IMHO Lincoln is vastly over rated.
I do not see him as a “great” president.
He presided over the deaths of 625,000 Americans who killed each other in the 1861–1865 war (Civil War, War of Northern Aggression - take your pick). Not to mention the more than 300,000 wounded.
A great president would have found a less bloody way to resolve the conflict.
At the very least, a great president would have reigned in the northern forces when the ultimate outcome became clear.
But Lincoln allowed his generals to pursue a scorched earth policy out of pure vengeance and vindictiveness. They needlessly terrorized and plundered the civilian population of the south.
Even after 150 years, the rancor. distrust, and resentment resulting from his poor judgement, weak leadership and these destructive actions plague the nation to this day,
I agree with every thing you said. There was and is no excuse to allow the generals reek havoc on an already defeated South. They raped and pillaged and caused mass destruction on a helpless people.
I was sent tickets to a free screening of this movie and and I could not give them away. Libs love Lincoln because he asserted federal power and used the his power to keep people in line.
Yeah, too bad we still don't have slavery. Because that was such a noble concept.
“They needlessly terrorized and plundered the civilian population of the south.”
I prefer to agree with General Sherman: War is cruelty, and you cannot redefine it.
Further I would rather err on the side of caution. In the case of this cruelty advocated primarily by Sherman, and accepted by Grant, then Lincoln himself, the purpose was logical. And that was to make the south, for several generations at least, to never try again for secession. And I argue that Sherman was right.
Let’s just contrast Sherman’s idea of warfare with limited wars we have had since WW2. None of them really worked out well. Yet the last foes we vanquished in WW2, are all thriving democratic governments who have abandoned their aggressive ways. 3 for 3, right there in WW2. At the very least you should acknowledge that the strategy was done for reasons other than revenge.
Yes but it seems to be human nature to deify leaders who preside over immensely destructive wars as long as they win.
All you need to do is look at the Marble Temples to various Caesars, similar to the temple located opposite The Custis-Lee House at the far end of the Memorial Bridge...
+1. I think Lincoln sucked.
“He presided over the deaths of 625,000 Americans who killed each other in the 1861–1865 war (Civil War, War of Northern Aggression - take your pick). Not to mention the more than 300,000 wounded.
A great president would have found a less bloody way to resolve the conflict.”
As a southerner, I totally agree. A great President would have avoided bloodshed and brought the nation back together. I can think of a number of ways to have done that.