Discussion Lincoln/history question

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,462
Location
mo
Was reading Pope is another one who accompanied Lincoln to Washington, has me thinking, Lincoln always get credit for standing by Grant.

Does he get the credit or discredit for all his political/personal/ cronyism appointments that were failures that he should deserve if one is looking at the whole picture? As a westerner obviously Pope and Lane come to mind. But Lincoln chose or went with alot...........that were hardly Grant
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,462
Location
mo
I view the role of history should be to judge impartially the whole, which would include the good , bad and the ugly, yet with certain figures the bad or ugly seems to be largely ignored and almost taboo to mention
 

Bruce Vail

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
4,055
Lincoln gets a fair share of criticism for his mistakes in appointing some of his senior generals, but this is usually overshadowed by the Union's ultimate victory over the rebels. Nothing succeeds like success.

There have been many complaints over the years that Lincoln has been overpraised by the mass of historians. I tend to agree with some of these complaints, but it all comes with the territory in such a highly charged political environment.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,462
Location
mo
Lincoln gets a fair share of criticism for his mistakes in appointing some of his senior generals, but this is usually overshadowed by the Union's ultimate victory over the rebels. Nothing succeeds like success.

There have been many complaints over the years that Lincoln has been overpraised by the mass of historians. I tend to agree with some of these complaints, but it all comes with the territory in such a highly charged political environment.
The omittance of history seems to be to promote some false narrative IMO

To always cite Lincoln standing by Grant...….and nothing else, suggests some false impression of foresight, wisdom or sage like quality

When taken in context he promoted and stood by stinkers such as Lane also, one realizes that impression is somewhat false......or he wouldn't have promoted and stood by stinkers...….
 
Last edited:

wbull1

First Sergeant
Official Vendor
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
1,084
At the start of the war, Lincoln was the head of a pretty new political party that could not have prosecuted the war alone. He appointed a lot of political generals, many of them pretty lousy at commanding, from the Democratic Party in part to get the entire North involved in the war. He certainly made mistakes of keeping Generals in place too long and in not giving some enough chances to others, but there were not a huge number of good choices.

He had to learn to be president and at the same time to be commander in chief. I think it fair to say he got better over time.
ps I also agree that he is given too much credit for what others did.
 
Top