Seriously, like Kennedy and FDR, we're taught the positive spin on everything. Let me offer a counter argument....
1> Started the civil war, 1m die 2> Mis-handled the running of said war for three years 3> Suspended critical areas of the constitution (habeas corpus anyone?)
Really, if he hadn't been assassinated and sanctified, how would we remember him?
If Doris Kearns Goodwin (Team of Rivals) and the movie are more or less accurate, I'd say freeing the slaves is pretty noteworthy. C'mon JakobVirgil -- we appreciate those Moses-like endeavors, don't we?
Oh I was not endorsing the notion (that Lincoln was a bad president) just extending the conversation. I would say the fact he ended slavery trumps Cliff's entire list.
A cursory glance at historical fact backs this up. Southern States seceded. Southern states fired first shot. Lincoln's position was that he was not going to invade southern states, but merely prevent them from further taking Federal properties (forts, munitions, etc). You could make nuanced examinations into justifications, but to make a claim like "Lincoln started the Civil War" is to make a claim completely divorced from reality. If you're going to strip the nuance out and view it in purely binary terms, there's pretty much zero way to place the blame on Lincoln's bit, so to speak. You'd have to be in some sort of bubble to believe that. Did Lincoln mishandle the war? Sure, and you'd be hard pressed to find a conflict that couldn't have been prosecuted better, and you could find none that were not mishandled to some degree. But at the end of the day did he really "mishandle" it? He won it. He handled it competently enough that hundreds of years later we can look back on it as one nation, instead of two or more that may or may not still exist. So where it matters most he did not mishandle it. He handled it. Legacies are made and judged by the sum total of ones output. A couple confused stabs at attacking his efficiency in winning the war and misrepresenting who started it don't quite get you there in charting a reversal. The constitutional question that cliff brings up is more nuanced, but like his other points, a cursory glance at historical facts shows more nuance and legalese than he pretends isn't there. So I guess in answer to his question on whether Lincoln's was bad, terrible, or just meh, the clear answer is the last one, -'awesome'. He just forgot to write that one down.
Had he lost the war he would certainly be remembered differently.
I give Lincoln the same credit for starting the civil war that I'd give him for freeing the slaves in the slave states and, later, for pushing the 13th amendment through. In all three cases he was in charge of leading the country through a tough spot. My point was that history is well spun to say that Lincoln saved the country (which he did, by the way) but ignores that he was in charge when it all went to crap. I contend that he had a number of chances to prevent the war but failed to control the politics. I'd also say that by failing to properly recruit (or detain) Lee he certainly lengthened the war considerably. And by leaving a trail of failed military commanders in charge he cost a lot of lives. -XC PS - Just in case it's not clear, I'm not suggesting that the dang fools in charge of the south weren't wrong to own slaves, attempt to secede, and then fight on in a losing cause.
1> If I remember right paranoid southerners seceded in a case of colossal sour grapes that their guy did not win the election. Just like modern secessionists those morons were scared of a lot of shit that just was not going to happen. In the case of the historic traitors it was abolition something that was not even on Abe's list. much like the modern traitors scared Barry will take their guns. 2>I will have to give you this one. if it were up to me Abe should have said don't let the door hit you on the way out. We only would have lost the dumbest part of the country. South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. (notice my bit of the south NC and Virginia are not on the list.) My prediction is that within a month that breed of hysterical women that the world calls southern men would be begging for admittance. 3> this of course is your best argument.
Maybe I am giving them too much credit perhaps they would have held things together long enough to become a mainland Haiti.
As an Irish person I have a limited knowledge of the man but to further the conversation track id like to add that his ending of Slavery was very much politically motivated. The South was starting to gain international recognition as a separate entity (France and Britain wanted to trade for Cotton which the south was the largest producer of at the time).
Lincoln abolished slavery as a political maneuver which turned the tables and placed slavery at the apex of the entire argument. Britain and France could not been seen to support the south as this would have been viewed as supporting slavery by their populace, an extremely unpopular position in Europe. So we can throw that into the mix I guess, only abolished slavery as a self serving move... For reference I think the guy was pretty decent :)
You are quite right abolition was not Lincoln's cause in the war but was a strategic tool quite late in the war. Adding to my thesis that the South waged war for hysterical reasons.