Liberals and left-wingers: what do you think of Lincoln?

[Reggae Magmia]

I have some issues with him, but I think he was a good president. His American School Economics policies were pretty successful, he was able to keep the Union together, and he put America on the path of ending slavery.

However...one issue in particular I have with him is that he suspended Habeus Corpus.

EDIT: Damn it, clicked the wrong poll option. -1 from "one of the best," +1 for "good."

[Farnhamia]

I have some issues with him, but I think he was a good president. His American School Economics policies were pretty successful, he was able to keep the Union together, and he put America on the path of ending slavery.

However...one issue in particular I have with him is that he suspended Habeus Corpus.

EDIT: Damn it, clicked the wrong poll option. -1 from "one of the best," +1 for "good."

Enough with the habeas corpus thing. viewtopic.php?p=11503359#p11503359 What would you do in his position? "That's alright, fellers, try not to cause too much damage, would you?"

[Free Soviets]

Why do people keep saying he ended slavery? Have you not read what the Emanicipation Proclamation actually did? The actual - well, de jure - ban on slavery was a constitutional amendment and even that was undermined to a great extent during the aftermath of the Civil War.

His anti-civil liberties actions were a profound negative (assisted by the political machinations of the Supreme Court, i.e. ex parte Milligan coming in after it did no good).

Lincoln signed off on the 13th Amendment in early 1865 before it was sent to the states for ratification. Just because Booth murdered him before ratification doesn't mean you can't chalk it up on his ledger.

you might have beaten me to this by a minute or so, but i included the library of congress image of the actual document. so nyah.

[Farnhamia]

Lincoln signed off on the 13th Amendment in early 1865 before it was sent to the states for ratification. Just because Booth murdered him before ratification doesn't mean you can't chalk it up on his ledger.

you might have beaten me to this by a minute or so, but i included the library of congress image of the actual document. so nyah.

You're welcome to whatever small pleasure that affords you.

[Argyres]

Lincoln signed off on the 13th Amendment in early 1865 before it was sent to the states for ratification. Just because Booth murdered him before ratification doesn't mean you can't chalk it up on his ledger.

Yeah, I'm aware of how the Constitutional amendment process works. The fact he signed in doesn't mean he should get singular credit for abolition. He was a cautious/moderate voice in favor of it, certainly much more so once it became a weapon to use against the South. I'm not saying he shouldn't get any credit for it, I'm saying he gets too much credit (i.e. compare his reputation when it comes to abolition with congressional abolotionists like Thaddeus Stevens.

Ex parte Milligan says that the government cannot try civilians in military courts when the civilian court system is up and running. Nothing to do with habeas corpus, though the Court did say that the 1863 act allowing the suspension of the writ was legal.

What would you do in the midst of a rebellion, with 5th columnists running around the country actively trying to sabotage the efforts of the government to suppress the rebellion?

Um,

(1) I didn't say ex parte Milligan had anything to do with habeas corpus, so you're conflating my post with someone else's (incidentially, the other case you mentioned only emphasizes the deference the SCOTUS gave Lincoln which I disagree with)
(2) The actual threat of "fifth columnists" was greatly overstated (much like it later would be to justify interning the Japanese-Americans during World War II), but leaving that aside - if the contention of the Court is correct - that where the civil courts are functioning, military tribunals should have no authority is the problem. Not the actual holding, but the fact they waited until after the war (when its de facto effect was nil).

dude, slaver scum revolted in an effort to overthrow the US government and impose slavery across the continent. when there's a fucking war on literally in your yard, you do what is necessary.

You must love Korematsu then, huh?

[Nidaria]

I like Ike.

I also like ike.

Surprisingly, I, as a right-winger, consider Eisenhower one of the best presidents. I have no idea why hardcore left-wingers would like Eisenhower.

[Farnhamia]

Lincoln signed off on the 13th Amendment in early 1865 before it was sent to the states for ratification. Just because Booth murdered him before ratification doesn't mean you can't chalk it up on his ledger.

Yeah, I'm aware of how the Constitutional amendment process works. The fact he signed in doesn't mean he should get singular credit for abolition. He was a cautious/moderate voice in favor of it, certainly much more so once it became a weapon to use against the South. I'm not saying he shouldn't get any credit for it, I'm saying he gets too much credit (i.e. compare his reputation when it comes to abolition with congressional abolotionists like Thaddeus Stevens.

Ex parte Milligan says that the government cannot try civilians in military courts when the civilian court system is up and running. Nothing to do with habeas corpus, though the Court did say that the 1863 act allowing the suspension of the writ was legal.

What would you do in the midst of a rebellion, with 5th columnists running around the country actively trying to sabotage the efforts of the government to suppress the rebellion?

Um,

(1) I didn't say ex parte Milligan had anything to do with habeas corpus, so you're conflating my post with someone else's (incidentially, the other case you mentioned only emphasizes the deference the SCOTUS gave Lincoln which I disagree with)
(2) The actual threat of "fifth columnists" was greatly overstated (much like it later would be to justify interning the Japanese-Americans during World War II), but leaving that aside - if the contention of the Court is correct - that where the civil courts are functioning, military tribunals should have no authority is the problem. Not the actual holding, but the fact they waited until after the war (when its de facto effect was nil).

I beg pardon, you didn't mention Habeas Corpus. I must have still been locked onto the last person who did.

It's not generally well-known nowadays, but in the 19th century is was a rule that only one person could get the credit for anything. The methods of communication were so slow and cumbersome that writing something like "President Lincoln and Congressman Stevens and Vice-President Johnson and Congressman Whosis and Congressman Whatsis and ..." would bring the telegraph system to its knees. The highest ranking person would receive the credit and everyone else would get to tell people at dinner, "Yes, yes, I gave him that idea. Didn't want the credit for myself, you know, too much trouble. Pass the port, will you?"

Oh, and the Milligan case involved maybe half a dozen people. They were convicted but their executions were scheduled for May of 1865, so they were able to argue their case before the Court after the war ended. They could have just shot them, you know, but they didn't.

[Acro]

I hate lincoln, he destoryed civil rights, massacred large amounts of people, had opposition senate leaders deported. And suspended Habeas Corpus, I do however believe he was a strong wartime leader, I hate the south (I mean the CSA), Slavery, racism, all that shitty stuff. But Lincoln was a horrible leader.

[Grand Soviet Union]

Lincoln? Definitively in one of my top 5 US presidents. However I tend to go with it was more when he was President that makes him great. If he were president during say the 1920's he probably wouldn't be as famous or as liked. However I digress.

[Farnhamia]

I hate lincoln, he destoryed civil rights, massacred large amounts of people, had opposition senate leaders deported. And suspended Habeas Corpus, I do however believe he was a strong wartime leader, I hate the south (I mean the CSA), Slavery, racism, all that shitty stuff. But Lincoln was a horrible leader.

Sources for the destruction of civil rights (specific rights destroyed), the massacre of large amounts of people (places and dates) and the deportation of opposition Senate leaders (names of those deported). The suspension of habeas corpus has been dealt with.

[Mushet]

He was a genocidal asshole like most presidents

[Argyres]

Oh, and the Milligan case involved maybe half a dozen people. They were convicted but their executions were scheduled for May of 1865, so they were able to argue their case before the Court after the war ended. They could have just shot them, you know, but they didn't.

I'm sure anyone subjected to trial by military tribunal prior to the Milligan decision would have been heartened by that The point isn't that the harm was enormous, it's that the Court neglected to act out of political expediency (admittedly, perhaps Taney was afraid Lincoln would thumb his nose at the decision, but the principle matters here as well as the practicality). The same judicial 'deference' (which is too weak a word, I think) comes into play in Korematsu with even worse consequences - then again, Taney is hardly a judicial hero in general (hi, Dred Scott) so maybe I'm expecting too much out of him given Merryman.

Overall, I'd tend to agree with a previous post that said he was probably the 'right man, right time' type president. I think, overall, he did a very good job with some overrating going on after his death due to the circumstances. The main fault I have with him is one that tends to crop up a lot during wartime (i.e. Japanese internment, PATRIOT Act, etc.).

[Samuraikoku]

Surprisingly, I, as a right-winger, consider Eisenhower one of the best presidents. I have no idea why hardcore left-wingers would like Eisenhower.

He cared about civil rights.

[Farnhamia]

Oh, and the Milligan case involved maybe half a dozen people. They were convicted but their executions were scheduled for May of 1865, so they were able to argue their case before the Court after the war ended. They could have just shot them, you know, but they didn't.

I'm sure anyone subjected to trial by military tribunal prior to the Milligan decision would have been heartened by that The point isn't that the harm was enormous, it's that the Court neglected to act out of political expediency (admittedly, perhaps Taney was afraid Lincoln would thumb his nose at the decision, but the principle matters here as well as the practicality). The same judicial 'deference' (which is too weak a word, I think) comes into play in Korematsu with even worse consequences - then again, Taney is hardly a judicial hero in general (hi, Dred Scott) so maybe I'm expecting too much out of him given Merryman.

Overall, I'd tend to agree with a previous post that said he was probably the 'right man, right time' type president. I think, overall, he did a very good job with some overrating going on after his death due to the circumstances. The main fault I have with him is one that tends to crop up a lot during wartime (i.e. Japanese internment, PATRIOT Act, etc.).

The Supreme Court will not act in cases unless they are referred to it. Millgan came to the Court through a certificate of division from the judges of the Circuit Court for Indiana, on a petition for discharge from unlawful imprisonment. And it was the Chase Court, not the Taney Court, that heard the case, Chief Justice Taney having died in 1864.

[New Genoa]

From my experience, it's not the liberals and left-wingers who dislike Lincoln... it's the conservative Neo-Confederates and right-wing libertarians who dislike him the most.

Abe Lincoln being a good president is something most liberals and conservatives can actually agree on.

[Argyres]

The Supreme Court will not act in cases unless they are referred to it. Millgan came to the Court through a certificate of division from the judges of the Circuit Court for Indiana, on a petition for discharge rom unlawful imprisonment.

Which is why the Court avoided making a substantive judgement on tribunals during the war in ex parte Vallandingham? That the lower courts were complicit in avoiding taking Lincoln/the administration head on hardly is an excuse.

Even in Merryman he's basically throwing his hands up;

In such a case, my duty was too plain to be mistaken. I have exercised all the power which the constitution and laws confer upon me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome. It is possible that the officer who has incurred this grave responsibility may have misunderstood his instructions, and exceeded the authority intended to be given him; I shall, therefore, order all the proceedings in this case, with my opinion, to be filed and recorded in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland, and direct the clerk to transmit a copy, under seal, to the president of the United States. It will then remain for that high officer, in fulfillment of his constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," to determine what measures he will take to cause the civil process of the United States to be respected and enforced.

Sure, there's an implicit protest in "I've done what I can", but there's also a lot of wiping his hands of the matter.

And it was the Chase Court, not the Taney Court, that heard the case, Chief Justice Taney having died in 1864.

Yeah, forgot Taney died in October. Still, Chase was an outspoken advocate of abolition and hardly the type to aggressively challenge Lincoln/the administration, so the actual substantive difference between a somewhat browbeaten and aged Taney and a Radical Republican like Chase...?

In any case, this is all pretty tangential to my general point, which was that Lincoln's civil liberties record during wartime was....questionable; largely operating under the notion that necessity trumped everything else. In general terms, some people are okay with that. I'm not, particular when presented with cases like the ones that arose in the Civil War/WW2, where necessity seems to be a real exaggeration where the term necessary is used in place of more accurate terms like convenient or desirable.

[Frisivisia]

I also like ike.

Surprisingly, I, as a right-winger, consider Eisenhower one of the best presidents. I have no idea why hardcore left-wingers would like Eisenhower.

Because he taxed the rich at 90% and led the greatest economic expansion in the history of the US.

[Farnhamia]

The Supreme Court will not act in cases unless they are referred to it. Millgan came to the Court through a certificate of division from the judges of the Circuit Court for Indiana, on a petition for discharge rom unlawful imprisonment.

Which is why the Court avoided making a substantive judgement on tribunals during the war in ex parte Vallandingham? That the lower courts were complicit in avoiding taking Lincoln/the administration head on hardly is an excuse.

And it was the Chase Court, not the Taney Court, that heard the case, Chief Justice Taney having died in 1864.

Yeah, forgot Taney died in October. Still, Chase was an outspoken advocate of abolition and hardly the type to aggressively challenge Lincoln/the administration, so the actual substantive difference between a somewhat browbeaten and aged Taney and a Radical Republican like Chase...?

In any case, this is all pretty tangential to my general point, which was that Lincoln's civil liberties record during wartime was....questionable; largely operating under the notion that necessity trumped everything else. In general terms, some people are okay with that. I'm not, particular when presented with cases like the ones that arose in the Civil War/WW2, where necessity seems to be a real exaggeration where the term necessary is used in place of more accurate terms like convenient or desirable.

I think the pressure of necessity was much greater for Lincoln than it was for FDR. After all, the enemy never really came near the US mainland but in the Civil War crossing the Potomac could get you in trouble.

[Charellia]

Lincoln may have been a Republican but freeing the slaves was very liberal.

[Argyres]

Even granted that the threat was (much) more real in the Civil War than in World War 2, why does any of that make it a ncessity that habeas corpus be suspended (by Congress, let alone by executive fiat) or that military tribunals be established either in general or where the civil courts are still operating (if you want to play by the Milligan distinction)?

I think Lincoln could make a much stronger case than FDR (or, more specifically, the Department of Defense/Chief of Staffs) could, but it's still a much stronger case for being more convenient from a practical point of view - arrest suspects, toss them away, have the military deal with them at its own pace than one that's strictly necessary. There weren't that many cases of sabotage or false flag type events where the security of the United States would be in significant jeopardy because Vallandingham or Milligan (or men like them) were tried under normal, civil, procedure.

That being said - I don't judge that period as harshly as I do the WW2 Court (the 1860s were, in so many ways, very different and backwards, less informed, etc.) - just like Lincoln, while not progressive compared to a liberal of today - should be judged at least somewhat in the context of his time. Even most abolotionists didn't think blacks were the equals of whites, for example.

Lincoln may have been a Republican but freeing the slaves was very liberal

Probably because the Republicans of the 1860s (particularly ones like Lincoln or even more radical) aren't the same Republicans as the ones we have today

[Phocidaea]

I've seen how radical the left-wingers, socialists, communists and liberals on this site (aka the 99%) can be. I was shocked to discover that anyone could find Ronald Reagan to be a bad President.

I disagree on most things with the majority of the ones who use this forum. But I don't believe that they could rebuke this claim: Abraham Lincoln was one of the best Presidents in US history. He showed exceptional leadership during the American Civil War, defeated an evil cause dangerous to the human race, eradicated slavery in the United States and changed America forever.

But maybe some of you disagree. What are your thoughts on Lincoln?

I think you'll find that most liberals love Lincoln. There was a time when Republican did not always mean Conservative and Democrat did not always mean Liberal.

You must understand: in the 1860s, the Democrats were the more-conservative party- as they were into the early 20th century. Somewhere in there, the Democrats got divided, but the mainline ones like FDR became the modern liberals. The Republicans stayed more or less moderate until Reagan took office [and yes, Nixon was a centrist- he established the EPA and ended 'nam, to name some of his more-liberal achievements]

If Lincoln ran for president today, I'm not saying he would be a Democrat, but he sure as hell wouldn't be a Republican. Lincoln started a war to protect the power of the federal government, the Republicans now are closer to starting a war to crush the power of the federal government. Lincoln wanted to grant at least basic rights to slaves, even if it was politically motivated- modern Republicans won't even give one in fifty people the right to marry. Lincoln started up income taxes to pay for his government and the war- modern Republicans piss and moan about taxes even though they spend even more than he did. Lincoln would be laughed off the campaign trail the moment he threw his hat in the ring.

If the Republican party now was remotely similar to the Republican party Lincoln espoused, this would be a very different country.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I've seen how radical the left-wingers, socialists, communists and liberals on this site (aka the 99%) can be.

Being part of "the 99%" does not mean you are a liberal or leftist. "The 99%" is an economic grouping, not an ideological one, and the people who claim to be representing "the 99%" are liars. The idea that anyone can actually speak for all of "the 99%" is bullshit.

I am a leftist, but I know better than to think that a landlord who makes $100,000 a year off his rental properties has the same concerns as a tenant that is trying to live on less than $20,000. They are both part of "the 99%," but the morons who came up with that rhetoric will never address both their concerns.[/rant]

I was shocked to discover that anyone could find Ronald Reagan to be a bad President.

He was before my time, so I don't have a strong opinion on him myself, but I don't see why this was a surprise.

I disagree on most things with the majority of the ones who use this forum. But I don't believe that they could rebuke this claim: Abraham Lincoln was one of the best Presidents in US history. He showed exceptional leadership during the American Civil War, defeated an evil cause dangerous to the human race, eradicated slavery in the United States and changed America forever.

But maybe some of you disagree. What are your thoughts on Lincoln?

Lincoln got some good stuff done. As a secessionist and racial egalitarian, I have some reservations about him, but I can still find a lot to respect. He had some very 19th century ideas that are offensive by modern standards. Although he realized that slavery was a problem, he didn't see blacks and whites as equal, and I don't agree with his attitude that it would be best for the blacks to go back to Africa. His handling of the Civil War was pretty good. Even though I think states should be permitted to secede as a general rule, I can understand why he invaded the CSA. They provoked him. The Emancipation Proclamation was of course a good thing. Slavery was not completely outlawed in the US until after the war, but even so, Lincoln got things moving.

[Goodclark]

He ended slavery (but not discrimination), but that was just to piss off the southern states. Other than that, I cannot recall anything exceptional about him.

Dude. Hat.

That alone should pass as good in anyone's book.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I don't much like him, but he preserved the USA as a single institution that can't be pushed around by an angry minority.

[AETEN II]

What impresses me the most about Lincoln is that he assumed emergency powers to preserve the Union and did such things as suspending habeas corpus, but remained uncorrupted by the absolute power he was wielding. His main achievable was not ending slavery, it was preserving the union from destruction. The man was quite impressive and easily the greatest president, as he fulfilled the actual purpose of the presidency by preserving the Union and ensuring it wasn't destroyed int he Civil War.

And while suspending Habeas Corpus wasn't exactly necessary, it was useful in ensuring the whole damn country didn't fall apart. We came close to being wiped out. While the South didn't have a logistic chance, they could have received aid from Britain if it became apparent the North was incapable of stamping them out. Certainly didn't help Lincoln or the Union that the first wave(s) of Union generals were hilariously bad.