Reviews for My Opinion of President Lincoln
SladeJWilson chapter 1 . 4/12/2017
You cherry-picked the facts when the suited you and ignored them when they were against you. What about the fact that he rose from poverty in Indianna to the president? The fact that he lost three of his four children? He being almost near suicidal at the death of his girlfriend and mother? The South took sentient humans (I need to emphasize humans here) and made them work in inhuman conditions and seperated them from families. He wasn't the best president (That honor probably befalls Reagan or heck maybe even Trump) but he inherited a horrible situation and made it work. You say Lincoln was a hypocrite but then you go off on an unrelated tangent, so how was he a hypocrite? The Civil War was like WWl it had to happen Europe was changing and so was the US at the time. I acknowledge that the Emancipation Proclamation did little as the slaves were either free or it wasn't in his power to free them. Your socalled (Also "socalled" isn't one word) quote from Lincoln was in no way backed by any source and I haven't even heard anything of that nature said by Lincoln. In Conclusion, I will not deny that he is 'over-rated' (martyred would be a better term) but that he deserves credit for rising so far and facing social, financial, martial, mental, health, genetic and political issues.

(On under SladeJWilson)

Just went to the Lincoln national library and really felt like correcting you.
Lotsofan chapter 1 . 6/23/2011
you got it all wrong lincoln was not rascit you just stuptid and a traitor!

(Smacks you)

There is nothing more that our enemies want to see than this country be plunged into civil war. Lincoln is regarded around the world as one of the best politicians the United States and the Western world has ever seen.

he freed the slaves and was very nice.
disused account chapter 1 . 2/15/2008
"This is my opinion of Lincoln, he was racist, hypocritical, and is one of the most over-rated people in the history of the United States. I believe that history classes in schools should teach all truths about a person, whether the truth about that person may be good or bad."

Here,here! You say the things that need to be said. Can't wait to go to hell and say hi to him. XD

Stitch-Puppy chapter 1 . 2/6/2008
"President Lincoln: Over-rated?"

Yes, but then again we do tend to over-rate things here don't we?

Columbus perhaps...?

Compared to most 'heros' he isn't all that bad really, but nice work that you actually took the time to check more so then read the censored script.
Me Myself and Aye chapter 1 . 1/26/2008
You've got some interesting ideas here, but I don't think that you're looking at the bigger picture.

You assert that Lincoln was racist. First off, the world in the 1860s was very different from the world today; slavery was still widely in practice, people were taught that blacks were inferior. Lincoln once said, "If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong." He may not have been a hardcore abolitionist, but such a person would never have been elected President then because, obviously, politicians need widespread appeal. For his time, Lincoln was pretty open-minded, even though it might not seem that way to us today.

And as for Lincoln being a hypocrit... there are very few politicians I can think of who haven't lied and/or changed their rhetoric at some point or another. The faultlessly honest rarely are elected.

Wartime isn't business as usual. Sometimes compromises have to be made; sometimes rights are shifted. Lincoln wasn't perfect, but just think about the responsibility he had. Could you imagine being leader of a country during one of its tensest and bloodiest wars?
Lorendiac chapter 1 . 1/25/2008
This was an interesting essay. Most of the historical facts you cite are things I already knew (not all of them, though), and in going through and trying to see how you present your facts and your opinions, and where there are possible flaws in your logic, et cetera, I had to do a lot of thinking to try to sort out my own ideas on various points. (I also ended up doing some quick rereading of portions of the U.S. Constitution, to double-check some passages you alluded to without actually quoting their exact words in your essay.)

As a result, this review is even longer than my reviews usually are.

First, a snap reaction: I get the feeling that you're basically "preaching to the choir." By this, I mean that you are asserting opinions which could resonate with people who already believed several of the same basic assumptions you are embracing, but I have serious doubts about how persuasive your essay would be with people who didn't already share some or all of those assumptions.

Now for comments that occurred to me on specific points you made in your essay. By the way, when I quote passages from your essay, I usually put them between asterisks - * like this * - to make it easier to spot the difference between what you said and what I'm saying in response to it.

* One of the so-called greatest things that Lincoln done as president was, freeing the slaves. He did write the Emancipation Proclamation and thus freed the slaves, but if you think about it, it was more of strategy to winning the war than an act of random kindness towards the slaves. *

Just in case you're interested: To me, his basic motive for doing that is not exactly news! :)

I've read very frank statements in various American history books to the effect that the Emancipation Proclamation was basically a propaganda weapon in time of war. One big reason for it was to discourage the British Empire (and perhaps the French) from actively joining forces with the Confederates as new allies, because then it would look (to their own citizens at home) as if they were "fighting to defend slavery," which was not a position the British government would feel comfortable with.

(Incidentally: If the nation had not already been at war, I don't think Lincoln could have gotten away with trying to announce the liberation of slaves on his own authority, without bothering to try to get Congress's approval first. When he was running for office in 1860, I strongly doubt he had any thought that he'd ever be able, realistically, to free lots of slaves all at once, just with an executive order from the White House, if and when he got elected President)

* Some would argue that he didn’t want any of the Border States who owned slaves to join the Confederacy; I disagree with this statement for two reasons: one, because if Lincoln really did care about the slaves he would have freed all of them; and for two, let Lincoln tell you himself: *

Some sweeping assumptions there. First, you seem to be assuming that if Lincoln snapped his fingers and say, "All the slaves in Border States are hereby freed," that this would have meant those slaves would immediately be set free in practice - as opposed to those states rebelling against him, which wouldn't have done those poor slaves a lick of good at the time. You simply reject that possibility of Border State rebellion out of hand, but I'm not clear on why you don't think that was a big piece of what Lincoln was worried about at the time?

Second, by saying what you said and then quoting a paragraph in which Lincoln once expressed his belief in fundamental differences between different races, you seem to be implying that the quotation proves he DIDN'T really care about the poor slaves at all. I don't think you've proved that point.

* So the great president, who “freed” the slaves, did not support their equality. Also while addressing a group of African Americans, he blamed them for the civil war starting and told them he wanted to deport them to another country: *

You then quote another passage from something Lincoln said . . . but I'm left still scratching my head at your assertion that "he wanted to deport them." Really? The material you quoted does not show him saying: "I want to FORCE all African-Americans to leave this country and go somewhere else, even if they hate the idea." That is exactly what it means to "deport" people, but he didn't say that in the quotation you offered.

* Before the war began, in Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address, after seven states already seceded, he stated:

"I, therefore, consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States."

He basically said that he was going to force everybody to obey his law. *

You have not established that he announced he would force everybody to obey "his law." Only that he intended to enforce the "laws of the Union" (which would include thousands of laws which had already been around before he became President). What else is a President of the United States supposed to say?

By the way, that last Lincoln quote near the end of your piece, repeating something he said regarding the right of the people to overthrow and replace a government, is very interesting. (Sounds hopelessly impractical, the way he describes it, but it certainly is interesting!) I already knew most of the things you say about Lincoln in this essay, but I don't remember seeing that quote before. It certainly appears that by the time he was elected President, he had changed his mind drastically on that subject.

* Lincoln was a hypocrite. He started the war that tore the Union. After the seven states seceded, they took control of all military forts in their territory. Ignoring the Confederate government warning, Abraham Lincoln sent supplies to the Union troops in Fort Sumter, who were ordered to not leave the fort, and thus, the first battle of the civil war began. Though the only casualty was one man, it was enough to make four other states join the Confederates. *

A few points about that - from your description, it's obvious that the Confederacy did not actually "take control" right away of all the Union's existing military forts in what the Confederacy now claimed as their territory. So you shouldn't say they did. I mean, if they had already gained total control of Fort Sumter, then Lincoln wouldn't have felt tempted to send supplies to Fort Sumter, would he? I also have some serious trouble with the way you say "He started the war." You appear to assume that when the Confederates fired the first shots and killed the first soldier in the Civil War, that it was all Lincoln's fault for not knuckling under to their demands right away. I tend to feel that the people who fire the first shots in a war, and kill the first guy on the other side, are the people who actually "started the war."

* Lincoln had also ignored the 9th and 10th amendments, which protect the states’ rights and the unspoken rights of the people. It was within the state rights to secede from the Union. *

A few points about that passage:

1. You don't actually say what those "amendments" were amendments to. I imagine you mean the U.S. Constitution, but it would be a good idea to be more specific - especially for the benefit of readers who aren't U.S. citizens and don't instantly think of the U.S. Constitution whenever they see the word "amendment."

2. The way you phrase that, it could easily give a reader the false impression that the Tenth Amendment specifically guarantees: "The states have the right to secede from the Union any time they happen to feel like it." (Of course it says no such thing. It does make an incredibly VAGUE statement about how the states reserve some "powers," but it doesn't describe what those powers include.)

Incidentally, my own feeling for a long time has been that if the governments of the southern states thought they had the constitutional right to secede from the Union, then they made a terrible mistake when they started the bloodshed. What they SHOULD have done was argue their case in federal court, all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. That's what you're supposed to do when there's an honest difference of opinion regarding what your "constitutional rights" are. If the Supreme Court finally said: "Yes, individual states have a right to secede WHENEVER they want to," then what could President Lincoln do about it?

(I don't claim to know what the Supreme Court would have said in the early 1860s, if the case were appealed to it. In fact, I honestly don't know which way I would have voted if I had been on the Supreme Court in that hypothetical situation. But I do feel that if the southern leaders thought they had a constitutional right to withdraw from the Union, then presenting their arguments in court would have been a much more civilized approach to the problem. And less bloody, too!)

* When just the year before he suspended the writ of habeas corpus, the amendment in the Constitution that states that the people have the right have a court hearing to determine if they are being held lawfully. So when people in the Union didn’t agree with what he was doing, he imprisoned them, and kept them there for as long as he saw fit. *

You made me very curious. I wanted to see exactly what you were talking about. So I looked through online texts of the original Constitution and its later amendments to see what they had to say about "habeas corpus." I didn't find any amendment that mentioned "habeas corpus" by that name, and I didn't see anything that set an absolute time limit on how long people could be held prisoner by Uncle Sam. I did see that the Sixth Amendment begins: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial," and so forth, but it doesn't seem to set any hard-and-fast limits on, for example, holding them prisoner indefinitely without prosecuting them for a specific crime. (I'm not saying I'm a FAN of just holding onto them indefinitely to keep them sealed away from the world - I'd HATE it if that happened to me! - I'm only saying that, at first glance, the Constitution doesn't seem to explicitly prohibit that approach.)

When I searched for "habeas corpus," I did run across a reference in the original text of the Constitution, however. In Article 1, Section 9, the second paragraph of that Section 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."

So I'd hazard a guess that this part about "unless when in cases of Rebellion" was what Abe Lincoln had in mind when he suspended the principle of habeas corpus (at least in some parts of the Union).
moongazer7 chapter 1 . 1/25/2008
I'd have to absolute agree with you! Good work!

Keep it up!

roymustangsbabe chapter 1 . 1/25/2008
A very well educated essay. I applaud you for investigating enough to stray away from the typical standpoint of Lincoln. It kind of makes you think about what other inspirational people were really like, especially political heroes.