Lincoln, a brilliant leader

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Tanker, Sep 3, 2003.

  1. Tanker

    Tanker
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aside from the Civil War, Lincoln accomplished a number of things in office that had a major impact on the country. Here are some of the least known:

    1. His administration established the Land grant educational system, that produced at least one university in each state. Usually this is the best known state university in each state.

    2. He established the homestead system that gave free government land to settlers.

    3. He established the Department of Agriculture. When I was growing up on a farm, my father received each year a book from the Department of Agriculture called the "Yearbook of Agriculture". This was in the 1950s. Lincoln himself started this tradition of putting together an annual book about Agriculture. It may still be going.

    4. He promoted the idea of a transcontinental railroad, although it was not completed during his term of office.
     
  2. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Appears to be a Socialist. At the least a staunch Unionist.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  3. Eladar

    Eladar
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    Has the government ever pulled a 180 on this policy.
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    1. Waged war and invaded his own countrymen
    2. Suspended the writ of habeus corpus
    3. Instituted the first military draft
    4. Imposed the first income tax
    5. Quadupled the size of the Federal bureaucracy

    Yep, he's my kind of Republican. If he also was pro abortion I'd rank him with Schwartzeneggar. :eek:
     
  5. Tanker

    Tanker
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep, he did all of that and more. It was necessary and I applaud it. The size of government needed to be increased in 1860. It was necessary to end the illegal rebellion. He did it all brilliantly and by the end of the war, the United States was far more powerful than at the beginning. But the most immortal thing he did was free 3 million blacks. That is why his monument is on the Capitol mall and not that of Jefferson Davis.

    Have you ever thought what could be included in a monument to Davis? Maybe something like: "He strove to keep millions of people in slavery". or maybe "Jefferson Davis, he put property above human decency". Naw, somehow I think even southerners would not admire that. Can you imagine at the death of Davis, one of his colleagues saying "Now he belongs to the ages"? I can't imagine that.
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Of course, only brain-washed yankees would say that about Lincoln. :eek: :rolleyes:
     
  7. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    What? A president who believes in propositional truth and acts upon it? Sounds like a fundamentalist to me. [​IMG]
     
  8. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,144
    Likes Received:
    25
    Here's an article some will find interesting:
    Bottom Rail on Top: Abraham Lincoln's Evolving Stance On Slavery
    From 1861 - 1863
    by John D. Mason.
     
  9. Tanker

    Tanker
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Three billion dollars - that was the amount the abolition of slavery cost the Confederacy in terms of lost property. In 1990 dollars, that would be the equivalent of a $3 trillion loss to the Gross National Product. Few nations could afford those kinds of losses and still remain viable. In retrospect, given the effect this loss would have on the Confederacy's ability to wage war, it is remarkable to think that emancipation was not initially one of the Union's primary war aims. Emancipation had enormous potential as a weapon of economic warfare.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    The above is from the link mentioned in the previous post. With the slaves worth a staggering amount, it is easy to see why the slave holders controlled the various southern state governments. As Lincoln said, slave holders could see the issue on through a very thick coating, which was the value of the slaves. I can forgive the slave holders to some extent, because it is only natural that their self interest would determine their actions. But with modern day southern apologists, it is harder to see why their view of slavery is so warped. Maybe some of them think it is a lark, to promote the discarded ideas of slave holders. For whatever reason they do it, it seems mighty backward to me.
     
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's add that to the previous - now you have called me backward and either not bright or dishonest. Before these threads on the War for Southern Independence finally die out, is there anything else derogatory you wish to say about me and others who defend the concept of limited, constitutional government?
     
  11. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    If that's so, then "civil war" is the correct term.

    If the South did, in fact, secede from the union, then it wasn't his own countrymen that he invaded and waged war against.
     
  12. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Um, you're ugly and your feet stink?


    I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist.
     
  13. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    By international law, Lincoln DID recognize the South as a Sovereign Nation by proclaiming a blockade. No question about that. I've read some interesting legal analysis of all this "illegal" stuff Lincoln did. Doesn't endear him to me.

    But in his own mind, Lincoln did not EVER accept the South's secession as a reality. Federal flags still had stars for every state, even those in rebellion. He would not allow the Union to be dissolved.

    BTW, raising an army to invade the South is what drove secession fervor in Virginia and Lee's choice for loyalty to his nation of Virginia rather than an imperialistic Federal Union.
     
  14. Tanker

    Tanker
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;But in his own mind, Lincoln did not EVER accept the South's secession as a reality. Federal flags still had stars for every state, even those in rebellion. He would not allow the Union to be dissolved.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    He had an iron will where the issue of secession was concerned. Has it been good or bad that the south was forced to stay in the Union? The cost was very high, maybe much more than Lincoln and his allies expected. But I am sure that the U.S. has had much greater influence as a united nation, as compared to what would have happened if it had been two nations.
     
  15. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Listening to Jeff Shaara being interviewed on CSpan. He felt Lincoln SHOULD be praised for that will.

    He was also asked if the US would have become one again IF the CSA had won. His response (paraphrase) was that it would NOT have ended up as two nations. It would have ended as sovereign states all splintered into a "Balkan-like" hodge-podge of small nations and kingdoms.

    And probably led to war after war after war over 140 years.

    And that sometime, sooner or later, the Union would have been sucked into a war and, voila, the same Civil War all over again . . only with machine guns, tanks, and nuclear bombs.

    I have little good to say about Lincoln. But I see a horrendous history behind us IF he had not been president or reelected in 64.
     
  16. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,650
    Likes Received:
    312
    If we are to believe some of the more conspiracy minded folks among us, the Balkanization of Northe America was a goal of the Europeans. According to these folks, the Euro/French invasion (initally it was a multi-national force) Mexico was one phase of this plan.
     
  17. Clay Knick

    Clay Knick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought Shaara's comments were interesting.

    There would certainly not have been the
    America or U.S. that we know today had Lincoln
    not been elected twice as President.
    Who knows what we would look like today?
    Who knows what would have happened? We
    certainly would not have had the power
    to come to England and France's help in
    1917 or in the years before WW II. We
    would not have had the military power
    to defeat Japan or Germany either. I doubt
    we would have been involved.

    As much as one might dislike Lincoln, (I
    don't, BTW) one must see the hand of
    Providence in his election to office on
    two occasions.
     
  18. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,456
    Likes Received:
    93
    One of our biggest mistakes, then, was not going in and taking Canada while we were at it. And then the rest of Mexico (after the northern 2/3 we did take). We could have controlled all the Americas. What great "influence" we could have had!

    Manifest destiny... did we earn it, burn it, or spurn it?
     
  19. Clay Knick

    Clay Knick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just to clarify...

    I like Lincoln.
    My sentence in a previous post
    may be a little unclear.

    Clay
     
  20. Tanker

    Tanker
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;One of our biggest mistakes, then, was not going in and taking Canada while we were at it. And then the rest of Mexico (after the northern 2/3 we did take). We could have controlled all the Americas. What great "influence" we could have had!

    Manifest destiny... did we earn it, burn it, or spurn it? &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    I was not suggesting that the USA turn to aggression as a way to make our influence felt. There have been many more honorable ways to use that influence.
     

Share This Page

Loading...