Lincoln was not a great president

I do not understand why Lincoln is so reveard!!!. HE DECLARED WAR ON HIS OWN COUNTRY!!!yes I do under stand it was a"noble" cause freeing slaves and such, but actually that didnt come till along time after hundreds of thousands of americans lost there live, to me it was maybe the biggest act of treason EVER!!

reply to post by madhadder545
Yea but he would of been if he had not been shot in the head.
I would vote for Kennedy but then again he got shot in the head to.
Maybe good ole Jimmie Carter.

reply to post by googolplex


explain please the relavence of "jimmy carter"

As a kid, the only thing you knew about him was freeing the slaves and 'preserving the union.' That sounds really good, and to some extent it is really good. Clearly, slavery is appalling and our whole nation is a great thing for many reasons.

However, as you have said, he still viewed the South as US Americans, and waged war on them, he suspended habeas corpus, and as Commander-in-Chief, he allowed the Union army to commit the greatest atrocities of the war against civilians, unlike the confederacy. He also was never fond of blacks or the idea of ending slavery until it became politically and absolutely necessary.

So when the history books preach the greatness of the man for the Emancipation Proclamation and Preserving Unity, while true, are not as innocent or glorious as they seem.

Didn't the Confederates outlaw slavery in their Constitution?

Originally posted by madhadder545
I do not understand why Lincoln is so reveard!!!. HE DECLARED WAR ON HIS OWN COUNTRY!!!yes I do under stand it was a"noble" cause freeing slaves and such, but actually that didnt come till along time after hundreds of thousands of americans lost there live, to me it was maybe the biggest act of treason EVER!!

If you believe that Lincoln was a terrible President, you do not know the half of it.

I would recommend that you get a copy of The Red Amendment: An in Law Expose on the Fourteenth Amendment by LB Bork.

There are many factors regarding the Civil War that changed the face of the American republic permanently. Both pre and post war legislation had a dramatic effect upon the de jure Citizenship of the American Colonists.

Basically in a nutshell:

Congress is not permitted to have a standing army, the only time that Congress is allowed to build an army is during times of war. The several states on the other hand, are permitted to raise armies for their welfare as they see fit, and if these United States fall into a war, it is the duty of Congress to collect as many of the soldiers of the several states into a "temporary" fighting force so-to-speak.

When the representatives of the southern states walked out of Congress prior to the Civil War, Lincoln unlawfully set to place a De Facto "Congress" passing legislation that basically placed us under the rule of Law during times of war since the Civil War.

We have basically, lawfully speaking, been in a "war" since the Civil War. Which is why Congress can "suspend" the Constitution whenever they see fit.

But there is a way out of this mess, and there is a way back to our de jure form of Citizenship.

State Nationals.

The Global Sovereign's Handbook

The Red Amendment

I recall watching Pat Buchanan on Chris Matthews, and he pointed out that the civil war was unnecessary and that Europe also had slavery but simply legislated it out of existence. (It is unfortunate that MSNBC has boycotted Buchanan.)

reply to post by Wolf321


You forgot to mention that Lincoln instituted conscription for the first time in america and also jailed thousands of people WITHOUT TRIAL on suspicion of sedition. He even jailed the governor of Ohio!
Allowing Union forces to destroy entire cities in the south was one of his worst acts. Atlanta GA, Columbia SC, and many towns were burned to the ground on orders of Sherman, who would later be called the "father of modern warfare". Why? because Modern warfare means you have to attack the citizens (non-combatants), destroy their crops, homes and means of production and destroy their will to support the war. The sad fact is most who had their homes and livelihoods destroyed never wanted nor supported the war, they simply had to tow the line as their rich, elite planter class declared war.
If the war was fought over slavery only 6% of southerners actually owned any slaves. The rest of the destruction was just "collateral damage".
Modern warfare. They got that right.

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
Didn't the Confederates outlaw slavery in their Constitution?

No, just the international slave trade, which was already outlawed in the US at that time.

reply to post by madhadder545


Lincoln said, in an 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas "I shall endeavor to reunite the negro with his native clime, no matter how great the expense."
The war was about cotton supremacy. It should be noted Grant was one of the largest slave owners in the country, and continued to own slaves after the civil war. The emancipation proclamation only eliminated slavery in the confederate states. It was "phased out" in the north, with the final slaves being freed after the turn of the century. In addition 25 percent of the slave owners in New Orleans were actually black. A free black in the south was actually 4 times more likely to own slaves than a white. Had Obama not been raised in Kenya, where slavery is still an issue, he may not have such a reverence for Lincoln.

Lincoln had the makings of a fine battle field general.
Though what I find that is very funny, is that when people are asked about the Civil war, the first thing that comes to mind is that it was about Slavery. The real reasons for the civil war, was primarily based on States Rights, versus that of the Federal government. Lincoln used the north, and the abolutionist to get votes, by playing to them, and the southern states viewed and were told that if he was elected, he would not only free their slaves, but redistribute their property to those former slaves. They gave notice to break off from the Union, and it was going well, until it came to one fort, Fort Sumpter, as Lincoln, gave orders that it was not to be handed over. One shot and there is history. The slavery issue did not come into play, until about half way through the Civil war, as the public was growing tired and he needed their support to win the war. Up until that time, the reasons he gave was to preserve the union. When he got to Gettyburg, the reason then changed to be on the grounds of moral issues and on Slavery. That way it was no longer a fight about preserving the union, but to fight against the evils of slavery, and the abuses there of, linking the fight now to that of the Revolutionary war.
Now people stated that he burned towns, yes they did, but when they started that, it was to Win the war, not just to punish, but to win, by removing the gloves, keeping the politicians out of it, it was to where they could actually win. Just think about it, do you think the north could win, if they did not go through and start burning and destroying everything in their path? No they would have been fought to a stand still, but by doing that, it shocked the south and in the final battles, both sides were ready for peace.

reply to post by dalan.


Thanks for the insight I will for sure read
The Red Amendment: An in Law Expose on the Fourteenth Amendment by LB Bork.

I'm very open to any opinions/theorem.
I should add that I've learned something from every reply.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by madhadder545]

What did Lincoln say after his alcoholic blackout?




"I freed the who?"

I found this article and thought it was interesting, it seems a little far fetched but I'm gonna look into it more.

Uncle Tom's Cabin; or, Life Among the Lowly is an anti-slavery novel by American author Harriet Beecher Stowe. Published in 1852, the novel had a profound effect on attitudes toward African Americans and slavery in the United States, so much so in the latter case that the novel intensified the sectional conflict leading to the American Civil War

Originally posted by madhadder545
reply to post by dalan.

 

Thanks for the insight I will for sure read
The Red Amendment: An in Law Expose on the Fourteenth Amendment by LB Bork.

I'm very open to any opinions/theorem.
I should add that I've learned something from every reply.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by madhadder545]

No problem, you will enjoy the book, LB Bork uses cliff notes so you know where he gets ALL of his sources from.

And I would agree, I've definitely learned something new from everyone's replies.

Good thread.

1)He did not declare civil war to free slaves. He was pro slavery. He wanted to keep the union together.

2)He was not a great president, as the president's first and foremost job is to uphold the constitution, which he suspended. He was an amazing leader and visionary, however.

3)Say what you want, but any president who takes on the banks is okay in my books!

Ya know something, I am a Southerner... and there is a part of me that wishes we had won the Civil War. But, as hard as it is for me to do this, I am going to defend Lincoln.

He inherited a problem that was left festering from the previous Buchannan Administration...slavery and states rights... and civil disorder bordering on chaos was left to smolder out in the Missouri/Kansas states/territories. He had states that surrounded Washington,DC talking of seccession which would have endangered the capitol. Lincoln was also dealing with subterfuge from England, possibly seeking the Colonial War in America...part III. As a leader, he took steps to preserve and defend the very country and ideals it was built upon.

So yes, he suspended Habeous Corpus...he called upon local-state militias to subdue the growing rebellion and outright violence against the US Govt...as the conflict grew into an open war, Lincoln then asked for and formed an large standing army... at first with volunteers, but as the needs outpaced the resources...forced conscription.

He was decisive, bold, appealed emotional, logically, and strategically to the country for political and moral direction, and he was not afraid to change things when they were not working. He took an active interest in the activities and tragedies around him and throughout the country... he was well aware of the terrible consequences of the Civil War and showed it.

And even with the war growing more terrible with each passing month and the casualties mounting into the tens of thousands, he stayed focused, showed resolve, was able to inspire the populace, and even pushed the growth of the country westward.

He was politically savy and able to make use of the latest technology to convey confidence...ie the photos of the Capitol Dome being finished, his speech at gettysburg, the use of the telegraph and railroads, his maintaining diplomatic relations with France and using them as leverage to keep England off balance and from entering the war on the side of the Confederacy.

Lastly, Abe Lincoln showed humility and graciousness as a victor in defeating the south...he showed mercy...even to the point of enraging his political allies and counterparts in the Congress and Administration.

Due to the lines of communication, the technology of the times...I don't believe it fair to place the crimes commited by his armies in the field at his feet anymore than it is to place blame on Robert E Lee for the things done by Quantrill's Raiders or NB Forrest.

Overall, we could only hope that we would be blessed with a President that showed as much leadership and responsibility in our times of tragedy, as Lincoln demonstrated during his term of office.

As a Southerner from Atlanta no less, I am less critical of Lincoln and way more critical of what Sherman did and the Reconstruction policies after the war.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
As a Southerner from Atlanta no less, I am less critical of Lincoln and way more critical of what Sherman did and the Reconstruction policies after the war.

And that has to be the single most point that has hurt the American republic since the civil war. The so called "reconstruction period."

reply to post by sdcigarpig


You're spot on. States Rights.
Killed my post as you were quicker to it.