The Legend of Abraham Lincoln as Seen by Tolstoy (1 Viewer)

[jazzeum]

Following up on what Spitfrnd and the Baron said as to causes, it was Lincoln's view that the minority should not be able to dictate to the majority and that is, in essence, what the seceding states wanted to do by withdrawing from the Union and his goal was to preserve the Union and enshrine the ideals that are in the Gettysburg Address.

 

[Capitolron]

Well as a Southerner - I can tell you that I have nothing but the most sincere respect and admiration for LINCOLN.

While I do admire my Southern Generals - Lee, Jackson, Longstreet and Hood and I admire my homeland - the South ( although strongly personally disagreeing with Slavery). I believe LINCOLN would had been a great President over the Reconstruction and brought back a more united Country had he lived through his second term.

Actually the ills of the South that still somewhat linger today could have been properly put to rest with President Lincoln's hand over the Reconstruction.

No question that the North fought a TOTAL WAR over the South that would have been by today's standards declaired WAR CRIMES. But, I am not going there - although there is a great HISTORY CHANNEL program on Sherman's March to the Sea which is very well done and worth watching.

To me PRESIDENT LINCOLN was the right man at the right time in our Country's History. As UK Reb pointed out the words of his Second Inaugural Address is wonderful and For me something to see at the Lincoln Memorial - those words just grips you: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/lincoln2.htm

I spent time studying LINCOLN in College and that great mind of his - truely makes him exceptional by all standards.

He was a great man even from a Southern point of view - IMHO.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Well as a Southerner - I can tell you that I have nothing but the most sincere respect and admiration for LINCOLN.
.....

Fair enough; I would just note that, as Reb correctly stated, many Southerners, myself included, have a someone different view. Some of us have also studied Lincoln. I think mine is less critical than most of those but I have already expressed my view so no need to repeat it.

 

[Peter Reuss]

In reading Shelby Foote's trilogy on the Civil War, I was constantly amazed at how disliked Lincoln was in his own day - even in the North. Many now think of him as great, but the reality was that if Sherman hadn't captured Atlanta there's serious question as to whether he would have been re-elected!

Many viewed him as a backwoods baboon, thought it's interesting to see how he was able to 'silence' many critics (sometimes by making them ambassadors to weird places). Lincoln knew how to play politics!

Ask the average person the street in 1863 whether Lincoln was a great man - I doubt many would have agreed. Many argue that he meddled unhelpfully in the war effort - especially in the east.

Is it possible that part of his 'aura' came because he was assassinated?

This isn't to take anything away from Lincoln. Sometimes I think that history views people differently than they would have been viewed in their own context.

 

[jazzeum]

Pete,

I guess we'll never know if he wouldn't have been re-elected. I think he would have been but who is to know, particularly because the trend at that time was to have only one term Presidents (for the most part). Also, I don't know if the country would have entrusted the future to McClellan (thank goodness).

Regarding whether he was a great war president, I believe some scholars do believe that he was and I know that James McPherson has a book coming out about it in the Fall. Just as now, I don't know if we can rely on the man in the street to give us a good feeling about situations.

Based on my recent reading of Team of Rivals, those who came in close contact with him and who underestimated or depreciated him initially usually came away with a different opinion over time.

Had he lived I believe his aura would have been enhanced in his reconstruction efforts. Unfortunately, we'll never know.

 

[Combat]

It would be difficult to criticize Lincoln. However, if there were any question I have it would concern whether he believed the conflict was inevitable or actually sought it out and therefore made little effort to diffuse the situation after taking office. He almost placed the question entirely in the hands of the south as though he had no influence on the matter. In some respects he may have even baited the south into taking the first acts of aggression at Ft. Sumter. After that war was inevitable.

It seems apparent though that a lot of fault derived from the founding fathers and their inability to abolish slavery in whole or through some phase out of that institution beginning in the 18th century. Most of them knew it was wrong and inconsistent with their own ideals of liberty and freedom, but they did not have the will to end it. Deferring the hard issues to future generations - a time honored trait of our politicians.

 

[Spitfrnd]

.... if there were any question I have it would concern whether he believed the conflict was inevitable or actually sought it out and therefore made little effort to diffuse the situation after taking office. He almost placed the question entirely in the hands of the south as though he had no influence on the matter. In some respects he may have even baited the south into taking the first acts of aggression at Ft. Sumter. After that war was inevitable.

Yes, I share the same concerns.

It seems apparent though that a lot of fault derived from the founding fathers and their inability to abolish slavery in whole or through some phase out of that institution beginning in the 18th century. Most of them knew it was wrong and inconsistent with their own ideals of liberty and freedom, but they did not have the will to end it. Deferring the hard issues to future generations - a time honored trait of our politicians.

The trait is time honored indeed but I am not sure we would have had 13 states otherwise. If we are blaming someone for slavery, why not the Dutch? I know it is getting afield here but interestingly the first black captives imported to Virginia became "servants." They went to work in tobacco fields alongside other white indentured servants from England. Conditions were equally hard for both groups, but servitude could end. Early Virginia blacks gained their freedom and a few actually prospered. One, named Anthony Johnson . . . arrived at Jamestown in 1621, survived his own time of servitude, married, and acquired land and indentured servants. Of course not all slaves faired as well and in general the practice was abominable, as was the then current English custom of rounding up, beating and setting the poor to brutal jobs with little hope of redemption.

 

[theBaron]

...It seems apparent though that a lot of fault derived from the founding fathers and their inability to abolish slavery in whole or through some phase out of that institution beginning in the 18th century. Most of them knew it was wrong and inconsistent with their own ideals of liberty and freedom, but they did not have the will to end it...

True, that they weren't able to resolve the issue, but I don't think it was simply a lack of (moral) courage to address it. There was a very real possibility that the newly-independent colonies would not have united, had the anti-slavery proponents been able to stand firm on that demand. I think they made compromises, to get the best possible outcome, from their perspective and position in time.

I do agree with you observation about politicians and their ability to push hard decisions off till after the next election.

Prost!
Brad