Lincoln: National Hero or Tyrant

[Kscott]

This is a history/Political question:

Okay, no admitely he ended up doing some important things, but thats of little importance to me. Forget the End result of his presidency, lets focus on the man and his actions.


Motivation:

It seems evedent that throughout his presidency and even before it his main goal was strenghtening national government. I wander if he even really cared about slavery. He allowed slave states in the Union, and gettysburg adress, freeing slaves, only applied to the southern states that had left the unioin. It was more of an act of cripling an enemy than anything else, as until the war was finished it meant nothing.


Actions:

Many hate Bush because of a certain disregard for the Bill of Rights(*patriot act*). If Bush is guilty of this, then Lincoln was much worse. He basically put the Country under marshall law. This to me is not a very good act. In the end he had made national gov much stronger than it had been intended, and the founding fathers may have turned in their grave...

So,

Is suspending the Constitution in times of War acceptable? If the government is based of the Constitution, shouldnt it be adequate to run the country, no matter the times. If not an admenment is needed.

[John I Tzimisces]

well, seeing as how the country was in danger of being destroyed from what it is as we know it, i think lincolns actions are appropriate. His motivations were nationalistic as well as humanitarian, to a certain degree (ie, slavery). Keep in mind, please, he never TOLD sherman to burn a swath thru georgia.

It wasn't any war, mind you. What is suspending the constitution compared to losing its purpose altogether?

[Kscott]

True, but I believe the constitution should be upheld in all times and should be able to protect the country. If not it is flawed and needs changing.

Also, the country wasnt in danger. He knew full well that the South was losing power and very upset with it. He said himself that if the people feel that the government wasnt representing him, then they had the right to withdraw.

The war could have been won without turning america it to a part time dictatorship. Also, I think the civil war could have been avoided all together. Lincoln stood for central power and thats something the South couldnt stand for.

I have digressed a little, but ultimately, I believe things could have been handled better before and through out the war. If his standard is followed, then America could easily end up with a true Dictator in the future, when a mojor conflict arrives.

[John I Tzimisces]

I disagree on the true dicatator issue. If the mainland is invaded, it is feasible, but there really isn't a force outside of china or MAYBE russia that could commit an operation of that scale.

[Kscott]

Not it the immediate future no. But, china is strenghting, Indias population is booming, and terrorism is growingmore daring.. I wouldnt be suprised if in my life time America has to face a seriuos invasion, but in the end arguin this is irelevant. If the situation DID arise, and Lincolns example followed, then we could have a dictatorship on our hands. Are you disagreeing with this?

[John I Tzimisces]

I doubt an invasion would occur, actually. Something akin to a nuclear attack, mayhaps. An invasion for a nation without an established navy and complete dominance of the oceans would be a Very, VERY, costly undertaking.
Even then, a true dictator would have trouble coming into power in this country. I'm pretty sure our country has the longest lasting written constitution in the world, and when something like that has been in control for over 200 years, its kinda ingrained in a culture. Then look at generation y, the generation that will be tomorrows politicians, has any other generation grown up with more freedom and information access?

[Kscott]

Okay, Okay, Agree to disagree..., simply because were getting of topic. So back to the main topic. Is Lincoln a dictator or national hero?

[John I Tzimisces]

I say national hero. Why? Say he abided by the constitution TO THE LETTER. Is there a very real possibility he would have been replaced in office by that general fellow, who wanted a ceasefire, or worse, would DC have fallen? I think so. No, instead, he initiated the flexibility of the document in order to protect the primacy of the federal government and the unity of our country. I would not be saying this if he put laws into effect that had a permanent effect relating to his rather sweeping censorship and political power, which, of course, he didn't.

[Fabolous]

Well if it is a question between tyrant and hero I will go hero, for he is definatly that. Even if he was only acting in his own interests, he still did things that make him a hero. Now that said he was a dictator for a short period, but he handled it well. I would probably never like to see a dictatorship in todays world, nor do I like them in the past. Did he ruin the country? No. Did he abuse his power? I don't think so. What he did I don't like, but I still find him to be a hero.

[Kscott]

Well, it goes down to does the end justify the means? I mean, its very possible that after a few centuries of Nazi rule, there would be a very peacful(all northern european) world society. They may be very happy with the end resuly, but would that justify what the Nazis did?(of course all hypothetical.

[John I Tzimisces]

Compare it to Cincinatus, really. Handed his power back to the people after his dictatorship. Pretty good comparison if you'd ask me.

[Fabolous]

Well, it goes down to does the end justify the means? I mean, its very possible that after a few centuries of Nazi rule, there would be a very peacful(all northern european) world society. They may be very happy with the end resuly, but would that justify what the Nazis did?(of course all hypothetical.

That depends on your Nazis, if they slaughtered all the jews still, then no. Becuase that would be abusing their power and ruining the country. However if they are nice Nazi who seize power legally(for the most part anyway), without illegal actions then and they rule fairly, then yes. But peace loving Nazi isn't what your asking about, it is the ones who commited horrible and crimes, and their rule is a product of that.

[Kscott]

Dint really hand the power back.... His reforms to central strength were permanent and he was still very much in charge until he was killed...

[John I Tzimisces]

If anything he set precedents, but opposition politicians haven't been imprisoned since his presidency, nor the sweeping censorship, not that its possible with the internet...

[Kscott]

That depends on your Nazis, if they slaughtered all the jews still, then no. Becuase that would be abusing their power and ruining the country. However if they are nice Nazi who seize power legally(for the most part anyway), without illegal actions then and they rule fairly, then yes. But peace loving Nazi isn't what your asking about, it is the ones who commited horrible and crimes, and their rule is a product of that.

Too clarify.

Say the nazis wiped out every one who wasnt blond haired blue-eyed. A couple hundred yeares later, people live happily and there are no wars as a result of a one race, one culture, one religion, one country. People living in this bliss would enjoy the end result, but would it still be okay, even though horribable crimes had been comitted to get them there...

[Nationalist_Cause]

It should be made known to all that Lincoln did not view blacks as equals and did not want to see them empowered in any meaningful way. Here is Honest Abe: "Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit this." An odd statement from a president often regarded as a saint by modern Americans.

He also suspended habeas corpus, jailed citizens without trial, unconstitutionally summoned the armed forces, and engaged the states of the Union in a horrific four year bloodbath. I wouldn't say he was a tyrant, but the evidence certainly points in that direction. But his actions set American government on the path to a centralized unitary state when, clearly, the framers envisioned a federal republic with strong state governments who could resist federal consolidation.

[Kscott]

Exactly, It is strange to me that he is revered so. I mean he has a monument that looks just like the statue of Zeus(or what it did look like..).

[allthesedamnnamesaretaken]

Not it the immediate future no. But, china is strenghting, Indias population is booming, and terrorism is growingmore daring.. I wouldnt be suprised if in my life time America has to face a seriuos invasion, but in the end arguin this is irelevant. If the situation DID arise, and Lincolns example followed, then we could have a dictatorship on our hands. Are you disagreeing with this?

invading america is the last thing anyone wants to do. it's a country where guns are legal, and nearly everyone has them, and knows how to use them. most gun owners in america are probably better marksmen than trained soldiers of other countires. imagine how large of an occupying force you'd need just to keep order. you think the insurgency in iraq is bad? there are probably tons more guns and weapons per capita in the US, and more people who know how to use them. invading the US would require a humongous army. i think you'd need upwards of 50 milliion troops

[JP226]

hmmm, how can i put this the simplest way, he ummm, well he did a little thing known as SAVED THE UNION!

In a proper government we need to find a happy median between federal local and private control of our society. Granted I am one who leans towards a small federal government, larger state and local control and as much private control as possible.

On that same note we have to be realistic here. To have a nation such as ours we can't have an incompetent federal government, it has to be able to do some things when it needs to. If anything I think Jefferson wanted an almost too weak federal government. When the alien and sedition act, a grievous one, came about, it was jefferson that said a state has the right to overturn a law it deems unconstituional. And that, to me, is where the civil war begins with the transformation from a ideological argument over the distribution of power to the very real problem of states vs the fed. It's because of that very argument that South Carolina seceded and later the entire south. Lincoln, I believed restored or rather put in place that happy median between fed and state. It was really following Lincoln's death we have the big government growth with the first social programs taking place. Later teddy roosevelt and FDR really took the whole big government thing to a new level.

All this being said, I don't see the civil war as a fight over slavery OR states rights, but rather which region is going to control the country. The southern way or the northern way. In the end we all know who won out, and while my heart will always go to the south, I'm glad the North won.

[Sheep]

Is suspending the Constitution in times of War acceptable? If the government is based of the Constitution, shouldnt it be adequate to run the country, no matter the times. If not an admenment is needed.

The Constitution itself (Article 1, Section 9) says: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."