Abraham Lincoln

[Lueda Alia]

I have a paper to write for my History class, and I picked Lincoln because I like what I know about him and want to find out more. Anyway, what do you guys think of him? Many of you have probably studied him in class a lot more than we do here in Canada, so I figured I would ask.

[saysmydoctor]

Greatest president ever. There is a quote of him once confronting a woman who wrote a book concerning abolition (this was during the war) and he said to her "So you started this war."

[Machu505]

Greatest president ever. There is a quote of him once confronting a woman who wrote a book concerning abolition (this was during the war) and he said to her "So you started this war."

I concur.

[EastCoastLights]

total badass.

[Burning Star IV]

I heard that he never told a lie.

[Machu505]

FDR is #2.

[Lueda Alia]

Greatest president ever. There is a quote of him once confronting a woman who wrote a book concerning abolition (this was during the war) and he said to her "So you started this war."
I'm aware that many of you think that he's the greatest president ever. But why? :-d That's what I'm asking. I want to know what people really think of him.

[apoemtothedead]

I read somewhere that he was half-black.

[Machu505]

I read somewhere that he was gay. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Abraham_Lincoln)

[ActionActionFan]

I read somewhere that he was half-black.

I was about to say this.

[ActionActionFan]

He wore a sick hat.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4106JqQIoVL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

I should have been him for Halloween.

[Trainsaw]

I studied him briefly in a modern politics module. I got the impression he cared far more about maintaining the union than freeing slaves.

I prefer FDR.

I feel the same, its been a long time since i've studied him so i think i will take some time to read up more, but when i did study him I got the same impression.

He wore a sick hat.

on another note seeing the hat he wore the night he was shot was very surreal

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a31/trainsw/P3130151.jpg

[ActionActionFan]

I feel the same, its been a long time since i've studied him so i think i will take some time to read up more, but when i did study him I got the same impression.



on another note seeing the hat he wore the night he was shot was very surreal

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a31/trainsw/P3130151.jpg

Where is this at?

[Trainsaw]

Where is this at?

Smithsonian American History Museum

[Lueda Alia]

I pick Roosevelt because he basically saved Europe by dragging America into WWII and rid the planet of fascism.

Lincoln freed the slaves but it was long long overdue and the rest of Europe had done it nearly a century before.

To me Roosevelt's achievements are more impressive.
I wish I could pick someone that didn't die before 1899. This paper would have been a lot easier!

[apoemtothedead]

Where is this at?
National Hat Museum.

[ActionActionFan]

George Washington would have been much easier.

[Trainsaw]

National Hat Museum.

DrewB has his own wing

[ActionActionFan]

National Hat Museum.

http://www.thehatmuseum.com/

[LastPlaceRocks]

I studied him briefly in a modern politics module. I got the impression he cared far more about maintaining the union than freeing slaves.

I prefer FDR.
I think that's true to a certain extent; after all the Emancipation Proclamation was a political ploy. Lincoln's legacy is also helped by the fact he was elected to a second term. That wasn't a given.

But all in all, Lincoln was a great wartime President.

[Lueda Alia]

Can you pick anyone or do they have to be American?
No, they don't. I just picked someone that I figured would be somewhat easy, because I have so much else to do.

If you guys have any better ideas, I'm willing to listen. I considered John Locke, J.J. Rousseau and some other philosophers, but I don't think they would be as easy.

I have to pick someone that has influenced and impacted the West, and Lincoln would be really easy to talk about. I figured Locke and Rousseau would be as well, but as I said, Lincoln would be the easiest.

[absolutecrunk]

Not unlike Pinkerton or The Shining, he became increasingly popular long after his initial impact was over. Stephen Sondheim, who did extensive research for Assassins, said that public opinion of him was not anything impressive and he was more concerned with preserving the union and saving face than slavery, which is arguably what he is best remembered for.


However, someone could easily post a link to completely prove me wrong which is what I'm anticipating.

[Machu505]

Reagan was obviously the best.

I'm kidding.

[apoemtothedead]

http://www.thehatmuseum.com/
Portland, OR? Tate must have gone on field trips there in elementary school. He was lucky enough to see the hat Lincoln was shot in.

[saysmydoctor]

I pick Roosevelt because he basically saved Europe by dragging America into WWII and rid the planet of fascism.

Lincoln freed the slaves but it was long long overdue and the rest of Europe had done it nearly a century before.

To me Roosevelt's achievements are more impressive.
So, wait, because he did it later it makes him worse? Think about that logic, he is him. He isn't previous presidents. His actions can only speak for his presidency.

[ActionActionFan]

No, they don't. I just picked someone that I figured would be somewhat easy, because I have so much else to do.

If you guys have any better ideas, I'm willing to listen. I considered John Locke, J.J. Rousseau and some other philosophers, but I don't think they would be as easy.

I have to pick someone that has influenced and impacted the West, and Lincoln would be really easy to talk about. I figured Locke and Rousseau would be as well, but as I said, Lincoln would be the easiest.

Nathanael Greene

[LastPlaceRocks]

Not unlike Pinkerton or The Shining, he became increasingly popular long after his initial impact was over. Stephen Sondheim, who did extensive research for Assassins, said that public opinion of him was not anything impressive and he was more concerned with preserving the union and saving face than slavery, which is arguably what he is best remembered for.


However, someone could easily post a link to completely prove me wrong which is what I'm anticipating.
No, you're completely right; history's been very kind to Lincoln. He made his share of mistakes and enemies; in fact, he was a very polarizing figure during the Civil War.

[Smash Adams]

I would include something about how a lot of textbooks make it seem like the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves when in fact it was the thirteenth amendment

[saysmydoctor]

Concerning freeing the slaves being second to the union:

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

[saysmydoctor]

I would include something about how a lot of textbooks make it seem like the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves when in fact it was the thirteenth amendment
Correction: both freed slaves. The proclamation freed slaves in states not under Union control.

[LastPlaceRocks]

Now you think about that logic. What you're saying is that if someone achieves the most they can they are equal to someone elses maximum. That is not so. It may be that someone's best they can do is worse than a phoned in job from someone else.

Freeing the slaves in America is a lesser achievement for the same reason it would be a lesser achievement to say write the first book in English. You're just doing something others did years before only in a different location or language and for that reason it is less of an achievement.

What makes America so special anyway? Why is Lincoln any better than whoever rid Kenya of slavery or any other nation. The precedent had already been set across Europe, Australia and Canada so for that reason it is less of an achievement for me.

You say he couldn't do any more but that's far from the case. Yes he freed the slaves but he didn't compensate them. He didn't try and provide them with work or make real attempts to tackle the intense institutional racism everywhere in America.

So with all that in mind the achievements of FDR are of far more significance.
That sums up your entire viewpoint.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm not thinking with that logic. That is what you said.

And that's totally false. He worked to create freed slaves colonies (see: Liberia)

[saysmydoctor]

What makes America so special? Nothing does. No one said anything about America being special? No one said Lincoln was the first--nor was he the last (Nepal outlawed slavery as late as 1924). The effect is equally universal.

Your argument is eurocentric as mine is amerocentric except mine is not.

[Lueda Alia]

Yeah I'd never pick a philosopher it would be making things much harder for no reason. You could do Marx who's a political philosopher/sociologist but his ideas are way more simple.

Lincoln seems a good choice anyway. He's pretty clear cut.
Exactly. Marx was on my list as well, but I didn't pick him for the same reasons.

I also thought about doing Napoleon, but then I started reading about him, and yeah... no. Writing a paper about him wouldn't be very easy.

[saysmydoctor]

FDR is great. Interning japanese is awesome. Saying no to the St Louis is awesome. Doing nothing about the Holocaust is awesome.

All presidents have faults, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and censored the press. FDR rounded up japanese and ignored the Holocaust.

[LastPlaceRocks]

Exactly. Marx was on my list as well, but I didn't pick him for the same reasons.

I also thought about doing Napoleon, but then I started reading about him, and yeah... no. Writing a paper about him wouldn't be very easy.
So what exactly is the point of this paper?

[Lueda Alia]

So what exactly is the point of this paper?
I have to pick someone or something (like a city, building, etc) that has influenced and impacted the West as we know it today. It can't be anything or anyone that existed after 1899, though.

I have to do a presentation and write an essay about this.

[micahistheballs]

I kind of play devil's advocate when it comes to Lincoln. I think he didn't give a shit about the slaves and just cared about preserving the union and even that he just should've let them secede. By starting the civil war, he took away all state's rights and destroyed our Constitution as much, if not more, than any other President ever.

[LastPlaceRocks]

I have to pick someone or something (like a city, building, etc) that has influenced and impacted the West as we know it today. It can't be anything or anyone that existed after 1899, though.

I have to do a presentation and write an essay about this.
Okay, Lincoln's actually good for this topic because you can do things like taking a stand against state's rights, preserving the Union (which has impacted the West), his death impacting Reconstruction and Jim Crow laws. That's just three off the top of my head.
EDIT: Another one would be giving the Republican Party legitimacy, although that's less of impacting the West and more of America.

[Lueda Alia]

Okay, Lincoln's actually good for this topic because you can do things like taking a stand against state's rights, preserving the Union (which has impacted the West), his death impacting Reconstruction and Jim Crow laws. That's just three off the top of my head.
EDIT: Another one would be giving the Republican Party legitimacy, although that's less of impacting the West and more of America.
Yeah, exactly. That's why I made this thread; I was just wondering if you guys could give me some tips so that I don't just read anything and everything that I find about him.

The essay is what worries me the most, because my presentation has to revolve around my thesis as well. And it has to be 40 minutes. I don't mind talking in class - from my seat - but I hate presentations.

[LastPlaceRocks]

Yeah, exactly. That's why I made this thread; I was just wondering if you guys could give me some tips so that I don't just read anything and everything that I find about him.

The essay is what worries me the most, because my presentation has to revolve around my thesis as well. And it has to be 40 minutes. I don't mind talking in class - from my seat - but I hate presentations.
For the most part, it seems like you should be looking for the big things since it deals with impacting Western history. For example, preserving the Union is very important in that context.

[Juturna25]

Greatest president ever. There is a quote of him once confronting a woman who wrote a book concerning abolition (this was during the war) and he said to her "So you started this war."


harriet beecher stowe's uncle tom's cabin i believe it was and he said " so you're the little lady who started this way"


anyway great fucking president. really knew what he was doing. we need another president like him

[mattybobviously]

FDR over Lincoln any day

[Nevuk]

Lincoln was a vicious tyrant possibly suffering from mental illness and definitely in the throes of a genetic disorder. The expansion of the federal government, income taxes, etc. are all pretty much due to him. He laid the path for future abuses of the system. However, He was a brilliant orator who was accused of being overly grandiose in certain speeches (remind anyone of a certain presidential Candidate?).

Honestly, the only issue with Lincoln was reconstruction. Everything up to that is easily justifiable. And even that isn't so much Lincoln's fault as it is that someone shot him. The most interesting thing about Lincoln were his plans for after the war ended. Reconstruction was responsible for much of the ridiculous Jim Crow laws, and focused hatred even more specifically at blacks.

Slavery was far more institutionalized in the South than most other countries. America's economy relied on some form of forced labor for the first 250-75 years of it's existence (Indentured servants -> slaves). Trying to relegate the blame onto one group is laughable. I've been reading the early history of american writings (up until 1865 actually) for a class, and it's fairly sickening. Many of the early slave narratives consist of someone getting their freedom and then trading in other slaves (Equiano especially).

[open mind]

lincoln should have bitch slapped grant after he allowed the retreating southern army to get away and regroup after the battle of gettysburg......other then that i don't have a really firm opinion on the man just yet.

[saysmydoctor]

lincoln should have bitch slapped grant after he allowed the retreating southern army to get away and regroup after the battle of gettysburg......other then that i don't have a really firm opinion on the man just yet.
Why Grant? Grant was handling the Vicksburg campaign, he was in no control over the northern army. You mean Meade.

[Nevuk]

lincoln should have bitch slapped grant after he allowed the retreating southern army to get away and regroup after the battle of gettysburg......other then that i don't have a really firm opinion on the man just yet.
You mean Meade, and I've always thought Meade was the best union general of that specific army(there were like 9 or 10). He did get bitchslapped and replaced with Grant, pretty much paving the way for burned ground tactics to Richmond and the wilderness.

However, in Meade's defense, no one had ever seen anything like the aftermath of gettysburg, and it wouldn't be matched until WWI. Something like 60,000 corpses littering a small area, with probably twice that number wounded. I don't think anyone would've been able to keep going except the guy who replaced him.

Edit : As long as we're on civil war talk, Antietam, Vicksburg and Gettysburg were the 3 key battles IMO. Each one came at a particularly decisive point politically

[sjb2k1]

I kind of play devil's advocate when it comes to Lincoln. I think he didn't give a shit about the slaves and just cared about preserving the union and even that he just should've let them secede. By starting the civil war, he took away all state's rights and destroyed our Constitution as much, if not more, than any other President ever.technically he didn't start it. beauregard firing on fort sumter started it. but i completely agree with Lincoln's primary concern being preservation of the Union.

[saysmydoctor]

You mean Meade, and I've always thought Meade was the best union general of that specific army(there were like 9 or 10). He did get bitchslapped and replaced with Grant, pretty much paving the way for burned ground tactics to Richmond and the wilderness.

However, in Meade's defense, no one had ever seen anything like the aftermath of gettysburg, and it wouldn't be matched until WWI. Something like 60,000 corpses littering a small area, with probably twice that number wounded. I don't think anyone would've been able to keep going except the guy who replaced him.

Edit : As long as we're on civil war talk, Antietam, Vicksburg and Gettysburg were the 3 key battles IMO. Each one came at a particularly decisive point politically
Completely agree. I also believe the most vital campaign was the Richmond siege. It kept Lee distracted and allowed Sherman to do pretty much as he pleased.

And Meade did replace Hooker, Grant was in charge of a different force, entirely.

[VoiceoffCamera]

my friend dressed up as Abe Lincoln for Halloween and when we went to the bar and the bouncer asked for ID he pulled out a $5 bill...lets just say the bouncer wasn't too pleased about that.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't see why people assume Lincoln's goal was preserving the Union was most important. Was it the delay? It's pretty well recorded he wanted to make sure the Congress was one with his goal. By making the Emancipation Proclamation, it told him they were, then he worked towards passing the 13th amendment.

[open mind]

You mean Meade, and I've always thought Meade was the best union general of that specific army(there were like 9 or 10). He did get bitchslapped and replaced with Grant, pretty much paving the way for burned ground tactics to Richmond and the wilderness.

However, in Meade's defense, no one had ever seen anything like the aftermath of gettysburg, and it wouldn't be matched until WWI. Something like 60,000 corpses littering a small area, with probably twice that number wounded. I don't think anyone would've been able to keep going except the guy who replaced him.

Edit : As long as we're on civil war talk, Antietam, Vicksburg and Gettysburg were the 3 key battles IMO. Each one came at a particularly decisive point politically

no, i'm pretty sure i mean grant.......at least if the set of documentaries pbs made back in the early 90's is accurate.

[bluecrunchy]

my friend dressed up as Abe Lincoln for Halloween and when we went to the bar and the bouncer asked for ID he pulled out a $5 bill...lets just say the bouncer wasn't too pleased about that.

It took me a second to get that. Well done.

[Nevuk]

Completely agree. I also believe the most vital campaign was the Richmond siege. It kept Lee distracted and allowed Sherman to do pretty much as he pleased.

And Meade did replace Hooker, Grant was in charge of a different force, entirely.
Hahaha, I still find it hilarious that prostitution was so rampant under Hooker that it became a word that has lasted until now.
Sherman's scorched earth was pretty much responsible for entirely breaking the spirit (and production capacity) of the south. Like I said in a different thread, the South still is not at pre-Civil War levels of manufacturing. Ironically, the tanks named for sherman made more use of Bedford Forrester's military tactics.

[ArTkY_]

I don't see why people assume Lincoln's goal was preserving the Union was most important. Was it the delay? It's pretty well recorded he wanted to make sure the Congress was one with his goal. By making the Emancipation Proclamation, it told him they were, then he worked towards passing the 13th amendment.
But it's not like Lincoln was an abolitionist, I doubt he would have been elected had he been. I think it's clear that his major goal was the keep the states together.

[saysmydoctor]

no, i'm pretty sure i mean grant.......at least if the set of documentaries pbs made back in the early 90's is accurate.
Again, Grant was in Vicksburg at the time of the Gettysburg campaign. Meade controlled union forces in the area.
Hahaha, I still find it hilarious that prostitution was so rampant under Hooker that it became a word that has lasted until now.
Sherman's scorched earth was pretty much responsible for entirely breaking the spirit (and production capacity) of the south. Like I said in a different thread, the South still is not at pre-Civil War levels of manufacturing. Ironically, the tanks named for sherman made more use of Bedford Forrester's military tactics.
I agree with this.

[Nevuk]

no, i'm pretty sure i mean grant.......at least if the set of documentaries pbs made back in the early 90's is accurate.
Oh, I think I know what you are talking about. Meade was replaced really rapidly after Gettysburg, and Grant pretty much sat around gathering strength instead of attacking. I don't fault Grant because Grant never won a battle against Lee, ever and he had to rely on overwhelming numbers. (You could count the Wilderness as a victory, but it was a series of skirmishes rather than a large battle). Pretty much the definition of Pyrrhic victory.

edit : Checking wiki, it was meade I think. The armies stared at one another across the bloody fields on July 4, the same day that the Vicksburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vicksburg) garrison surrendered to Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant). Lee reformed his lines into a defensive position, hoping that Meade would attack. The cautious Union commander, however, decided against the risk, a decision for which he would later be criticized.

[saysmydoctor]

But it's not like Lincoln was an abolitionist, I doubt he would have been elected had he been. I think it's clear that his major goal was the keep the states together.
The secession was because of his election. He ran on a campaign on the lines of not allowing the establishment of slavery to spread (Republican platform) and took it one step farther.

[saysmydoctor]

Oh, I think I know what you are talking about. Meade was replaced really rapidly after Gettysburg, and Grant pretty much sat around gathering strength instead of attacking. I don't fault Grant because Grant never won a battle against Lee, ever and he had to rely on overwhelming numbers. (You could count the Wilderness as a victory, but it was a series of skirmishes rather than a large battle). Pretty much the definition of Pyrrhic victory.
The Richmond campaign?

[ArTkY_]

The secession was because of his election. He ran on a campaign on the lines of not allowing the establishment of slavery to spread (Republican platform) and took it one step farther.
This is true, he wanted to stop the spread of slavery, not necessary get rid of it all together. Once secession began to occur that's when the abolition of slavery became the policy.

[saysmydoctor]

This is true, he wanted to stop the spread of slavery, not necessary get rid of it all together. Once secession began to occur that's when the abolition of slavery became the policy.
I believe he held the moderate stance of the GOP to win the election and that's when he took advantage of the office by making it his goal to abolish it entirely.

[Nevuk]

I don't see why people assume Lincoln's goal was preserving the Union was most important. Was it the delay? It's pretty well recorded he wanted to make sure the Congress was one with his goal. By making the Emancipation Proclamation, it told him they were, then he worked towards passing the 13th amendment.
One of the largest controversies of the war that is still not agreed upon is this. It is thought that the only reason he read it was so that England and France would be unable to join on the side of the South, something that was very likely to have happened earlier had Antietam not occurred.

Also importantly, he did not free the slaves with it. He freed slaves in the southern states, but slavery continued in the border states (KY, MD, and that other one no one remembers) until the 14th amendment was passed. And his authority to do so in the southern states was uh... in the process of being questioned by military measures.

[ArTkY_]

I believe he held the moderate stance of the GOP to win the election and that's when he took advantage of the office by making it his goal to abolish it entirely.
I think this is true, but I think the only reason he was able to take that advantage was due to the circumstances.

[ArTkY_]

One of the largest controversies of the war that is still not agreed upon is this. It is thought that the only reason he read it was so that England and France would be unable to join on the side of the South, something that was very likely to have happened earlier had Antietam not occurred.

Also importantly, he did not free the slaves with it. He freed slaves in the southern states, but slavery continued in the border states (KY, MD, and that other one no one remembers) until the 14th amendment was passed. And his authority to do so in the southern states was uh... in the process of being questioned by military measures.
This.

[saysmydoctor]

One of the largest controversies of the war that is still not agreed upon is this. It is thought that the only reason he read it was so that England and France would be unable to join on the side of the South, something that was very likely to have happened earlier had Antietam not occurred.

Also importantly, he did not free the slaves with it. He freed slaves in the southern states, but slavery continued in the border states (KY, MD, and that other one no one remembers) until the 14th amendment was passed. And his authority to do so in the southern states was uh... in the process of being questioned by military measures.
Well, it didn't technically 'free slaves' because it was in southern states, but as the union armies moved south, they freed the slaves in the name of proclamation. The other state was Missouri, I believe.

Agree with the first part.

[Nevuk]

The Richmond campaign?
Yeah, this was the overall campaign that the wilderness occurred, but I think the proper name is Virginia Overland.

[saysmydoctor]

I think this is true, but I think the only reason he was able to take that advantage was due to the circumstances.
We are having the epic debate here, because we can't speak for Lincoln, but I truly believe his goal was the freeing of slaves. I also think Lincoln was incredibly naive and didn't believe the secession would happen. Historians have had this debate for years and FDR is also another candidate. But I think his civil rights record makes him a runner up.

[saysmydoctor]

Yeah, this was the overall campaign that the wilderness occurred, but I think the proper name is Virginia Overland.
I always confuse Wilderness and factor in Chancellorsville but that is inaccurate. I think the Richmond Siege and the Petersburg cut-off makes it effectively a win for Grant.

[ArTkY_]

We are having the epic debate here, because we can't speak for Lincoln, but I truly believe his goal was the freeing of slaves. I also think Lincoln was incredibly naive and didn't believe the secession would happen. Historians have had this debate for years and FDR is also another candidate. But I think his civil rights record makes him a runner up.
Indeed we are, I think that he wanted to, but only did because of circumstance. Agree to disagree, I guess. He was naive, that I agree with. FDR and Lincoln are a toss up, for me.

[open mind]

Again, Grant was in Vicksburg at the time of the Gettysburg campaign. Meade controlled union forces in the area.



i got what you said the first time......but i did say after the battle for a reason.....maybe i'm totally misremembering things but from what i recall from the documentary i saw grant was in a position to definitively break the back of the regrouping army of the south shortly after gettysburg.....but didn't.....resulting in several more years of war.

[saysmydoctor]

i got what you said the first time......but i did say after the battle for a reason.....maybe i'm totally misremembering things but from what i recall from the documentary i saw grant was in a position to definitively break the back of the regrouping army of the south shortly after gettysburg.....but didn't.....resulting in several more years of war.
I always was under the impression that this was the rationale of why Meade was fired.

[saysmydoctor]

Indeed we are, I think that he wanted to, but only did because of circumstance. Agree to disagree, I guess. He was naive, that I agree with. FDR and Lincoln are a toss up, for me.
Also, FDR broke Washington's self-imposed two term rule. Another reason.

Maybe you should have chosen Washington.

[open mind]

I always was under the impression that this was the rationale of why Meade was fired.

eh, you're probably right i guess......but i still can't shake the thought that i'm not wrong in thinking grant either haha.

[unwritten]

David Palmer was the best president.

[saysmydoctor]

I think we can agree that Gettysburg was lost by General Ewell.

[sjb2k1]

I think we can agree that Gettysburg was lost by General Ewell.i'll buy that. although longstreet is still a popular target, i think.

[Nevuk]

I always was under the impression that this was the rationale of why Meade was fired.
Meade was never fired actually haha. I'd always thought this as well, but what actually occurred was that Grant was made commander-in-chief (We've only ever had two) of the forces, placing him above the president in military issues. So he was just passed over for promotion.

[Nevuk]

Oh, and this is what Lincoln said about Horace Greeley's editorial
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that...I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

edit : full source : http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

[saysmydoctor]

i'll buy that. although longstreet is still a popular target, i think.
I know Stuart is another one, but that's Lee's fault. I blame Ewell. He should have taken Cemetery Hill.

(My dad and I are huge Civil War buffs and I went to Gettysburg. Probably the coolest thing ever.)

[saysmydoctor]

Meade was never fired actually haha. I'd always thought this as well, but what actually occurred was that Grant was made commander-in-chief (We've only ever had two) of the forces, placing him above the president in military issues. So he was just passed over for promotion.
Really? I was under the impression he was fired.

Reading up now, he was made subordinate but offered his resignation but was refused. Cool.
Oh, and this is what Lincoln said about Horace Greeley's editorial
I linked this.

[Nevuk]

I know Stuart is another one, but that's Lee's fault. I blame Ewell. He should have taken Cemetery Hill.

(My dad and I are huge Civil War buffs and I went to Gettysburg. Probably the coolest thing ever.)
Want to know something hilarious? My middle name is Lee. I also come from a military family (my dad got out after Desert Storm, the political atmosphere started to be one he disagreed with)

[open mind]

I think we can agree that Gettysburg was lost by General Ewell.

eh, it seems to me that the battle was filled with fuck ups and dumb shits who didn't know when to press an advantage and when to take a risk.

[sjb2k1]

I know Stuart is another one, but that's Lee's fault. I blame Ewell. He should have taken Cemetery Hill.

(My dad and I are huge Civil War buffs and I went to Gettysburg. Probably the coolest thing ever.)how was it lee's fault? because he decided to press north in the first place? yes, he should have, ewell fucked that up. could have gone from utter slaughter to yet another victory, taking that high ground.

that is cool, i have been to fredericksburg/chancellorsville, antietam and manassas. i would love to go to gettysburg. have you read the shaara trilogy? probably some of my favorite books ever.

[Nevuk]

Really? I was under the impression he was fired.

Reading up now, he was made subordinate but offered his resignation but was refused. Cool.

I linked this.
Sorry, didn't see it.

[saysmydoctor]

Want to know something hilarious? My middle name is Lee. I also come from a military family (my dad got out after Desert Storm, the political atmosphere started to be one he disagreed with)
My dad is a marine. His middle name is Lee. So is my mom's.
how was it lee's fault? because he decided to press north in the first place? yes, he should have, ewell fucked that up. could have gone from utter slaughter to yet another victory, taking that high ground.

that is cool, i have been to fredericksburg/chancellorsville, antietam and manassas. i would love to go to gettysburg. have you read the shaara trilogy? probably some of my favorite books ever.
Lee ordered Stuart to do some scavenging or some nonsense, sending his calvary(sp?) out, gave him a disadvantage.

Never been to any of those except Antietam. Never read that trilogy, what's it about?

[Nevuk]

eh, it seems to me that the battle was filled with fuck ups and dumb shits who didn't know when to press an advantage and when to take a risk.
Yeah, there is plenty to blame in that battle. No one commander's fault, but it came at a really bad time for that army. Pickett's charge, for instance might better have the blame placed at Lee's fault than anyone else, but for the battle to get to that point is a different story.

[open mind]

I know Stuart is another one, but that's Lee's fault. I blame Ewell. He should have taken Cemetery Hill.

(My dad and I are huge Civil War buffs and I went to Gettysburg. Probably the coolest thing ever.)

i went to gettysburg back when i was maybe 15......really nice country auctually.....it was a trip stand on little round top (big round top to) and imagine what the battle must have been like.

[sjb2k1]

Lee ordered Stuart to do some scavenging or some nonsense, sending his calvary(sp?) out, gave him a disadvantage.

Never been to any of those except Antietam. Never read that trilogy, what's it about?i was under the impression that stuart was gone far longer than he should have been. meh, the whole thing was a clusterfuck. imagine if jackson had lived.

i live so close to virginia now, and i really want to go back. it's a father/son trilogy. gods and generals, the killer angels and the last full measure. they cover the entire war, as seen (mainly) from the viewpoints of Lee, Hancock, Chamberlain, Jackson, Longstreet and Grant. incredibly well done. the killer angels won a Pulitzer.

[Nevuk]

Time for my class where we've been discussing slave narratives for the past 3 weeks. Today is the odd outlier in Harriet Beecher Stowe.

Edit:
Uncle Tom's cabin is really weird, but insanely important. It's not particularly well-written, but it is highly emotionally gripping and visceral. The author sort of funnels in her own pain about losing a child into a slave narrative about an attempt to tear a child from you.

[asmolitor]

i was ulysses s. grant for halloween.

also, i originally came into the thread solely to post the electric six "gay bar" video.

[saysmydoctor]

i was ulysses s. grant for halloween.

also, i originally came into the thread solely to post the electric six "gay bar" video.
HTN6Du3MCgI

[de la sympathie]

No, they don't. I just picked someone that I figured would be somewhat easy, because I have so much else to do.

If you guys have any better ideas, I'm willing to listen. I considered John Locke, J.J. Rousseau and some other philosophers, but I don't think they would be as easy.

I have to pick someone that has influenced and impacted the West, and Lincoln would be really easy to talk about. I figured Locke and Rousseau would be as well, but as I said, Lincoln would be the easiest.

Locke would be easy to tie into American history, if you wanted to go that route. Thomas Jefferson was largely influenced by Locke's ideas, pretty much idolizing him. In the Preamble, Jefferson says that all men are given certain unalienable rights, namely being "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". This was Locke's idea, and the line basically came straight from him. When Locke said it, it was "life, liberty, and property". I think Jefferson even had a portrait of Locke somewhere in his house.

[aoftbsten]

I heard that he never told a lie.

i think that was washington, probably lincoln was well though.

i dunno when i studied all the presidents i really felt like they all disappointed me a bit, except washington. Lincoln wasn't bad, definitely one of the better ones but i was surprised by his actual motives to put out the emancipation proclamation (it was really just put out to stop the british from entering the war with the south, and it didn't free any of the slaves in the north).

I can tell you the worst president was Andrew Jackson, that dude was a mega douche

[aoftbsten]

Now you think about that logic. What you're saying is that if someone achieves the most they can they are equal to someone elses maximum. That is not so. It may be that someone's best they can do is worse than a phoned in job from someone else.

Freeing the slaves in America is a lesser achievement for the same reason it would be a lesser achievement to say write the first book in English. You're just doing something others did years before only in a different location or language and for that reason it is less of an achievement.

What makes America so special anyway? Why is Lincoln any better than whoever rid Kenya of slavery or any other nation. The precedent had already been set across Europe, Australia and Canada so for that reason it is less of an achievement for me.

You say he couldn't do any more but that's far from the case. Yes he freed the slaves but he didn't compensate them. He didn't try and provide them with work or make real attempts to tackle the intense institutional racism everywhere in America.

So with all that in mind the achievements of FDR are of far more significance.
well, yea but he would have had a hard time trying do do these things considering he was kinda assassinated soon very shortly after general lee surrendered the south. think it was a week maybe two at the most after the war was over

[de la sympathie]

i think that was washington, probably lincoln was well though.

i dunno when i studied all the presidents i really felt like they all disappointed me a bit, except washington. Lincoln wasn't bad, definitely one of the better ones but i was surprised by his actual motives to put out the emancipation proclamation (it was really just put out to stop the british from entering the war with the south, and it didn't free any of the slaves in the north).

I can tell you the worst president was Andrew Jackson, that dude was a mega douche

Besides being a douche, he was insane. Who declares war on a bank? That guy.

[immorehxcthanu]

Lincoln and his wife Mary Todd were both very interesting people. I read a very good book about her and she was a very complex woman.

[DaveZeroZero]

Write about his badass beard and top hat.

[patrickhowell]

well, yea but he would have had a hard time trying do do these things considering he was kinda assassinated soon very shortly after general lee surrendered the south. think it was a week maybe two at the most after the war was over

Also, it didn't help that he was incredibly racist:

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races–that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together in terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Abraham Lincoln
Jonesboro, TN
September 15, 1858

source:
Political Debates Between Abraham Lincoln And Stephen A. Douglas
http://books.google.com/books?id=zNdj8Lz4VJYC&pg=PA164

[Esrb99]

Lincoln was the man. Nuff said.

[brandnizzle2419]

more like babe-raham lincoln.

[Lueda Alia]

Well, my paper/essay is going to focus on three things: Freedom, Equality and Security. I'll be using the Gettysburg Address (freedom), the Emancipation Proclamation (equality) and.... I'm not sure what else yet. Can anyone think of a document that I could use to talk about "Security"? I'm a little stuck.

[deadstar]

Patriot Act....haha

[LastPlaceRocks]

Well, my paper/essay is going to focus on three things: Freedom, Equality and Security. I'll be using the Gettysburg Address (freedom), the Emancipation Proclamation (equality) and.... I'm not sure what else yet. Can anyone think of a document that I could use to talk about "Security"? I'm a little stuck.
The first thing that comes to mind is his first Inaugural address, but what exactly are you trying to do with security?

[wroteurname]

Now you think about that logic. What you're saying is that if someone achieves the most they can they are equal to someone elses maximum. That is not so. It may be that someone's best they can do is worse than a phoned in job from someone else.

Freeing the slaves in America is a lesser achievement for the same reason it would be a lesser achievement to say write the first book in English. You're just doing something others did years before only in a different location or language and for that reason it is less of an achievement.

What makes America so special anyway? Why is Lincoln any better than whoever rid Kenya of slavery or any other nation. The precedent had already been set across Europe, Australia and Canada so for that reason it is less of an achievement for me.

You say he couldn't do any more but that's far from the case. Yes he freed the slaves but he didn't compensate them. He didn't try and provide them with work or make real attempts to tackle the intense institutional racism everywhere in America.

So with all that in mind the achievements of FDR are of far more significance.
FDR was great, but trying to belittle the accomplishments of Lincoln is just something that isn't done. That's like me saying Bentham's ideas of utalitarianism is foolish and unrealistic.

[Lueda Alia]

The first thing that comes to mind is his first Inaugural address, but what exactly are you trying to do with security?
I was actually thinking of his second one. Anyway, the whole essay will show how Lincoln has shaped the American psyche through these three documents. I think security is a good one, because I couldn't really think of something else that's as big as freedom and equality to Americans. Does that make sense?

[wroteurname]

Which it is.
Haha, I realize this, I have heard he is a diety over there though.

[wroteurname]

Well, my paper/essay is going to focus on three things: Freedom, Equality and Security. I'll be using the Gettysburg Address (freedom), the Emancipation Proclamation (equality) and.... I'm not sure what else yet. Can anyone think of a document that I could use to talk about "Security"? I'm a little stuck.
OH, there are a ton of conspiracy therories about people in Lincoln's secret service planning the assassination with Booth, I wrote a 20 page term paper on presidential assassinations I could try and it find and see what sources I used.

[ghostyouare]

Lincoln thought that slavery was evil but didnt think blacks were equal to whites.

[1Roth4]

I was actually thinking of his second one. Anyway, the whole essay will show how Lincoln has shaped the American psyche through these three documents. I think security is a good one, because I couldn't really think of something else that's as big as freedom and equality to Americans. Does that make sense?

I'm sure this has been said; but I had an American History professor that use to claim that Lincoln wasn't interested in the freedom of slaves, that he didn't want them migrating to the north, nor did he want the south to prosper after their secession from the north. Therefore the only way to keep them out of the north was to free them.

Obviously I am not too sure if this is a legitimate theory, but it was an interesting one.

If it is legitimate, I'm not sure if that would effect your theory of him being conscious of the equality of slaves, as well as their freedom.

P.S. I'd be interested in reading this paper. :)