Political Crossfire Forums

Our Great President, Lincoln, Washington, Reagan, etc. Are they great because of the decisions they've made or because of the timing of their Presidency?

Let's take the example of Lincoln. In the Gettysburg Address he didn't incite the troops to press forward and crush the South, instead he almost offered a truce. But what if he DID give a regular military speech and rallied the troops to crush the South? We would probably go down a different path in history, but in that path, will Lincoln be any less great?

Let's say he didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Instead he negotiated a compromise with the South to allow slavery to continue with certain conditions. Would he be remembered as the Great Negotiator who ended the Civil War?

My point is Lincoln is remember now as the man who won the Civil War and who ended slavery. Based on that, people also studied his life and how he dealt with his friends and foes and tell other stories to support how great he is. But if he were to make completely different decisions which take us down a completely different path in history, will he still be remember a great President? If we were to put someone like George W. Bush as President of the Union will he be remember as a great President regardless of his decisions provided that they are somewhat reasonable and that the Union won the war?

Lincoln probably would have been a very solid "maintenance" president had he taken office at a less volatile period in history.

The individuals who personified the American experiment >(by an order of a countless magnitude) then any ruler that ever lived.

History is often as much a public memory as a reality. Jack Kennedy is often idolized over the Moon missions, Cuban Crisis and not much else. People though have a real misty eyed memory of his presidency. Many historians agree if he'd not been assassinated he'd have been impeached.

Had Lincoln not issued the Gettysburg Address or pushed for the eventual emancipation of slaves, he would not have been Abraham Lincoln. Your question assumes the spot of a different man.

Lincoln is considered almost universally one of the best presidents - if not the best - because he willingly extended a hand to political opponents for the benefit of the country. He had his core belief that it was illegal and not in the benefit of anyone for the South to secede just to preserve slavery, but he was probably one of the most emotional men to become president, perhaps partially because of the tragedies he endured. He is also well-regarded because he evolved, not only from a regular politician to a well-spoken orator but also eventually opening up his ideas of race. Lincoln in 1960 was more mature than Lincoln in 1955 and Lincoln in 1964 was much, much more mature than the Lincoln in 1960.

Lincoln's treatment of the South after the Civil War was unprecedented. Look at other revolutions and rebellions at the time - political opponents were executed and tortured instead of merely disenfranchised. You can't separate his actions from who he was. If he had just won the civil war but punitively enacted revenge on the South and not abolished slavery, he would only be seen as a great war president.

The presidency is a reactionary office, yet an office of considerable power. What usually makes a president great is his ability to heed the call to action in a crisis with solid leadership and courage. The president also needs to be able to surround himself by smart people, not just yes men. Presidential decision making is best suited by an environment of respectful debate and people willing to tell the president the truth, even when it's difficult.