• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abraham Lincoln - Right or Wrong?

Hopefully, we haven't had our best president yet. I'd be pleased to be able to move Lincoln down the list a bit.

Why do you think there is such a Grand Canyon sized gulf between the experts in History and Political Science who rate the Presidents in the various surveys and the right in America? And even then its only the grass roots right. Even the right leaning experts still pick Washington, Lincoln and FDR as great. So what is it about the right libertarians and some conservatives that they continue to stand out as outliers in this regard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
 
Tell that to all the people killed and raped as the north sweep through the south killing, raping and burning everything in their path. The best path forward to solve slavery was never war and death, but social evolution and eventually law. This is proven by looking at how other countries solved the problem and how long the hardships of the black population was after it was ended. In America it took another 100 years for things to start working out, but in other parts of the world that was not necessary.

That is easy to explain because it didn't happen.

Hordes of Northern soldiers did not inflict countless massacres and rapine across the South, this is part and parcel with the Southern 'Lost Cause' mythology. Property destruction and confiscation certainly occurred on a wide scale in certain theaters, but it was common on both sides for different reasons. Southern raiders burned and destroyed scores if not hundreds of towns throughout Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri, etc in an effort to gather supplies and tie down Union garrisons. In Sherman's 'March to the Sea' the campaign of destruction was an effort to break the back of Southern resistance and to increase the mobility of the Union column by severing its need for supply or communications.

The path best forward in the period before the Civil War would have been for the Southern planting aristocracy that forced it's states towards the brink of war to capitulate and work towards the imminent and mutual abolition of slavery while acknowledging the irrevocable end of states believing their writ of sovereignty extended as far as Calhoun and his intellectual descendants pretended it did. Absent that the Civil War was a completely noble and terribly necessary war that ended with the annihilation of slavery, the rebuttal of European autocrats who crowed that democracy was unable to govern its own house, and the eventual primacy of the United States shorn of its internal armed divisions.

The CSA died like it should have died.
 
i mean by social pressure. In any event, remember what I already said, the next 100 years of black hardship would have never happened if the war did not occur. Slavery would have ended and you would have found that people would have been far more willing to give blacks equal rights across the board in a much faster time frame. Yes, the first step would have been slightly longer, but the following steps would have been much, much shorter. The fact is history shows that war to solve slavery is the least efficient way towards the end goal of equal rights.

This is the most transparent form of Confederate apologism I think I've ever run across. It is an almost verbatum argument that post-war Confederates like Yancy tried to use and many rallied to. Blacks weren't really ready for freedom, and their slavery wasn't all that intolerable. Instead by unleashing them on the South you created even greater racial disharmony. Etc, etc. This perspective is an attempt to pretend that deep sighted White racism in the South didn't really exist until the post-war era and that progress was being made (it wasn't) and implicitly argues that slavery wasn't all that bad. Because the only way you can morally accept your own answer is by denying the moral catastrophe that was slavery.

Moreover the REAL way to ensure minority rights in the South post-war would have been to follow the plans that Thaddeus Stevens and others had in mind which was a much longer military presence, the enforced adherence to the Constitution, and the protection of black voters and white sympathizers. Great progress was made from 1865 to the 1870's and was sacrificed with the withdrawal of US troops and the uncaring attentions of a weak Congress.
 
This is probably a bad idea for a poll. I just want to apologize right now for starting this poll. I'm already embarrassed...

Here's one opinion:

Top 10 Most Influential Presidents
By Martin Kelly, About.com Guide

"Of the 43 men who have been president of the United States, there are some truly clear choices of who were the most important and influential presidents.

1. Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln saved the Union during the American Civil War. His leadership during the war was one of no compromise but at the same time understanding that he would eventually have to unite the states once the North won the war. His actions eventually led to the abolition of slavery across the United States."


Ranking the Top Ten Most Influential Presidents

***
Here's another source:

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States

"George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt are consistently ranked at the top of the lists."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

***
And another:

Lincoln wins: Honest Abe tops new presidential survey

"It's been 145 years since Abraham Lincoln appeared on a ballot, but admiration for the man who saved the union and sparked the end of slavery is as strong as ever, according to a new survey.

Lincoln finished first in a ranking by historians of the 42 former White House occupants."


Lincoln wins: Honest Abe tops new presidential survey - CNN

***
Does everyone agree?

How long was Killing Lincoln by Bill O'Reilly the New York Times best-seller? It's still in the no. 2 position right now.

I can't find anyone that's critical of Honest Abe. I guess this is a non-subject to everyone. I apologize again, I'm sorry.

I firmly believe Abraham Lincoln was one of the great men of history. Through his actions the Union was preserved, slavery was cast down, the notion of representative democracy defended the world over, the path to American power made manifest, and the importance of the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the idea of America over fanatical literalism made triumphant.
 
i mean by social pressure. In any event, remember what I already said, the next 100 years of black hardship would have never happened if the war did not occur. Slavery would have ended and you would have found that people would have been far more willing to give blacks equal rights across the board in a much faster time frame. Yes, the first step would have been slightly longer, but the following steps would have been much, much shorter. The fact is history shows that war to solve slavery is the least efficient way towards the end goal of equal rights.

Pure speculation on your part. How does a person who's all about "personal liberty" become an apologist for slavery? Slavery is the exact opposite of personal liberty.
 
I firmly believe Abraham Lincoln was one of the great men of history. Through his actions the Union was preserved, slavery was cast down, the notion of representative democracy defended the world over, the path to American power made manifest, and the importance of the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the idea of America over fanatical literalism made triumphant.

And if he hadn't preserved the Union, it would have ceased to exist. Then where would we be?
 
This is the most transparent form of Confederate apologism I think I've ever run across. It is an almost verbatum argument that post-war Confederates like Yancy tried to use and many rallied to. Blacks weren't really ready for freedom, and their slavery wasn't all that intolerable. Instead by unleashing them on the South you created even greater racial disharmony. Etc, etc. This perspective is an attempt to pretend that deep sighted White racism in the South didn't really exist until the post-war era and that progress was being made (it wasn't) and implicitly argues that slavery wasn't all that bad. Because the only way you can morally accept your own answer is by denying the moral catastrophe that was slavery.

Progress was being made and all you must do is look at the trends of slave owners. I don't deny that slavery is a violation of rights, but I would rather people get there rights protected as soon as possible with the least amount of deaths in the process.

Moreover the REAL way to ensure minority rights in the South post-war would have been to follow the plans that Thaddeus Stevens and others had in mind which was a much longer military presence, the enforced adherence to the Constitution, and the protection of black voters and white sympathizers. Great progress was made from 1865 to the 1870's and was sacrificed with the withdrawal of US troops and the uncaring attentions of a weak Congress.

Show me where that worked anywhere in the world and at a faster pace than what I'm actually saying should of been done towards it.
 
Last edited:
Pure speculation on your part. How does a person who's all about "personal liberty" become an apologist for slavery? Slavery is the exact opposite of personal liberty.

The countries that solved it in the way I was saying it should have been done here had a bigger problem with slavery than we ever had and the rights of the black population came about faster in those areas than they did here. There is no reason to expect that it wouldn't have been even faster here than there if we did the same thing they did.

How is saying that war was the worst way possible to about solving hardships in the black population defending slavery?
 
Pure speculation on your part. How does a person who's all about "personal liberty" become an apologist for slavery? Slavery is the exact opposite of personal liberty.

A most excellent observation. Over the last dozen years or so on websites just like this one it is almost always the people who bang the drum of libertarianism the loudest proclaiming LIBERTY and FREEDOM who are the biggest apologists and defenders of the South and its way of life.
 
Progress was being made and all you must do is look at the trends of slave owners. I don't deny that slavery is a violation of rights, but I would rather people get there rights protected as soon as possible with the least amount of deaths in the process.



Show me where that worked anywhere in the world and at a faster pace than what I'm actually saying should of been done towards it and what was more successful than how we actually did it.

This is the most bald faced kind of apologism. "Slavery wasn't good, but it wasn't worth fighting a war over." Is what your argument really boils down to. It is why most people find it a disgusting argument. As to your second point, you want me to show you where armed strength and legal authority prevented the re-occurrence of rights violations? Those examples are innumerable in the 20th Century alone, surely that isn't what you are asking.
 
A most excellent observation. Over the last dozen years or so on websites just like this one it is almost always the people who bang the drum of libertarianism the loudest proclaiming LIBERTY and FREEDOM who are the biggest apologists and defenders of the South and its way of life.

And for bringing back white only business.
 
That is easy to explain because it didn't happen.

Hordes of Northern soldiers did not inflict countless massacres and rapine across the South, this is part and parcel with the Southern 'Lost Cause' mythology. Property destruction and confiscation certainly occurred on a wide scale in certain theaters, but it was common on both sides for different reasons. Southern raiders burned and destroyed scores if not hundreds of towns throughout Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri, etc in an effort to gather supplies and tie down Union garrisons. In Sherman's 'March to the Sea' the campaign of destruction was an effort to break the back of Southern resistance and to increase the mobility of the Union column by severing its need for supply or communications.

Oh please, they came in from one side and came out the other with everything behind them dead/raped and burned to the ground. Stop lying. Did the other side do it to some degree? Yes, without doubt, and I'm not defending that here. Hell, I'm not even defending the south anywhere in this thread.
 
A most excellent observation. Over the last dozen years or so on websites just like this one it is almost always the people who bang the drum of libertarianism the loudest proclaiming LIBERTY and FREEDOM who are the biggest apologists and defenders of the South and its way of life.

Because they have a fetishistic admiration for ante-bellum notions of states rights, and have managed to graft their current complaints against the Federal government onto the person of Abraham Lincoln and the US government of 1861.
 
Because they have a fetishistic admiration for ante-bellum notions of states rights, and have managed to graft their current complaints against the Federal government onto the person of Abraham Lincoln and the US government of 1861.

Or because their racist.
 
And for bringing back white only business.

:roll:

Ownership is the exclusive right to use and control a particular thing. Denying people from the use of your property is part of property rights. It's the same for your home, your business, or your body and hell even your labor.
 
Oh please, they came in from one side and came out the other with everything behind them dead/raped and burned to the ground. Stop lying. Did the other side do it to some degree? Yes, without doubt, and I'm not defending that here. Hell, I'm not even defending the south anywhere in this thread.

That isn't true at all, lol. The Civil War was actually marked by very very few civilian casualties which has been rather intriguing to historians. It is why massacres like Fort Pillow have garnered so much attention, because they were so rare. The exception to all of this is of course Missouri where an internecine partisan communal war claimed several hundred to several thousand lives on both sides. But no, rampant slaughter and rape did not occur.
 
This is the most bald faced kind of apologism. "Slavery wasn't good, but it wasn't worth fighting a war over." Is what your argument really boils down to. It is why most people find it a disgusting argument. As to your second point, you want me to show you where armed strength and legal authority prevented the re-occurrence of rights violations? Those examples are innumerable in the 20th Century alone, surely that isn't what you are asking.

I'm asking you where it gave rise to people being seen as equal and created a general acceptance of those people. Go ahead and find an example of that. Forcing people to behave in the way you want and them doing so on their own free will are not equal.
 
:roll:

Ownership is the exclusive right to use and control a particular thing. Denying people from the use of your property is part of property rights. It's the same for your home, your business, or your body and hell even your labor.

And as long as your property is NOT open to the general public and makes NO use of any taxpayer funding or governmental support - you might have an argument.
 
And as long as your property is NOT open to the general public and makes NO use of any taxpayer funding or governmental support - you might have an argument.

No business is open to the public, but to who the owner wants in. Stop believing in myths, hay.

As for public money, no, that does not make private property somehow public property. The rights of the owner are unchanged.
 
Back
Top Bottom