I think a few here is fond of the old Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but looking into the actions that he did during the years into the prelude of World War 2 was really interesting. At his behest, he supplied Joseph Stalin and the whole Soviet Union of military equipment and intelligence to prepare for the Nazis. I really don't think that Americans during at the time was on board with supplying another enemy, the communists, with their own handmade products just to hold off the Reich.
Let's not get started with the internment camps he did against Americans of Japanese lineage after the Pearl Harbor attacks, how the Democrats were tight-lipped about it to this day, and the communist project that the former First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt did in Arthurdale, Virginia, that was still left untold on how many people died due to starvation on that god forsaken experiment of hers.
As I said, only someone wholly unfamiliar with Lincoln's public and private statements over the years would think that Lincoln did not care about slavery. He flip-flopped on secession (having supported it in 1848), but one thing he never changed his mind on was slavery.
Fair enough, but just because a personal view coincided with a viable military advantage, should not be construed to mean he did it to free slaves, when there are far more compelling military arguments. At the very least, we should be able to agree that his concern for the well-being of freed southern slaves was near non-existent.
In general, expect politicians to act according to what benefits them, not any sort of principle that they purport to espouse. The nice thing about Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill is that (as much as it will trigger some of the people on this thread) they had a moral core which politicians almost universally lack.
Churchill is closer to the modern era, and I agree he had a moral core, but I think many of the more prominent politicians in the early years of the US had a strong moral core as well, likely far stronger than Lincoln. Ultimately, though, they're all human, and should be considered as such.
I don't like the cult of worship (or hatred) that surrounds so many historical leaders. This community is great, because we can say audacious things about revered and reviled figures, and sometimes have a decent conversation about it.
I am not as familiar with that period, but likely true.
A certain kind of human. Because most ordinary people do not go into politics. Those who do, are interested in power, as a general rule. So one ought to be more skeptical of them.
That's funny. I did see some of the cult of hatred on this thread. I don't worship Lincoln, but I did see some people who hated him based on nonsense.
I'm fine with almost any opinion (even with people who hate a particular ethnic group and can give a better than piss-poor explanation for it), but I'm not with any fact. Some of the stuff spouted here was just retarded nonsense, because it was not backed up by anything except prejudices or what the writer heard at some point.