 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Grumpy Geezer
| Joined: | Thu Sep 1st, 2005 |
| Location: | Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 1491 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
My first worthless piece of advice would be to never look to others for validation of your beliefs
. You're educated, you've read the same books others have and reached a conclusion based on that. Trust it. But it does make for interesting discourse.I'm well past the point where my opinion of Lincoln will change, that being that he deserves the label of a great President. I don't discount all the warts pointed out by others. I do however weigh them against others of Lincoln's time, most particularly Bell, Breckinridge and Douglas.
We often fall into a stereotypical scenario that the North's manpower and resources made the war an inevitable win for the Union. Nonsense. The greatest reserve of assets, when unused or misused means little (and I'll resist modern-day commentary here). So I've always measured Lincoln against the other three candidates he defeated. Would any of them have fought as hard to preserve the Union? IMO, no. Would any of them, even if they were inclined to do so, had the capacity to make the best use of the resources at hand? IMO, no. Would any of them have had the ability to hold a divided country together long enough to complete the task? IMO, no. Would Breckinridge, Bell, or Douglas have the ability to win the war? IMO, no.
As for how many slaves Lincoln freed, I would re-phrase the question. I would ask how many slaves were released from shackles because of the actions of Lincoln. I know what I think, and as much as I respect the opinions of disenters, I'm damn proud to admire him.