Abraham Lincoln

When talking about the greatest Presidents of all time, President Abraham Lincoln is virtually always mentioned in the top 5...usually in the top 2 along with George Washington, perhaps the only 2 Presidents almost universally loved.



The reasons are obvious. Take this quote, for example:



Abraham Lincoln is commonly listed by historians as one of America's greatest presidents—often as the greatest of all. Part of the reason is that he provided strong leadership, set a clear course, and articulated a moral vision to guide the nation through very difficult times. Franklin Roosevelt, also recognized as one of America's best chief executives, once said that, "All our great presidents were leaders of thought at times when certain ideas in the life of the nation had to be clarified." And it was Lincoln's singular accomplishment that he clarified the goals of "union and freedom" for his time and for the ages, according to historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.





Schlesinger is more or less a pretty respected historian and he is hardly committing career suicide with that assessment. You have to look quite a while before finding a reputable historian who does not agree. And I freely admit I think he was a pretty phenomenal President. Regardless of what his motivations for doing it were, the fact remains he ended slavery in the South (it was still legal in the States that did not secede). He did hold together an increasingly fractious Union and kept France and England from interceding on behalf of the South. But was he actually the leader we all have attributed him to be?



He had serious issues with his Commander in Chief Generals. When the war started he essentially fired Gen. Winfield Scott. There were some pretty solid reasons for this...Scott was well past his prime, was essentially immobile, and there was some internal dissension indicating unity under Scott might not be achieved. With that said...it WAS Scott who proposed a war strategy that, in the end, was the one used by Grant to split the South.



Gen. McClellan did not last long. Neither did Halleck. Or Meade. Or Hooker. Or McClellan again. Grant did last quite a while...but he was the 7th (SEVENTH) General Lincoln had in that post. In a war that lasted less than 5 years.

Furthermore, he had massive internal problems. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton usurped authority in ways that were pretty near treason. He also had the eternal struggle with Congress and public opinion. Harsh as it is to say this, after the successful (?) conclusion of the Civil War, Booth murdering him in some ways could be considered a mercy killing.

Lincoln presided over the bloodiest war in U.S. history. The Union dissolved and was unconstitutionally restored by force. He faced dissension and opposition from even those who were his closest supporters during the war over his rather generous terms for Reconstruction.

On the other hand, had he lived and been able to enforce his terms, it is very likely we would have never heard of Martin Luther King Jr. or Medgar Evers or Malcolm X...those questions quite possibly would have been settled and the country truly integrated under his leadership.

So that is a pretty strong counter argument to the things stated above.


Ultimately, there is a reason legend and myth grows around some people. Though I still despise the moral and financial harm FDR did to the country there is no denying the benefit he had on the SPIRIT of the people up to and during WWII. Lincoln may not have been as strong a guide as is sometimes presented...but he DID provide the glue to hold together the States, legal or not, and did push and sign the Emancipation Proclamation. So while there might be legitimate questions about individual aspects of his leadership and effectiveness...let the legend stand. He was a great leader and someone who should be looked up to. At least, that is my two cents...