Good or Bad Lincoln?
Usually Abraham Lincoln is thought of as a wonderful president with mostly good qualities attched to his memory...but after our discussion today in class, should Lincoln be blamed for starting the Civil War? Should this be a negative mark on his record? What are your thoughts?
I think he is not to blame for starting the Civil War because he only sent people to resupply the fort with basic necessities like food and water. The CSA was the first to attack because the Union wanted to resupply the fort with everything but ammunition, so it's not Lincoln's fault.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Jefferson Davids should be blame for the start of the civil war because of his aggressive plan to counter Lincoln and he could have plan a little less aggressive and try to make a long term plan rather than a short term one
ReplyDeleteI think he should. Just like Polk, he knew it would probably upset the Southerners to a point and also, he didn't reject the call for war. If he really didn't appreciate war against the South, he would have called to retreat. I know it might make him look bad, but it is a negative mark on is record because why did he make these decisions? To not look bad. Kind of makes us think, is he really the humble person most people describe him as? People say he's a man with a black tall hat and is humble. Really?
ReplyDeleteHow did Lincoln "start" the war? He clearly stated in his inauguration speech that he didn't want war and just wanted peace. What he did with sending the materials to the fort was completely nonthreatening. It's like trying to feed a pet in a sibling's room. You can't be blamed for trying to feed your pet. The only thing you can really be blamed for is showing signs of aggression, which Lincoln made sure wasn't the case.
DeleteAnd what could've happened if Lincoln had given up the fort? Don't you think people in the North would be angered at his decision? They can't be angered at Lincoln trying to keep Union territory. Don't you think the Confederate states could see it as the Union showing weakness? Don't you think the Union would lose land and supplies? How are the residents of the fort going to get back to the Union if Union ships can't sail there? And even if that one fort was surrendered, how about all the other forts in Confederate territory? Does Lincoln do the same with all of them? Even if he gave up Fort Sumter, don't you think he would have to make the same decision with other forts? It's not like he can just completely give away all the forts just because it's in Confederate territory. Reputation isn't everything, and any able-minded president could tell you that.
Except maybe Bush..
DeleteWell Abraham Lincoln was pressured because he was inaugurated after the secession of the southern states. He needed to make a decision - and fast - to somehow deal with the secession. Abraham chose to do what he felt would make him look good; wouldn't most people choose to do something like that? I don't think humility was his first option when it came to a situation like this. I think Lincoln should be blamed for starting the Civil War but it shouldn't be a negative mark on his record because I think he did it for the sake of his country
ReplyDeleteI think that Lincoln ultimately made the best decision, b/c even though he did "start" the Civil War, it was not obvious at the time and he was able to get the CSA back on our side. Really it was not a bad thing/ mark on his record, just another set of duties as prez that he did pretty well. The country survived and is now stronger for it.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Lincoln did his best to try to prevent the war, and under the circumstances of the Fort Sumter situation, there wasn't really anything else he could do than what he did. Some people say that Lincoln could've just given up the fort, but even if he did, how was he supposed to transport the residents of the fort back to Union territory? Would the Confederate states see it as an act of weakness? Would people in the Union get mad? There's too many bad scenarios that could happened if Lincoln had given it up. If Lincoln was trying to provoke the war like Polk did, he would've acted first and done something like sail ships into Confederate territory just to get a reaction. It wasn't his fault that Jefferson Davis would react with violence, and though people may say that Lincoln provoked the war on purpose, all the evidence speaks otherwise: his inauguration speech about not wanting a war and his careful way to do things involving the South. He can't really be blamed for starting the Civil War when he was trying completely not to have it. If anything, his want of peace should be a positive mark on his record.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jaime that it was Jefferson Davis' fault that the fighting began, but I still think Lincoln could have avoided even giving Davis a reason to want to attack. If the confederate leaders wanted a fight, telling them that the union was going to resupply a fort in confederate territory would have given them a reason to feel slightly threatened and attack the fort. Lincoln could have avoided provoking the south by sending ships under a white flag, without warning the south first, to evacuate the fort. If the fort was evacuated, the people in the confederate states would think that the union didn't mean any harm and was even accepting their choice to create their own independent nation. If the union didn't tell the confederacy that they were going to evacuate the fort, the confederate leaders would have not had time to plan an attack. The people in the fort would have been safe and the two sides would have had much less tension between them.
ReplyDelete