Actually Lincoln was a pragmatist and had to deal with prioritizing things accordingly.

On August 22, 1862, just a few weeks before signing the Proclamation and after he had already discussed a draft of it with his cabinet in July, he wrote a letter in response to an editorial by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune which had urged complete abolition. Lincoln differentiates between "my view of official duty"—that is, what he can do in his official capacity as President—and his personal views. Officially he must save the Union above all else; personally he wanted to free all the slaves:

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery

That's a very open statement, and I wish modern politicians were as accomodating to questions like that.

Lincoln personally abhorred slavery, but he was willing (and did) make accommodations to slavery in the name of saving the Union, acting as a politician in a purely political fashion. The most well-known is his replacing of an Army general, at the start of the Civil War, when he issued an order freeing the slaves in the border state of Missouri.

It is well-known that he personally abhorred slavery; I'm speaking of what he felt was his duty to do as President given conditions as they were.

He stated it like this (1862):

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. [...] I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

Are you kidding? Lincoln was the harbinger of consolidation of federal power in the office of the President. He has been described by more than one academic as a borderline dictator. See: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0005.103/--lincoln-...

Obama isn't a leader, he's a product, advertised in a way no different from toothpaste.

Chomsky speaks: >Political managers are well aware that on issues the public often disagrees sharply with the architects of policy. Accordingly, electoral campaigns avoid issues in favor of slogans, oratorical flourishes, personalities, and gossip. Every year, the advertising industry gives an award for the best marketing campaign of the year. In 2008, it was won by Obama, who beat out Apple computers. Executives were euphoric. They exulted openly that this was their greatest success since they began marketing candidates as they do toothpaste and life-style drugs, a technique that took off during the neoliberal period, first with Reagan.

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-unipolar-moment-and-the-o...

He could be a leader, and have a marketing campaign. They are not mutually exclusive.

You're right, but the question to ask is "are current leaders more than a product?".

I'd ask a different question. When we vote for our leaders the way we do, are we creating a system that requires a marketing campaign to win against an opponent with a marketing campaign?

Or another question, why did the person I replied to earlier imply that marketing is inherently bad? Is it?

He could also be a woman and a product with a marketing campaign, they are not mutually exclusive.

Every president since Reagan has been this type of product.

There are very few people in the history of people who will look presentable standing next to Lincoln. His combination of moral strength and intellectual fortitude is unsurpassed, and probably unsurpassable. I was gullible enough to vote for Obama, who seems to enjoy making a sport out of seeing how many people he can disappoint as deeply as possible.

Interesting. I've always thought Lincoln (and this quote supports the idea) that he was so obsessed with keeping the union together that he was willing to actively go against morality. For example, keepin the union together is of dubious intent by the people of that time.

States petitioned to join, why shouldn't they get out? Seems reasonable to me. If I join a club I expect I can leave.

Ok the other hand, he did things I would find of dubious morals: -suspend habeaus corpus -wait to free the slaves, and then only do it in the states that were not a part of the union -engage in a bloody war of attrition that killed tons of Americans

So on the whole where do you stand on not allowing people to leave your club vs keeping slavery intact (in areas under his control), trampling on the bill of rights, and sending 625,000 people to their death?

This is a simplification of things overall, but I would argue less simplistic than "Lincoln is this perfect American hero."

> States petitioned to join, why shouldn't they get out? Seems reasonable to me.

There's no such thing as a "Union" at all if each state could simply walk out when the Federal government passed a law the state didn't like, or the country elected a President the state didn't like.

It's also of severe dubious moral quality when the whole reason you secede is merely because you see a threat to your system of institutionalized abuse, killing, slavery, and racial injustice.

You shouldn't get to simply join when the going is good for you, and stab the rest of the nation in the back only when the going is bad.

But with that said, you're right that Pres. Lincoln is not exactly the bright shining example of civil liberties that the other comments here have made him out to be. He did far worse things than Pres. Obama in his quest for national security...

> There's no such thing as a "Union" at all if each state could simply walk out when the Federal government passed a law the state didn't like, or the country elected a President the state didn't like.

A member state of the European Union can do that, yet it is still a union. There are quite a few anti-EU parties in Europe, yet none have mustered enough support to leave yet.

At the end of the day each state does a calculus of what the benefits of staying are and what are the maluses of EU laws they don't like. If the cons outweigh the pros, the state should leave; forcing them to stay in a bad marriage is tyrannical.

> You shouldn't get to simply join when the going is good for you, and stab the rest of the nation in the back only when the going is bad. Relationships should be maintained while they are mutually beneficial, if the benefits are once sided, there is no reason to keep it.

> Relationships should be maintained while they are mutually beneficial, if the benefits are once sided, there is no reason to keep it.

What if the relationship has always been one-sided, but was entered into in the expectation of future mutual benefit?

There is certainly something to be said for two sides agreeing that there is no longer a mutual benefit for each other and choosing to go separate ways. But not for one side to unilaterally decide that they have extracted all they can from a relationship and unilaterally decide to therefore end it.

Morality is of little use without a plan to implement it. True moral conviction will search for a way to achieve moral progress.

Lincoln was vastly more effective than others, and I attribute that to his strong morality.

I agree. He likely understood that a separate south was likely to support slavery for much longer than a south that was part of a union that tolerated slavery in the south for a time, even if the civil war had not occurred. In which case preservation of the union was important to achieving some form of moral progress.

First, I am very weak in history, so I won't try to engage deeply. But I think some things to consider would be these:

Lincoln believed that slavery would die out within an intact US in time, and that pretty much the only thing the federal government could do was to keep it from spreading to states where it did not already exist. Unlike today, in those days the idea that the Federal government actually had limited power was still taken seriously.

If the slaveholding states were allowed to secede then no pressure could be placed on them to give up slavery, and they might even capture or purchase other territories and spread slavery further. So if the moral imperative is to end slavery, then it's urgent to keep the Union intact. And no, I don't think a country is just a club where a province or state can up and leave whenever it wants. There are times when it's wise to allow this, as Havel did with Czechoslovakia, but generally a country is like the Mafia or a spy agency from the movies: you can't resign.

Habeas: this was a war, but I'm really ignorant of the issues here.

wait to free the slaves, and then only do it in the states that were not a part of the union: see above; you can only do what is possible to do, regardless of your feelings. Lincoln wanted to avoid this war, which was started by the South and forced upon him. Of course many people died.

riiight, he was forced to blockade the CSA after they seceded...

> States petitioned to join, why shouldn't they get out?

Because while there's provisions allowing states to be admitted with the consent of the rest of the States, there's none permitting them to leave on their own once they've joined. That's the deal they signed on for.

That resulted in Civil War, unconstitutionally suspending Habeas Corpus, and then the assassination of the President. I can't imagine why we don't see bold words like that anymore.

I think there are plenty of quality leaders that exist. The problem is that there are too many cunning politicians that beat them in elections.

And too many people that vote for the tall guy with the good hair, the sharp suit and a suite of meaningless platitudes.

Unfortunately we do get the politicians we deserve, though it's true they conspire to make us think our choices are limited.

Actually go through and look at where the money comes from for campaigns and you will note that very often the names in common of the Republican and Democratic donors near the top of the list are quite striking. Calling Obama the Goldman-Sachs candidate and McCain the Morgan-Stanley candidate would be incorrect because these two donated to both candidates...

When you bet on both sides (and get to pick the frontrunners), you can't lose.

Yeah i'd like politicians to say less and mean more, but unfortunately you cant get elected unless you pander to every interest group, make sure you're liked enough to be able to "have a beer" with the common man and be connected enough in corporate America to get donations and endorsements from interest groups.