Was Abraham Lincoln really as good a president as he is made out to be?

Let's examine the facts:
He didn't invade the south to stop slavery or bring equal rights, he did it to bring the south back into the union so that he could suck tax revenue from the region. He did it for his own greed and gain. He even said, himself, that if he could bring the south back into the union without freeing any slaves, he would do it. He also said that "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races."
Equal rights advocate indeed...

He was tyrannical, despotic, and desplorable in some of his actions: declaring martial law, suspension of habeas corpus and other basic human rights, arresting and imprisoning innocent people without trial. He allowed his generals and soldiers to burn towns, rape and slaughter civilians, and commit other atrocities.
Benevolent man indeed...

In short, Lincoln was not the right, pure, honest man depicted by the American propaganda machine. However, the following results of his image as an emacipator did lead to the civil rights movement, which was a good product of the Union's lies.
But, hey, what's your opinion on this matter, sciforums?

My sources:
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2003/052003/05042003/961921/index_html

He was tyrannical, despotic, and desplorable in some of his actions: declaring martial law, suspension of habeas corpus and other basic human rights, arresting and imprisoning innocent people without trial. He allowed his generals and soldiers to burn towns, rape and slaughter civilians, and commit other atrocities.
Benevolent man indeed...


except for the martial law does any of the above sound familiar?

Familiar in comparison to what?

to what baby bush is doing.

Ah. Hmmm...yeah, pretty similar. They both allow for atrocities by the hands of thier own people...seems to be a pattern with most republicans (I say 'most', not 'all', because Teddy kicked ass).

The South seceded from the North because the South was in an advantageous economic position do so . Britain imported vast amounts of Southern cotton to fuel Britains vast textile industry. The South had a ready market to absorb the cotton crop which gave the South its economic independence . This was the catalyst to Southern business to break away from Northern interference and go it alone . Britain was the main culprit in influencing the South to secede as was clearly evidenced with close British co-opeartion during the Civil War with the South . A successful Southern secession would of led the South into the British realm of economic influence and domination .

The Northern financial/industrial elite wished to retain control of the lucrative South . The Civil War enabled the North to economically colonize the South by destroying the Southern business class .

My opinion of Lincoln was that he was a great President who followed an independent policy . Lincoln wanted to re-incorporate the South back into the rest of the United States as an equal . Lincolns reconstruction policy would of enabled the South to be rebuilt to its former economic standard . This ran counter to the economic colonization plan the Northern bankers had for the South . Lincoln was simply set up and murdered by The Secretary for war Edward Stanton once Lincoln was out of the way the reconstruction policy was dropped . The South was impoverished and made an economic colony of Northern business .

Like John F Kennedy some 100 years later who saw through the sham of the Cold War Arms Race which was just a massive money making gambit for the military industrial complex . JFK wanted to end the Cold War thereby ending the lucrative arms race , likewise he also was set up and murdered .

The South seceded from the North because the South was in an advantageous economic position do so . Britain imported vast amounts of Southern cotton to fuel Britains vast textile industry. The South had a ready market to absorb the cotton crop which gave the South its economic independence . This was the catalyst to Southern business to break away from Northern interference and go it alone . Britain was the main culprit in influencing the South to secede as was clearly evidenced with close British co-opeartion during the Civil War with the South . A successful Southern secession would of led the South into the British realm of economic influence and domination .
The Northern financial/industrial elite wished to retain control of the lucrative South . The Civil War enabled the North to economically colonize the South by destroying the Southern business class .
My opinion of Lincoln was that he was a great President who followed an independent policy . Lincoln wanted to re-incorporate the South back into the rest of the United States as an equal . Lincolns reconstruction policy would of enabled the South to be rebuilt to its former economic standard . This ran counter to the economic colonization plan the Northern bankers had for the South . Lincoln was simply set up and murdered by The Secretary for war Edward Stanton once Lincoln was out of the way the reconstruction policy was dropped . The South was impoverished and made an economic colony of Northern business.
Like John F Kennedy some 100 years later who saw through the sham of the Cold War Arms Race which was just a massive money making gambit for the military industrial complex . JFK wanted to end the Cold War thereby ending the lucrative arms race , likewise he also was set up and murdered .I agree with you 100%. Most wars are economic struggles. US sons (and daughters) are dying in IRAQ because its oil profits were going only to France and Russia, who naturally strongly opposed the US action as they lost their lucrative contracts.

Ah. Hmmm...yeah, pretty similar. They both allow for atrocities by the hands of thier own people...seems to be a pattern with most republicans (I say 'most', not 'all', because Teddy kicked ass).

Why confine such an attribute to republicans?
Every form of large scale government permits atrocities to some degree or another, depending on the circumstances they find themselves in at the time of their reign.

Yes, but it seems like more republicans do such things than democrats...not to say that democrats didn't commit atrocities in the name of 'democracy'...hell, look at LBJ with Vietnam, or Truman with Japan.

When examined closely, and especially with a biased eye, are there any leaders of the world who we could all agree were "good" leaders?

George Washington was a pretty good president ...but he didn't really do much in office. And besides, as a boy, the little bastard cut down one of his father's cherry trees! Who'd call a dirty, little bastard like that "good"? :)

Baron Max

Washington was actually a good leader in any country, really. I mean, he willingly gave up power...despite the fact that many wanted him to become a permanent dictator. He resisted the trappings of absolute power...something not easily done.

Trees suck. Fuck 'em.
Washington was actually a good leader in any country, really. I mean, he willingly gave up power...despite the fact that many wanted him to become a permanent dictator. He resisted the trappings of absolute power...something not easily done.
Oh well that was the end of what would of otherwise been a good debate about Lincoln and the Civil War .

Oh well that was the end of what would of otherwise been a good debate about Lincoln and the Civil War .

Who said the debate had to end? And if you wanted to continue the debate about Lincoln, why didn't YOU do so?

Like most world leaders, Lincoln was "good" because of some things; "bad" because of other things ...and the "good" n' "bad" depend upon ones own perspective. Just like many things in life, some liked him, others didn't. What should we do .....add up the numbers to make the determination?

Baron Max

except for the martial law does any of the above sound familiar?

what did bush not Declare martiall law on New Orleans? ;)

add up the numbers to make the determination?
Yeah. Let's make a poll. Someone go do that...or a mod could edit this thread.