MovieChat Forums > The Civil War (1990) Discussion > How do Southern Americans, and non-Ameri...

How do Southern Americans, and non-Americans view Lincoln?


Growing up in New York, I honestly thought all Americans held Abraham Lincoln in reverence. He's on the five-dollar-bill and the penny, he's on Mount Rushmore, and there is the famous Lincoln Monument in Washington D.C. In most lists of the "greatest U.S. Presidents," he is at the top and is number one in most cases.

However, I never took into account that people in other parts of the country could have different opinions on him (obviously I know people in different parts of the world may look at him differently, or not consider him at all). During his lifetime, Lincoln was not really loved by many. In the North he was frequently seen as too radical or too conservative (depending on which group was considering him), and the south despised him as well. Even some in the North who sided with the war had doubts about Lincoln due to the suspension during the war of the writ of Habeas Corpus, and the Emancipation Proclamation, while treasured now as a historical document, was not beloved then. Many feared that Lincoln could be a tyrant and was usurping too much power. (That one fact is interesting to me in that the President most often picked as 2nd all-time to Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was also feared by some as tyrannical.)

Obviously it is a generalization for me to ask if there is one uniform view from either people who do not live in America, or Southerners, and I would hope to get more than one view. Also, I would think that Lincoln had LONG AGO become a President who was nationally respected and admired rather than one only fondly remembered by different regions of the country. After-all, no matter someone's view of states rights, or what the war was truly fought over, I find it hard to believe that someone could argue that slavery should have not been touched by Lincoln, and should have been allowed to continue its existence.

So if any would not mind sharing their thoughts on Lincoln, I'd be interested to read them. I also might even expect that people who don't live in America may A.) Not be on this board, or B.) Not really have any thoughts on Lincoln at all. However, it is my belief that he is a President equally revered all over this country, and that if people in other parts of the world think of American History and great American Leaders, he is right at the top of the list.

"Well if you wanted to make Syrok the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."

reply

[deleted]

Lots of things have changed for me since I initially posted this topic in 2009, and while I still admire Lincoln, I'm sadly closer to your viewpoint about caring how the people of the south feel about Lincoln. I lived in New York - where I was born and raised - in 2009 and today I live in the SF Bay Area in California. After last month's presidential election, where the 'winner,' received over 2.7 million fewer votes than the 'loser,' I have been considering how to move forward. We in California, the richest and most populous state, would instantly be the world's 6th largest economy if we left the Union. We also have nearly 40 million people, which is more than live in Canada; about 1 of every 8 Americans is a Californian. I bring this up because California has a serious option to secede as its own nation (without forming a new union of states as the Confederate states did) where no state has ever really had such an option before. For instance, New York is liberal as is New Jersey, Connecticut, and nearby New England, but since the NYC metro area stretches into 3 states, it makes leaving the union impractical because it would need NJ and CT to come with it. CA has no such issue.

Secession is the wrong word, too. The southern states had used tricks for years before the Civil War to hold onto levers of power in spite of having a population of 9 million in the states that would make up the Confederacy (and 4 million of those 9 were slaves) to 31 million in the states that stayed in the union. They didn't trust majority rule. Now in the USA the minority is in firm control of the government. More Americans voted for the Democratic nominee for president and for Democratic senate candidates. But through tricks and undemocratic means, the minority holds all the levers of power. Secession is anti-democratic because the idea is to get out as soon as democracy reflects the will of a majority of the people. California leaving would be to express the OPPOSITE emotion: leaving because of anger over the will of the majority no longer mattering.

All that is to say, perhaps you're right and it doesn't matter anymore what people in other places think of Lincoln.

I'd love to stay and chat...but I'm not going to.

reply

who cares what the south thinks about Lincoln


You must be from the enlightened North to say that. I love how those who claim to be the tolerant and all knowing are the ones in fact who stereo type and don't want discussion or debate. If someone had said "who cares what blacks think about something" they would be instantly jumped and labeled racists, but it's ok when referring to the South. I love the double standards. Next the arguement will be to discredit anyone who disagrees with you by trying to make them seem ignorant and you are the enlightened one who knows more. It's the typical elitist way of handling things. I picture you literally covering your ears so you can't hear what anybody else says when you say a statement like that. It's comments like that over the years that has lead the people here to say enough.

Secession is the wrong word, too. The southern states had used tricks for years before the Civil War to hold onto levers of power in spite of having a population of 9 million in the states that would make up the Confederacy (and 4 million of those 9 were slaves) to 31 million in the states that stayed in the union. They didn't trust majority rule. Now in the USA the minority is in firm control of the government. More Americans voted for the Democratic nominee for president and for Democratic senate candidates. But through tricks and undemocratic means, the minority holds all the levers of power. Secession is anti-democratic because the idea is to get out as soon as democracy reflects the will of a majority of the people. California leaving would be to express the OPPOSITE emotion: leaving because of anger over the will of the majority no longer mattering.


I have read your posts and you are well versed and articulate. I don't agree with your point of view but I'll say you are willing to discuss and debate, and in positive way. It invites good banter and discussion, so I hope to disagree in the same positive way you have given others. I disagree with the statement that through tricks and undemocratic means that Trump won. It's the same system we have had for centuries. I didn't find you posting about it before the election. Now I could be wrong bc I can't read all of your posts. There were shady things going on with this election on both sides, and some very interesting timing of stories being released against both candidates. I don't think it was just one way as you implied. I know you will point to Russians and wiki leaks. I will refer to NBC sitting on the tape of Trump till a few weeks before the election, and the women accusing Trump waiting years or decades to come out at the worst time to try and hurt him. On both sides, the timing is suspicious. You also point to Clinton getting more votes. I would point to Trump getting more states, and even more importantly, he won the overwhelming majorities of counties in the US. There are 2 huge population centers in California and New York that are overwhelming liberal. Outside of these 2 states, I contend that the rest of America would not agree with the viewpoints of the two states. Break down the election on a map, and especially if you do it by counties, there is a vast sea of red. I know it's not completely fair to take away 2 states of one candidate but not the other. But the point I am trying to make is when you say majority, I look at the map and see the majority of America did get the candidate they wanted. 2 states, no matter how big they are, do not represent the rest of the country. I also think if the election was based on popular votes, Trump would have campaigned different. There was no need for him to campaign in California or New York. Those states were going to Clinton no matter what. He understood the electoral college system better than the experienced politician and how to campaign based on the system we have had for centuries. He would have done a different style had it been based on popular vote, so saying she had the majority is true, but I also don't think it holds as much weight as you make it sound. I also don't think Clinton would have won the majority of votes had he campaigned to win the popular vote. But I can neither prove nor disprove this. I think most people outside of California would actually love for it to leave the US, as it has different values and priorities as the rest of the country. When Obama won, while I was not happy, I never chanted "not my president, protested, destroyed public and private property, threatened to leave the country, etc. I got on with my life. I didn't vote for him, but it's the system we have had.
“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” – President Obama to House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, January 23, 2009.
I happen to agree with quote from President Obama. With every excuse or reason the Democrats use, it sounds more like sour grapes and reminds me of the kid who doesn't get his way and throws a temper tantrum. So many young millennials have only known Obama as president, and are used to winning and getting their way. The first time on a major issue that they lose, and their reaction is disappointing, and childish. The you tube videos of people crying and threatening suicide actually made me laugh bc of the drama queen factor. Trying to draw attention to themsleves and simply over reacting. Had people done this when Obama won, they would be called racists and closed minded. I don't put you in this category, as you seem mature and experienced. But saying that Trump is so extreme and vile that we must threaten the people in the electoral college with death threats, and riot simply is over reacting and throwing a temper tantrum. No one is happy when their side loses, and thinks the country will fall apart. But the behaviors exhibited this election are just beyond what is acceptable to me. Trump won in a fair election, and the recent recount efforts were just trying to delegitimize his election. He actually gained votes in the recounts that were done.
As far as California leaving, I don't think it would actually be able to survive on its own and offer the same level of services. It's not a practical idea imo. I don't even know the procedure for a state leaving the union. But if it's legal, hey it's your right to do so. Lincoln wouldn't approve of it however lol. The thing to do is either work within the law and change the system,or to get a better candidate. While we might not agree on issues, I do respect your opinion and know we both have different life experiences. Perhaps I have not seen things or experienced things you have and vice versa. For me, being told by the mainstream media how I should think and what is right and wrong based on them being so much smarter than the rest of us is getting old. Being told because I disagree on an issue makes me ignorant or a racist by elites who don't know anything about my state or region outside of a Saturday night live paraday makes them seem like the ignorant ones. I also know that neither myself nor my viewpoints are perfect on every issue. There are some issues I probably do not know everything about. But I am man enough to admit it unlike those who act all knowing, and tell me I just need to do what they tell me to do.
As far as the original question posted by the OP. In the South, we don't sit around with a picture of Lincoln on the dartboard. We are taught he was a great president who freed the slaves. He may not be the most popular President ever, but he isn't hated. At least not from any experiences I have seen. You are correct with debating the battle over the causes of the civil war. It isn't Lincoln that is hated, that is the subject that will cause so much debate. States rights is what most would say down here. Call it revisionist, but the winners usually write the history. But I'll stay away from that issue for now. I agree actually a lot with what you say on the subject. More than you would think. I do think though, that when people use quotes, it's a common way of discrediting someone by saying they are cherry picked or out of context. Some may have been, but I think either side could do it. It's a tricky slope to manage. Anyway, that's my 2 cents on the subject, and I wish you well!

reply

.
I don't think you can lump all Southerners together, any more than you can lump all Germans together, or all Americans together.

Obviously there's a lot of racism and white supremacy still in the U.S., and not just in the South (the Trump election and its post-mortem have given ample evidence of that).

If you want the viewpoint of a rational, well-educated, non-racist Southerner on Lincoln, Shelby Foote, the commentator in this series, gives a perfect viewpoint.

Obviously from any rational and unbiased viewpoint, no matter where one lives in the U.S. or out, Lincoln was the greatest, bravest, wisest President this country has ever had. And outside of the Founding Fathers, the most important person in its entire history. I say that as someone who was born, bred, and raised (till I was 28) in the Carolinas.
.

reply