The DemocRAT Insurrection was provoked entirely by the RATS. Lincoln had nothing to do with it merely forced by these traitors to live up to his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution and Union.
He would not have even been elected had the Slaver RATS been smart enough to unite around one RAT candidate rather than run three. What idiots. Traitorous idiots.
Obviously Lincoln was one of the two greatest presidents the United States of America ever had. Facing down the RATs of his day (North and South) was one of the greatest achievements history records. Defeat of the DemocRAT Insurrection, despite the RAT treason at his back, was absolutely necessary for the survival of the USA and the idea of freedom.
Unfortunately he wasn't around to totally destroy the RAT political power in the South after the Insurrection. By doing so he would have saved the region from another century of RAT terror and tyranny.
What a silly post. While I admit that reasonable people disagree about the merits of the civil war, your post assumes the fallacious premise that the Democrats in 1860 were the same party as in 2004, simply because they have the same name. There were two political cleavages which realigned the parties in the intervening period - around 1900, when the merits of the gold standard became the central political issue and in the 1930's, when the rise of the welfare state became the main issue. There were massive party migrations during each of the periods such that afterwards, the parties were the same in name only.
Oh, and I assume the president other than Lincoln at the top of your list wouldn't be Washington, because he was a traitor too, right?
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.