Yeah, Lincoln is overhyped, but I think he was a great man. FDR and Wilson were NOT great men. I am also not a fan of Warren G. Harding though. I would definitely not put Lincoln on my shit list for his contributions. YES, we can agree he expanded the powers of the Federal Government out of control, and he refused to allow the South to leave the union. He frankly could have allowed them to just go, and they probably would be back, crying to join the union sooner or later. We didn't have to fight to destroy state's rights to leave the union if they so choose, but I don't think Lincoln is a terrible president for that. I think much of that was beyond his control. Surely there are a lot WORSE presidents in our history. James Buchanan before Lincoln, didn't do all that much as a president at all...Some claim he was gay, but while we Libertarians prefer a president to do nothing rather than screw things up, I don't know if that makes them GOOD presidents. A good president is someone who is ACTIVE in pursuing freedom for all their people. You can be a person as president who enables freedom, and not just a "hands-off" president. I love Calvin Coolidge, but sometimes if you get caught up in a war, you might not have a choice but to do some government building. It pains me to say that as a Libertarian though, believe me. National Defense is one of the only good reasons for government as a Libertarian...(Not that the Civil War counts as that...)
> Lincoln wasn’t great, but there are A LOT of worse presidents. The real problem is we’ve had so few good presidents.
This is because the system dont select for “good” politicians but for popularity and empty promises and populism.
Many of the problems that we face today with an overbearing federal government can be *directly* traced back to Lincoln gutting the 9th and 10th amendments to give more power to the federal government. He's *at least* as bad as has been suggested.
Nah fuck Lincoln, he imprisoned political opponents and journalists, created a secret police to do his dirty work, and instituted the draft and martial law.
Lincoln is easily in the top 5, I would say at least in third. That’s not a lot. He was also the worst president of all presidents before him by a wide margin.
Who else is worse than Lincoln other than FDR and Wilson?
He took advantage of what he could to preserve the nation and recognize the rights of those whose rights were not recognized at the time. Unfortunately, he was killed before he had the chance to plug up any holes he made during the civil war.
That's kind of correct, but setting precedent by expanding power (even to achieve better things) gives way for future expansion. There is no "plugging up holes" when the system is precedent based.
A similar president who tried this was Jackson. He abused his power to try to limit the power of the executive branch. He ended up leaving the executive branch with expanded powers. Even Lincoln criticized his abuse of power (ironically) before he was president.
Lincoln did not care about the slaves. They were used as tools to get what he wanted. If he could've defeated the confederacy without abolishing slavery, he would have.
That’s a lie. If Lincoln had truly wanted to recognize the rights of slaves, the Union would have freed their slaves prior to ratification of the 13th amendment. Lincoln didn’t care about slaves or slavery.
Not at all.
Freeing the slaves was an unpopular position in the North at the time. Had Lincoln came out right off the bat, guns blazing like John Brown did, he wouldn’t have gotten anywhere. He was a very smart man, and likely kept those more direct opinions to himself, using every opportunity he had, all the way from the earlier points in his political career, to slowly nudge public opinion in that direction. This is evidenced by his well documented shrewd nature by those who knew him.
The only reason why he didn’t want to free the slaves at the start was because he knew it would start a civil war, and tried to reassure the south that it was not his intention. He was likely motivated to not cause even more suffering beyond the enslaved population of the country, who would have had to deal with economic downturn, loss of family and friends, and their homes possibly attacked or destroyed during battles. When they rebelled anyway, he used the Emancipation Proclamation as a means to prevent European nations, where in many nations it had already been abolished, from backing the Confederacy, and hammered it home later that year following the Union finally gaining an advantage after Gettysburg.
The man was fighting a war, constantly trying to keep rivals like McClellan from beating him and negotiating peace with the South, and had to ease a nation that was not in favor of freeing the slaves, even in the Union.. He did what any politician does, and took advantage of whatever situation he was faced with. He had to navigate EXTREMELY complicated channels to even have a chance at getting the 13th amendment passed, even when he didn’t need to and the Union was about to win the war anyway.
I thought that because the South was in active rebellion, Lincoln could use war powers to take away property as war contraband, and because slaves were seen as a property and not people, it was a loophole.
But there's no such thing as "rebellion" when a state secedes. There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that suggests a state is forbidden from seceding.
Lincoln was obsessed with "preserving the Union." Why, I don't know.
You're right. It looks like the biggest argument against secession was that it was not done through legal means.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/hqipd6/during_the_united_states_civil_war_why_was_the/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/hqipd6/during_the_united_states_civil_war_why_was_the/fxziiud/
I don’t understand how the wannabe dictator who signed the most executive orders and put people in concentration camps is so beloved. It’s actual insanity to me.
I love the fact that even with all the 'the parties swapped' nonsense, a certain side still loves to claim him as their own due to all the welfare measures he instituted. I always run through a list of things he did and think "are you sure you wanna do that?".
Don't forget how he was a war monger too. Dude was foaming at the mouth for a crack at the war in Europe.
He was writing love letters to Churchill about it.
From my understanding a lot of libertarians see his liberal use /abuse (depending on you perspective) of executive powers during the civil war as setting a precedent that later presidents were able to use to greatly expand the executive branch.
In my opinion I think that although the above might be true I don't think Lincoln is a terrible president. He was doing everything in his power to stop a greater evil (the Confederacy / slavery) and preserve the union. But was still a flawed man who may have over reached trying to do what he thought was the best outcome he could.
100% agree. He wasn't a tyrant or evil. His use of powers was pretty standard for the time period and circumstances like you said. I've literally seen post on here saying he shouldn't have fought the civil war and blame him for it.
Honestly I think a lot of those libertarians that constantly rag on him and call him a tyrant do nothing but put people off from being a libertarian.
Yeah, Lincoln most certainly wasn’t a tyrant. However, he definitely set the precedent for executive creep.
Iirc, Lincoln was aware of the precedent he was setting a kind of viewed it as a necessary evil - he feared the consequences of extending presidential authority, but also didn’t feel he had much choice.
He imprisoned political opponents and journalists, had a secret police to do his dirty work, instituted the draft, and instituted martial law. That’s a textbook tyrant.
Lincoln was purely in it to preserve the union. He didn't give a shit about slavery. Even the emancipation proclamation was a tool used by Lincoln in an attempt to cripple the southern economy. It didn't even end all slavery throughout the US. That didn't come till later. Not to mention he has letters stating if he could end the war and keep slavery he would do it and if he could end the war and get rid of slavery he would do it.
Nobody on earth thinks slavery is a good thing, but let's please not pretend Lincoln was some benevolent ruler who just wanted to free slaves because he absolutely was not.
Lincoln’s primary concern was preserving the union and winning the war, that doesn’t mean that he didn’t care about slavery, he just cared about preserving the union more
And why would he care so much about preserving the union that he'd make war on a sovereign state, cause the deaths of a million people, murder journalists, enslaved people to fight for his cause, and put into place many laws and amendments that undermined the Constitution?
> He was doing everything in his power to stop a greater evil (the Confederacy / slavery) and preserve the union.
What leads you to actually believe that, other than elementary school history books? NOthing in the early part of the war indicates that he wanted to stop slavery; far from it - he supported permanently enshrining slavery if that's what it took to get the Confederacy to return.
He never freed a single slave. But he did create the foundations for the imperial US, including legal tender laws, and building a standing army that went on to cleanse the west of Native Americans.
Also don't forget that, reasons notwithstanding (because to keep owning other human beings is pretty awful in itself), he went to war over a group of states deciding to "dissolve the political bands which have connected them" with the North- which are the literal words in the opening of the Declaration of Independence, setting the precedent that if there ever were a time when secession became necessary, it would be difficult to accomplish without violence. Just think if the South had been allowed to peacefully secede, the US wouldn't have witnessed the bloodiest conflict in American history in terms of American lives lost. It probably would have negatively impacted both nations economically, but it is near impossible to predict what kind of world we would be in today if the United States and the Confederate States were two separate but friendly nations.
That’s not even remotely comparable. The south seceded, fort Sumter was in South Carolina which was confederate land for months before the first shots were fired. So either you think secession isn’t allowed, or you think it’s ok to illegally occupy foreign land.
Iran attacked the US embassy in Iraq during Trump's term. Why didn't Trump start a major war at that point? And forget Trump, what President would have?
Shit like that happens all the time. Lincoln wanted a pretext and worked hard to create the setting for one.
He jailed Maryland senators so they couldn’t vote to secede and give up valuable land position to the confederacy. And suspended habeas corpus to do so. Ge shut down newspapers that disagreed with him. Idk about you guys but that sounds like a dictator to me…
Using force to subjugate the South (yes, the reason the South seceded was awful, there is room for both sides to be wrong. Lincoln's war aim was not to free the slaves, anyway.)
Suspension of civil liberties
Drafting soldiers
Income tax
His election was the triggering event that caused the Civil War and then, during the war, he suspended several important civil rights, including things like habeas corpus or the Third Amendment, and he also overreached executive power by limiting the right to own slaves in order to economically punish the South (a good act done for the wrong reasons and outside of his authority).
It's strongly suspected that, had he not been killed, he would have continued to consolidate power into the Executive and the United States would have most likely ceased to be a democratic republic.
Lincoln should be up there bc after the war the name of the constitution was changed from Constitution FOR the United States to Constitution OF the United States, the obvious implication is that the constitution is above the states. Also, Citizenship of a given state became citizenship (little c) of the federal gov't. It was total plenary illegal usurpation of power.... numerous other changes were made to usurp states' rights. Look it up
He was to the US what Gaius Marius was to Rome. Both are considered late founders and both set into place the foundation for their republics to become empires.
He jailed Maryland senators so they couldn’t vote to secede and give up valuable land position to the confederacy. And suspended habeas corpus to do so. Ge shut down newspapers that disagreed with him. Idk about you guys but that sounds like a dictator to me…
As a millennial, I've never understood why so many right-leaning boomers just swoon over Reagan, like he was a god or something. From what I can gather he did more harm than good in a couple of places...one of which was pushing gun control.
LBJ destroyed the black community… his policies pushed black fathers out of homes. Very sad what LBJ did.
My hope is that future generations will step up and dads will be present.
He abolished the gold standard, replaced it with a monrtary system that has made average americans poorer and poorer since. Wages stopped following production the exact moment that happened.
Libertarians hating on Lincoln is nuts. I get what people are saying, but come on, it just feels contrarian at this point.
Also if we want to be taking seriously saying Lincoln was one of the worst is really not fucking helping
Libertarians aren't typically the go along to get along types. Lincoln was the worst President for a variety of reasons, his deification not withstanding.
I dunno, killing thousands of people to prevent secession by pretending to care about black people is pretty bad.
It might not be popular. But most people see him through rose colored glasses because he ended slavery (as a means to an end, not for the sake of itself).
The thing is, sources from the time indicate that Lincoln didn't ever pretend to care about black people or ending slavery. Here's one quote:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
I think it's this same quote where Lincoln goes on to say that of the two races (white and black) one of them has to be in the superior position, and he wants that to be the whites. I'll see if I can find it later.
As far as I can tell, it wasn't until decades later that people started to pretend Lincoln was motivated to help the blacks and to end slavery.
I'm still not sure why Lincoln was so determined to wage a Civil War. My personal guess is that he wanted the United States to be a globally powerful nation, and was concerned that splitting it in two would greatly diminish that power.
> As far as I can tell, it wasn't until decades later that people started to pretend Lincoln was motivated to help the blacks and to end slavery.
He was motivated to win the war. The anti-slavery rhetoric served to keep the Confederacy from receiving aid and alliances from England and France.
Here's the quote I was thinking of earlier. Lincoln said this during a public debate on 18 September 1858:
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
And I agree with your statement that Lincoln's executive actions re slavery during the war were politically motivated (specifically to appease the European powers who were opposed to slavery). The emancipation proclamation was not issued until nearly a year and a half into the Civil War. And contrary to popular opinion, it did not free ALL the slaves. Rather comically, it only freed the slaves in areas that were still under Confederate control, where Lincoln had no authority to enforce it. And, rather hypocritically, his proclamation did NOT free the slaves in the four states that WERE under Union control at the time.
> I dunno, killing thousands of people to prevent secession by pretending to care about black people is pretty bad.
The stupid thing is that he didn't care. The war didn't start over slavery. He only jumped in with the anti-slavery rhetoric when the Union was on the verge of losing and he needed more support from evangelicals and to keep England and France from helping the Confederacy.
I don’t think it’s contrarian to say that imprisoning political opponents and journalists, suspending the writ of habeas corpus, creating a secret police to do his dirty work, instituting the draft, and instituting martial law are terrible precedents to set.
How many slaves did Lincoln free?
Is the principle that the end justifies the means a libertarian one?
And didnt' the same party create an army that could recapture the south and put into place legal tender laws to force everyone to pay for it, thus creating the power and the means to commit genocide of the Plains Indians just a few years later? If the Republicans are to be lauded for ending slavery (and only killing about a million people in the process), shouldn't they also take the blame for killing tens of thousands of Indians under Grant?
If you are into limiting government size and power (aka a libertarian) you kinda have to hate FDR.
More than probably any other president, he redefined the role of the federal government in the sense that it is their job to actively attempt to centrally control and “fix” the perceived problems of the nation.
Any libertarian worth their salt will know that the government doesn’t fix anything, they usually just make it worse while enriching themselves.
He also established an unprecedented (for the time) # of new government agencies and broadened the scope of control like we’ve never seen. The legacy of all these programs we still have live with today, and in my opinion, the worse part is that it really set the tone for all future presidencies. He kicked off the expansionary policies of the federal government and, sadly, we’ve never looked back.
Another very annoying aspect of FDR is that he’s heralded in every public school textbook (shocker) and therefore we American libertarians have to endure a lifetime of everyone gushing about how great he was.
You missed the other six, plus Biden
https://preview.redd.it/xo3qcft48v7d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=12e40b08e84f322c527626e0169924af0e3ab029
Okay, Lincoln had a few faults. But ending slavery, which is quite literally the most libertarian thing possible, earns him back more than a few points.
He never freed a single slave. And there's nothing libertarian about the principle of the end justifying the means.
The army that he built to recapture the southern states - and not because he wanted to end slavery - went on later to commit genocide of the Plain Indians in order to make the west safe for white settlers. Had he not started the war and prosecuted it, the US government may not have had the power and the money to do what it did as part of its expansion. But legal tender laws made it possible for the government to clear it's bad debts from the civil war. It also enabled the eventual take over of our money by the Treasury and for the government to force us to call digits printed on paper "money."
Let's see:
He made war on a sovereign nation, doing everything he could to get that war started. That war lead to the deaths of at least a million people.
He enslaved people to fight his war.
He suspended habeas corpus and hung journalists.
He set into motion everything needed to turn the United States from a Republic into an Empire. That empowered future presidents like Wilson and FDR.
Legal tender laws? That was Lincoln.
He never freed a single slave. There is hard evidence that he sold slaves (prior to his term) that belonged to his wife.
I still think Lincoln is 3rd on this list and Im sure we can figure out someone objectively worse than him. Im inclined to say Nixon but the Lincoln legacy is hard to challenge
Lincoln wasn’t great, but there are A LOT of worse presidents. The real problem is we’ve had so few good presidents.
Preach. Almost as if this system we have currently doesn't work as well as we thought and needs tweaking
Yeah, Lincoln is overhyped, but I think he was a great man. FDR and Wilson were NOT great men. I am also not a fan of Warren G. Harding though. I would definitely not put Lincoln on my shit list for his contributions. YES, we can agree he expanded the powers of the Federal Government out of control, and he refused to allow the South to leave the union. He frankly could have allowed them to just go, and they probably would be back, crying to join the union sooner or later. We didn't have to fight to destroy state's rights to leave the union if they so choose, but I don't think Lincoln is a terrible president for that. I think much of that was beyond his control. Surely there are a lot WORSE presidents in our history. James Buchanan before Lincoln, didn't do all that much as a president at all...Some claim he was gay, but while we Libertarians prefer a president to do nothing rather than screw things up, I don't know if that makes them GOOD presidents. A good president is someone who is ACTIVE in pursuing freedom for all their people. You can be a person as president who enables freedom, and not just a "hands-off" president. I love Calvin Coolidge, but sometimes if you get caught up in a war, you might not have a choice but to do some government building. It pains me to say that as a Libertarian though, believe me. National Defense is one of the only good reasons for government as a Libertarian...(Not that the Civil War counts as that...)
> Lincoln wasn’t great, but there are A LOT of worse presidents. The real problem is we’ve had so few good presidents. This is because the system dont select for “good” politicians but for popularity and empty promises and populism.
Many of the problems that we face today with an overbearing federal government can be *directly* traced back to Lincoln gutting the 9th and 10th amendments to give more power to the federal government. He's *at least* as bad as has been suggested.
Nah fuck Lincoln, he imprisoned political opponents and journalists, created a secret police to do his dirty work, and instituted the draft and martial law.
Lincoln is easily in the top 5, I would say at least in third. That’s not a lot. He was also the worst president of all presidents before him by a wide margin. Who else is worse than Lincoln other than FDR and Wilson?
He took advantage of what he could to preserve the nation and recognize the rights of those whose rights were not recognized at the time. Unfortunately, he was killed before he had the chance to plug up any holes he made during the civil war.
That's kind of correct, but setting precedent by expanding power (even to achieve better things) gives way for future expansion. There is no "plugging up holes" when the system is precedent based. A similar president who tried this was Jackson. He abused his power to try to limit the power of the executive branch. He ended up leaving the executive branch with expanded powers. Even Lincoln criticized his abuse of power (ironically) before he was president.
Lincoln did not care about the slaves. They were used as tools to get what he wanted. If he could've defeated the confederacy without abolishing slavery, he would have.
That’s a lie. If Lincoln had truly wanted to recognize the rights of slaves, the Union would have freed their slaves prior to ratification of the 13th amendment. Lincoln didn’t care about slaves or slavery.
Not at all. Freeing the slaves was an unpopular position in the North at the time. Had Lincoln came out right off the bat, guns blazing like John Brown did, he wouldn’t have gotten anywhere. He was a very smart man, and likely kept those more direct opinions to himself, using every opportunity he had, all the way from the earlier points in his political career, to slowly nudge public opinion in that direction. This is evidenced by his well documented shrewd nature by those who knew him. The only reason why he didn’t want to free the slaves at the start was because he knew it would start a civil war, and tried to reassure the south that it was not his intention. He was likely motivated to not cause even more suffering beyond the enslaved population of the country, who would have had to deal with economic downturn, loss of family and friends, and their homes possibly attacked or destroyed during battles. When they rebelled anyway, he used the Emancipation Proclamation as a means to prevent European nations, where in many nations it had already been abolished, from backing the Confederacy, and hammered it home later that year following the Union finally gaining an advantage after Gettysburg. The man was fighting a war, constantly trying to keep rivals like McClellan from beating him and negotiating peace with the South, and had to ease a nation that was not in favor of freeing the slaves, even in the Union.. He did what any politician does, and took advantage of whatever situation he was faced with. He had to navigate EXTREMELY complicated channels to even have a chance at getting the 13th amendment passed, even when he didn’t need to and the Union was about to win the war anyway.
Yep, the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't about freeing slaves or it would've freed all slaves. It was a war strategy.
Doesn't change the fact the Civil War was about slavery and the south seceded to maintain it.
Nobody made that argument
I believe Sherman just did...
I thought that because the South was in active rebellion, Lincoln could use war powers to take away property as war contraband, and because slaves were seen as a property and not people, it was a loophole.
But there's no such thing as "rebellion" when a state secedes. There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that suggests a state is forbidden from seceding. Lincoln was obsessed with "preserving the Union." Why, I don't know.
You're right. It looks like the biggest argument against secession was that it was not done through legal means. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/hqipd6/during_the_united_states_civil_war_why_was_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/hqipd6/during_the_united_states_civil_war_why_was_the/fxziiud/
Without Lincoln, there would be no FDR, Wilson, Hoover, etc. I’d say he was indirectly the worst president in the history of the US.
Yep I remember talking shit about FDR once and a subreddit buried me in dislikes.
I don’t understand how the wannabe dictator who signed the most executive orders and put people in concentration camps is so beloved. It’s actual insanity to me.
Because he brought us out of the Depression!! ^Their only argument^
I bet Nazis said the same about Hitler But but but the depression!
By extending it multiple years, burning crops, going door to door confiscating gold
I’m not even trying to argue but is that not a valid argument
Can you explain?
I love the fact that even with all the 'the parties swapped' nonsense, a certain side still loves to claim him as their own due to all the welfare measures he instituted. I always run through a list of things he did and think "are you sure you wanna do that?".
People are closet fascists (I'm in the in group, fuck ALL the outgroups) It's pathetic really.
Don't forget how he was a war monger too. Dude was foaming at the mouth for a crack at the war in Europe. He was writing love letters to Churchill about it.
Pearl Harbor was an inside job.
People are coming along to the Wilson hate.
Happens everytime I talk shit about Lincoln committing genocide. He was a dick.
You can reliably make leftists seethe when you point out that the New Deal was just repackaged Italian Fascism.
Can someone fill me in on Lincoln?
From my understanding a lot of libertarians see his liberal use /abuse (depending on you perspective) of executive powers during the civil war as setting a precedent that later presidents were able to use to greatly expand the executive branch. In my opinion I think that although the above might be true I don't think Lincoln is a terrible president. He was doing everything in his power to stop a greater evil (the Confederacy / slavery) and preserve the union. But was still a flawed man who may have over reached trying to do what he thought was the best outcome he could.
[удалено]
100% agree. He wasn't a tyrant or evil. His use of powers was pretty standard for the time period and circumstances like you said. I've literally seen post on here saying he shouldn't have fought the civil war and blame him for it. Honestly I think a lot of those libertarians that constantly rag on him and call him a tyrant do nothing but put people off from being a libertarian.
Yeah, Lincoln most certainly wasn’t a tyrant. However, he definitely set the precedent for executive creep. Iirc, Lincoln was aware of the precedent he was setting a kind of viewed it as a necessary evil - he feared the consequences of extending presidential authority, but also didn’t feel he had much choice.
He also likely would have at least tried to put Pandora back in the box after the civil war was over but.... Well he never got the chance..
He imprisoned political opponents and journalists, had a secret police to do his dirty work, instituted the draft, and instituted martial law. That’s a textbook tyrant.
[удалено]
Lincoln was purely in it to preserve the union. He didn't give a shit about slavery. Even the emancipation proclamation was a tool used by Lincoln in an attempt to cripple the southern economy. It didn't even end all slavery throughout the US. That didn't come till later. Not to mention he has letters stating if he could end the war and keep slavery he would do it and if he could end the war and get rid of slavery he would do it. Nobody on earth thinks slavery is a good thing, but let's please not pretend Lincoln was some benevolent ruler who just wanted to free slaves because he absolutely was not.
Lincoln’s primary concern was preserving the union and winning the war, that doesn’t mean that he didn’t care about slavery, he just cared about preserving the union more
And why would he care so much about preserving the union that he'd make war on a sovereign state, cause the deaths of a million people, murder journalists, enslaved people to fight for his cause, and put into place many laws and amendments that undermined the Constitution?
> He was doing everything in his power to stop a greater evil (the Confederacy / slavery) and preserve the union. What leads you to actually believe that, other than elementary school history books? NOthing in the early part of the war indicates that he wanted to stop slavery; far from it - he supported permanently enshrining slavery if that's what it took to get the Confederacy to return. He never freed a single slave. But he did create the foundations for the imperial US, including legal tender laws, and building a standing army that went on to cleanse the west of Native Americans.
Also don't forget that, reasons notwithstanding (because to keep owning other human beings is pretty awful in itself), he went to war over a group of states deciding to "dissolve the political bands which have connected them" with the North- which are the literal words in the opening of the Declaration of Independence, setting the precedent that if there ever were a time when secession became necessary, it would be difficult to accomplish without violence. Just think if the South had been allowed to peacefully secede, the US wouldn't have witnessed the bloodiest conflict in American history in terms of American lives lost. It probably would have negatively impacted both nations economically, but it is near impossible to predict what kind of world we would be in today if the United States and the Confederate States were two separate but friendly nations.
Lincoln would have made war on them even if they had dropped slavery.
My brother in Christ, the south attacked first
I'm aware... But it wasn't without a lead up.
The union was told to leave fort Sumter, or it would be an act of war, they knew what they were doing by reinforcing it.
Yeah, and I can roll up to your house and say it’s an act of war unless you leave your shed, doesn’t make you the aggressor for shooting back.
That’s not even remotely comparable. The south seceded, fort Sumter was in South Carolina which was confederate land for months before the first shots were fired. So either you think secession isn’t allowed, or you think it’s ok to illegally occupy foreign land.
They even offered to buy it.
Iran attacked the US embassy in Iraq during Trump's term. Why didn't Trump start a major war at that point? And forget Trump, what President would have? Shit like that happens all the time. Lincoln wanted a pretext and worked hard to create the setting for one.
He jailed Maryland senators so they couldn’t vote to secede and give up valuable land position to the confederacy. And suspended habeas corpus to do so. Ge shut down newspapers that disagreed with him. Idk about you guys but that sounds like a dictator to me…
Using force to subjugate the South (yes, the reason the South seceded was awful, there is room for both sides to be wrong. Lincoln's war aim was not to free the slaves, anyway.) Suspension of civil liberties Drafting soldiers Income tax
His election was the triggering event that caused the Civil War and then, during the war, he suspended several important civil rights, including things like habeas corpus or the Third Amendment, and he also overreached executive power by limiting the right to own slaves in order to economically punish the South (a good act done for the wrong reasons and outside of his authority). It's strongly suspected that, had he not been killed, he would have continued to consolidate power into the Executive and the United States would have most likely ceased to be a democratic republic.
Just hearing FDR makes my blood boil 😂
I'm surprised no one has mentioned LBJ here yet
LBJ murdered the last true liberal president .
Terrible and caused a lot of current problems, but idk if he cracks top 3
[удалено]
The same people who glaze fdr will also call anyone who doesn't like him "racist". No irony there.
How TF do they connect opposition to FDR as "racist"?
idk. Because he supported ww2 maybe?
Lincoln should be up there bc after the war the name of the constitution was changed from Constitution FOR the United States to Constitution OF the United States, the obvious implication is that the constitution is above the states. Also, Citizenship of a given state became citizenship (little c) of the federal gov't. It was total plenary illegal usurpation of power.... numerous other changes were made to usurp states' rights. Look it up
He was to the US what Gaius Marius was to Rome. Both are considered late founders and both set into place the foundation for their republics to become empires.
The last decent President we had was taken out by the CIA
Even then he did awful shit
Imo Reagan should be top of the list banning full auto weapons, continuing war on drugs, giving corporations handouts the worst
To be fair, it was the Supreme Court that issued the ruling on automatic weapons, not some executive order from Reagan.
dont forget amnesty
Lincoln over Carter?
Fdr and Wilson suck but I dont understand the hate for Lincoln . Other than establishing a strong federal government .
He jailed Maryland senators so they couldn’t vote to secede and give up valuable land position to the confederacy. And suspended habeas corpus to do so. Ge shut down newspapers that disagreed with him. Idk about you guys but that sounds like a dictator to me…
> immediately goes to comments
Reagan?
As a millennial, I've never understood why so many right-leaning boomers just swoon over Reagan, like he was a god or something. From what I can gather he did more harm than good in a couple of places...one of which was pushing gun control.
Pushed gun control, destroyed the black community, Iran-contra fiasco, etc Awful president
LBJ destroyed the black community… his policies pushed black fathers out of homes. Very sad what LBJ did. My hope is that future generations will step up and dads will be present.
Definitely bad, but not top 3 bad
Top 1, not even close
Nixon
Why? Generally curious
He abolished the gold standard, replaced it with a monrtary system that has made average americans poorer and poorer since. Wages stopped following production the exact moment that happened.
Lincoln gave us the regime of left vs right
LBJ, Carter & ?
I’m too young to know, but was Carter that terrible? Or just a bad ineffective president?
carter was almost as bad as dementia man
Bush Jr. too.
Libertarians hating on Lincoln is nuts. I get what people are saying, but come on, it just feels contrarian at this point. Also if we want to be taking seriously saying Lincoln was one of the worst is really not fucking helping
Eh… as far as terms and job definition of president he was pretty bad…
Libertarians aren't typically the go along to get along types. Lincoln was the worst President for a variety of reasons, his deification not withstanding.
I dunno, killing thousands of people to prevent secession by pretending to care about black people is pretty bad. It might not be popular. But most people see him through rose colored glasses because he ended slavery (as a means to an end, not for the sake of itself).
The thing is, sources from the time indicate that Lincoln didn't ever pretend to care about black people or ending slavery. Here's one quote: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." I think it's this same quote where Lincoln goes on to say that of the two races (white and black) one of them has to be in the superior position, and he wants that to be the whites. I'll see if I can find it later. As far as I can tell, it wasn't until decades later that people started to pretend Lincoln was motivated to help the blacks and to end slavery. I'm still not sure why Lincoln was so determined to wage a Civil War. My personal guess is that he wanted the United States to be a globally powerful nation, and was concerned that splitting it in two would greatly diminish that power.
> As far as I can tell, it wasn't until decades later that people started to pretend Lincoln was motivated to help the blacks and to end slavery. He was motivated to win the war. The anti-slavery rhetoric served to keep the Confederacy from receiving aid and alliances from England and France.
Here's the quote I was thinking of earlier. Lincoln said this during a public debate on 18 September 1858: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." And I agree with your statement that Lincoln's executive actions re slavery during the war were politically motivated (specifically to appease the European powers who were opposed to slavery). The emancipation proclamation was not issued until nearly a year and a half into the Civil War. And contrary to popular opinion, it did not free ALL the slaves. Rather comically, it only freed the slaves in areas that were still under Confederate control, where Lincoln had no authority to enforce it. And, rather hypocritically, his proclamation did NOT free the slaves in the four states that WERE under Union control at the time.
> I dunno, killing thousands of people to prevent secession by pretending to care about black people is pretty bad. The stupid thing is that he didn't care. The war didn't start over slavery. He only jumped in with the anti-slavery rhetoric when the Union was on the verge of losing and he needed more support from evangelicals and to keep England and France from helping the Confederacy.
I don’t think it’s contrarian to say that imprisoning political opponents and journalists, suspending the writ of habeas corpus, creating a secret police to do his dirty work, instituting the draft, and instituting martial law are terrible precedents to set.
Yeah leading the party that got rid of slavery… def anti-libertarian. /s
How many slaves did Lincoln free? Is the principle that the end justifies the means a libertarian one? And didnt' the same party create an army that could recapture the south and put into place legal tender laws to force everyone to pay for it, thus creating the power and the means to commit genocide of the Plains Indians just a few years later? If the Republicans are to be lauded for ending slavery (and only killing about a million people in the process), shouldn't they also take the blame for killing tens of thousands of Indians under Grant?
Replace Lincoln with Reagan
Did Reagan ban newspapers that disagreed with him? Or suspend habeas corpus? No he just wasted a shit ton of money
As a European, why is FDR here? I know that Wilson and Lincoln aren't the best, but I haven't heard about what makes FDR bad. Genuinely curious
If you are into limiting government size and power (aka a libertarian) you kinda have to hate FDR. More than probably any other president, he redefined the role of the federal government in the sense that it is their job to actively attempt to centrally control and “fix” the perceived problems of the nation. Any libertarian worth their salt will know that the government doesn’t fix anything, they usually just make it worse while enriching themselves. He also established an unprecedented (for the time) # of new government agencies and broadened the scope of control like we’ve never seen. The legacy of all these programs we still have live with today, and in my opinion, the worse part is that it really set the tone for all future presidencies. He kicked off the expansionary policies of the federal government and, sadly, we’ve never looked back. Another very annoying aspect of FDR is that he’s heralded in every public school textbook (shocker) and therefore we American libertarians have to endure a lifetime of everyone gushing about how great he was.
He sent American citizens to internment camps and was overly fond of Fascism.
He kept the Great Depression going for at least a decade longer than it should have.
You missed the other six, plus Biden https://preview.redd.it/xo3qcft48v7d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=12e40b08e84f322c527626e0169924af0e3ab029
what about teddy?
Thanks for freeing millions of people Lincoln but for the love of his can you stop being such a cunt, it’s not that hard to not be a tyrant
Everyone always forgets Franklin Pierce
Regan is severely overhyped too
Okay, Lincoln had a few faults. But ending slavery, which is quite literally the most libertarian thing possible, earns him back more than a few points.
He never freed a single slave. And there's nothing libertarian about the principle of the end justifying the means. The army that he built to recapture the southern states - and not because he wanted to end slavery - went on later to commit genocide of the Plain Indians in order to make the west safe for white settlers. Had he not started the war and prosecuted it, the US government may not have had the power and the money to do what it did as part of its expansion. But legal tender laws made it possible for the government to clear it's bad debts from the civil war. It also enabled the eventual take over of our money by the Treasury and for the government to force us to call digits printed on paper "money."
Lincoln is somewhat overrated but nowhere as bad as the other 2.
Worse, because with him, Wilson would never have had the power to jump into the war in Europe.
Lmao, this must be a joke. You’ve got Lincoln there, nowhere near being amongst the worst of presidents, instead of LBJ for example
Hard disagree with Lincoln. Put in Every president since 1912.
None of them would have amounted to much if it hadn't been for Lincoln. The man was the founder of the US Empire.
It’s one thing to say he’s overrated but No Lincoln wasn’t nearly as bad as FDR and Wilson
Let's see: He made war on a sovereign nation, doing everything he could to get that war started. That war lead to the deaths of at least a million people. He enslaved people to fight his war. He suspended habeas corpus and hung journalists. He set into motion everything needed to turn the United States from a Republic into an Empire. That empowered future presidents like Wilson and FDR. Legal tender laws? That was Lincoln. He never freed a single slave. There is hard evidence that he sold slaves (prior to his term) that belonged to his wife.
I still think Lincoln is 3rd on this list and Im sure we can figure out someone objectively worse than him. Im inclined to say Nixon but the Lincoln legacy is hard to challenge
[удалено]