Who is the most overrated president in US history?

[turbo]

Lincoln did not order the US Army to slaughter innocents, anymore than Jefferson Davis ordered his troops to to the same. Neither did the armies continue to slaughter the opposing forces in the field once they had gained the upper hand. Instead they forced the surrender of the opposing troops, took them prisoner of war, and at least in the early years of the war, arranged for prisoner exchanges and did their best to provide medical treatment for wounded combatants. The thought that either force would slaughter innocent civilians is a fiction, made up to smear Lincoln, and is not supported by historical accounts.

 

[Benzoate]

I didn't. You're the one who is switching back and forth between talking about damaging Southern infrastructure and mass homicide. You don't need my help to twist your words.



I think you don't know much about the Civil War if you think there was excessive rapine and civilian casualties compared to any contemporary or past war. Those things were considerably less prevalent in the U.S. Civil War than they were in almost any large-scale war in human history. And that includes both Southern incursions into Northern territory and Northern incursions into the South.

Your contrived arguments are faulting Lincoln for orders he gave. You can't just swap in events you think happened in the course of the war in place of orders he actually gave and make claims like “Lincoln ordered the slaughter of innocent civilians.”

Especially when you're going to try to avoid acknowledging that you either tried to pull the wool over our eyes or at least made a clumsy ignorant mistake by putting forward that Southern nationalist book as an authority.

⚛​

Show me sources disproving the my premises that state that Lincolns policies did not lead to union soldiers shooting at innocent civilians who were unarmed . He is the only president to suspend habeus corpus and have people and newspapers who spoke out against his policies thrown in jail. How many times do I have to reiterate that Stephen oates is a Northern historian, not a politician who originally wrote the claims that I am positing to you at this very moment. Saddam did not personally slaughters hundreds of civilians either. But his policies had an indirect influence on the manslaughter of his own people.

 

[Benzoate]

Lincoln did not order the US Army to slaughter innocents, anymore than Jefferson Davis ordered his troops to to the same. Neither did the armies continue to slaughter the opposing forces in the field once they had gained the upper hand. Instead they forced the surrender of the opposing troops, took them prisoner of war, and at least in the early years of the war, arranged for prisoner exchanges and did their best to provide medical treatment for wounded combatants. The thought that either force would slaughter innocent civilians is a fiction, made up to smear Lincoln, and is not supported by historical accounts.

I don't think any of these historians removing the false image of Lincoln as a messiah so many of us are seeing, I think they are searching for the truth. thePresident Lincoln ignored the constitution repeatedly . For example, Lincoln order union troops to invade the southern states without the approval of the U.S. Congress. He ignored states' rights to secede from the union. At least jefferson davis did not invade the northern states like Lincoln invaded the southern states. As I've said before, Lincoln had tens and thousands of his own northern citizens arrested just because they opposed their policies. In addition, he removed amendments which were suppose to allow private citizens to own property. This guy totally disregarded the constitution during his adminstration. Even some Lincoln supporters and admirers acknowledge that he did not respect the constitution much. Clint Rossiter is one of those historians and he called lincoln a democrat and a dictator in his biography on lincoln, titled, constitutional dictatorship. turbo-1 and others who support lincoln , please eliminate this romantic image of Lincoln you have inside your head and do an honest assesment of Abraham lincoln as a president for yourselves. The man had many many flaws compared to the average human being.

 

[turbo]

Yes , then what do we admire this man for? Why is he any better than andrew jackson or Woodrow wilson? Why does this guy get his face on a penny and a five dollar bill. Why does he get his own statue. Why is he consider more important than any of the other presidents. This man order his troops to slaughter innocent civilians who were not armed with any weapons and burned towns. He arrested thousands of people who spoke out against his policies. The South did not attack the North ; Even though Slavery was wrong, I don't think the civil war was primarily about slavery because only 10% of the southern population on slavery. The Constitution allows states to secede from the United States if they wish.

You have yet to provide a single citation for this slur, although you repeat it as if the repetition will make it true. Now you have asked CaptainQuasar to disprove that Lincoln's policies led to the slaughter of innocents. You're not moving the goalposts, you are changing the game entirely.

If you want to debate the history of the Civil War, bring it on. I was in the business of marketing Civil War memorabilia for years, and I have worked closely with the most prominent (and mostly Southern) historians and consultants, most of whom have written articles and books and many of whom appear on Antiques Road show or provide materials and background for documentaries about the war. Your personal version of the war is not borne out by contemporary accounts, but it appears to be something that you have cherry-picked from the writings of modern radical revisionists.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Show me sources disproving the my premises that state that Lincolns policies did not lead to union soldiers shooting at innocent civilians who were unarmed . He is the only president to suspend habeus corpus and have people and newspapers who spoke out against his policies thrown in jail.

What, like that makes it okay for you to claim he ordered the slaughter of civilians, or makes it okay for you to try to pass off a piece of political propaganda as a historical source?

You've got it backwards here - the one making the screwy unsupported claims is the one that needs to go digging up sources. Quote us something where Lincoln ordered the killing of civilians or did anything that any commander-in-chief during a war on U.S. soil wouldn't have done. Or quote us something where someone's comparing him unfavorably to Saddam Hussein. I'd be surprised if even your Dilorenzo guy would say something like that.

⚛​

 

[Benzoate]

What, like that makes it okay for you to claim he ordered the slaughter of civilians, or makes it okay for you to try to pass off a piece of political propaganda as a historical source?

You've got it backwards here - the one making the screwy unsupported claims is the one that needs to go digging up sources. Quote us something where Lincoln ordered the killing of civilians or did anything that any commander-in-chief during a war on U.S. soil wouldn't have done. Or quote us something where someone's comparing him unfavorably to Saddam Hussein. I'd be surprised if even your Dilorenzo guy would say something like that.

⚛​

I never said he called for the massacre of civilians. But knowingly, he did not stop his generals from harming civilians. He allowed the union soldiers to potentially shoot unarmed civilians and he did not order his troops to stop. Lincoln did order the military to seized all the printing press during his adminstration. General Sherman kidnapped innocent civilians and lincoln did nothing to stopped general sherman actions against the southern civilians.

 

[Benzoate]

Pillaging towns for supplies and burning the buildings is not quite the same as "slaughtering innocent civilians." If you studied the Civil War, you will know that soldiers on both sides raided towns for supplies. They called it "foraging" and they generally engaged in it when they were moving fast and out-pacing any supplies that might be headed to them or when they were in enemy territory where they had yet to establish reliable re-supply. Neither army made it a practice to kill civilians indiscriminately, as you imagine.

Note: edited to remove a retort that was immature.

The Southern Army only pillaged villages and towns only in retaliations from the invasions made by the union army in southern towns. General Sherman ordered his troops to destroy infrastructure and transportation facilities instead of just attacking the southern army .He called this strategy total war. He and his troops marched through the carolinas and georgia , exhausted all of the economic resources of those towns and left nothing for the southern civilians.

 

[turbo]

I never said he called for the massacre of civilians. But knowingly, he did not stop his generals from harming civilians. He allowed the union soldiers to potentially shoot unarmed civilians and he did not order his troops to stop. Lincoln did order the military to seized all the printing press during his adminstration. General Sherman kidnapped innocent civilians and lincoln did nothing to stopped general sherman actions against the southern civilians.

riginally Posted by Benzoate View Post
Yes , then what do we admire this man for? Why is he any better than andrew jackson or Woodrow wilson? Why does this guy get his face on a penny and a five dollar bill. Why does he get his own statue. Why is he consider more important than any of the other presidents. This man order his troops to slaughter innocent civilians who were not armed with any weapons and burned towns. He arrested thousands of people who spoke out against his policies. The South did not attack the North ; Even though Slavery was wrong, I don't think the civil war was primarily about slavery because only 10% of the southern population on slavery. The Constitution allows states to secede from the United States if they wish.

You are lying about your previous statements. You can decide to engage in real terms or you can continue to lie, in which case you and your personal cause will be ignored and marginalized. Do you understand that making unsubstantiated arguments and making out-of-context citations of scholarly works is not well accepted and will reflect poorly on you?

 

[Benzoate]

Your personal version of the war is not borne out by contemporary accounts, but it appears to be something that you have cherry-picked from the writings of modern radical revisionists.

You still yet to provide me with sources of what Lincoln did great besides end slavery in the south, which I'm really not sure about. Sure , Lincoln administered the document , emanicpation proclamation , but slaves were not really free until the annexation of the 13th , 14th and 15th amendment all of which were passed after Lincoln administration. What did lincoln do that warrants him as the only president having a statue of himself , other than being the first president to suspend habeus corpus ever, add income taxes , expand the power of the federal government, and the first president to suspend civil liberties during war time. What makes your so-called sources that you yet to show me more credible than my sources.

 

[Benzoate]

You are lying about your previous statements. You can decide to engage in real terms or you can continue to lie, in which case you and your personal cause will be ignored and marginalized. Do you understand that making unsubstantiated arguments and making out-of-context citations of scholarly works is not well accepted and will reflect poorly on you?

I've posted my sources and my quotes. I also posted racist quotes lincoln made. IF lincoln were an unpopular president , everyone, like the sheep that they are, would agree without providing any credible sources about why they think lincoln is an unpopular president. Sort of similar to the Bush-bashers who cannot quite articulate a reason they are displeased with a president. You only choose to slander me because you failed to come up with any citations to disprove my premises about Lincoln.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I never said he called for the massacre of civilians.

What, the slaughter of innocents you were talking about was about killing innocent enemy soldiers?

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Get off the merry-go-round Benzoate, I think you're feeling dizzy.

Note: Not edited to remove a retort that is immature.

⚛​

 

[turbo]

You still yet to provide me with sources of what Lincoln did great besides end slavery in the south, which I'm really not sure about. Sure , Lincoln administered the document , emanicpation proclamation , but slaves were not really free until the annexation of the 13th , 14th and 15th amendment all of which were passed after Lincoln administration. What did lincoln do that warrants him as the only president having a statue of himself , other than being the first president to suspend habeus corpus ever, add income taxes , expand the power of the federal government, and the first president to suspend civil liberties during war time. What makes your so-called sources that you yet to show me more credible than my sources.

You have made extraordinary claims about Lincoln and have not supplied a single link to support your twisted views. Its time that you do that.

Edit: I would not be so so blunt, but your attitude is so rude that you you should start to grow up if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Benzoate]

You have made extraordinary claims about Lincoln and have not supplied a single link to support your twisted views. Its time that you do that.

Kennett, Lee, Marching through Georgia: The Story of Soldiers and Civilians During Sherman's Campaign, HarperCollins Publishers, 1995,
Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe (Paperback)
by Thomas Dilorenzo (Author)
Abraham Lincoln: The Man Behind the Myths
By Stephen B. Oates
War Crimes Against Southern Civilians (Hardcover)
by Walter Brian Cisco (Author)

quotes

"We have decided that the negro must not be a slave within our limits, but
we have also decided that the negro shall not be a citizen within our
limits; that he shall not vote, hold office, or exercise any political
rights." - Abraham Lincoln, September 15, 1858 [Source: www.nps.gov][/URL]

".I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the
marrying of white people with negroes." - Abraham Lincoln,
September 18, 1858 [Source: [PLAIN]www.nps.gov][/URL]


. No careful work on the numbers of civilians arrested by military authorities or for reasons of state has ever been done by a historian, and those historians who have attempted an estimate previously have been writing with the goal of defending Lincoln in mind. Even so, the lowest estimate is 13,535 arrests from February 15, 1862, to the end of the war.

"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 I believe will forever
forbid the two races living together on 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, and I as much as any
other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white
race." - Abraham Lincoln, September 18, 1858 [Source: [PLAIN]www.nps.gov][/URL]

Here is a list of quotes from historian Mark E. Neely Jr.
" No careful work on the numbers of civilians arrested by military authorities or for reasons of state has ever been done by a historian, and those historians who have attempted an estimate previously have been writing with the goal of defending Lincoln in mind. Even so, the lowest estimate is 13,535 arrests from February 15, 1862, to the end of the war." see James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln (New York: D. Appleton, 1926), pp. 152n–153n.

"At least 866 others occurred from the beginning of the war until February 15, 1862. Therefore, at least 14,401 civilians were arrested by the Lincoln administration. If one takes the population of the North during the Civil War as 22.5 million (using the 1860 census and counting West Virginia but not Nevada), then one person out of every 1,563 in the North was arrested during the Civil War"

Population figures based on Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, 2 vols. (Washington: Bureau of the Census, 1975), 1:24–37.

Most of the persons arrested on the high seas were blockade runners: owners, captains, crews, or passengers caught going through the blockade to a Confederate port. Here again the great error in many previous conceptions of the debate over arbitrary arrests becomes apparent. They were not aimed at shaping public opinion necessarily. In some respects even, they had no "aim," though Lincoln himself tended to think of them as being "made, not so much for what has been done, as for what probably would be done."

Basler, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 6: 265.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Uh… you cited the Dilorenzo guy again… I thought you were properly embarrassed about it, but I guess you're just ignoring the fact that using him as a foundation makes it impossible for us to take you seriously?

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

To put it a different way, if you have no interest in ensuring that you're working off of unbiased sources, we have no reason to believe that you're interested in talking about reality in particular rather than just looking for the axe that's the most fun to grind.

⚛​

 

[Benzoate]

Uh… you cited the Dilorenzo guy again… I thought you were properly embarrassed about it, but I guess you're just ignoring the fact that using him as a foundation makes it impossible for us to take you seriously?

⚛​

I never said I hated him. Just because he may be a southerner doesn't warrant me for discrediting his sources. Don't knocked something unless you actually read what he has to say and then you are obligated to give him the proper criticism you think he deserves.

 

[Benzoate]

To put it a different way, if you have no interest in ensuring that you're working off of unbiased sources, we have no reason to believe that you're interested in talking about reality in particular rather than just looking for the axe that's the most fun to grind.

⚛​

Have you examined all the other sources I've listed. You haven't shown me any sources that disprove or dispute my claims.

 

[turbo]

You have made the claim that Lincoln ordered the slaughter of defenseless Southerners. Take a big deep breath and provide specific references or apologize. You cannot provide evidence for the former, and you apparently haven't the guts nor integrity for the latter.

 

[Benzoate]

You have made the claim that Lincoln ordered the slaughter of defenseless Southerners. Take a big deep breath and provide specific references or apologize. You cannot provide evidence for the former, and you apparently haven't the guts nor integrity for the latter.

I will not apologized for something that is factual. Abe allowed southerners to be slaughter by General Sherman and his troops and he did nothing to cease General Sherman actions against the the southerners in the carolinas and georgia. To say that Abe is not responsible for his general actions is ludicrous. Immediately, Abe should have had General sherman removed as a general and had general sherman arrested for committing crimes against humanity. Therefore Abe, is responsible for the massacre of tens and thousands of people.

 

[Evo]

I have to side with Benzoate here, the "facts" as we are led to believe them are unfortunately inaccurate. I don't have the time right now to look up and post the information on Lincoln right now, but based on my historical knowledge, Lincoln is not the saint he is made out to be. Although decisons that are made in times of war, in hindsight are atrocious, they were for the good of the "cause" at the time.

Did you know that Betsy Ross didn't make the first flag? That's a fib made up by a descendant of hers, the person that made the first flag as far as we can validate was Mary Pickering.

 

[turbo]

I will not apologized for something that is factual. Abe allowed southerns to be slaughter by General Sherman and his troops and he did nothing to cease General Sherman actions against the the southerns in the carolinas and georgia. To say that Abe is not responsible for his general actions is ludicrous. Immediately, Abe should have had General sherman removed as a general and had general sherman arrested for committing crimes against humanity. Therefore Abe, is responsible for the massacre of tens and thousands of people.

You have made the claim that Lincoln ordered the slaughter of defenseless Southerners. Take a big deep breath and provide specific references or apologize. You cannot provide evidence for the former, and you apparently haven't the guts nor integrity for the latter.

You have not made any reference to support your claim. It is likely that that your claim is a fantasy. You can educate us ignoramuses if you choose, or you can slink away.

 

[Evo]

Before I go to bed -

Why did the Federal army decide to attack and capture Atlanta?

Sherman believed that the capture of Atlanta would help Lincoln regain popularity and win re-elections. For that reason, Sherman attacked Atlanta.

But he didn't stop there, after Atlanta was captured, he decided to burn it to the ground when he left.

http://web.li.gatech.edu/~rdrury/700/write/civwar/Why.html

There were inumerous atrocities commited during the cival war.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I never said I hated him.

You never said anything about him. You refused to even acknowledge that he was a Southern historian until the third time I mentioned it, at which point you've now told me to shut up.

Just because he may be a southerner doesn't warrant me for discrediting his sources. Don't knocked something unless you actually read what he has to say and then you are obligated to give him the proper criticism you think he deserves.

So I'm not allowed to point out that Dilorenzo is a partisan to an organization with the stated goal of re-establishing a Southern nation, a successor to the Confederacy?

And I guess I have to read his entire book before I can ask you questions like whether or not he or any of those other authors actually says that Lincoln ordered the massacre of civilians, or whether any of them said that Lincoln was like Saddam Hussein?

Did you know that Betsy Ross didn't make the first flag? That's a fib made up by a descendant of hers, the person that made the first flag as far as we can validate was Mary Pickering.

No disrespect meant Evo, but I know that Betsy Ross didn't make the flag and that George Washington didn't really chop down a cherry tree. My knowledge of the Civil War isn't based on stuff I've heard or on a high school textbook, it's from having taken a full semester college course specifically on the Civil War taught by a history professor who specialized in it, including texts written by both Southerners and Northerners, plus a fair amount of reading and research on my own, including a fair number of Lincoln's own writings and speeches.

I don't consider Lincoln to have been a saint but he demonstrated a great deal of intelligence, political sagacity, humility, and a number of other virtues. This is a fairly substantial charge - that he ordered the slaughter of civilians - and I'm pretty sure that I would have come across something like that were it true.

So it's quite reasonable of turbo and I to press Benzoate for a direct citation on that. But so far all he's managed to come up with is basically “lots of people died during the Civil War.”

⚛​

 

[Benzoate]

You never said anything about him. You refused to even acknowledge that he was a Southern historian until the third time I mentioned it, at which point you've now told me to shut up.



So I'm not allowed to point out that Dilorenzo is a partisan to an organization with the stated goal of re-establishing a Southern nation, a successor to the Confederacy?

And I guess I have to read his entire book before I can ask you questions like whether or not he or any of those other authors actually says that Lincoln ordered the massacre of civilians, or whether any of them said that Lincoln was like Saddam Hussein?



No disrespect meant Evo, but I know that Betsy Ross didn't make the flag and that George Washington didn't really chop down a cherry tree. My knowledge of the Civil War isn't based on stuff I've heard or on a high school textbook, it's from having taken a full semester college course specifically on the Civil War taught by a history professor who specialized in it, including texts written by both Southerners and Northerners, plus a fair amount of reading and research on my own, including a fair number of Lincoln's own writings and speeches.

I don't consider Lincoln to have been a saint but he demonstrated a great deal of intelligence, political sagacity, humility, and a number of other virtues. This is a fairly substantial charge - that he ordered the slaughter of civilians - and I'm pretty sure that I would have come across something like that were it true.

So it's quite reasonable of turbo and I to press Benzoate for a direct citation on that. But so far all he's managed to come up with is basically “lots of people died during the Civil War.”

⚛​

BTW I'm a girl , so get my gender right. I did posts my citations. You have not bother to evaluate and research my citations thoroughly. And the citations I list are not just from southern authors. Lincoln was not very respectful of the constitution because he jailed tens and thousands of people who opposed his policies. That does not make a person a great leader. That makes him a dictator , plain and simple . Your professor at your university is probably liberal; I say that because a poll was taken and it showed that most professors at university are liberal and I think like 95 % of journalists in the media say they are liberal. But There are many great historians and journalists who my be partisan, but just because their moral beliefs are partisans does not mean their research has to be partisan. Not everyone who is part of a political party will push a political agenda on you. Ron Paul is an example of this because he frequently votes against his policitical party. Milton Friedman was a self-prescribed libertarian , but he made a great documentary about our monopolistic public education system. The point I am trying to get across is, even though there are people are are part of a political party, there are a lot of people who apply primarily logic and rational thought when making claims about certain ideas.

 

[Evo]

You never said anything about him. You refused to even acknowledge that he was a Southern historian until the third time I mentioned it, at which point you've now told me to shut up.



So I'm not allowed to point out that Dilorenzo is a partisan to an organization with the stated goal of re-establishing a Southern nation, a successor to the Confederacy?

And I guess I have to read his entire book before I can ask you questions like whether or not he or any of those other authors actually says that Lincoln ordered the massacre of civilians, or whether any of them said that Lincoln was like Saddam Hussein?



No disrespect meant Evo, but I know that Betsy Ross didn't make the flag and that George Washington didn't really chop down a cherry tree. My knowledge of the Civil War isn't based on stuff I've heard or on a high school textbook, it's from having taken a full semester college course specifically on the Civil War taught by a history professor who specialized in it, including texts written by both Southerners and Northerners, plus a fair amount of reading and research on my own, including a fair number of Lincoln's own writings and speeches.

I don't consider Lincoln to have been a saint but he demonstrated a great deal of intelligence, political sagacity, humility, and a number of other virtues. This is a fairly substantial charge - that he ordered the slaughter of civilians - and I'm pretty sure that I would have come across something like that were it true.

So it's quite reasonable of turbo and I to press Benzoate for a direct citation on that. But so far all he's managed to come up with is basically “lots of people died during the Civil War.”

⚛​

Ok, I admit that I haven't had a chance to read through the previous posts to see how the views were presented. You're right, they are skewed to push the view that their weren't considerations given for the the fact that there was a terrible war. Attrocities were commited on both sides and Lincoln was not innocent of ordering these things, or at least allowing those he appointed to commit these things. I'm not saying he's wrong, as I said "Although decisons that are made in times of war, in hindsight are atrocious, they were for the good of the "cause" at the time."

I'm sick, you have a handle on it CQ, carry on.

 

[Benzoate]

Ok, I admit that I haven't had a chance to read through the previous posts to see how the views were presented. You're right, they are skewed to push the view that their weren't considerations given for the the fact that there was a terrible war. Attrocities were commited on both sides and Lincoln was not innocent of ordering these things, or at least allowing those he appointed to commit these things. I'm not saying he's wrong, as I said "Although decisons that are made in times of war, in hindsight are atrocious, they were for the good of the "cause" at the time."

I'm sick, you have a handle on it CQ, carry on.

I wasn't acknowledging that the south did not commit any atrocities, only that Abraham Lincoln was not the emancipator of slaves everyone , from physics forums users to american school teachers . It was actually the 13th ,14th and 15 amendments that freed the slaves. Did you know that abolotionists put pressure on the Lincoln adminstration to emancipate slaves. Look at the documents I've listed below:

Document 3: Address on Colonization to a Committee of Colored Men, August 14, 1862

Document 4: Letter of Reply to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862

 

[Benzoate]

Captainquasor , since you and I are in disagreement , I would liked to hear your own assessments of the Lincoln adminstration and the policies it administer .

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Oops... just got done writing this and I see your response to me there Evo, thank you. But since I wrote it anyways, here it is...

But he didn't stop there, after Atlanta was captured, he decided to burn it to the ground when he left.

Yes - as turbo and I said above, there was quite a bit of destruction of Southern infrastructure. Yes, they burned down cities and burned fields of crops so that the South would have to spend resources rebuilding and could not feed its armies on the march.

They also tore up railroad tracks, and you may have heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_neckties" - they would take the sections of rail, heat them on a bonfire, and twist them around trees so that the railroad could not be reassembled until the rails were melted down and recast. This prevented the Southern armies from moving troops and supplies around and between the different theatres of the war.

But Benzoate is saying that that Lincoln ordered the Union Army to burn down and pillage the Southern cities - like the Vikings did, like European armies would during the Hundred Years' War and most of the rest of the time too - sack the city, loot it for valuables and cart them off before burning it. But from what I've read that did not happen, if they were out to destroy infrastructure that's what they did, they generally didn't steal stuff and if they did, it was rare and it wasn't because they had orders to do it.

Both the Northern and Southern forces would seize food and supplies, not just from the enemy but from civilians on their own side when they were out of touch with their supply lines (as Sherman was during the March to the Sea, for example, or Lee's armies when they raided up into Pennsylvania). And a remarkable thing was that both the Northerners and the Southerners would frequently pay for what they took. The farmer or whoever didn't get any choice whether or not to sell but they gave him some money. (I'm sure the Northern farmers weren't very thrilled, though, at getting paid in Confederate dollars that shortly turned out to be worthless.)

There were inumerous atrocities commited during the cival war.

There were some atrocities - like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas" .

But many of the things that are considered atrocities by modern standards - torture, slaughter of civilians, shooting or executing enemy troops who have surrendered - did not happen on a large scale to my knowledge, compared to any of the Indian / Native American wars or most European wars of the time. And this was especially unusual because of the scale of the conflict - I think that the Union Army estimated by some at around 2 million men at its height is believed to have been the largest Army assembled in human history up to that point.

Evo, if you're skeptical or curious about any of the things I've said above which I've written without digging up references, I'd be happy to give it a go, just ask.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

BTW I'm a girl , so get my gender right.

I apologize, I should have looked at your profile.

I did posts my citations. You have not bother to evaluate and research my citations thoroughly.

You posted something more along the lines of a bibliography. When we ask you for citations we're asking you to quote or link to a paragraph or page that says something similar to the claims you're making - particularly about the ordering of slaughter or pillaging. It would also be helpful if you could give a more specific example of an occasion on which you think he ordered the slaughter of innocent civilians or ordered the pillaging of towns.

Your professor at your university is probably liberal;

Actually, he was a hard-as-tacks Benedictine monk. Anyone who knew him and heard you say that about him would laugh out loud.

But it doesn't have anything to do with whether what you have said here is true or false.

The point I am trying to get across is, even though there are people are are part of a political party, there are a lot of people who apply primarily logic and rational thought when making claims about certain ideas.

Well, it's coming across as though you're just making stuff up about Abraham Lincoln.

⚛​

 

[LightbulbSun]

I just want to chime in here. I did some quick research and found something which I think substantiates one of Benzoate's claims about "Abraham Lincoln not being the emancipator of slaves."

Northern leaders like Lincoln viewed the prospect of a new Southern nation, with control over the Mississippi River and the West, as unacceptable. This led to the outbreak of the Civil War, which spelled the end for chattel slavery in America. However, in August of 1862 Lincoln replied to editor Horace Greeley stating his objective was to save the Union and not to either save or destroy slavery. He went on to say that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do it. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 was a reluctant gesture, that proclaimed freedom for slaves within the Confederacy, although not those in strategically important border states or the rest of the Union. However, the proclamation made the abolition of slavery an official war goal and it was implemented as the Union captured territory from the Confederacy. Slaves in many parts of the south were freed by Union armies or when they simply left their former owners. Many joined the Union Army as workers or troops, and many more fled to Northern cities. -http://www.civilwar.com/content/category/38/186/70/"

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I just want to chime in here. I did some quick research and found something which I think substantiates one of Benzoate's claims about "Abraham Lincoln not being the emancipator of slaves."

Yes, he did say that. It's also true that he described the emancipation as a tactic of war - in the same way that destroying Southern cities and crops and the naval blockade of Southern ports was to deprive and disrupt the Confederate Army, if the slaves in Southern states were emancipated by the Union and they came to believe that the Confederacy might be defeated, they would leave the fields and drastically reduce the production of Southern plantations.

In my opinion, if you asked Abraham Lincoln at the time whether he thought he was the Great Emancipator of the Slaves, he would sincerely say that he was not and repeat something like the quote Lightbulb presents. He was very humble; President Eisenhower told http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/speeches/19540423%20Remarks%20at%20the%20Birthplace%20of%20Abraham%20Lincoln.htm" about him:

Once he called upon General McClellan, and the President went over to the General's house and General McClellan decided he did not want to see the President, and went to bed.

Lincoln's friends criticized him severely for allowing a mere General to treat him that way. And he said, “All I want out of General McClellan is a victory, and if to hold his horse will bring it, I will gladly hold his horse.”​

As in, he would stand there and hold the reins of the guy's horse, like a stable boy. The President of the United States.

I think he had this and many other virtues. So that's the primary reason why I'm pretty aggravated that Benzoate has apparently offhandedly claimed that he ordered the massacre of civilians and the pillaging of Southern cities, not told us where she got that, and not mentioned that she's been reading books by a “The Confederacy will rise again!” Southern nationalist, until I sleuthed it out and twisted her arm into admitting it.

⚛​

 

[russ_watters]

There was also a declared war. The Constitution gives broad Presidential powers in a time of war.

Is this what you're defending? Okay, got it. I will be quoting you on that one.

This thread has gone so far I don't want to get back into it, but just to make sure here -- you know that second quote wasn't from me, right? You listed after a quote from me and didn't have who it came from cited in it.

I will say this, though - that first line is a very strange thing to see any American, much less you, writing.

Also, just for the record, Lincoln makes both my top 5 and bottom 5 Presidents list. I don't agree with even half of what Benzoate said in his first post (and most of the rest of the thread is just crap), but the basic point that people gloss-over the more ominous things Lincoln did during the Civil War is sound.

 

[Astronuc]

I thought it would be interesting to start a thread on who do you think is the most overrated president in the history of the United states . I'd put my money on Abraham Lincoln. He makes george w bush look like mother theresa, before George Bush tried to act like a saint. (i.e, giving money to africa) He is a George Wallace, Benito Mussulino and Saddam Huessein rolled into one package. The man was an absolute tyrant. He placed people in prison who spoke out against his policies, and he order troops to burned and pillage southern towns. The only good thing he ever did was free slaves; After he freed the slaves he wanted to deport blacks because he believe blacks would not assimilate to western culture. In to think that we used to celebrate this tyrant's birthday. What an awful human being he was
Well, that's my opinion. What's yours?

GW Bush is no Mother Teresa, nor does Lincoln make Bush look like Mother Teresa. One is ignoring the slaughter of innocent Iraqis, which Rumsfeld and others have dismissed as collateral damage.

http://www.americancivilwar.com/documents/lincoln_inaugural_1.html

The national upheaval of secession was a grim reality at Abraham Lincoln's inauguration. Jefferson Davis had been inaugurated as the President of the Confederacy two weeks earlier. The former Illinois Congressman had arrived in Washington by a secret route to avoid danger, and his movements were guarded by General Winfield Scott's soldiers.

http://www.americancivilwar.com/civil_war_summary.html
Lincoln was in office about 5-6 weeks when Confederate forces fired on Ft. Sumter.

March 4 Abraham Lincoln inaugurated 16th President of the U. S.
April 12-13 Bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter
April 15 President Lincoln calls for 75,000 volunteers
April 17 Virginia secedes

Looking at the maps, the Confederates did in fact attack the North - Maryland (1862) and Maryland and Pennsylvania (1863). Remember Gettysburg.

How about those Raiders? Not the one's from Oakland, but those of Mosby, Morgan, Quantrill, . . . Would one argue that Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee ordered those folks to pillage, plunder and murder innocent civilians? Seems both sides employed similar tactics.

Grant and Sherman, as field commanders, did their job - which was to win a war against an insurrection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman's_March_to_the_Sea

Sherman implemented "scorched earth" policies; he and Union Army commander Ulysses S. Grant believed that the Civil War would end only if the Confederacy's strategic, economic, and psychological capacities for warfare were decisively broken.

They employed historical techiques, which the allies repeated in WWII - vis-a-vis saturation bombing. The US employed saturation bombing in Vietnam. And it appears civilian areas were targeted during the invasion of Iraq.

Isn't Lincoln like the only president we have a statue of? I could be wrong Notice in a lot of communist/totalitarian countries, they always have a statue of their leader?

There are statues of various US presidents -
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1996/2/1996_2_117.shtml

Kansas to put Eisenhower back on Capitol Hill
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20021110/ai_n11790722

The Washington Monument
http://www.tourofdc.org/monuments/washington-monument/

This temple was to be an American pantheon, a repository for statues of Presidents and national heroes, containing a colossal statue of George Washington.

I believe there are numerous busts.

Please retain a modicum of civility even when disagreeing. Please cite source of factual statements.

I do not justify the conduct of war. War is self-defeating and is a complete failure on the part of humanity. War is not honorable or glorious. But war is a historical reality.

 

[turbo]

The claim has been made by Benzoate that Lincoln ordered the slaughter of innocent civilians. This is not true, and she will find NO citations to support the claim, even in the most derogatory biographies of Lincoln.

Certainly, there will be confrontations between the military and the civilian population during war. When troops on the move outrun their provisions, they will find and take provisions anywhere they can find them, including stores, farms, private homes, warehouses,etc. If a town is of strategic value and the army does not have the manpower to hold it, they may raze it to deny that position to the enemy before they move on. Unless they could hold the docks and warehouses of a deep-water port or the depots, rails, and bridges of a railroad line, they would try to destroy those facilities, as well, before they moved on. Such actions were not limited to the Union army as I have pointed out. The irregular Confederate cavalry units (frequently called "raiders") of the Western theater were effective fighters and they managed to destroy many assets that were of value to the Union troops while themselves lacking the manpower to take and hold those assets. They often provisioned themselves by raiding stores, farms, towns, etc, even while they were in Confederate-held territory. These are tactics of war and they are not micro-managed by the president (either Lincoln or Davis).

If you want to point to atrocities, you need go no further than Quantrill's slaughter of 200 men, women, and children in Lawrence, KS. His ruthless actions were a black mark on the Confederacy, but his effectiveness against Union forces made him too valuable to rein in. Should we hold Jefferson Davis personally responsible for Quantill's murders? I think not.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This thread has gone so far I don't want to get back into it, but just to make sure here -- you know that second quote wasn't from me, right? You listed after a quote from me and didn't have who it came from cited in it.

I will say this, though - that first line is a very strange thing to see any American, much less you, writing.

Also, just for the record, Lincoln makes both my top 5 and bottom 5 Presidents list. I don't agree with even half of what Benzoate said in his first post (and most of the rest of the thread is just crap), but the basic point that people gloss-over the more ominous things Lincoln did during the Civil War is sound.

Yes, I cited that first quote because you apparently defend it. You are saying that you can't tell the difference between Hitler and Lincoln?

As for a strange line, you clearly haven't been paying attention. I have defended Constitutional law from day 1 here. The difference is that there was a real war with the union in jeapardy and the credible threat of troops marching on Washington, not six guys with box knives and an undeclared war that has no clear definition for victory. If China was invading the West Coast, then too I would support the Constitution and the powers given the President to protect the nation. On the other hand, Bush has sought enternal powers in a pseudowar that has no end.