Reply
Sun 10 Apr, 2005 07:42 am
Was just wondering:
Was Abraham Lincoln as historically significant as he is made out to be?
Yes he preserved the Union and issued the Emancipation Proclamation, but was he really that important in the long-term?
The slaves were freed in theory, but persecution occurred for decades, and they were still treated as second class citizens for years. Also, in the words of JFK "if it hadn't been for the Civil War, no-one would ever have heard of Abraham Lincoln."
Just wondered if anyone had any ideas?
Thanks.
I think of it as "Was Abraham Lincoln as significant as he COULD have been."
Lincoln was not of the intellectual elite although he had an elite mind. Consequently, he had an understanding of Americans that was missing in the aristocracy (particularly the southern aristrocracy) of the time. As a result of Lincoln, the US morphed under temper from 'a' United States to 'the' United States.
Admittedly, that temper didn't stop after Lee's surrender but IMO that temper was extended because of the actions of a sycophant with Lincoln's assassination and the hijacking of reconstruction.
Nevertheless, Lincoln is rightfully credited with preserving the union, and for that alone he is worthy of great esteem.
Rap
Although he would have preseved it a little more efficiently, if he hadn't kept appoint these hack, political appointee generals to command. If I recall correctly, it was only after enough time had passed for competent officers to rise through the ranks that the North began to make progress.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace