Outstanding post Mike, even if you are a poopyhead (just kidding) for going with Lincoln. I was mixed but went with FDR. The Civil War may have split the country but Hitler intended on destroying it. But either choice is a valid one, both Presidents were up against serious issues. We'll never know but I doubt any other men could have handled either era as well as these two did.

I understand your problem when explaining the deeper causes of The Civil War. Most people just don't know and take issue with the fact slavery was somewhat secondary to the war though primarily used for recruitment and popular support for the war.

"Poopyhead"?!? Nice ... lol ...

Actually, I could very well have gone with FDR. I think his situation was similar to Lincoln's on several levels. The difference being Lincoln's challenges affected the survival of The Union itself. whereas FDR's was more concerned with Europe's survival and stopping Japan's Pacific hegemony. Lincoln set the U.S. for strength and prominence in the Industrial Age, while FDR set this country for superpower status into the next century.

So you really can go either way there. I choose Lincoln because if he hadn't been triumphant The Union probably would have ceased to exist.

Have you ever read any of Harry Turtledove's alternative histories of the Civil War? Some of the premises are a bit "out there", but the study of the aftermaths are very interesting.

I'm a big fan of FDR, even if he was a socialist..

I have Mike, I've read all the Civil War books (including the one with AK-47's) and the World War II alien invading books which are also really fun.

Um, Abe actually suspended part of the Constitution. And the war wasn't as much about slavery as it was other issues. There is an excellent comment above that can give you a basis for further study.

Nowhere does the Constitution say all men are created equal.

Very good! A lot of people do not realize that was in the Declaration of Independence.

Check again. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and wasn't a major proponet of ending slavery. Think about this.....the Proclamation was signed and issued well after the war started. He held back that document till it was needed. The need arose when England (an anti-slavery nation) waivered towards the South, England needed the cotton. But England would not side with an openly pro-slavery nation in the face of a Proclamation against the practice. And so in the end England stayed out of the war and withheld arms for cotton arrangements the South had to have to continue the war. The issuance of the Proclamation also served as a recruitment tool and to give popular approval by Northern citizens who were tiring of a war that was assumed would last weeks instead of years. Lincoln penned the document as the war began but held back on signing it till it was needed. Had it not been needed he never would have issued it.

Also keep in mind slavery was already winding down before the war began. Owners came to the realization that it was more economic to give a man land and keep half his crops as payment (sharecropping). No need to house, cloth, feed or provide anything other than land that was only going to be used for profit anyway.

No argument from me here. But if the Republicans don't stop tearing down each other, and this contentious primary season drags on, Obama may very well get re-elected if the economy makes sustained progress. He's just half-a-step above Carter at this point.

Out of curiosity TomInPA, which things did President Obama do that you believe has influenced the country in negative ways?

Jordan.......something I regard as very detrimental was the bailouts. In my view the corporations played their fiddles while Rome burned. Then our government, against overwhelming opposition by it's citizens, handed over our money. The companies were irresponsible and should have suffered the fallout. What really makes the situation untenable is the fact that very few restrictions were applied. Failing companies handed out bonuses with taxpayer money to the very people who caused the companies to fail. When was the last time you or I were given a bonus for poor job performance? President Obama allowed that to happen, along with a majority of our Representatives.

I still shutter when I recall the proposal to "redistribute the wealth".

Where is he as Fast and Furious, a blatantly illegal program, is being exposed? He's backing the guy who dreamed it up and approved it, Eric Holder. Study that mess. Some of the principles are on record expressing it's usefulness in creating further gun control laws.

He wants to expand welfare. Why? Because it buys votes. Are you aware that only half the citizens of this country actually pay taxes? He wants to keep that trend going. Thank God Obamacare is being ripped apart by the courts. I'm all for helping my fellow citizens get past a bump in the road but no way I think we should provide ongoing support for half the people.

In fairness I'll ask you, what good has he done?

@Eric -- I agree with you completely about the bailouts, assuming you are referring to the financial bailouts. However, you might be angry at the wrong president on that one: http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=1057.

I don't agree that we are slaves. If we are, we choose to be. Everything we need to succeed is available to those who use them. An education is attainable if you really want it. People from common backgrounds have become billionaires. Motivation to achieve is every persons right and yes sometimes you have to fight for your right. President Obama never had a previledged advantage, nor did Bill Clinton. Look at what they did...even if you disagree with their politics. To my thinking, the real slavers are religions. But even in that, if you choose to follow then you can hold no one responsible but yourself.

Actually The Constitution's original position on slaves counted them as 3/5s of a person. Hardly equal ...

That was just ONE of the gross imperfections, along with women's right to vote. 3/5s was a negotiated compromise between northern states and southern states..

The COTUS primarily acknowledges our natural rights in the first few Articles. The idea was to assure equality. It hasn't always worked out that way because of the evil some men possess but it generally works as intended.

My point, R.R. was simply that The Constitution did not - as written - guarantee "equal protection" to all men (and women). Under the original version, women also couldn't vote.

It was a flawed document with chauvanistic issues (no vote for women) and imperfect political compromises (slavery and the 3/5th concept).

As for the 13th Amendment "saving the Union", I would disagree. The Emancipation Proclamation announced to the world - including France and England who were considering joining the Confederates - that slavery was to be abolished. It gave the North the emotional touchstone it needed to galvanize its war effort; and it prevented France and England from entering the war on Slavery's side.

The 13th Amendment, which did not become law until December 1865 when the requisite number of states (27 were needed at the time) ratified the Amendment, simply codified as law what Lincoln had done by Executive Order TWO YEARS prior to ratification and 18 months (??) before the end of the Civil War.

Lincoln was dead for eight months when the 13th was officially ratified.

I would disagree about Lincoln's responsibility for the carnage of The Civil War.

If you want to blame anybody, try those Foundin Fathers, who - when framing The Constitution - could not make the difficult political choices in living up to their own words expressed in the Declaration of Independence. They allowed slavery to continue in a land purportedly founded on the notion that "all men are created equal".

Of course had they done the "right thing" in the 1780s, there probably wouldn't have been an American nation to fight over in the 1860s. And we'd all be speaking The King's English like proper Englishmen!

It is a great topic, Pat! My last word on Lincoln on the Confederate states secession is that Lincoln - or any President one would think - was concerned about the precedent. Could you imagine each state having the power to secede individually or in groups every time they disagreed vehemently with a federal mandate or even a legally enacted federal law??

Chaos ... I doubt any Union could survive very long under those conditions. I still believe Lincoln did the right thing - as bloody as it was - in using force to keep the Union intact.

Let's not forget that the SOuth didn't just take their ball and go home. They confiscated federal property, forts, naval yards, etc. ... not to mention attacking a Fort Sumter.

Your right on that Mike, great topic, and may I add great comments. Everyone is staying civil.

I agree with you that the Union needed to be preserved for the reasons you listed. Funny thing is, I agree with the South. Northern economic power was being used against the South and the politicans (mostly Congress) weren't inclined to stop it. When a farmer was told what he'd be paid for his crops, regardless if it included a reasonable profit or not, it's bound to get people riled up. The South was much more in tune to state's rights and believed in the real meaning of united states, with states denoting an autonomy in the vein of "nation". The COTUS is the guiding document to achieve that unity while allowing the states to determine their own laws and futures. An example would be abortion. The COTUS makes no determination on consititutionality of abortion. Therefore it becomes the right of the individual state to allow or disallow abortion.

HI HM - I thought that chaos was what this nation experienced under Lincoln. Over six hundred thousand casulties, a whole section of the country impovereshed for over 100 years after the war, civil liberties discarded, elected officials thrown in jail on a whim. Sounds chaotic to me.
I understand that a Nation can not last if various states jump in and out whenever they feel like it. At the time of the signing of the Constitution all the states believed that it was a voluntary group and many would not have signed if they thought that a federal government could hinder their departure. States should have the right to leave but there should be strict rules about when they want to rejoin.
Those first five states that left the Union, if left to their own devices would have come back soon after they calmed down. The other states that left after Sumter,most notably Virginia, would have stayed in the Union and put even more pressure on the rogue states to return.
It goes counter to the history that we were taught (and would be still if they taught history) because the victors get to write the history books.

@Pat ... I guess my reaction to the "chaos" argument would be that the chaos of 1860 - as bloody and as widespread as it was - would be preferable to the perpetual chaos of the U.S. as a club where members can come and go as they please, whenever the mood or motivation presents itself. Imagine what would be going on in this country now as Red States became inflamed over the Obamacare mandates!

I doubt there is a "right answer" we would agree on. But it's an interesting topic to dwell upon.

What a great topic. About my comments on Lincoln. He did not have to go to war. He could have steppped back and took a deep breath. The slavery issue was coming to a head but he chose the worst path to correct it. What would have happened if he allowed those first few states leave the Union? They would have been petitioning to return within 10 years. Slavery as an instiitution was in a decline and would have died a natural death. The War Between the States hastened it's end but the cost was too high. It also hardened the Southern's to emancipation and directly resulted in Jim Crow laws afterward.

It would have been nice if the Founders would have stood up to the few Planters but most felt that it could be settled at a later date peacefully. Proof that when you make a deal with the devil you always lose. My angst toward Lincoln is not only with race relations but he laid the groundwork for the strong Federal government and he totally broke the laws of our Nation.

Hi Eric - There are two types of influence, good and bad. I chose Silent Cal because he had a great and positive influence on this nation. By understanding the nature of government and it's inability to stop itself from intruding on the lives of it's citizens he kept it under control and minimalized it. It could be argued that GW was the greatest because he was humble enough to step down knowing full well he could have been a dictator (unlike FDR) or any of the early Presidents up to Jackson (even he faced down a secession). Silent Cal was the last of the Presidents who backed the American ideals of hard work and success going hand in hand.

Lincoln and FDR were both despots who strayed away from that ideal. The both screwed around with COTUS - Lincoln by outright ignoring it and FDR streched it to it's limits and used not so veiled threats to the Supreme Court as did Lincoln. Both faced some hard decisions and both had to coerce the people.

You are right about the EP only affecting the rebellion states. Great discussion!

Totally agree J.R. The guy was also a incredible individual. I highly recommend the biography on him Theodore Rex. He dealt with many of the issues we are dealing with today and did so pretty effectively.

He might be if he didn't have a little man complex and walked around with a chip on his shoulder. Maybe he should have put the chips in his shoes it would have given him a better perspective.

Every influential person in this world (past and present) has/ had a motivation, to some, making as much money as possible, some, attaining power. Some even write newsletters, only because someone told them they couldnt. It seems to me that he used his chips (both on his shoulders AND in his shoes) to influence in a positive way. So, I ask you, Pat Ryan, where do your chips lie?

Several things about Teddy R I've always admired. 1. He was a helluva police commissioner in NYC. 2. He was one of the last of a dying breed. Willing to aggitate for war against Spain, admittedly to expand America's hegemonic interests; he was also first in line to FIGHT THE WAR! You won't find THAT kind of commitment to an idea today in any politician!

Mike, you are right about the lack of "commitment" (nice word for having a set) by our recent so called leaders. TR did back up his mouth that is for sure! However how many Americans died, also backing up his mouth.

Thanks to all for a great discussion, it isn't often I get to indulge. Anymore my wife's eyes glaze over and my children run away!

Pat: I have the same family issues whenever I either talk or write about the things I find interesting about American history and politics.

Insofar as the deaths resulting from our "international coveting", I would state that America - becoming of age at the end of the colonial era - really was no different than any of the European powers of that time. It was what superpowers in that period. They preyed on the weaker, downward-sloping countries and whatever far-flung possessions they might have.

It's very difficult to be the first emerging power to do away with or refuse a long-standing trend. Eventually we got it right ... insofar as colonization goes.

JR sr. : Every President has done something right even Jimmy Carter (deregulation of beer making!) but you have to weigh the good and the bad. TR gave this nation a huge shove towards the Nationalistic outlook that involved us in all the overseas adventures that our forefathers warned us about, thanks Teddy.

As far as my chips are concerned I usually eat them.

RR - Slavery is only a viable economic system when there are no other choices. Slavery existed almost everywhere on the earth at that time but it was essentially ended by 1907. Brazil had the 2nd. largest slave economy in the west with just a fewer number of slaves in bondage then the US but they did away with the institution in 1888(with very little bloodshed). What the final backbreaking straw was the establishment of a "free" state in northeast Brazil that allowed for a underground railroad to provide an escape.

In the U.S. the underground railroad flourished even with the fugitive slave laws. The south was increasingly frustrated with the free states ignoring that law. Their voluntary withdrawl from the Union removed any protection that they used through the power of the Federal government. Confederate Vice President Stephens even stated that "slavery was much more secure in the Union than out of it."

Lincolns nationalistic plans laid waste to what could have been a relatively peaceful transition to a truly free country. It is hard for people to see how much better it would be if only the more rational path was followed because as I stated earlier -history is written by the victors. But the truth will always win out in the end.

And about Ron Reagan (a great president) not being a coward. While he was solely responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union without firing a single missle, he turned tail when the Marines were killed in Lebanon so I am not sure how he would have responded to Sumter.

LOL ... It's funny you should mention that. You might want to keep an eye on my blog then. I'm anticipating an announcement sometime next week. Just don't sell your house and move, you really wont need to!

www.crankymanslawn.com

I didn't read ( :) ) that book where a slave wrote ....slaves were willing to wait peaceably for slavery's end... (oops, slaves were not allowed to read & write in the south). A slave's chronic undernourished, malnourished, whipped, or hanged body wasn't okay to continue any longer. Seeing a slave's family been split apart on the selling block wasn't okay to continue any longer. The rape of female slaves wasn't okay to continue any longer. One more millisecond of of slavery wasn't okay to continue any longer. From the point of view of white abolitionists, free blacks, ex-slaves, and slaves, it wasn't okay for slavery to continue any longer then 1865.

RR - About signing the MLK Day into law - more then courageous it was the right thing to do!

RR - A little out of order I am! No where I would suggest that slaves (anywhere) should wait peacefully for it to end. Slave revolts happened and was what John Brown wished to create with his misguided efforts in Harpers Ferry. While slavery was/is wrong and the life of a slave is not to be envied, their exsistence was dependent on those who "owned" their body. There were many cases of abuse, rape and hangings etc. but for the most part as property they were treated as such and taken care of, much better a slave than an indentured servant. They were restricted by law from reading and writing but many slaveowners ignored that law out of a moral (yes that is right) code or out of realizing that the value increases of the property. Jefferson's slaves were required to learn to read and the men were taught trades. Both Lee and Jackson educated their slaves and cared for them. This is not a defense for holding someone in bondage. My problem with Lincoln is he could have ended slavery with far less bloodshed and anger. No slave would be "willing to wait" around for it to end but did anybody ask those 600,000 casualties if they wanted to die or be maimed?

By the way, it was President Reagan who signed Dr. MlK Jr's Day into law in 1983. It was a courageous act that didn't cause him to be a one term president.

OHHHHHHHH NOOOOOOO! I was hoping that no one would bring him up! I guess if you like regulation and government intrusion then Wilson's your man. Personally his example should have been a lesson to Americans. Eggheads should NOT be allowed to govern.

Good point! It is the Congress that has the greater effect throgh the laws they pass. However it should be noted that freedom and having an easy life is more often opposites as history has taught us!

@PR.......though it's true Congress tends to be more involved in producing bills and hammering out the details, the President has a lot of power over the final enactment. He/she gets to sign or veto those proposed laws and thereby holds a high degree of influence over national direction. Overriding a veto is a daunting task for Congress particularly when it comes time for legislators to cross party lines in an override vote.

Hi Eric - Agreed. That is the beauty of our "American" system. The balance between the three branches is always shifting and it is when one branch encroaches on another we get into trouble. A sure sign of a problem is when one branch starts to talk about bypassing or neutralizing another or granting another branch powers that belong to them. FDR with his Supreme Court debacle and BO with the present House of Representitives, Congress granting war powers to the Chief Executive and allowing the courts to do their dirty work for them are examples that come to mind.

Yes, I agree, no one asked those 600,000 casualties that fateful question! The issues of the civil war led to this heart broken sacrifice. If I was living in those days, I might have had the honor to ask a civil war veteran this question --"when all those casualties were piling up, what made you not stop fighting? " The Gettysburg Address by President Lincoln, in my opinion, might be a summary of the American Civil War, such as: (first) ---"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this Continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

No one needed to ask them that question. They fought for their ideaology. Most combatants, and civilians, mistakenly believed not only that the rebellion would be short lived but that it would bestow honor and glory for their efforts. No one had any idea going in that it would expand to the levels it rose to nor the sheer brutality that it would encompass. Prior wars we were involved in (1812...Mexico) were relatively short and one-sided so the picture and mental imagery of war wasn't accurate. Just as no one asked enlistees for WW2.....the reason was clear and the goal defined. And so they happily march off to war and death, they just didn't realize it involved war and death.