Were Lincoln and FDR REALLY that bad?

[cropcirclewalker]

This whole thing is so sad. The direction of our union has been irreperably harmed by this dictator and facist.

The socialists out there talk like "States Rights" is some kind of evil.

I agree. Look what "States Rights" have done to Massachussets and California. But it's the best we could hope for.

Burr should have kilt Hamilton a few years sooner.

There is no guarantee that a state could do it any better than the Federal Rulers that we currently have, but, at least if you thought MA sucked, you could move to VT.

Trouble is, even if you move to VT, you can't escape from the overwhelming grip of DC.

Sure, now some socialist will log on and tell me to get the hell out of the good ol' USA if I don't like it. Screw. I am a VN vet, I gave 4 years, 1 mo and 3 days of my life protecting and defending my constitution.

YOU move out.

 

[seeker_two]

I'm not going to add anything to the discussion of Lincoln (it's already been well-documented here that he was a racist tyrant who ordered atrocities committed on his own citizenry worthy of any Latin American dictator), but I will say a few words about FDR....

When FDR became President, the world was deep into the Great Depression, and many nations were on the verge of collapse or converstion to Communism or Socialism. Many US soldiers who came back from WWI came w/ European ideas such as Communism. People like John Dillinger, Bonnie & Clyde, & "Baby-Face" Nelson were considered modern-day Robin Hoods b/c they were robbing the rich bankers. There was a growing Communist Party in the United States that attracted many w/ it's message of redistribution of wealth equally & toppling of big business (oil, railroad, etc.). The atmosphere was growing ripe for an American "Red October".

FDR came in and, seeing the danger, decided appeasement was the best course. He created the WPA, TVA, and other welfare programs to take steam out of the growing Communist movement. He created Social Security to get older people out of the workplace & open jobs for the younger ones (the ones who were attracted to the Communist message). (BTW, looking at life expectancy rates for the time, the 65y.o. retirement age would compare to an 8y.o. retirement age today.)

The most important fact to remember was that FDR meant these measures to be TEMPORARY. Each had an expiration date, and he had plans to end them when America came out of the Depression. Unfortunately, WWII was the event that got us out of the Depression, and FDR died before its end.

Social Security & the other programs didn't become permanent until AFTER FDR's death.

I consider FDR to be more misguided than evil. Lincoln----now that guy was Satan himself...

 

[dischord]

People nowadays SO want to think these men were EVIL,

Sigh. No, of course, they probably weren't EVIL. But they nonetheless did BAD things to the nation, and your appeal to emotion about the crises they faced doesn't change that fact.

when all they were doing was trying to keep the ship afloat.

Just how much damage is justified by a national crisis?

But then, I'm a simpleton and have been dismissed from class. Carry on.

I pointed out your logical fallacy, and nothing more.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if you offer a logical fallacy, I'm going to point it out -- and I'd expect you to do the same if I were to offer one.

 

[Benjamin]

A few people have said that Lincoln started the downward spiral of overbearing government. He took office nearly 80 years after the ratification. Look at what Adams did with the Alien and Sedition acts in '98. Political crimes, including any criticism of the President.

Right now, today, we are one union of states. It is unlikely we'd have anything remotely like this if Lincoln not responded to the attacks on the country. The discussion of New England seceeding was brought up earlier in the thread, and was discussed in response to Dred Scott and a few other political dealings designed to guarantee slavery's expansion into territories. How many more blocs of states do you really think we ought be, instead of a nation?

And to say that the attack on the South was just a response to the firing on Ft. Sumter is less than accurate

Then why in hell did two president fail to make any military response whatsoever for nearly 5 months after the first state seceeded?
You're arguing against the record of events.

 

[dischord]

Then why in hell did two president fail to make any military response whatsoever for nearly 5 months after the first state seceeded?

Five months to decide to take military action in the 19th Century is nothing significant, especially when there was a change of adminstration during that five months. And Buchanan was notorious for wishy-washy non-action and was in charge for the majority of those five months.

Your assumption is that Lincoln would have kept waiting and "nudging," with no military action unless the South fired first.

What is your evidence that it was his intention to wait it out indefinitely?

Do you honestly believe that Lincoln still would have been waiting and "nudging" a year later? Five years? Seven years (assuming no assassination.)?

It's Day 2,423 of the Fort Sumter Negotions, and there's still no resolution in sight. Lincoln still refuses to use the militia. "Honest," said Abe, "I think we just need a little more nudging." Vice President McClellan will head up the next rounds of talks."

Spare me.

But it would make a great Harry Turtledove plot.

You're arguing against the record of events.

And you're speculating about alternative history based on shaky assumptions.

How many more blocs of states do you really think we ought be, instead of a nation?

No one here is making any such arguments, so spare us the straw man. Saying "the South was within their rights" and "Lincoln wasn't a good guy" doesn't mean we want to see the USA disolved today.

(Edited to add: OK, I see below that you've teased mercedesrules into making that argument, but no one had made it when you made your comment).

 

[mercedesrules]

(Benjamin) Right now, today, we are one union of states. It is unlikely we'd have anything remotely like this if Lincoln not responded to the attacks on the country.

That's precisely the point of the anti-Lincoln posters; that he helped cause the mess we're in now.

How many more blocs of states do you really think we ought be, instead of a nation?

I won't be happy until there is a "bloc" for each living soul. the smaller the bloc, the less power to oppress.

MR

 

[Joe Demko]

That's precisely the point of the anti-Lincoln posters

If there were no union, and the US had become two or more smaller (and probably weaker) nations, I don't see it as the libertarian paradise that I think some of you are envisioning. Those little countries would still have had to exist in the same world with such countries as Great Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and France. All of which had imperial ambitions which they acted upon with greater of lesser degrees of success. For that matter, I don't see the CSA, or fragment thereof, being able to do much about it if Mexico had mounted a determined effort to snatch back some territory, especially if supported by a European power. It's fun to sit around now and bitch and moan about Evil Abe, but you are indulging in no more than wishful thinking with your visions of how the world would have been without him.

 

[dischord]

If there were no union, and the US had become two or more smaller (and probably weaker) nations, I don't see it as the libertarian paradise that I think some of you are envisioning.

No doubt. But why are you implyng a plural ("some of you") to describe what a single person (mercedesrules) thinks?

 

[Joe Demko]

No. I was using "some of you" as a generalized term so that nobody would feel single out as the object of a personal attack.

 

[dischord]

You weren't making a personal attack. You were making a legitimate and on-topic point.

 

[mercedesrules]

(dischord) But why are you implyng a plural ("some of you") to describe what a single person (mercedesrules) thinks?

Numerous posters mentioned secession in a positive light during the thread.

MR

 

[dischord]

Numerous posters mentioned secession in a positive light during the thread.

That doesn't mean they think the USA should be broken up today.

 

[mercedesrules]

That doesn't mean they think the USA should be broken up today.

And that's why I said: "I (singular) won't be happy until there is a "bloc" for each living soul. the smaller the bloc, the less power to oppress."

MR

 

[dischord]

I never suggested otherwise about you MR. I wasn't criticizing you. I was criticizing how someone else characterized what you said.

I think we all need a big group hug.

 

[Joe Demko]

I'm not a touchy-feely sort. No hugs. A handshake is enough.

 

[mercedesrules]

I think we all need a big group hug.

Consider it done.

 

[Quartus]

Apparently arguing that someone has a legal right to do something is the same thing as arguing that doing so is a good thing, to some people.

People nowadays SO want to think these men were EVIL, when all they were doing was trying to keep the ship afloat.

Hey! Now there's good liberal argument!


"Ooooh, you meanies! They meant well, and that's all that matters!"


I can look back on quite a few times when I meant well, but screwed things up. Happens all the time in this world. Meaning well is not the same thing as doing well.


For the record, I do think Lincoln meant well. I do think he intended to abolish slavery, and that all he did was for what he considered to be good and noble purposes.

But what he did was still wrong.


FDR, OTOH, was intentionally moving this country toward socialism. I credit him with NO good motives.

Baba Louie - I think you have it right. Apparently making these two out to be minions of the devil will make life better today. It can be good to have some understanding of history but this seems to more character assignation. And to what end ?

Maybe to learn from history so we don't have to make the same mistakes again?


Nah, couldn't be that.

 

[longrifleman]

History is what it is.

The point of this discussion, for me at least, isn't wishing for an alternate history. The point is to argue against the sainthood of Lincoln. And to the lesser extent that FDR had been cannonized him also. Lincoln violated nearly every principle that this country was founded on in order to "save it". Am I happy that this is one country instead of several? On balance yes. But the facts of Lincoln's violations of the const. are so well documented that I don't understand why they are being challenged.

Again, history is what it is.

Most of the arguments advanced for Lincoln's actions seem to come down to "the ends justify the means": are you sure you want to live under a system where that is the operative philosophy? Every tyrant in history has made that argument to justify their atrocities.

Again, history is what it is.

I don't consider either Lincoln or FDR to be evil. Both were products of their times and need to be judged accordingly. The problem is their actions have consequences that we are still dealing with today. Actions always have consequences. The main purpose of studying history is to LEARN from the mistakes of the past. If the mistakes are ignored because of partisan bickering then guess what? We will make the same dumb mistakes again. It will be a lot more fun to make new mistakes.

If there were no union, and the US had become two or more smaller (and probably weaker) nations, I don't see it as the libertarian paradise that I think some of you are envisioning.

We libertarians don't expect paradise. It's the socialists that think paradise is achievable on earth. It is the selfish nature of man that makes limiting the power available to govt that is the driving force behing libertarian philosophy (at least that is my take; others may differ).

My problem with both Lincoln and FDR were their intentional expansions of the Federal power. I think both felt that as long as THEY were in charge that kind of power in one person was good. That is also what tyrants throughout history have thought.

 

[dischord]

longrifleman,

Hear, hear!

 

[Joe Demko]

Let me put it this way, then. If the Union had been permanently broken, you wouldn't have a libertarian anything on this continent. IMO, the smaller and weaker nations resulting from such a breakup would have been easy prey for the European powers. If not as outright colonies, then as "protectorates" or client states. Those nations were still powerful, still warlike, and still very much in the business of seizing, dominating, and keeping real estate belonging to others in the 19th century.

 

[Quartus]

Why don't we have a standing ovation smiley for this forum? I could sure use one now!



Excellent, longrifleman!

 

[C96]

Have any of you given any thought to what North America would look like
now if Lincoln hadn't been there ? I suspect none of us here would be
enjoying the situation.

Thanks Golgo for nicely making the point.

allan

 

[longrifleman]

Golgo-C96

Your points about the likely outcome of two or more smaller countries is possibly accurate, although there is no reason that mutual defense treaties wouldn't have been likely. There is also no particular reason that the countries couldn't have rejoined, although that is unlikely due to the rulers of both (or all) countries not wanting to share power.

I think most of us have thought about the likely outcome of no war. Slavery would have existed for maybe 30-50 years and then been eliminated like it was everywhere else in the western hemisphere without the hatred that the war caused. 600,000 combat losses saved. An unknown number of civilians saved in the south. For some reason the civilian deaths don't seem to count for much. No Reconstruction. The setback to progress is unknowable. How many Eidsons or Einsteins died with a bayonet to their guts?

My main objection to Lincoln is that the War of Scession WASN'T NECESSARY. Of course, that's easy to say today.

 

[Benjamin]

For the sake of disclosure, the arguments in this thread allow me to cross
train between my final exams in Constitutional law and my final re: Lincoln.
Thanks, I appreciate it.

Now, to argue

History is what it is.

How very true.


Dischord

Do you honestly believe that Lincoln still would have been waiting and "nudging" a year later?

I'd answer you, except that a few lines below you chide me for 'speculating
about alternate history.' So, I'll stick to beating you over the head with
what actually happened.

Five months to decide to take military action in the 19th Century is nothing
significant, especially when there was a change of adminstration during that five months.

Look at the timeline.
December '60 - SC seceedes
Other states follow with their own conventions.
February - election of Jeff Davis. Meantime, seceeded states have been occupying federal forts (mostly empty), dockyards, arsenals, custom houses, etc.
March - Lincoln takes office.
April 12, early morning - Confederates fire on Sumter
April 13, mid afternoon - Garrison surrenders, Confederacy now has the fort. No casualties.
April 15 - Lincoln calls up 75,000 militia for a term of 3 months.**
April 19 - Militia moving through MD to secure DC have the dustup in Baltimore referenced earlier in the thread.

My math skills aren't excellent, but he calls up troops, and not 4 nights later they're already in place. 4 days is a period of time shorter than 5 months, isn't it?

Now, getting back to the question of whether Lincoln was the bad guy or not, as was the thread starter.

Since it's a contentious point not established, let's ignore questions re: legality of secession. States seceeded de facto, and meet no coercive
response from the Federal Gov. Then, on April 12 Confederate forces attack Federal troops and property.

Here's a copy of the Constitution
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html
Work with me.
The preamble states a chief role of government is common defense; Congress is specifically authorized in A1 S8 to provide for common defense, and direct the military in certain ways; A2 S2 President is C in C of army/Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states when in actual service to the US.

Article 5 - "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme law of the land"
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of
the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution"

Having violated their respective oaths (art 5) in attacking America, the Confederacy was waging an offensive war. The President was legally and morally in the right to call forth militia and the army and naval forces to meet this attack.
Lincoln isn't a bad guy for fulfilling his oath of office and thereby defending the nation against an attack, whether foreign or domestic.


Now, since you're going to disagree with me, please don't just say 'no you're wrong', please go the extra step and include 'you're wrong because of ____'.








** "in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. <snip> I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our national union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured." Later directs first order of business is probably reposession of forts, etc, which were siezed; directs that this be done without disturbing or destroying or interfering with property of peaceful citizens in any part of country.
Closes with message to convene congress, as was his authority.

 

[Quartus]

Since it's a contentious point not established,

It's been established. The relevant portions of the Constitution were cited. You've ignored it because you can't refute it. And the rest of your arguments fail because they assume your false premise - that the Confederacy was still under the legal authority of the United States.


Good lawyering - ignore what you can't refute and procede as if your discredited premise is valid, hoping the jury won't notice.


That's how criminals get off. That's why lawyers try very hard to keep thinking people off juries when they're defending a guilty client.