Tide Fans Opinions about Abraham Lincoln

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
22,456
3,962
287
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
But, it's easy to look back, see the number of casualties wrought, damage done, and then blame him for the original decision. That was my point.
But, who is doing the look back? The casualties and the damage occurred during Lincoln's presidency and, to a large extent, were foreseeable. The ascendancy to a world power occurred about 150 years after Lincoln.

Lincoln is credited with keeping the nation together. I've always asked why was that so imporant.
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
37,640
34,291
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
To the victor go the spoils. And the victors always get to write the history of the matter. So, the story of Lincoln is no different in this regard. When I was younger, I viewed him as a great American hero who rose from poverty and became a great leader. As I've gotten older and learned how the world really works, I see him much differently.

Everyone can have an opinion. Lincoln did some good things, and some good things resulted from his presidency. But he did some bad things, as well. Evil things that were no different than what George W. Bush did, and so many of us view him with disdain. And the thing about Lincoln is, he did it to his own people. Slavery coming to an end was a good thing. But the Civil War wasn't started over slavery. Sadam Hussien being arrested and killed, and his brutality against his own people being ended was a good thing. But the Iraq War wasn't started over those things.

In conclusion, I view Lincoln no differently than I view Obama, or Bush (I or II), or FDR, or JFK. Flawed men who put their party's interest over that of the country, at all costs. And I agree with RedStar. The greatest president this country has ever had was George Washington. And we've drove it off a cliff since then.
 

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,801
19,176
337
Hooterville, Vir.
Given that the country wouldn't exist anymore without Lincoln, it is hard to argue with his status as one of the country's greatest presidents.
That is just logically fallacious.
Great Britain did not cease to exist once the 13 American colonies seceded. Sweden did not cease to exist once Norway seceded from Sweden. The Czech Republic did not cease to exist once Slovakia seceded from Czechoslovakia. Malaysia did not cease to exist once Singapore seceded from Malaya. Great Britain did not cease to exist once Ireland seceded from Great Britain, etc.
The United States would have consisted of those states that wanted to be members of the Union. It is difficult to see how that would be a bad thing.
Lawrence Keitt of South Carolina put it this way, "It has been asked, if any state can secede at her pleasure, what guarantee is there of the Union? I answer none, none whatsoever, except common interest, good faith, and public opinion. And there should be none about these. When these will not avail, the Union is accursed, and only a slave or a tyrant should cling to it."

If one wishes to engage in counterfactuals, then it is at least possible that a smaller United States would not have intervened in World War I, preventing the Allies from imposing a harshly punitive Treaty of Versailles on a defeated Germany, which created such outrage among the German people that enabled a demagogue like Hitler to come to power, resulting in the deaths of 53 million people.
 

CrimsonNan

BamaNation Hall of Fame
Oct 19, 2003
6,501
46
0
Vestavia Hills, Alabama, USA
I'm disappointed that a Southerner would email a national tv broadcast and basically reaffirm the stereotype of a Southerner. :rolleyes:

I think a presidency is best judged by the results it achieves and how they hold up over time. Lincoln had to make incredibly difficult decisions, many of which were horribly unpopular, that ultimately resulted in this nation remaining one country. The Southern states certainly suffered the brunt of the suffering, but that is what was necessary to ultimately achieve what I consider to be a good thing - United States that became the greatest nation on the planet. So, I can certainly understand the opinion that Lincoln was our greatest president so far.
He asks people to e-mail him at the end of his show every night. So what was wrong with someone doing it? Didn't this woman have a right to HER opinion as well as he does? So she disagreed with him? So do I. My problem with him is his arrogance and the way he butts in and interrupts his guests AFTER he asks them a question. I only watch his show for FOR his guests - not him.
 

SavannahDare

Hall of Fame
Jul 23, 2004
15,166
317
102
Gulf Breeze, Florida
But, who is doing the look back? The casualties and the damage occurred during Lincoln's presidency and, to a large extent, were foreseeable. The ascendancy to a world power occurred about 150 years after Lincoln.

Lincoln is credited with keeping the nation together. I've always asked why was that so imporant.
We only have the option of looking back. None of us was alive during that time and let us remember that history books are written by people with agendas.

We can only look at the end result.

As for your Germany and Japan references, I think that's ludicrous on your part. You can choose to start with the Japanese Empire and Hitler; everyone has to choose a "starting point" in how they view any evolution, and any of us can fantasize about how things might have been different had the USA not been a strong enough country to save the collective arses of the allies, but it's nothing but fantasy because it's not how things actually have occurred. It's pointless in my opinion.

Could the USA have split and one of those fantasy countries risen to the sort of power and influence the USA has enjoyed in the 20th century? No one knows, but I would imagine (there goes that fantasy again) the answer is "no."
 

SavannahDare

Hall of Fame
Jul 23, 2004
15,166
317
102
Gulf Breeze, Florida
He asks people to e-mail him at the end of his show every night. So what was wrong with someone doing it? Didn't this woman have a right to HER opinion as well as he does? So she disagreed with him? So do I. My problem with him is his arrogance and the way he butts in and interrupts his guests AFTER he asks them a question. I only watch his show for FOR his guests - not him.
There's nothing "wrong" with it. It's just that talking about tarring and feathering someone, even in jest, makes me think of a very backward, narrow-minded, bigoted way of thinking. And that's my opinion.
 
I

It's On A Slab

Guest
We only have the option of looking back. None of us was alive during that time and let us remember that history books are written by people with agendas.

We can only look at the end result.

As for your Germany and Japan references, I think that's ludicrous on your part. You can choose to start with the Japanese Empire and Hitler; everyone has to choose a "starting point" in how they view any evolution, and any of us can fantasize about how things might have been different had the USA not been a strong enough country to save the collective arses of the allies, but it's nothing but fantasy because it's not how things actually have occurred. It's pointless in my opinion.

Could the USA have split and one of those fantasy countries risen to the sort of power and influence the USA has enjoyed in the 20th century? No one knows, but I would imagine (there goes that fantasy again) the answer is "no."
I'm curious (hypothetically speaking) as to how long a nation like the Confederacy would have survived on its own. An agrarian plutocracy run by a small cabal of individuals whose wealth was derived solely from the labor of slaves, and a country otherwise full of poor white subsistence farmers, and a very weak industrial base. Would have been ripe for a land grab by the British or the French.

Were it not for the incompetence of McClellan, the war would have concluded fairly early.
 

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
22,456
3,962
287
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
We only have the option of looking back. None of us was alive during that time and let us remember that history books are written by people with agendas.
That's not the point I'm making. People who claim Lincoln was great overlook his violations of the Constitution (that occurred then) and the deaths of a large percentage of the population (that occurred then) and treat him like an American saint because slavery ended (not one of his goals until it was politically conventient) and the country eventually became a superpower (some 150 years later).

We can only look at the end result.
When is the end result determined? By things under Lincoln's control? Or by things that occurred many, many generations later?

As for your Germany and Japan references, I think that's ludicrous on your part. You can choose to start with the Japanese Empire and Hitler; everyone has to choose a "starting point" in how they view any evolution, and any of us can fantasize about how things might have been different had the USA not been a strong enough country to save the collective arses of the allies, but it's nothing but fantasy because it's not how things actually have occurred. It's pointless in my opinion.
Ludicrous? I said I was exagerating to make a point. Don't like those examples? How about W? If Iraq become a freer, more properous country 100 years from now, can one give Bush credit and ignore all the death and destruction and illegalities that occurred under his watch? For those who excessively praise Lincoln, the answer would be "yes".

Could the USA have split and one of those fantasy countries risen to the sort of power and influence the USA has enjoyed in the 20th century? No one knows, but I would imagine (there goes that fantasy again) the answer is "no."
Well, we have a Constitution that we could follow or ignore. We've ignored it. Is it hard to imagine a country that adhered to it? We had that once; it is not fantasy.
 
Last edited:

RedStar

Hall of Fame
Jan 28, 2005
9,623
0
0
41
The Shoals, AL
Now...now...RedStar...don't tell me that YOU'VE never yelled at the TV, especially during a Bama game, especially when we were playing Auburn? :)
Yeah, but that stuff's important ;) Yelling at the officials or for my team during a game means something. I'm 99.9% sure the team does better when I'm standing up screaming at them in my living room ;)
 
Last edited:

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
22,456
3,962
287
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
That is just logically fallacious.
Great Britain did not cease to exist once the 13 American colonies seceded. Sweden did not cease to exist once Norway seceded from Sweden. The Czech Republic did not cease to exist once Slovakia seceded from Czechoslovakia. Malaysia did not cease to exist once Singapore seceded from Malaya. Great Britain did not cease to exist once Ireland seceded from Great Britain, etc.
The United States would have consisted of those states that wanted to be members of the Union. It is difficult to see how that would be a bad thing.
Lawrence Keitt of South Carolina put it this way, "It has been asked, if any state can secede at her pleasure, what guarantee is there of the Union? I answer none, none whatsoever, except common interest, good faith, and public opinion. And there should be none about these. When these will not avail, the Union is accursed, and only a slave or a tyrant should cling to it."

If one wishes to engage in counterfactuals, then it is at least possible that a smaller United States would not have intervened in World War I, preventing the Allies from imposing a harshly punitive Treaty of Versailles on a defeated Germany, which created such outrage among the German people that enabled a demagogue like Hitler to come to power, resulting in the deaths of 53 million people.
Very good points.

Here's what gets me about judging his presidency: Like Lincoln or don't like him, have some rational basis for one's evaluation. When I studied Llincoln in college, my professor treated him like a saint. At the time, I bought in because the material presented was one-sided. In the ensuing years I continued to read on the subject and got a fuller picture of the man. I stayed in contact with my professor and we periodically resume our debate. To this day he still dodges the questions I've asked in this thread about the value of the Constitution and the lives lost and what is so sacrosanct about an preserved union.
 

CrimsonNan

BamaNation Hall of Fame
Oct 19, 2003
6,501
46
0
Vestavia Hills, Alabama, USA
There's nothing "wrong" with it. It's just that talking about tarring and feathering someone, even in jest, makes me think of a very backward, narrow-minded, bigoted way of thinking. And that's my opinion.
I'm not the one who e-mailed him I just said it in here, and I make no apology for saying it. I don't remember what the woman said who e-mailed him. She simply disagreed with him. And if you can't stand jest - IN HERE - where can you stand it? As many things as we Tide Fans say seriuosly and in jest in here, so what?
 

rizolltizide

Hall of Fame
Jan 4, 2003
14,816
19
157
58
st pete, fl
There is not a topic in American history in which the location of one's birth has a greater influence on how one sees the past. There are exceptions on both sides, but being born north or south of the Mason-Dixon tends to determine how one views that conflict, and thus, its progenitor, Abraham Lincoln.

As dispassionately as I can say, Lincoln was a great politician, but not a great statesman. He looked after the interests of his party, above and beyond the interests of his country. He was one of America's greatest rhetoricians, but not its greatest political philosopher. The man could turn a phrase.

On the other hand, he launched the war which killed more Americans than all others put together. He ran roughshod over the limits the Constitution placed on the Federal government. One of his leading motivations, in his own words, was to protect Federal revenues and northern Republican business interests. He ordered the arrest of members of a state legislature before they could even commit the crime of voting the wrong way. He ordered the arrest and banishment of a (northern, US) political opponent for what he said. He ordered the closing of newspapers because of what they printed. He committed these acts in order to preserve the Union, which is not a bad thing, but his means do not justify his ends. I tend to agree with John Randolph of Roanoke, who said "It was always my opinion that Union was the means of securing the safety, liberty, and welfare of the confederacy, and not in itself an end to which these should be sacrificed."

The bottom line is that Lincoln's legacy in not an unmixed one.
Mind if I borrow that line on occasion?
 

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,801
19,176
337
Hooterville, Vir.
I'm curious (hypothetically speaking) as to how long a nation like the Confederacy would have survived on its own. An agrarian plutocracy run by a small cabal of individuals whose wealth was derived solely from the labor of slaves, and a country otherwise full of poor white subsistence farmers, and a very weak industrial base.
You mean like the US in 1776? The US population in 1776 was around 2.5 million. The Confederate States had around 9 million. The land area of the Confederate States was larger in 1861 than that of the US in 1776.
The US in 1776 restricted the voting franchise to white male property owners, generally a freehold worth £40. The CS at least had eliminated the property owning requirement, so the franchise was broader in the CSA in 1861 than it had been in the US in 1776. And wouldn't Jefferson, Washington, Madison be described as a "small cabal of individuals whose wealth was derived solely from the labor of slaves?"
The industrial base in the Confederacy was broader than it had been in the US in 1776. Indeed, one of the reasons northern business interests opposed secession was the loss of southern customers and the rise of southern competition. The south had to be kept as an internal colony.

Were it not for the incompetence of McClellan, the war would have concluded fairly early.
Debatable, but who put that man in command of all the Union armies? The greatest American President, n'est-ce pas?
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
61,417
53,256
287
56
East Point, Ga, USA
You mean like the US in 1776? The US population in 1776 was around 2.5 million. The Confederate States had around 9 million. The land area of the Confederate States was larger in 1861 than that of the US in 1776.
The US in 1776 restricted the voting franchise to white male property owners, generally a freehold worth £40. The CS at least had eliminated the property owning requirement, so the franchise was broader in the CSA in 1861 than it had been in the US in 1776. And wouldn't Jefferson, Washington, Madison be described as a "small cabal of individuals whose wealth was derived solely from the labor of slaves?"
The industrial base in the Confederacy was broader than it had been in the US in 1776. Indeed, one of the reasons northern business interests opposed secession was the loss of southern customers and the rise of southern competition. The south had to be kept as an internal colony.

Debatable, but who put that man in command of all the Union armies? The greatest American President, n'est-ce pas?
comparing 1776 and the 1860s is apples v. oranges
 

rizolltizide

Hall of Fame
Jan 4, 2003
14,816
19
157
58
st pete, fl
He was a pretty good dude. If if weren't for him, we wouldn't have the Lincoln Monument, the $5 bill, there'd only be three heads on Mt Rushmore, we'd only have a one sided penny, and I certainly couldn't pimp my Continental Mark V at the yacht club.