Poll: Who has been the WORST President in United States History?

[nate45]

Myth #4: Lincoln was a defender of the Constitution. Quite the contrary: Generations of historians have labeled Lincoln a "dictator." "Dictatorship played a decisive role in the North's successful effort to maintain the Union by force of arms," wrote Clinton Rossiter in "Constitutional Dictatorship." And, "Lincoln's amazing disregard for the Constitution was considered by nobody as legal."

James G. Randall documented Lincoln's assault on the Constitution in "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln." Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had the military arrest tens of thousands of Northern political opponents, including dozens of newspaper editors and owners. Some 300 newspapers were shut down and all telegraph communication was censored. Northern elections were rigged; Democratic voters were intimidated by federal soldiers; hundreds of New York City draft protesters were gunned down by federal troops; West Virginia was unconstitutionally carved out of Virginia; and the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, was deported. Duly elected members of the Maryland legislature were imprisoned, as was the mayor of Baltimore and Congressman Henry May. The border states were systematically disarmed in violation of the Second Amendment and private property was confiscated. Lincoln's apologists say he had "to destroy the Constitution in order to save it."

 

[nate45]

Myth #5: Lincoln was a "great humanitarian" who had "malice toward none." This is inconsistent with the fact that Lincoln micromanaged the waging of war on civilians, including the burning of entire towns populated only by civilians; massive looting and plundering; rape; and the execution of civilians (See Mark Grimsley, "The Hard Hand of War"). Pro-Lincoln historian Lee Kennett wrote in "Marching Through Georgia" that, had the Confederates somehow won, they would have been justified in "stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command" as war criminals.

 

[nate45]

Myth #6: War was necessary to end slavery. During the 19th century, dozens of countries, including the British and Spanish empires, ended slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation. Among such countries were Argentina, Colombia, Chile, all of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, the French and Danish colonies, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. (Lincoln did propose compensated emancipation for the border states, but coupled his proposal with deportation of any freed slaves. He failed to see it through, however). Only in America was war associated with emancipation.

 

[Bruxley]

Nate......that diatribe was so full of innuendo, misrepresentation, and assumption that it would take a 4 page post to point then out.

I'm terribly sorry for your state of mind. I can only imagine how it effects how you perceive the world. Not just you personally but the entire culture that propagates these twists which are really just generationally passed on hostility about having to give up those blacks. I'm sincerely not being sarcastic. A poisoned young mind can bear alot of pain for a person throughout their lifetime. I pray this cycle stops at this generation. Many generations have spent alot of effort to find substantive reason to justify their hatred. Righteous indignation is the easiest one to accept.

The actions the leaders of the South took at the time met with anticipatively consequences. The financial and slavery motivations were one in the same. Great wealth stood to be lost should slavery be banned in the south. Wages are far more expensive then one time purchases.

Rebel against a nation you are a member of and try to form a new nation on the formers territory it is simply naive to expect they won't be coming for the territory AND the heads of the rebels.

It is further foolishness to expect that you can secede and form a new nation but still retain rights and protections afforded to states of the nation you are rejecting.

Lincoln reunited the Union. It was a tragedy that it had to go that far but the Confederecy made a stubborn stand for their right to keep slaves and wound up wrong. The letters of secession from the States spell it out very clearly. It's not a myth, it's the way it was.

Seek means to rectify the disservice someone has dealt you, all of you, that bear this hatred.

 

[imp]

Good work Nate. The War against Northern Agression is the prime reason for the loss of soverignty of the states, and not just the southern ones. Today there is no appreciable difference between the states, as it is all one nation, as opposed to a collection of self governing states, with a federal government that regulated trade and settled disputes between the states.

The civil war did more to damage the cause of liberty than to help it, in my opinion. Slaves would have been emanicpated in the South, peacefully, in due time. The damage done to individual and states rights is not repairable.

 

[imp]

Bruxley wrote:Rebel against a nation you are a member of and try to form a new nation on the formers territory it is simply nieve to expect they won't be coming for the territory AND the heads of the rebels.

I think this statement is much more applicable to the Revolutionary War, as opposed to the War Against Northern Aggression.

The Confederate States were not rebelling, but rather attacked. Prior to this war, being a state in the union known as the United States of America was voluntary. The War Against Northern Aggression, even from the Union point of view, was to preseve the Union. Its like shooting your wife to keep her from divorcing you. It is forced cooperation, and it doesn't work.

 

[Bruxley]

Found the source of the alleged myths.

Authored by revisionist history author THOMAS DILORENZO.

When 120+ years of American History is told to you to be a mass conspiracy to hide the 'real' truth.........well I wouldn't buy it.

But when this has been told to you by your father, and his father to him, and his father to him, etc. that the Civil War history is all wrong. All those history books are wrong and only WE know the truth.....well such revisionist history sounds true.

This hatred started a very long time ago and has been decorated with things like States rights without the ....to own slaves, and property rights without the ......to keep the slaves I bought. This historical record of the letters of secession tell what the motive was.

Can it end with this generation?

I will agree that what the Confederacy did permanently damaged the relationship US States had with each other and with the fed. Much the same effect hijackers had on getting on an airplane or mass shootings had on open carry. The bad players will inevitably wreck a good thing. But blame Lincoln instead of the Confederacy for not just sitting back and watching the country disappear.

 

[.300H&H]

The myth that Reagan ended the Cold War by applying pressure to Gorbachev - is almost comical. Gorbachev followed Andropov and other Soviet leaders who were already attempting changes and reforms after Brezhnev... Gorbachev expanded those reforms and initiated overtures and Reagan repeatedly balked and resisted. Gorbachev did feel pressure from European Peace Movements. Reagan? Reagan was advised by his reactionary cronies to 'not let Gorbachev pick his pockets...' The Afghanistan conflict did not begin during the Reagan years but Reagan did escalate support for Islamic terrorism, which boomeranged as was repeatedly predicted. Reagan also supported Saddam Hussein...and that too boomeranged as was repeatedly predicted. Reagan was so touched by dementia in his last term that he could at times barely deliver a speech. The Reagan administration did sabotage a natural gas pipeline being developed that would have extended from Russia into France...and thank God such projects might now be resumed! I liked Obama's speech in Berlin; it alluded to the hope for a kind of Glasnost and Peristroika to finally begin in the U.S.A. The Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush bubble has finally popped. A New Day is Dawning!

 

[apr1775]

Bruxley, please don't pretend to know what my father, grandfather, etc taught me about American history. My family had been in a state for many generations that was a US territory (land that the US government did own) when the South secceded. When I was 9, we moved to a southern state. I was shocked to see a statue of a confederate soldier in the town square, after all hadn't they fought to maintain slavery? As I was growing up, I took a nuetral stance on the issue. As an adult I became intrigued with the subject and began to research it. One excellent source was Thomas DiLorenzo. His Book "The Real Lincoln" is very well documented, any claim he makes is backed up with a reference that the reader can use to verify.

It's only natural that a myth would develope which justified one of the most violent and unconstitutional things the US government ever did.

Yes, slavery was mentioned in the secession documents, but as an economic and political power issue, not as "them yankees are going to take away our slaves". Besides, at most only 5% of white southerners were slave owners.

Once again Nate, excellent job.

 

[hogdogs]

The south did not try to steal TERRITORY from the FEDERAL government! The federal government did not OWN a single state nor the land under it! Each and every state was independent. Each state was required to provide for their own defense etc. It is a tasteless diatribe to say that the south attempted to steal land from the feds! The feds had none...
Brent

 

[Danzig]

I think that some people here are just looking to justify Lincoln's tyranny.

The fact of the matter is that the states entered into the union freely and voluntarily WITH their land and infrastructure.

They perhaps gave up some of that land and infrastructure to the newly formed federal government.

Almost a century later several of the united states seceded from the union and attempted to take THEIR land and take back the land that they had granted to the federal government of the United States. After all, if it was no longer their government, then the government of the United States had not right to it.

Lincoln, by force of arms, destroyed the voluntary nature of the union, ended the sovereignty of the states, and deprived the states of their right to do as they saw fit with their own land.

Formerly free states became vassals of a power hungry federal tyranny.

Thank you Mr. Lincoln.

 

[xrocket]

Semantics and a penchant for ...

... walling around in a past which is unchangeable is better left to historians to continue arguing over the nuances of victory or defeat by all previous parties. Victors do slant the histories toward their cause and losers reflect the indignation of well ... loss.

I think one point all can agree on is the lead up to the civil war, the war itself and the after affects of the war have diluted all States rights in deference to the Federal government. This trend has continued to snowball beyond any of the founders expectations for a Federal government visive States rights. Federalist by nature believe the government is the be all for all encompassing power which knows what's best for the collective states. State Rightest believe there are fifty two different opinions plus territories that know what's best for themselves. That my friends is the crux of the problem, past, present and soon to be future.

As far as which President is the worse, well if you were living in the early 1820s you might say so and so and if you were living around 1920s you would probably select someone else because you have a different perspective. Now take a guy from 1940 and a twenty year old today and I'll bet neither one of them would agree on the worst President nine out of ten times.

Do you believe in a bigger Federal government or less Federal government? Frankly, the coming election might just take us past critical mass to a complete and all encompassing socialized Federal government with zero recourse. It's time all Americans looked to the future ... it might be shorter than we expect.

 

[GPossenti]

Ruthless4christ,

I do not disagree that abortion and adultery are grave sins in our country. However, the Islamo-terrorists attacked us because we are not Muslim, not because we have abortion and adultery. The Quran allows them to beat their wives, and there is nothing even close to equality between the sexes. Rape of non-Muslims and honor killings are also allowed by the very people who attacked us. They also believe they will be rewarded in heaven for killing non-Muslims.

You err in asserting that the Islamo-terrorists are of greater moral conscience than the U.S., and thus give credibility to their philosophy and actions.

 

[Ruthless4christ]

Nate......that diatribe was so full of innuendo, misrepresentation, and assumption that it would take a 4 page post to point then out

well why dont you write four pages to disprove it? nate did not mind doing it?

But when this has been told to you by your father, and his father to him, and his father to him, etc. that the Civil War history is all wrong. All those history books are wrong and only WE know the truth.....well such revisionist history sounds true.

I grew up in the North Ken Burns Cival War series was pretty much the world to me and my parents told me what thier parents had told them...the war was about slavery. Later on in life I stumbled upon some NORTHERN historians writings who raised some very strong questions as to the validaty of the slave issue.

Thats why I think that this will not die out in our generation as you put it, but awareness is actually growing (just search youtube) And i think it is very important that this happen so as that our present (and future)generations take note of and recognize Lincolns mistakes so as not to allow present leaders to do the same.

 

[nate45]

Nate......that diatribe was so full of innuendo, misrepresentation, and assumption that it would take a 4 page post to point then out.

Well, instead of making a four page post, how about just naming one thing thats an inaccurate misrepresentation.

I'm sorry reality doesn't jive with the PBS special you saw on 'the great emancipator'.

 

[Ruthless4christ]

I do not disagree that abortion and adultery are grave sins in our country. However, the Islamo-terrorists attacked us because we are not Muslim, not because we have abortion and adultery. The Quran allows them to beat their wives, and there is nothing even close to equality between the sexes. Rape of non-Muslims and honor killings are also allowed by the very people who attacked us. They also believe they will be rewarded in heaven for killing non-Muslims.

You err in asserting that the Islamo-terrorists are of greater moral conscience than the U.S., and thus give credibility to their philosophy and actions.

im sorry GPossenti I may not have said that right. I am not saying that the terrorists are better then us, nor that thee war is about any of these issues. all i am saying is that
A. some of these issues may very well be worse than slavery(other dabate, other day)
B. we must not make the mistak of thinking of the war on terror to be a war on abortian any more than the war between the stats was the war to free the slaves
they just happen to run alongside eachother.

 

[Ruthless4christ]

I'm terribly sorry for your state of mind. I can only imagine how it effects how you perceive the world.

be·lit·tle (b-ltl)
tr.v. be·lit·tled, be·lit·tling, be·lit·tles
1. To represent or speak of as contemptibly small or unimportant; disparage

my belief about how to carry on a debate is to listen to the other persons idea, arguments, evidence, analyze it, and come up with a logical response. I dont see how belittling another person helps establish anything

 

[GPossenti]

Ruthless4christ,

Thanks for the clarification.

The Civil War was not started or fought for the reason of slavery, but to preserve the Union. The reason for secession was State vs. Federal, but the underlying issue which sparked the debate was slavery vs. abolition and how to decide between the two.

The Confederacy used an immoral issue to try and support their potentially viable position on federalism. If everyone were in support of abolishing slavery, then it nobody would be disappointed once slavery was abolished. However, the fact that the Confederacy tried to secede implies that some were still in support of slavery which we all should agree is completely immoral.

 

[acr]

Harding was actually a pretty good President

His bad rep has been getting revised by historians recently.

Domestically, W has been the worst since Carter.
Presidents usually don't deserve the blame or credit for the economy on their watch but Bush II persists in causing and exacerbating problems with spending, subsidies, bailouts and a general disrespect for free markets.

 

[gretske]

I dont see how belittling another person helps establish anything

Ruthless4Christ, don't let it get you down. This is how many of those on this board argue, especially when logic, reason and truth fail to support their arguments. It is, frankly, the way many on the left side of the Democrat party work as well, since they don't have a coherent political philosophy.

It is far more convenient to belittle and demean the speaker than to try to respond the points. Now, watch what they say about me!