Abe Lincoln.....Hero or Villain?

This was started on another thread but I think it needs a thread of its on.

Whats everyones opinion?

Originally posted by MCory1
On a side note, I would like to see more info regarding what you--Amuk--were talking about Lincoln.

I will sum it up by saying that until Lincoln the Union was made up of free states joined together voluntarily. After him the Union became the Mafia. Once you joined your only way out was death. Most of the overpowering of the Federal Government springs from this seed.

He destroyed any illusion of states rights, he destroyed the America of our Founding Fathers and he should have been shot.

I can only sit up for a few minutes at a time but will flesh out this opinion a bit more tomorrow.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by Amuk]

Source
Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865), sometimes called Abe Lincoln and nicknamed Honest Abe, the Rail Splitter, and the Great Emancipator, was the 16th (1861–1865) President of the United States, and the first president from the Republican Party.

Source
Abraham Lincoln's position on freeing the slaves is often surprising and controversial today, despite the frequency and clarity with which he sometimes stated it in the speeches that are better known today. He is well known for his objections to slavery and his support in 1865 of the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery. Not as well-known is his repeated expression that slavery had to be tolerated in states where it already existed. Before and even early during the Civil War, he stated often that the Constitution prohibited the federal government from abolishing slavery where it already existed, but that he was intent on prohibiting its spread to the territories. Though he thought it was essentially a reaffirmation of terms already in the Constitution, Lincoln was a driving force behind the "compromise" Corwin amendment that would have explicitly prohibited congressional interference with slavery in states where it already existed. His later Emancipation Proclamations and his support of the Thirteenth Amendment are thus commonly regarded as being inconsistent with his earlier stated position.

Source
Perhaps Lincoln's most important contribution as President, outside of his military leadership as Commander-in-Chief, was his signing of the Homestead Act in 1862, though Lincoln had little do with the drafting of the act or its passage in Congress. Considered by some to be the most important piece of legislation in American history, the Act made available millions of acres of government-held land in the midwest for purchase at very low cost. Any male over 21 could obtain a Homestead tract of 160 acres (647,000 m²) simply by filing a claim and paying a processing fee of $18. The land had then to be lived upon, built up, and improved, for a period of no less than 5 years. Many were more than willing to take up this challenge.

After the "Sioux Uprising" of August 1862 in Minnesota, Lincoln was presented with 303 death warrants for convicted Santee Dakota who had taken part. Of these, Lincoln only affirmed 39 men for execution (one was later reprieved). Lincoln was strongly chastised for this action in Minnesota and throughout his administration because many felt that all 303 Native Americans should have been executed. Reaction in Minnesota was so strong concerning Lincoln's leniency toward the Native Americans that Republicans lost their political strength in the state in 1864. Lincoln's response was, "I could not afford to hang men for votes."

members.aol.com...
home.att.net...

It was Lincoln's intention to return the union to it's Republican form.
You gotta understand, when Congress didn't convene after Lincoln's election, Lincoln was basically king. By not showing up on that first Monday in December after Lincoln's election, the Legislative form of government was dismantled through Sine Die, which is Latin for, "You idiots just let the sun set on your dumb arses!"

The Civil Police Action was eventually concluded, and Lincoln was going to restore the Republic, but was killed before he could do that. This was coincidentally fortunate for the bankers and other powers as, with martial law never recinded and the silly Constitution partially hidden, they stood to make more money and gather more power. And, they have.

I concur with Thomas Crowne. Lincoln did what he had to do for the best possible outcome (of the whole nation). And history proves he was right. That is, if you support the country we now know and love. The United States, or the states of this nation would never have been the superpower it nowis, had they separated. Lincoln had some kind of ancient wisdom goin' on. I say thank God.

Like TC said, Lincoln had no intention of keeping hold to those war-time powers. He was layin' them down to return to civilized rule.

But what if a State wished to leave the Union and the people also agreed with such a thing? Would it be fair to go to war with that state and bring it back into the Union or should it be allowed to leave?


Majic's Political Easter Egg: Be the first to post the name of the political party Lincoln was a member of before joining the Republican Party in this thread and send Majic a U2U with a link to your post, and you will be awarded 500 PTS points.

[edit on 7/15/2006 by Majic]

A state, or several states would need to go about it the proper way, and the Southern states did not.

To make it simple, the state(s) would need to show how the union was in violation of the contract it had with the state(s), and would need to allow proper time for the union to correct itself.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The United States, or the states of this nation would never have been the superpower it nowis, had they separated.

And how would that be a bad thing? Is it better for us to have our Army in dozens of country's, interfering in the internal affairs of every country on Earth, etc; and taxing the hell out of us for the privilege?

Do you think that was what Washington, Jefferson, etc wanted us to become?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
A state, or several states would need to go about it the proper way, and the Southern states did not.

And do you HONESTLY think there could be, under ANY circumstances, a way that would not have lead to war? Then or now?

No matter how good his intentions were he turned the states from free partners to the slaves of the Federal Government a trend that has grown worse every year since.

He destroyed the Government by the people and replaced it with the Government by Rifle point from Washington DC.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by Amuk]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Like TC said, Lincoln had no intention of keeping hold to those war-time powers. He was layin' them down to return to civilized rule.

Is civilized rule where if half of the members of a club wish to quit the other half kills them till they agree to stay in?

Amuk, it wasn't Lincoln who destroyed the union, and it wasn't Lincoln who prevented the republic from being reformed after the police action; that man's name is Andrew Johnson.

As far as whether or not we could have left the union without war, there is no way of knowing at this point, so there is no reason for conjecture. As far as now, we are too dumbed down to see a problem as things are.

Once again, Lincoln wanted to restore the union, the Republic, not destroy it.

You might see it as Divine intervention, as the nation was strong enough to help the Europeans in their time of need during WWI, and then later in WWII.

Lincoln was overrated imho,

Give me Teddy anyday!

That's not the point, Ed.
Step away from the whiskey bottle!

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Once again, Lincoln wanted to restore the union, the Republic, not destroy it.

No matter what he wanted, he was still the first step on the down hill slide. He presided over the funeral of States Rights. What he might or might not have done if he lived doesn't really matter at this time.

If my wife leaves me and files for divorce, it doesn't matter if our kids would be better with a mother and father both or even if I was the greatest husband and father on Earth. I STILL wouldn't have the right to beat her into submission and force her to come back home.

A Government is ONLY legitimate as long as those who are being governed agree that it is.

People on this board often compare Bush to Hitler where Bush and Lincoln would be a lot better comparision.

They both lied to the public about why they went to war

They both invaded a country to bring them freedom at gunpoint whither they wanted it or not.

They both gave the Government powers unheard of before to "protect" the people.

Thanks Amuk, I really appreciate you starting this thread up.

From what I've seen so far, I'm halfway torn. In spite of the flip-flopping on the slavery issue, and in spite of what it meant against state's rights, that's one issue I'm glad the federal government overstepped it's bounds on. While state's rights are important in my book, I feel individual rights are moreso in most cases. From that aspect, Lincoln gets the hero vote on my ballot.

To contradict myself somewhat, I do agree that forcing the southern states to stay as part of the union was giving the federal government too much power. Playing on Amuk's analogy a little further, why would you even want to be with a wife (or husband) who wanted to divorce you for whatever reason? You can only try to work things out so far, and when it won't work, there's nothing you can do other than bring each other down.

Granted, the US probably wouldn't have become the world super power it is today, but we'll never know exactly what might have happened. There may have been a strong alliance between the north and the south--an "agree to disagree, let's still do what we can" type pact if you will--and any negative effects may have been negligible. It may even have been beneficial, with both nations working things out on their own and not worrying so much about how the other wants to run the show.

Everyone has the good things they did and the bad things they did. Anyone who's looked with a purely objective eye can find things Hitler did that were actually good for society, and they can find things that Ghandi did that were detrimental. I'm still leaning towards Lincoln being good overall--again, individual rights more important than state's rights--but that's definitely no longer as strong as it was last week.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
A state, or several states would need to go about it the proper way, and the Southern states did not.

To make it simple, the state(s) would need to show how the union was in violation of the contract it had with the state(s), and would need to allow proper time for the union to correct itself.

But why should a contract be binding on a people 200years down the line? If a majority or even a super majority wishes to leave, why should they have to stay?

Lincoln was a hero. And unlike Bush he WAS a Christian--he was converted in 1863 after Gettysburg.

Read "Fifty Years in the 'Church' of Rome" by Charles Chiniquy. The Jesuits were trying to tear this country apart by civil war--and they failed. You have to understand that the Vatican considers the Constitution to be anathema--the Vatican wants to control people, and the Constitution guarantees freedom.

Samuel F. B. Morse was in Rome and he learned of a plot to destroy America, and he told Lincoln about it.

When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus he had a constitutional right to do so.

I also read somewhere else that Lincoln was wanting to go EASY on the southern states after the war.

The South wanted a pro-slavery president, Stephen Douglas. Douglas lost to Lincoln. That ticked off the South, so they started seceding, with South Carolina going first. The South fired the FIRST shot at Fort Sumter. I don't see how it could be the war of Northern aggression when the South started it!

If you study Lincoln's first inaugural address, he alludes to people wanting to tear the country apart.

Not only that, but after the war he visited Jefferson Davis' wife, held her baby, and said that he forgave them. Hardly the tyrant he's been made out to be.

Even 140 years later he's being slandered--which is sad.

I forgot to add that Lincoln did NOT tell the public about the Vatican's hand in it because it would have turned into a religious war--and become even bloodier. The Vatican backed the South. He kept that part quiet for a reason.

During the trial of his assassins and their co-conspirators, the government played down the Catholic role.

I'm for states' rights. Thing is a lot of people need to look at ALL the circumstances.

Isn't it interesting how it was north vs. south, and not one state here, another there--like a checkerboard? I think the ultimate plan was to annex the South to Mexico and the North to Canada. Bye-bye USA.

Not only that, but after the war he visited Jefferson Davis' wife, held her baby, and said that he forgave them. Hardly the tyrant he's been made out to be.

How can someone be forgiven when they haven't done anything wrong?

7 of the 11 Southern states left while Buchanan was still in office, the other 5 left after Fort Sumpter. One might ask why didn't Buchanan do anything to subdue the southern people who simply wanted to be left alone while he was still in office. He often told us that under the CONstitution there was nothing he could do about it. But yet Lincoln somehow just did what he wanted whether it was CONstitutional or not (even though he had to position the south to fire the first shots by not leaving soverign territory belonging to S. Carolina)

Does anyone find it strange that Lincoln fought to free the slaves, who in their right mind just wanted to be left alone. While at the same time forcing other people into submission, who also just wanted to be left alone. I say what a hypocrite, and one of our worst presidents along with FDR and Wilson.

This quote from East Coast Kid seems to be typical of many of the posts rationalizing Lincoln's fascism:

...Lincoln did what he had to do for the best possible outcome (of the whole nation). And history proves he was right. That is, if you support the country we now know and love..."

This is what I call the George Hanover argument. (I assume that all you historians know who George Hanover was). This is exactly what George Hanover and his sidekick Lord North believed when they fought those other evil slave-owning traitors who wanted to tear the republic (oops, I meant empire) apart. In this case, the "traitors" won, and, instead of reading about their trial and execution, we now look upon George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson et. al. as heroes and, indeed, demigods.

And well we should, of course. People have a right to form free association, or at least that's what it says in the Declaration of Independence. The South was doing exactly what the thirteen colonies did 85 years earlier; although their motives might've been different, the same rules apply.

If you haven't read Horace Greeley's "errant sisters, go in peace" editorial, I suggest you do so.

I find it rather sad that so many Americans are anti-freedom that they consistently vote two of the most anti-freedom crypto-fascists in history, Lincoln and FDR, as "greatest" presidents.

O tempora! O mores!

Majic's Political Easter Egg: Be the first to post the name of the political party Lincoln was a member of before joining the Republican Party in this thread and send Majic a U2U with a link to your post, and you will be awarded 500 PTS points.

[edit on 7/15/2006 by Majic]

Lincoln was a Whig