answersLogoWhite

0

Historians and politicians made Abraham Lincoln a great president. If he truly was a great president is rarely discussed. Today, much of the voting population seems to have disgust for George W. Bush's disregard for the rights of individuals and his own Constitutional restraints. Yet Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, spent money without Congressional authorization, imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without any trial and conducted at least 4,271 trials by military commission. Note the remarkable similarities: George W. Bush defined captured enemies as "enemy combatants", denied these "enemy combatants" Habeas Corpus and tried these "enemy combatants" through military tribunals. Will historians and future politicians make George W. Bush a great President?

George W. Bush actually seems proud to have been a President who presides over war, was Abraham Lincoln proud of being the only President to ever preside over a civil war? That abolition of slavery had to happen is undeniable. That we had to go to war with each other in order to enforce this law is not so undeniable. War is nothing more than an extension of failed politics. Sometimes war is necessary, this seems to be an unfortunate fact of life. That the civil war was necessary is not so evident. I am not a civil war expert or buff, but I do know this that even though he faced the threat of certain States seceding from the union, while others had seceded before Abraham Lincoln even took office it was still, in the end, Abraham Lincoln who suspended the great writ of Habeas Corpus, and ignored Congress and the Supreme Court and declared martial law and sacrificed states rights in order to keep a union together, he set the precedent so useful to George W. Bush today. Perhaps if I were in Lincoln's shoes I would have done the same thing. But, if I did, I'm not so sure how comfortable I would be with being hailed as a great President.

User Avatar

Wiki User

17y ago

What else can I help you with?