True, if it had not been for WWII, we *might* have been screwed.

But he did get the country through that tough time.  And that's all that matters.

I mean, it was a war where america decided the world's fate. Well, not just them, but they tipped the scales in the allies favor.

I'm not completely fond of FDR, so you don't have to convince me of anything.

Lincoln was at least in the middle of a war on national soil. I'm willing to cut someone slack who is fighting a true war in the middle of the country, not to mention a Civil War, which can be particularly nasty. I mean it even says in the Constitution he can suspend habeas corpus rights during war time among all kinds of other things. On a scale of 1 to 10 on how much freedom the Constitution granted him to do normally unconstitutional things he was somewhere between an 8-10. The Framers built in these provisions to accommodate for a war on American soil on the scale of the Civil War or something comparable.

Bush read these provision way too broadly. He used the "war on terror" as a cloak to do way too many questionable things completely behind the back of the rest of the government, particularly the judicial branch. I'm not saying that the commander in chief isn't entitled to use that power, but there are appropriate times and appropriate ways to use that power. The times did grant Bush some discretion to tap into that power, but the way he did it was completely unreasonable and as the Supreme Court declared with respect to his treatment of the detainees unconstitutional.

Are you kidding me?  The South simply had to not lose.  The North had to win.

The South had the advantage that they weren't trying to advance on the North per se.  The North had to retake the entirety of the South to actually have won the war.

It was like the British fighting the American colonies.  We didn't win because we legitimately "won", we won because it became far too burdensome for the British to wage a war on us while they had so much to worry about at home while fighting with France.  We just happened to get lucky.

While the South did have some disadvantages in terms of their supplies and industry, you aren't painting an accurate picture of what was at stake and how much the North had to accomplish to defeat the South.

The North had to win.  The South simply had to not lose.

I disagree that's all that matters.

He broke rules presidents shouldn't... and infringed on peoples rights to do them.

Look at Barry Bonds.

Won his team a lot of games... won the homerun record.  Did a lot of things that shouldn't of been done to get there.

Sometimes you may have to become the devil himself to stop something bad from happening... but that doesn't change the fact that you did evil things.

You know, since that sounds like it was taken straight from a school textbook, you should also consider reading some of the statistics too. The north fighting the south is vastly different from the United Kingdom fighting the colonies. The UK had to cross the entire Atlantic ocean to get to the colonies, not to mention that they were fighting two wars at once and taxes were already ridiculously high in Britain. During the Revolutionary War, the colonies actually had a pretty decent troop advantage, along with fighting on their home turf.

http://www.phil.muni.cz/~vndrzl/amstudies/civilwar_stats.htm

By 1865, the Union had more than 3 times as many troops as the Confederacy. Objectives don't change a war in the way you mentioned. Just because the South didn't have to lose didn't mean they someone waged their war differently. They held a defensive line just like in any other war. The South had tons of disadvantages and the war was really not that hard to win. It was won by attrition and nothing else.

But the difference is that barry bonds was a glory mongering asshole, and baseball isn't a world war.

I guess it's subjective, or something.

I know it seems that way... but it's not true.

Look at the Civil War.  Look at the big battles of the Civil War and where they were fought.

You'll note the vast majority of the early ones are in the North.

The reason being is the south had to keep attacking the North.

Why? because of the Norths advantages.

This wasn't like American revolution... why?  Location.  The UK was all the way across the globe.... the US was right there.

The orignal plan was to just build and train a strong competant army that could overwhelem the South and steamroll them.

The North had that army... and that's basically the plan they kept with, but since the South kept attacking them they had to go with a "Deploy as they are recruited" rather then a "Mass and charge" style.

The south had way more disadvantages then simply those stated as well... for example there command structure was crazy despite having good generals because of the states each wanting to protect it's own rights and it's self.

When ever battles went poorly states would pull back there militias and look out for number 1 rather then help each other.

To have won the war the south would have to keep attacking in the north, keep the north on the defensive and not lose any major battles.

The minute the south lost even one state it was over.

I agree with Kasz that the ends don't justify the means. But comparing fighting WW2 to fighting the Civil War is an inappropriate comparison in many ways. The Constitution says that if the war is on American soil that the President has more leeway.

Article I - Section 9

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Last i saw the ruling on that was only Congress could suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus and that Lincoln violated the constitution when he did so.

Not that Lincoln and the court were on good terms.  Lincoln claiming the Supreme Court's mere existance violated the Constitution.

I mean your the law student... but I'd like to see the judgement otherwise if that has since been revised.

See Ex Parte Merryman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_merryman

Infact from what i can tell.  Congress being the only body that can suspend the writ is still the case.

What people are forgeting about lincoln is the emancipation proclamation, which DID NOT only freed the slaves, not really, but kept Britain out of the war. With Britain in the war the south would of won. That is why Lincoln is credited for keeping the US together, not because he just sat back and ran the war.