Jump to content

Happy 199th Birthday, Abraham Lincoln!


jetophile

Recommended Posts

Happy Birthday to my favorite monkey. To top off his brilliance (Tall%20Lincoln.gif:) ), the guy was always a mess. He always looks like he just got out of bed, and no matter how adept he was socially, he obviously had no talent for picking tailors. Hehe, I love that.

Abraham%20Lincoln.jpg

Why do I love Abraham Lincoln? Too many reasons to list, but here's one to start:

He was a transcendental thinker, spent his life thinking outside the box, and never fell victim to dogma. He never bought in. Because he couldn't. I admire that. Unlike many people who say 'it's all good' - that is until their ideas are challenged - he really did think it was all good. He never misrepresented himself, and what he said publicly, he also believed privately - only he never embellished what he thought privately publicly. He was counseled against it, and with good reason. He would have been taken for an atheist (which he wasn't), and never gotten elected. I guess a simple way to encapsulate a complex situation was folks carrying on what devout Christians they were while they were leading people by in chains and on leashes. He got the hypocrisy of that, but the hypocrites didn't.

Peter Cartwright, a Methodist preacher and political foe of Lincoln's in the 1846 Congressional race openly challenged Lincoln's religious beliefs. Lincoln did not think private thoughts on the matter were public fodder, but after being alluded to as an infidel, he decided to meet Cartwright in his own backyard and attend one of his evangelical rallies.

From Carl Sandburg's 'Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years':

Cartwright said, "All who desire to lead a new life, to give their hearts to God, and go to Heaven, will stand," and a sprinkling of men, women, and children stood up. Then the preacher exhorted, "All who do not wish to go to Hell will stand." ALL stood up - except Lincoln. Then said Cartwright in his gravest voice, "I observe that many responded to the first invitation to give their hearts to God and go to Heaven. And I further observe that ALL of you save one indicated that you did not desire to go to Hell. The sole exception is Mr. Lincoln, who did not respond to EITHER invitation. May I inquire of you, Mr. Lincoln, where are you going?"

Lincoln slowly rose and slowly spoke. "I came here as a respectful listener. I did not know that I was to be singled out by Brother Cartwright. I believe in treating religious matters with due solemnity. I admit that the questions propounded by Brother Cartwright are of great importance. I did not feel called upon to answer as the rest did. Brother Cartwright asks me directly where I am going. I desire to reply with equal directness: I am going to Congress." He went.

Major ownage. I always thought this was awesome:

"In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong." - A. Lincoln

He'll never lose his relevancy, and it's no small wonder scholars are revisiting him with renewed fervor. Anyway, I'll be here all night. :P

Happy Birthday, Rail Splitter. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing President. Amazing person. He was one of the few (if only) person who could have possibly saved the Union in the situation that it was in. He was not a perfect person. He didn't believe in slavery, yet was vocal in that he believed whites were superior to blacks, especially during his campaign against Stephen A. Douglas. Anyone with an interest in history should definitely read over the transcripts of the Lincoln-Douglas debate. It is amazing the amount of articulation and thought both of these two men put into it. Any debate you see on TV is nothing compared to this one.

It is interesting to think what shape the country would have taken had he lived through his second term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was such a free thinker, that he was also openly racist. There are countless debates with him in Illinois using the N-word as part of his speech. I don't hold that against a man that I too, hold in high regard, but lets not sit back and say he was THE free thinker. He did plenty of things that were PC, in an effort to get elected.

I always wondered how smart a man was that hired, and fired 4 Generals to lead the Union in a 3 year span?

One thing that I find ironic about the good old US of A, is that if we are supposed to be such a melting pot, and such a land of opportunity, then why have we elected one president that was not Christian (Lincoln), and no presidents since Lincoln that had facial hair? Why was Walt Disney founded by a man with a mustache, and then tell their employees that they may not wear any kind of facial hair?

Sort of F'ed up. Either way, i like Lincoln, he seems like a really good man.

Hey Jet-Mo, i see your 'im bored thread'...give us some history bieotch. :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was such a free thinker, that he was also openly racist. There are countless debates with him in Illinois using the N-word as part of his speech. I don't hold that against a man that I too, hold in high regard, but lets not sit back and say he was THE free thinker. He did plenty of things that were PC, in an effort to get elected.

I always wondered how smart a man was that hired, and fired 4 Generals to lead the Union in a 3 year span?

One thing that I find ironic about the good old US of A, is that if we are supposed to be such a melting pot, and such a land of opportunity, then why have we elected one president that was not Christian (Lincoln), and no presidents since Lincoln that had facial hair? Why was Walt Disney founded by a man with a mustache, and then tell their employees that they may not wear any kind of facial hair?

Sort of F'ed up. Either way, i like Lincoln, he seems like a really good man.

Hey Jet-Mo, i see your 'im bored thread'...give us some history bieotch. :biggrin:

actually, just about every president after Lincoln and up to Taft, with the exception of a few, had either moustaches or beards. I don't think it's so much a 'you can't have facial hair to be president' in that being clean shaven is something political parties see as being against against a particular image you want to portray to a mass audience of voters. If you think about the 1960 Presidential Debate, many people who listened to the debate of JFK vs. Nixon on the radio thought Nixon won, but those who watched it on tv (it was the first debate to be televised i believe) saw a Nixon with a 5 o clock shadow who looked exhausted and shrill. JFK looked more confident and well-kept. (i.e. more presidential). It definitely played a factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually, just about every president after Lincoln and up to Taft, with the exception of a few, had either moustaches or beards. I don't think it's so much a 'you can't have facial hair to be president' in that being clean shaven is something political parties see as being against against a particular image you want to portray to a mass audience of voters. If you think about the 1960 Presidential Debate, many people who listened to the debate of JFK vs. Nixon on the radio thought Nixon won, but those who watched it on tv (it was the first debate to be televised i believe) saw a Nixon with a 5 o clock shadow who looked exhausted and shrill. JFK looked more confident and well-kept. (i.e. more presidential). It definitely played a factor.

that's true about Taft, i think FDR had a stache too...maybe it was beards? Not sure, but the point is, people look at Lincoln as a very intelligent figure, beard and all...its just funny how it would now be unacceptable to wear a beard in a presidential race.

My dad told me about the JFK - Nixon race, saying that Nixon lost in large part to looking scary as hell on the TV. haha...like you said, JFK looked like the man for the part, if only on looks alone.

I do think its funny we have never had a female president, not only that, but never had a president that didn't look as white as rice. Maybe someone in there had some random nationality in them, but for being such a melting pot, it certainly is a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's true about Taft, i think FDR had a stache too...maybe it was beards? Not sure, but the point is, people look at Lincoln as a very intelligent figure, beard and all...its just funny how it would now be unacceptable to wear a beard in a presidential race.

My dad told me about the JFK - Nixon race, saying that Nixon lost in large part to looking scary as hell on the TV. haha...like you said, JFK looked like the man for the part, if only on looks alone.

I do think its funny we have never had a female president, not only that, but never had a president that didn't look as white as rice. Maybe someone in there had some random nationality in them, but for being such a melting pot, it certainly is a joke.

I would just prefer not to have a female president with facial hair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to think what shape the country would have taken had he lived through his second term.

Yes, it is unfortunate that he did not live to see reconstruction. Things went downhill after his assassination, and Johnson took over...the Radical Republicans couldn't stand him (Johnson) and his loyalty to the south. No doubt things would have been alot different had Lincoln been there to oversee the entire process.

Lincoln wasnt perfect though, and had his share of haters...copperheads they were called. Wanted people to dodge the draft, even the ones serving were encouraged to abandon the army

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was such a free thinker, that he was also openly racist. There are countless debates with him in Illinois using the N-word as part of his speech. I don't hold that against a man that I too, hold in high regard, but lets not sit back and say he was THE free thinker. He did plenty of things that were PC, in an effort to get elected.

And this is where I DON'T fade into 'gloss over'. That being said, his thinking was far more progressive - and as radical as he dared to openly be - than anyone else's in the political arena of the time. Smartie that he was, he presented himself as a moderate, unlike Seward who was openly and staunchly abolitionist. By the way, mmmm, the Lincoln/Douglas debates... :)

http://forums.theganggreen.com/showpost.php?p=750766&postcount=15

Entire thread, if anyone is interested....

http://forums.theganggreen.com/showthread.php?t=28921

It should also be noted that the straw that broke the camel's back with Booth was Lincoln openly announcing shortly after his second inauguration that emancipated blacks should be given the right to vote. Lincoln believed the nation needed to be transitioned, or it would provoke more bloodshed. When Booth heard of Lincoln's intentions, it was then that the plot for Lincoln's abduction became clear to his conspirators that it had very shortly before turned into a plot for murder. John Wilkes Booth, more on that self-important turd another time.

Haha, this is pretty good. Booth was in a state after the above, so he said to some of his friends at Ford's Theater that, "If a man were to insult a n*gger now, he would be knocked down and nothing would be done to the n*gger." "You should not insult a n*gger, then." More ownage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always wondered how smart a man was that hired, and fired 4 Generals to lead the Union in a 3 year span?

Whoops! Meant to say something about this. They wouldn't listen to him and let their own egos get in the way. He was called a 'stupid baboon' among other things. Thing was, had someone, ANYONE listened to him to capture Richmond in the early stages of the War, it probably would have lasted only half as long.

Of the 633,000 who died in the Civil War (actual figures vary), more than half of those casualties were due to cholera and other contagious diseases. Lincoln himself was infected with small pox, and was weak and feverish during his delivery of the Gettysburg address. Didn't die of it, though. His number wasn't up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is unfortunate that he did not live to see reconstruction. Things went downhill after his assassination, and Johnson took over...the Radical Republicans couldn't stand him (Johnson) and his loyalty to the south. No doubt things would have been alot different had Lincoln been there to oversee the entire process.

Lincoln wasnt perfect though, and had his share of haters...copperheads they were called. Wanted people to dodge the draft, even the ones serving were encouraged to abandon the army

Nearly everyone outside his Cabinet hated him. Lincoln half-expected to be assassinated, but he wasn't afraid. He got threats constantly and took it all in stride. You'd think he would have been bodily protected at all times, but any person, just about anyone, could have access to him nearly at will. People off the street were constantly stealing stuff from the White House as souvenirs, people he knew hated his guts would get private audience. Crazy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Jet-Mo, i see your 'im bored thread'...give us some history bieotch. :biggrin:

That's Joewillie's thread. :lol:

As for the 1860's, no comment. The truth is far too unpalatable for the masses. What I will do is recommend you read the book RAISING HOLY HELL. It's about the abolitionist John Brown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's Joewillie's thread. :lol:

As for the 1860's, no comment. The truth is far too unpalatable for the masses. What I will do is recommend you read the book RAISING HOLY HELL. It's about the abolitionist John Brown.

Heh, oddly enough John Wilkes Booth admired John Brown. Difference is, I doubt John Brown was motivated by the idea of his own self-glorification.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard an interesting piece on NPR a month or so about Lincoln.

Apparently the Republicans opposing him in the prior election all argued to let the south secede and end hostilities. He alone carried the will to keep the union together.

Had he not lived through that election, America could likely have become balkanized and resembled Europe. With more stringent borders throughout, our economy wouldn't have grown to what it has become, our strength would have been hindered, and the world would be very different today.

Just speculation of course, but plausible, and scary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard an interesting piece on NPR a month or so about Lincoln.

Apparently the Republicans opposing him in the prior election all argued to let the south secede and end hostilities. He alone carried the will to keep the union together.

Had he not lived through that election, America could likely have become balkanized and resembled Europe. With more stringent borders throughout, our economy wouldn't have grown to what it has become, our strength would have been hindered, and the world would be very different today.

Just speculation of course, but plausible, and scary.

Divine intervention. But don't take my word for it.

H1vcRm6CHBY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoops! Meant to say something about this. They wouldn't listen to him and let their own egos get in the way. He was called a 'stupid baboon' among other things. Thing was, had someone, ANYONE listened to him to capture Richmond in the early stages of the War, it probably would have lasted only half as long.

Of the 633,000 who died in the Civil War (actual figures vary), more than half of those casualties were due to cholera and other contagious diseases. Lincoln himself was infected with small pox, and was weak and feverish during his delivery of the Gettysburg address. Didn't die of it, though. His number wasn't up.

Bull****. McClellan was running a campaign trying to avoid big battles and large loss of life (for both sides) because he knew that would make reconstruction near impossible. Boy wonder didn't like the fact that the war was taking too long and decided to complain about McClellan not "using the army". He was fairly ****ty as commander-in-chief and kudos for having Sherman burn the South. That really helped reconstruction. He wanted to simply win the war quickly because they had the numbers, but when you are fighting against yourself that is not the prudent course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bull****. McClellan was running a campaign trying to avoid big battles and large loss of life (for both sides) because he knew that would make reconstruction near impossible. Boy wonder didn't like the fact that the war was taking too long and decided to complain about McClellan not "using the army". He was fairly ****ty as commander-in-chief and kudos for having Sherman burn the South. That really helped reconstruction. He wanted to simply win the war quickly because they had the numbers, but when you are fighting against yourself that is not the prudent course.

good post...spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bull****. McClellan was running a campaign trying to avoid big battles and large loss of life (for both sides) because he knew that would make reconstruction near impossible. Boy wonder didn't like the fact that the war was taking too long and decided to complain about McClellan not "using the army". He was fairly ****ty as commander-in-chief and kudos for having Sherman burn the South. That really helped reconstruction. He wanted to simply win the war quickly because they had the numbers, but when you are fighting against yourself that is not the prudent course.
Can't say I agree with your take on McClellan (and I'll get into that), but first, Lincoln: "I expect to maintain this contest until successful, or till I die, or am conquered, or my term expires, or Congress or the country forsakes me." - Summer of 1862

McClellan indeed was far more cautious, and he was reluctant to use the men at his disposal after clashing with Lee in northern VA. However, Lincoln was a realist, and felt people expected unrealistic peaceful resolution even though that was an impossibility given the conditions of surrender the South was expected to abide by. McClellan fluctuated between baseless pessimism and hysterical delusions of Napoleonic grandeur.

He constantly portrayed his positions as far weaker than they actually were, and when confronted with his own failures, he would thrust blame and derision on everyone around him, become consumed with self-pity, and everyone - and I mean everyone - was an idiot except him. He didn't know what it was like to lose at anything, so setbacks, large or small, were humiliations he wasn't good at handling. He obviously had his strengths, but in a word, he was a spoiled brat. "I am thwarted and deceived by these incompetents at every turn." Seward was "an incompetent puppy." Lincoln was "an idiot and a baboon." So on and so forth.

After promoting, demoting, firing, and rehiring McClellan, Lincoln put him in charge when Confederate troops threatened D.C. Some of Lincoln's Cabinet disapproved, but some weeks later McClellan thwarted forces at Antietam, MD. It was the deadliest day of the War, but Lincoln issued his 'draft' of the Emancipation Proclamation shortly thereafter (Sept. 22nd, 1862). Lincoln was terrific at sizing people up and knew how to play them to his advantage. Someone else would probably have let pride get in the way after being repeatedly submarined by his own command.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't say I agree with your take on McClellan (and I'll get into that), but first, Lincoln: "I expect to maintain this contest until successful, or till I die, or am conquered, or my term expires, or Congress or the country forsakes me." - Summer of 1862

McClellan indeed was far more cautious, and he was reluctant to use the men at his disposal after clashing with Lee in northern VA. However, Lincoln was a realist, and felt people expected unrealistic peaceful resolution even though that was an impossibility given the conditions of surrender the South was expected to abide by. McClellan fluctuated between baseless pessimism and hysterical delusions of Napoleonic grandeur.

He constantly portrayed his positions as far weaker than they actually were, and when confronted with his own failures, he would thrust blame and derision on everyone around him, become consumed with self-pity, and everyone - and I mean everyone - was an idiot except him. He didn't know what it was like to lose at anything, so setbacks, large or small, were humiliations he wasn't good at handling. He obviously had his strengths, but in a word, he was a spoiled brat. "I am thwarted and deceived by these incompetents at every turn." Seward was "an incompetent puppy." Lincoln was "an idiot and a baboon." So on and so forth.

After promoting, demoting, firing, and rehiring McClellan, Lincoln put him in charge when Confederate troops threatened D.C. Some of Lincoln's Cabinet disapproved, but some weeks later McClellan thwarted forces at Antietam, MD. It was the deadliest day of the War, but Lincoln issued his 'draft' of the Emancipation Proclamation shortly thereafter (Sept. 22nd, 1862). Lincoln was terrific at sizing people up and knew how to play them to his advantage. Someone else would probably have let pride get in the way after being repeatedly submarined by his own command.

As for your quote, please remember that Lincoln was a politician. He most certainly was in a rush to finish the war and appease the northern states. As for your take on McClellan, it's nice that you turn a negative into a positive by his reappointment, but Lincoln only did so because his amatuer meddling in military affairs meant that none of McClellan's successors satisfied Lincoln either. Pope, following Lincoln's instructions tanked at Bull Run.

Burnside, Hooker and Meade also failed. It's common knowledge that Lincoln was in a rush to finish the war and appease the northern states. Remember that they are the ones voting in the election and paying the way for the war. Only when he found Grant and turned Sherman and Sheridan loose destroying farms and schools was he satsified. That did not make for an easy peace.

You do a great job of disparaging McClellan's personality, but when ten people have problems with one it's kind of hard to blame the ten while commending the one. I can appreciate your love of Lincoln, but militarily he was a stiff and he certainly mishandled the war effort.

Now can we talk about sock monkeys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your quote, please remember that Lincoln was a politician. He most certainly was in a rush to finish the war and appease the northern states. As for your take on McClellan, it's nice that you turn a negative into a positive by his reappointment, but Lincoln only did so because his amatuer meddling in military affairs meant that none of McClellan's successors satisfied Lincoln either. Pope, following Lincoln's instructions tanked at Bull Run.

Burnside, Hooker and Meade also failed. It's common knowledge that Lincoln was in a rush to finish the war and appease the northern states. Remember that they are the ones voting in the election and paying the way for the war. Only when he found Grant and turned Sherman and Sheridan loose destroying farms and schools was he satsified. That did not make for an easy peace.

You do a great job of disparaging McClellan's personality, but when ten people have problems with one it's kind of hard to blame the ten while commending the one. I can appreciate your love of Lincoln, but militarily he was a stiff and he certainly mishandled the war effort.

Now can we talk about sock monkeys?

greensock2dx6.jpg"Now you listen, here, Mr. nutellaup6.png. First off, of COURSE he was a politician, but one thing that can be said for Lincoln is that what he said out loud wasn't just a whole lot of spin. Secondly, indeed Lincoln had no experience with military strategy whatsoever. Hehe, a stiff, of course he was; and in no way am I saying he was George S. Patton or even Sargeant O'Rourke from 'F Troop' for that matter. What I am saying is that as the War went on, he wasn't the complete rube he was painted to be.

As with any military campaign, you lose, you win, blundering mistakes are made, small gains to recoup. The pool of military minds wasn't all that great to begin with, and to say that Lincoln was trying to appease the North, well, yah, he was trying to WIN. More later (I'm at work at the 'sneaky desk'), but until such time...

abelincolnrulesct1.jpg

'Say hello to my little friend!'" :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"the North, well, yah, he was trying to WIN. More later (I'm at work at the 'sneaky desk'abelincolnrulesct1.jpg

'Say hello to my little friend!'" :P

As for my new AVATAR, in retrospect I do recall you using it on TGG, but I didn not nick it. After I saw that video of that Hillsborough cop dumping the paraplegic out of his wheelchair FOR A TRAFFIC VIOLATION, the first thing that came to my mind was Planet of the Apes. Don't know why, it just did. Then I word searched it and the rest is history.

I FEEL FREAKY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your quote, please remember that Lincoln was a politician. He most certainly was in a rush to finish the war and appease the northern states. As for your take on McClellan, it's nice that you turn a negative into a positive by his reappointment, but Lincoln only did so because his amatuer meddling in military affairs meant that none of McClellan's successors satisfied Lincoln either. Pope, following Lincoln's instructions tanked at Bull Run.

Burnside, Hooker and Meade also failed. It's common knowledge that Lincoln was in a rush to finish the war and appease the northern states. Remember that they are the ones voting in the election and paying the way for the war. Only when he found Grant and turned Sherman and Sheridan loose destroying farms and schools was he satsified. That did not make for an easy peace.

You do a great job of disparaging McClellan's personality, but when ten people have problems with one it's kind of hard to blame the ten while commending the one. I can appreciate your love of Lincoln, but militarily he was a stiff and he certainly mishandled the war effort.

Now can we talk about sock monkeys?

Hey sock monkey, the CSA considered itself a sovereign nation and while the Union did not consider it to be, the Civil War was still a war and war is hell. You bring up about Sherman's atrocities, but what about the Andersonville atrocity? What about America's greatest atrocity, slavery for 200 years where millions more people died in the Middle Passage than the ****s in the Holocaust? McClellan was a p*ssy plain and simple. Its not like Lincoln was someone like Wilson or FDR who took every advantage possible to take away civil liberties and perpetuate racism, Lincoln only did what he felt like he had to do to win the Civil War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for my new AVATAR, in retrospect I do recall you using it on TGG, but I didn not nick it. After I saw that video of that Hillsborough cop dumping the paraplegic out of his wheelchair FOR A TRAFFIC VIOLATION, the first thing that came to my mind was Planet of the Apes. Don't know why, it just did. Then I word searched it and the rest is history.

I FEEL FREAKY!

Hah, nah, it's all public domain. Just scratched me where I itched is all - and I'm pretty indelicate. :P

I'm thinking this old one may suit better, though, given your signature.

madhouseul0.jpg

And by the way..."Julius, yoooooooooou!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey sock monkey, the CSA considered itself a sovereign nation and while the Union did not consider it to be, the Civil War was still a war and war is hell. You bring up about Sherman's atrocities, but what about the Andersonville atrocity? What about America's greatest atrocity, slavery for 200 years where millions more people died in the Middle Passage than the ****s in the Holocaust? McClellan was a p*ssy plain and simple. Its not like Lincoln was someone like Wilson or FDR who took every advantage possible to take away civil liberties and perpetuate racism, Lincoln only did what he felt like he had to do to win the Civil War.

The Confederate States considered themselves a sovereign nation. The Republic did not. If they simply wanted to beat a foreign government, then kudos to Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan. Where did I ever use the term "atrocity"? I just pointed out that they decided to burn the south. Pretty sure I didn't defend slavery either. If you wanted to punish the south for slavery then good job. If you wanted to have a united nation where slavery was outlawed....not so good.

What does McClellan's alleged cowardice or "*****-ness" have to do with burning the south? Would he have been in any physical danger if he told Sherman to go nuts down there? He would have done the same things he was already doing, fighting the war from the north. No matter what you think, it was a CIVIL war. Us against us. It simply makes more sense to choose your battles carefully and try to minimize the loss of life and bad will. Burning schools and tearing up the infrastructure of southern cities and towns wins the war but alienates the entire south and that goes beyond the slave economy.

History is written by the winners and Lincoln "won" so I'm not surprised at McClellan being considered a "*****" here but for every time that McClellan undercut Lincoln by claiming we should try to negotiate a peace or publishing a pamphlet, there are probably ten times when he was hamstrung by the military genius meddling in war plans. If McClellan was the problem then why did it take Lincoln so long to find somebody that could "win" the war? Maybe he learned on the job, as Jetophile states, but it obviously wasn't only McClellan holding him back since he ran through generals like grape soda. I'm not looking to slam Lincoln, but I think it's a little ridiculous to praise him for having to deal with allegedly incompetent generals. It's unlikely they were all wrong and he was right and even if they were all wrong, he deserves some blame for not selecting the right people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Confederate States considered themselves a sovereign nation. The Republic did not. If they simply wanted to beat a foreign government, then kudos to Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan...

History is written by the winners and Lincoln "won" so I'm not surprised at McClellan being considered a "*****" here but for every time that McClellan undercut Lincoln by claiming we should try to negotiate a peace or publishing a pamphlet, there are probably ten times when he was hamstrung by the military genius meddling in war plans. If McClellan was the problem then why did it take Lincoln so long to find somebody that could "win" the war? Maybe he learned on the job, as Jetophile states, but it obviously wasn't only McClellan holding him back since he ran through generals like grape soda. I'm not looking to slam Lincoln, but I think it's a little ridiculous to praise him for having to deal with allegedly incompetent generals. It's unlikely they were all wrong and he was right and even if they were all wrong, he deserves some blame for not selecting the right people.

More than once Lincoln responded to the Confederacy's 'peaceful attempts and entreaties to compromise' in response simply addressed, "To Whom It May Concern." He refused to "recognize" the Confederacy, and it was purposefully done. I think it's brilliant. He was not interested in bargaining because it would have given them legitimacy.

Lincoln's primary strength was subjugating his own ego to get what he wanted. It was a game of chess, no question. His Cabinet was comprised of men who essentially had disdain for each other - and even Lincoln himself - but he picked them for their individual strengths of character to work as one machine. In the end, they did things for him because they WANTED to. Not an easy feat, but it only demonstrates what he was made of.

I cut Lincoln slack here. The weight and the stress that was upon him is unimaginable, and he preserved the Union, with all of his shortcomings intact. I love him because of his glaring imperfections, not his often ridiculous lionization. No-one struggled with his failures more than he did, and some of his ideas were loopy, sure. His mastery of the English language, his abstract thought, how he viewed things, pretty hot in context - and even without.

Why "having an agenda" is a no-no is laughable to me in some ways. Politicians should stand for something instead of double-speaking in fear of offending people. "If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?" Lincoln's of course, and food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...