Is it watered down "Social Studies" that leads kids to believe that ABe Lincoln was one of the greatest President's???

He did acknowledge that is the printing of money by anyone but Congress would lead us into collapse but he also said if any congress person speak out against a war that the government was waging, he was a traitor...

So, in your opinion, was Abraham a good president or just another Federalist who opposed states rights?

I dont really have extensive background in AL, but I do believe that had he been president during reconstruction and not Johnson or Grant the country would have been in much better shape.

The thing or kids are taught is many times for PC purposes only.  He freed the slaves, ya know.

Hence,.. I took my teaching degree and went elsewhere.

Lincoln was a good president IMO, but not for the reasons the skewl textbooks say.  

Quoted: Lincoln was a good president IMO, but not for the reasons the skewl textbooks say.

Ok, why then?

If he had lived, this country would be in much better shape today. That's all I will say about that.

Quoted:The thing or kids are taught is many times for PC purposes only.  He freed the slaves, ya know.

He didn't?  Thats news to the 3,000,000+ slaves who were freed at the end of the war.

Quoted: Is it watered down "Social Studies" that leads kids to believe that ABe Lincoln was one of the greatest President's??? He did acknowledge that is the printing of money by anyone but Congress would lead us into collapse but he also said if any congress person speak out against a war that the government was waging, he was a traitor... So, in your opinion, was Abraham a good president or just another Federalist who opposed states rights?

One of the greats...

'States Rights' is a fallacy from the get go... States are not people, they do not have rights... They have certain powers, but they are also denied other powers by the Constitution...

The Feds, OTOH, are explicitly given the Constitutional authority to suppress insurrection by military force... Which is exactly what Pres L. did....

And federalisim is what this country is about - the Constitution is very clear on the subject... Confederacy failed the first time we tried it, too... That the South became upset & decided to leave simply because they lost a free & fair election indicates the 'wrong' nature of their cause from the beginning....

Linclon saved the union from fragmentation, and had the guts to do what needed to be done - no matter how painful...

The Constitution would have been effectively moot, and the rights of all citizens neutralized, if the Southern way had been tolerated...

It should also be noted that Southern attempts to portray the man as a vindictive monster are 100% contrary to history - Linclon OPPOSED the concept of radical (vindictive) reconstruction, and things would have gone MUCH better for the South (And the nation as a whole) if he had been allowed to preside over the re-integration of the South rather than having his lame-duck VP do it, followed by US Grant (one of our most corrupt Presidents ever))....

Quoted: Quoted: The thing or kids are taught is many times for PC purposes only.  He freed the slaves, ya know. He didn't?  Thats news to the 3,000,000+ slaves who were freed at the end of the war.

Would probably be more accurate had JRB said "He freed *some* slaves, ya know."

Quoted: Quoted: Is it watered down "Social Studies" that leads kids to believe that ABe Lincoln was one of the greatest President's??? He did acknowledge that is the printing of money by anyone but Congress would lead us into collapse but he also said if any congress person speak out against a war that the government was waging, he was a traitor... So, in your opinion, was Abraham a good president or just another Federalist who opposed states rights? One of the greats... 'States Rights' is a fallacy from the get go... States are not people, they do not have rights... They have certain powers, but they are also denied other powers by the Constitution...

Generally, you're right.  From a position of modern political philosophy (and theory), you're also right.

Generally (and philosophically, and theoretically), states [in the generic] have powers, and people have rights.  Thus, the concept of "states' rights" certainly seems like an oxymoron......

It would probably be more correct to say "states' powers," but that is simply not the language/terminology that is in vogue:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Since we operate fundamentally under the concept of popular sovereignty, it is a matter of course that all power originates in the people, and is then delegated to either the federal government (the "United States"), or to the many states.

Thus what *follows* is a case of [limited, secondary] dual sovereignty.

The FedGov and the many state govs have power only because "We, The People" say they do (or "can").

But going back to the language of the Tenth Amendment......

While it would probably/possibly/perhaps be *more* correct to say that "the [many] States" and "the people" hold a bundle of powers against the Federal Government, the fact that the Tenth Amendment is nestled comfortably within the bounds of the Bill of Rights leads many to consider the "reservation of powers" to be, essentially, a "right".

The Feds, OTOH, are explicitly given the Constitutional authority to suppress insurrection by military force... Which is exactly what Pres L. did....

Remind me again of the part where the South tried to take over the entire geographic holdings of the United States.....

Or was it just a separatist movement/conflict?

And federalisim is what this country is about - the Constitution is very clear on the subject...

Remind me again of where the Constitution is "very clear" on the subject.....

Confederacy failed the first time we tried it, too...

Agreed.  Although I disagree that "we" ever tried it a second time, if that is in fact what you're alluding to.

That the South became upset & decided to leave simply because they lost a free & fair election indicates the 'wrong' nature of their cause from the beginning....

I think a little something about the "consent of the governed" might be an objection to that.

Linclon saved the union from fragmentation, and had the guts to do what needed to be done - no matter how painful...

While you may very well be right, you'll forgive me if I'm not so quick to genuflect at the altar......

The Constitution would have been effectively moot, and the rights of all citizens neutralized, if the Southern way had been tolerated...

Are you referring to toleration of their very existence as an independent nation?  Much like how our present toleration of Canada and Mexico make the Constitution moot?

It should also be noted that Southern attempts to portray the man as a vindictive monster are 100% contrary to history - Linclon OPPOSED the concept of radical (vindictive) reconstruction, and things would have gone MUCH better for the South (And the nation as a whole) if he had been allowed to preside over the re-integration of the South rather than having his lame-duck VP do it, followed by US Grant (one of our most corrupt Presidents ever))....

I completely and wholeheartedly agree......

I think he was,  He was able to put the Union back together (all be it using a war the South started) that Buchanan had let come apart.  He oversaw the freeing of the slaves.  No matter how the Lincoln was wrong crowd wants to phrase it.  Had he been able to reconstitute the Union without freeing the slaves he would have to stop the war, but all but the most obtuse have to recognize that once the war started the South was going to lose it's slaves one way or the other.And I expect that a half hearted war dragging on would have eventually led to a slave rebellion with far more deleterious effects on the South

Southern Revisionists like to spout that Lincoln was a tyrant that shredded all the civil rights, but have apparently never found out or purposely ignore that sad state of civil rights in the Confederate States.  Habeus Corpus was revoked and abused on both sides, and neither side made any great effort to fight it.  The South authorized committees to review HC cases, but for the most part those committees never met.  There were more newspaper closings and burnings in the South, there were several instances of hangings of Unionists in the South, none in the North, the North never instituted internal passports, the North never limited where a farmer could sell his crops, and the South immediately instituted a burdensome tariff system immediately.  But the Lincoln was a bum types blame the war on Northern Tariffs and not slavery.

Had Lincoln survived and Johnston's first surrender been accepted, the south and the Reconstruction would have been far less painful to the South.

Many of Lincolns actions taken out of context are seen as anathema to many, but they usually forget to admit there was a major war on.  Had there not been a war, yes they would have been out of line

At the same time, he got the first transcontinental railroad started successfully, he diplomatically got the British out of Mexico and started the actions that led to the ultimate ejection of Maximillian from Mexico.

Although 20/20 hindsight seems to say that the Brits and French would have done a better job of running Mexico than the Mexicans have.

Social Studies may be watered down, and no matter how much "he South was right" people have to say about it, an accurate picture of the conditions in the South is still not attained.  It was worse than almost all of the History books portray.

Quoted: Southern Revisionists like to spout that Lincoln was a tyrant that shredded all the civil rights, but have apparently never found out or purposely ignore that sad state of civil rights in the Confederate States.  Habeus Corpus was revoked and abused on both sides, and neither side made any great effort to fight it.  The South authorized committees to review HC cases, but for the most part those committees never met.  There were more newspaper closings and burnings in the South, there were several instances of hangings of Unionists in the South, none in the North, the North never instituted internal passports, the North never limited where a farmer could sell his crops, and the South immediately instituted a burdensome tariff system immediately.  But the Lincoln was a bum types blame the war on Northern Tariffs and not slavery.

One thing I noted in the post-war memoirs of both Union and Cofederates is that they both bitch about how "soft" thier government was with those seen as sympathetic with the enemy and wished Washington/Richmond would have dealt with the traitors back home harshly like the Yankees/Rebels did with thiers.

A strait pc version of history would have some democrat as the greatest president ever, think Carter or Clinton.

This keeping the civil war hatred going is ridiculous. Its like the Serbs fighting it out over something that happenned a thousand years ago.  Plus somehow ignore the slavery issue, So the old hatred has to spin around state. With slavery ignored the states right issue is some tariff stuff that sounds like modern day NAFTA. So the confederates get millions killed for the great importance of wahting NAFTA in their day. I may be wrong but there seems like no chance at all of the South breaking away and fighting a civil war today to defend NAFTA, so the old war is over. About time the old hatred was set aside.  

Compare him to the time, Buchanan was the worst president ever in this coutries history,(Carters #2 worst).

Lincoln did something, he brought the Union together, he silenced opposition (NEWSFLASH MANY DISLIKED SENDING THEIR SONS TO WAR FOR WHAT THEY SAW AS ENDING SLAVERY).

Lincoln was eloquent, and did what was required.  He did not shirk and he had the balls to fire all the Union commanders that counldn't create results.  

He waould not have been able to do mush more for reconstruction, there was too much hatred from the far right in the legislative branch.  He may have been able to better protect the rights of the Freed Slaves, and stop the Jim Crow laws.  However this would have created a deeper rift in North/South relations.

Lincoln was easily in the top 3 presidents, next we will be calling Washington a rights hating federalist because he stoipped the Whiskey Rebellion

Lincoln didn't "free the slaves"; at least not all of them.

From Wikipedia:

"The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named the specific states where it applied.

The Emancipation Proclamation was widely attacked at the time as freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power. In practice, it committed the Union to ending slavery, which was a controversial decision in the North. Lincoln issued the Executive Order by his authority as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.

The proclamation did not free any slaves of the border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia), or any southern state (or part of a state) already under Union control."