A simple examination of history reveals two things:
1. The same exact documented historical event can appear as two completely things to two different people.
2. There is no absolute right or wrong in history.
Please read the following two excerpts from two historians. They are both in regard to Abraham Lincoln. Bear in mind, as you read this, that history will judge George W. Bush in the same way. One hundred and fifty years from now, when we have all passed on, historians and "experts" will still be disagreeing on the Presidency of George W. Bush.
In the following two opinions, one person labels Abraham Lincoln as "the worst American." The second lables him as "the greatest practioner of democractic statesmanship." The sheer unlogic that a performance of a president could fall into both of those categories simultaneously based on a mere evaluation of job performance suggests, as I said, that no historical judgement is concrete. The variable understandably would fall under historians' observation of events. As I stated earlier all events can be seen differently by two different people.
What does all this mean? Polls are useless. Public opinion polls, that is. They are finicky as a feather in the wind and relay absolutely no useful information. If President Lincoln is
still viewed historically on polar opposite ends of the presidential scale, how could Bush accurately be judged now. If our Democracy survives a millenium it will only be then that scholars can accurately assess how Presidents of the 19th, 20th, and 21st Centuries affected the destiny of this nation.
Ad astra~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OPINION ONE: Nichols Strakton: (© 2001 by WTM Enterprises.) From the Newsletter Entitled "The Last Ditch" "Lincoln was the great evil genius of the nineteenth century in America. He was not merely the worst American president of that century; he was the worst American."
"Lincoln swept away what remained of the decrepit and morbidly inflated federal Republic, and created the imperial United State. The dust of history's battles often takes a while to settle, and a hundred years later people on their way into the dustbin of history were still wailing about "states' rights." But as Shelby Foote and other historians have pointed out, before Lincoln came to power Americans said, "The United States are ..." and, after Lincoln, they began saying, "The United States is ..." That was a fatal change in people's mental image of the nation-state that ruled them, and it reflected the underlying reality all too well. (My own coinage — "United State" — is only a gesture toward politico-grammatical correctness.)"
"Lincoln, indeed, initiated the transformation of a mercantile and creditor class that enjoyed important, but limited, exploitative privileges into a true ruling class."
OPINION TWO:Excerpt from an essay in April 2005
American History Magazine by Dinesh D’Souza, the Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution.
"In my view, Lincoln was the true 'philosophical statesman,' one who was truly good and truly wise. Standing in front of his critics, Lincoln is a colossus, and all of the Lilliputian arrows hurled at him bounce harmlessly to the ground. It is hard to put any other president—not even George Washington—in the same category as Abraham Lincoln. He was simply the greatest practitioner of democratic statesmanship that America and the world have yet produced."
