Potemkin wrote:^^ Dave pretty much says it all. Lincoln was a progressive president, but not in the sense usually thought - he was ultra-authoritarian and basically trampled all over the Constitution during the Civil War. Neither did he end slavery, and if you read what he actually said at the time, it's clear that he was a racist fuck (like everybody else at that time). What he did accomplish, however, was to accelerate America's industrial development and forcibly incorporate the South into that industrial development. This, and this alone, makes him a progressive figure, in the Marxist sense. Americans are right to think highly of him, but they do so for the wrong reasons.
I don't think the label "progressive" is appropriate in the sense you're using it. While I obviously realize where you're coming from, America has no tradition of Marxist social science and the word progressive either applies to American Progressivism in the early 20th century or modern day left liberalism.
And personally I can in no way justify the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Americans in order to implement and economic system, so I certainly do not endorse the man as a great President--he was a butcher.
It should also be noted that the South was not incorporated into that industrial development per se, rather, the South was exploited to finance that development. The South paid the vast majority of tariff revenues, which were used principally to finance industrial improvements in the North. The land ownership structure which emerged in the South (largely due to the tidewater lowlands originally being settled by colonists from class-ridden Southern England) along with its cultural mores were simply not conducive to industrialization.
peter_co wrote:Dave and Potemin, I agree with both of you. The only thing I might not fully agree with is his role in preparing the economic boom of the Guilded Age that followed the war. The American System was well underway when Lincoln came to power and he was only interested in the issue peripherally.
Disagree. The Federalists and later the Whigs consistently tried to implement their vision, but their political achievements were usually short lived and never far reaching. During the antebellum period the average weighted tariff changed frequently with swings in political power, and its weighted rate was averaged at 28%. Seed colleges, railroad land subsidies, the National Banking System, and other key features and Lincoln's policy were never implemented. And oddly, the strong influence of New England meant that a large amount of revenues earmarked for "internal improvements" actually went to subsidize the fishing industry in the antebellum period.
After the Republicans came to power, the Morril tariff, with an average weighted rate of 45%, came into force. This is what prompted southern secession. By the time Lincoln was through, it has risen to 54% and did not drop below that level until the second Cleveland administration.
peter_co wrote: This was due to the fact that the secession of the South immediatly followed his election, so of course he had more immediate concerns. His main contribution was to start the war which destroyed the agricultural system of the South, making the industrialization of the region and its integration with the North inevitable. However, again, I don't think there is evidence that this was a priority with him (although it certainly was for many in his party).
Lincoln won the Republican nomination primarily on his protectionist credentials, which caused the New York and Pennsylvania delegations to cast their delegates for him. Otherwise Salmon P. Chase would've been the Republican candidate. This was Lincoln's number one issue. And if it wasn't, he certainly wouldn't have waged the bloodiest war in our history for it--a war against our own people.
peter_co wrote:However, as both of you said: what he is mostly remembered by is the fairy tale that he fought the war to liberate the slaves due to his profound belief in the ideals on which the country was founded: liberty and equality, blablabla. He did support the 13th amendment Congress passed that ended slavery, but again that was pretty much inevitable at that point. But to counter all that, he tried suspending habeas corpus, proclaimed the superiority of whites and told of his disgust at the prospect of racial equality, etc, etc.
I should add that I don't think anyone from this time period should be condemned for racism.
peter_co wrote: So while I can understand why he might still be seen as somewhat of a popular hero (a la Jackson), I simply can't understand how historians who supposedly have a deeper understanding of his presidency still sing his glory en masse.
Simple. Historians are courtiers. They worship power. Historians always claim that Lincoln and FDR are America's best Presidents.
For Lincoln one can at least make the economic argument (as is being discussed in this thread), but historians, with the notable exception of Michael Lind, rarely make that argument, probably because they find economic history boring and hard. More common are fawning hagiographic biographies like Doris Kearns Goodwin's book
Team of Rivals, which basically babbles on for hundreds of pages of how "courageous" Lincoln was to invade the South, jail thousands of American citizens without charge, suspend habeas corpus, etc.
For FDR there is really no argument whatsoever. His economic record was an abject failure. A typical cause célèbre of historians, civil rights, he is for whatever reason given credit for despite doing nothing in that regard since he needed the support of the South. He certainly had no respect for the Constitution, which he more or less destroyed. Then it all comes down to World War 2, where FDR managed provoke an attack on America, proceeded to half-ass the war effort, and finished by selling half of Europe into Soviet slavery. Apparently this constitutes greatness!
And who do historians consider the worst President in American history? Warren G. Harding. And what was so bad about Harding? Certainly nothing in his record indicates that, in fact he was arguably a great President.
Harding pushed for the biggest tax cut in American history up to that point, refused to renew the Red Scare, freed Wilson's political prisoners, ended wage & price controls, returned illegally confiscated property to rightful owners, provided strong veterans benefits to our brave combat veterans, fought corruption in the budget process and got the GAO established, and presided over the first strategic arms limitation agreement in history. The country entered into a massive economic boom. All this in two years.
Harding was also perhaps the first prominent post-Reconstruction politician in favor of civil rights. He lobbied hard for an anti-lynching bill (which unfortunately failed in the Senate), and he made numerous speeches in favor of full legal equality for blacks, including one in Birmingham, Alabama and another in Florida--for which the Florida state legislature condemned him for (Herbert Hoover would later receive a similar treatment). Unfortunately, nothing came of his civil rights advocacy.
His administration was only marred by the Teapot Dome Scandal and some more minor corruption issues, which he had no personal knowledge of, had no negative impact on the nation, and which pales into comparison to many other corruption scandals in American history (or compared to government accounting today, which is a disgrace to the human race).
And this fine statesman many historians call the worst President in history. Disgraceful.
Everything you believe is wrong. Yes,
you!Boom. You just got Dave'd. -Bramlow