded

A blockad is war. War cost too much in blood and treasure. The market value of all of the slaves is less than 1/6th the amount spent on the war.

 

[barfo]

Also, read about how he dealt with the Indians....http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ulysses-grant-launched-illegal-war-plains-indians-180960787/

I can't think of a more over-rated person in human history.

I was taught that Lincoln and Grant were different people. Maybe that was incorrect?

barfo

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Clearly this thread was started by a vampire, Lincoln's sworn enemies.

 

[MarAzul]

Lincoln killed more Americans than any other despot in history.

 

[Minstrel]

Well, that's why that war is known to everyone as the "War of Northern Aggression." Because the South was just sitting there, minding its own business, certainly not in open rebellion, and the North just marched their armies in.

 

[Further]

fuck

 

[Sinobas]

I was taught that Lincoln and Grant were different people. Maybe that was incorrect?

barfo

Oh please....you should be embarassed to make such a pitiful argument.

 

[Sinobas]

A blockad is war. War cost too much in blood and treasure. The market value of all of the slaves is less than 1/6th the amount spent on the war.

It's considered an act of war, but it would have been FAR different than the slaughter of almost 3 quarters of a million people and all the property that was destroyed.

 

[Minstrel]

It's considered an act of war, but it would have been FAR different than the slaughter of almost 3 quarters of a million people and all the property that was destroyed.

I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, but if the Confederacy wasn't willing to end slavery to prevent a war when it came to secession, what makes you think they were willing to end it to prevent a war when it came to a blockade? The South declared war by starting a rebellion. They were ready and willing to fight--they weren't randomly attacked.

 

[Sinobas]

I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, but if the Confederacy wasn't willing to end slavery to prevent a war when it came to secession, what makes you think they were willing to end it to prevent a war when it came to a blockade? The South declared war by starting a rebellion. They were ready and willing to fight--they weren't randomly attacked.

An ultimatum to end slavery was not even on the table when the civil war started. One state, south carolina, started the violence, by attacking Fort Sumter after repeatedly asking the Federal soldiers to leave.

So as I said, the federal forces could have withdrew from the south, and started a blockade against the south or simply let them go their own way.

4 states withdrew from he union as a RESULT of Lincoln raising a militia to invade the south. They first entered Virginia who had not attacked them.

Lincoln dealt with this issue in the most destructive and bloody way possible. Not to mention all the violations of the constitution when he imprisoned northerners critical of the war, and suspended habeas corpus. Then you look at his treatment of the Indians which is rarely ever mentioned in the mainstream, since he has this angelic public image. There's a lot of reasons to consider him a terrible tyrannical president. No president has come even CLOSE to being as tyrannical as him.

 

[Minstrel]

So as I said, the federal forces could have withdrew from the south, and started a blockade against the south or simply let them go their own way.

"Going their own way" wasn't an option. No nation is going to allow a rebellion to go unchallenged. That's absurd. And again, considering the South was willing to start a rebellion (which is an act of war), there's no question that a blockade would also have resulted in violence. Your claim that the Confederacy was a peace-loving group that wanted to avoid any and all conflict and would have meekly submitted to a blockade doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

 

[Sinobas]

"Going their own way" wasn't an option. No nation is going to allow a rebellion to go unchallenged. That's absurd. And again, considering the South was willing to start a rebellion (which is an act of war), there's no question that a blockade would also have resulted in violence. Your claim that the Confederacy was a peace-loving group that wanted to avoid any and all conflict and would have meekly submitted to a blockade doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

Why wasn't it an option? Of course it was an option.

Ugh..my claim about the confederacy...now you are blatantly putting words into my mouth that I never remotely implied. That's not a conversation.

 

[julius]

How long before it turns out Lincoln was actually a Democrat!? #WorstPresidentEver #TakeHimOffThePenny

 

[Minstrel]

Why wasn't it an option? Of course it was an option.

I told you why it wasn't an option. There isn't a single nation that would simply allow a rebellion to "go their own way" unless they were powerless to prevent it. You rise in rebellion against a nation that can crush you, you get crushed. That's the risk of rebellion.

 

[Sinobas]

I told you why it wasn't an option. There isn't a single nation that would simply allow a rebellion to "go their own way" unless they were powerless to prevent it. You rise in rebellion against a nation that can crush you, you get crushed. That's the risk of rebellion.

To say it's not possible is simply absurd. That's like saying that if a wife leaves her husband, he has to kill her, there's no other option.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, but if the Confederacy wasn't willing to end slavery to prevent a war when it came to secession, what makes you think they were willing to end it to prevent a war when it came to a blockade? The South declared war by starting a rebellion. They were ready and willing to fight--they weren't randomly attacked.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it...

-- Abe Lincoln, letter to Horace Greeley, 1862

A house divided can not stand.

They taught this in grade school when I was growing up.

The war wasn't about freeing the slaves (until near the end). It's far more likely the real reason behind the South wanting to secede was that new states joining the union would be free states, and the free states were already voting (in congress) benefits for the north (railroads).

 

[Minstrel]

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it...

-- Abe Lincoln, letter to Horace Greeley, 1862

A house divided can not stand.

You figure it out. They taught this in grade school when I was growing up.

Uh huh. I was responding to Sinobas' post that the Union should have just blockaded the South til they gave up slavery, which the South had already proven they were willing to go to war to preserve. My post had nothing to do with Lincoln's motivations.

 

[Minstrel]

To say it's not possible is simply absurd. That's like saying that if a wife leaves her husband, he has to kill her, there's no other option.

A woman has a legal right to leave a marriage. A section of the United States doesn't have the legal right to unilaterally choose to become a separate nation. So, while your counter-example is certainly eye-catching, it's not actually valid.

 

[Denny Crane]

Uh huh. I was responding to Sinobas' post that the Union should have just blockaded the South til they gave up slavery, which the South had already proven they were willing to go to war to preserve. My post had nothing to do with Lincoln's motivations.

There's nothing in the constitution that forbids secession. In fact, the Declaration of Independence said that when government becomes oppressive, you rebel against it or leave it.

Many believe Lincoln altered the very nature of this nation by making the Federal bit more important than the States bit.

Your blockade idea is unworkable. The South would have made export deals with the British and French and your navy would be attacking those nations' ships.

 

[Minstrel]

There's nothing in the constitution that forbids secession. In fact, the Declaration of Independence said that when government becomes oppressive, you rebel against it or leave it.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Constitution created an "indestructible union." So there currently is no merit to the idea that secession is a legal option.

Your blockade idea is unworkable.

That was Sinobas' idea. I agree that it was unworkable.

 

[Denny Crane]

Lincoln also floundered around worse than Bush in Iraq or even this Trump administration. He fired people left and right until he found a general who could win.

Gettysburgh was fought on NORTHERN soil. The North was losing the war for a good part of it.

 

[Sinobas]

Uh huh. I was responding to Sinobas' post that the Union should have just blockaded the South til they gave up slavery, which the South had already proven they were willing to go to war to preserve. My post had nothing to do with Lincoln's motivations.

Once they were invaded, it became a matter of honor to defend their homeland. Many Confederate soldiers said how they were fighting to defend their state, most of them did not own slaves.

It's a non-sequitur to assume that because they defended their home states from invasion, that they would not have eventually made consessions as the result of a blockade.

 

[MarAzul]

It's far more likely the real reason behind the South wanting to secede was that new states joining the union would be free states, and the free states were already voting (in congress) benefits for the north (railroads).

Correct. Forcing the south to pay hire tariffs and spending the money to benefit the North.

 

[Minstrel]

It's a non-sequitur to assume that because they defended their home states from invasion, that they would not have eventually made consessions as the result of a blockade.

They were a rebellion, not a sovereign nation. So there was no invasion, simply a rebellion being put down.

 

[Denny Crane]

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Constitution created an "indestructible union." So there currently is no legal merit to the idea that secession is a legal option.



That was Sinobas' idea. I agree that it was unworkable.

There is nothing in the constitution forbidding secession. There are secession movements in several states, including Hawaii and California. The US will not start bombing those places if they leave. That would be silly.

The Hawaiians would learn that leaving the empire would worsen their poverty. California would learn that they'll have to pollute since they won't have Texas doing it for them.

 

[Sinobas]

A woman has a legal right to leave a marriage. A section of the United States doesn't have the legal right to unilaterally choose to become a separate nation. So, while your counter-example is certainly eye-catching, it's not actually valid.

There was nothing in the constitution that forbid it. And even if you're living in a culture where a woman has no legal right to divorce, that still doesn't mean the husband has "no option" but to kill her.