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

Who has been the WORST President in the History of the USA??

  • Franklin Pierce

    Votes: 3 1.1%
  • James Buchanan

    Votes: 7 2.5%
  • Warren Harding

    Votes: 7 2.5%
  • Calvin Coolidge

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • Lyndon Johnson

    Votes: 10 3.6%
  • Richard Nixon

    Votes: 2 0.7%
  • Jimmy Carter

    Votes: 158 57.2%
  • Ronald Reagan

    Votes: 3 1.1%
  • William Clinton

    Votes: 33 12.0%
  • George W. Bush

    Votes: 52 18.8%

  • Total voters
    276
Status
Not open for further replies.
the underlying issue which sparked the debate was slavery vs. abolition and how to decide between the two.

I don't think enough emphasis is being put on the point that to preserve slavery was to preserve the US Constitution ... and constitutionalism itself.

I have come to think of abolitionists as having some kind of limited one-dimensional thinking, whereby they confuse government with religion, and they confuse political rights with moral rights ... the idea seemed to be that slavery was bad so the government should make it go away ... as if the central government has jurisdiction over good and bad!


some were still in support of slavery which we all should agree is completely immoral

What do you mean? Let's be clear about something here ... the Northern States were typically over 99.5% white, while the Southern States were as much as 60% black. If we, right now, were living in a State where ignorant slaves outnumbered the citizens, and some people in lily white States thought we should just set all the slaves free and treat them as equal, would it be completely immoral for us to disagree? I really can't imagine any sane person wanting to hand the reins of government over to a group which has no education, no sense of government, no property ...

Plus there's the US Constitution which protected the States' right to slavery. Yankees ratified the US Constitution, and then they turned against it ... suppose they had ratified it on Monday and then turned against it on Tuesday, would that have been proper? Did waiting several decades make it moral?
 
well why don't you write four pages to disprove it? Nate did not mind doing it?

Nate's posts were just cut and paste from here. No commentary or individual input from Nate. By an author that takes pride in working to REVISE history. Tweak what it is to make it something it wasn't.Works good when sold to people with pre-existing predudices WANT to believe that. Falls flat when the letters of secession in historic record directly contradict it though. "It wasn't about slavery it was about money/economics." Well YEAH. Losing their slaves will cost them big time cash. Wages are EXPENSIVE and that would definitely change their economy. When you see a slave as less then a human being as yourself that seems to be a huge injustice. Jefferson wrote a book on the lesser existence of the 'Negro'. Coincidentally he is beloved by those people that hate Lincoln.

The 'green cheese' syndrome makes dealing with people that choose to believe revisionist history over established long standing history. That 'green cheese' syndrome is trying to discuss the moon with someone that right off the bat BELIEVES it is made of green cheese. Right off the bat they can't get past their prejudices.

Working to justify prejudices rather then recognize then as flawed is a common human denial reflex. Those that suffer under that condition find it permeates out into their perspectives about everything. Having empathy for people with this affliction isn't belittling. It's caused usually by poisoning a young mind, not usually be that persons choice, although some here have stated they chose it.

Lincolns high regard of the day and the records of the day don't line up with the revisionist history. Only among a few embittered southerners did this opinion exist. Over generations it was passed down and it is a disservice to children to poison their minds with it in the cloak of righteous indignation.

What the Confederacy did in the name of preserving economic status quo was to rebel against their nation in favor of continuing forced human bondage for financial gain. Horrid thing to stand up for. And yes, their doing that did permanently wreck the relationship between States and each other and with the Fed. But the Confederacy took that stand not Lincoln. And the States that seceded didn't just go it alone and decide to be sovereign, they allied with and formed a separate nation on territory once held by the US. The Confederacy had no more claim then the US. In short, each State didn't just say, 'We are opting to be self sufficiency and will now be the nation of Virginia (pick a State) responsible for our own defense and trade.' They said basicaly 'we are joining the Confederacy, a new nation that will now stake claim of about half of the United States and will now occupy US military installations.' The Confederacy wasn't a State, it was a fledgling nation. One that occupied another nations territory.

Doing that and acting appalled when that nation comes for you is naive. It was going to happen. Lincoln was shrewd enough to at least give the Confederacy a chance. A choice to either change it's mind or draw first blood. They chose the latter and the war.

The south didn't cry independent sovereignty and self defense during the War of 1812 when the Brits were blockading..........no they were happy to have northern aggressors then, but take away the wealth generated by slaves..........it's sovereign States' rights and righteous indignation and WAR.

The Confederacy's actions did destroy the relationship between the States And Between those States and The Fed. They found their relationship with slavery as their economic foundation more valuable and instead chose war.

By choosing war it was those leaders of the Southern States, not Lincoln, that were the bad players. 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. Blaming Lincoln for the Confederacy choosing war only lines up with revisionist history like that in Nate's cut and paste from here by authors determined to revise history.
 
Last edited:
Hugh,

Now people have to qualify on the basis of education, land ownership, a "sense of government" in order to be considered legal citizens. In that case, college students, apartment renters, and public housing residents (no land ownership), public school students (no education), and 90% of the general public (no sense of government) are ineligible to vote.

Where are those in the Constitution?
 
[If] people have to qualify [to vote] on the basis of education, land ownership, a "sense of government" ... 90% of the general public (no sense of government) are ineligible to vote.

Where are those in the Constitution?

It's not as if the US Constitution delegates to the states the right to determine suffrage, such that I need to show where the US Constitution does such a thing ... I think the question would have to ask what part of the Constitution the States intended to delegate away their right to determine suffrage.

But ... the First Article seems to recognize the right of the States to determine suffrage when, rather than defining the requirements for electors for the House, it merely says that whatever a States requirements are for electors of its most numerous branch of the State Legislature, those shall be the same requirements for electors of the House of Representatives. The Fourth Article guarantees to each State a republican form of government, and I understand that to be a guarantee of a right to determine suffrage. And I believe that this right was reiterated in the 14th "Amendment", when it says that any State exercising its right to deny suffrage to negroes shall have its representation in the House reduced accordingly. I don't think any State has ever tried to deny suffrage to 90% of its citizens, but if such a situation was to occur, I question if that would be a republican form of government.
 
Bruxley wheres the beef?

You have lots of fluff in your posts, but no evidence. So I posted something another author wrote that I agree with, how does that invalidate it?

Where is your explanation of Lincoln's quotes regarding 'negroes'?

Where is your proof that the North went to war for high minded idealism and the equal rights of all and not for the reasons I assert?

The stark cold truth is neoconservatives love Lincoln and FDR, they love big government and foreign adventurism. Something deep and insintric in their psyches loves a controlling central authority and limited freedom.

In their philosophy government has final responsibility and it must have the ultimate power to tell us what to do and to make sure that we do it.

Notice how everything in Brux's ideological and political philosophy he presents as an absolute and beyond questioning or even discussing. When presented with Lincoln's actual historically correct and verifiable quotes, he paints it as a wild distortion and not possible.

According to him Lincoln only wanted to free the slaves so they could have rights and equality.:rolleyes:
 
Read the posts again then compare to your continued misrepresentations....

Try and find me saying:
-the North went to war for high minded idealism and the equal rights
-the CONFEDERECEY went to war to retain thier economic dependence on slaves

-that I love a controlling central authority and limited freedom (there's that neocon word again):rolleyes:
-Coincidence that the people that love Jefferson for his negos are lesser book, and hate Lincoln, also have a propensity to use that word......

-a philosophy that government has final responsibility and it must have the ultimate power to tell us what to do and to make sure that we do it.
-that is past misrepresentation to pure fabrication

More of the scouring a bail of hay trying looking for a blade of grass so you can deny it's a bail of hay.

What of the ACTUAL (not revised) history of the letters of secession? They state plain as day that they are acting to retain slaves and/or the slave based economy that brings thier wealth?


What the Confederacy did in the name of preserving economic status quo was to rebel against their nation in favor of continuing forced human bondage for financial gain. Horrid thing to stand up for. And yes, their doing that did permanently wreck the relationship between States and each other and with the Fed. But the Confederacy took that stand not Lincoln. And the States that seceded didn't just go it alone and decide to be sovereign, they allied with and formed a separate nation on territory once held by the US. The Confederacy had no more claim then the US. In short, each State didn't just say, 'We are opting to be self sufficiency and will now be the nation of Virginia (pick a State) responsible for our own defense and trade.' They said basicaly 'we are joining the Confederacy, a new nation that will now stake claim of about half of the United States and will now occupy US military installations.' The Confederacy wasn't a State, it was a fledgling nation. One that occupied another nations territory.

The green cheese believes don't want thier 'facts' fiddled with, they have an author that debunked 125 years of history after all.
 
You have lots of fluff in your posts, but no evidence. So I posted something another author wrote that I agree with, how does that invalidate it?

howabout 100% percent fluff. atthis point we need to be exchanging VALID INFO on why our side of the debate is right otherwise we are gonna get this thread locked which would be a shame since I think it is one of hte more interasting threads as of late.:rolleyes: The fact is that slavery was very important in the political plain during the time of the cival war. but was it THE ISSUE? bruxley posted some of the state declerations ceceding from the union and YES they did all mention slavery, but they also all mentioned taxes, tarrifs, intrusion on states rights, and MANY OTHER THINGS. so can we not agree that maybe there was SOME degree of wieght behind the fact that the war was somwhat unjust?
 
The problem with Dilorenzo and other Lincoln revisionists is they take little snippets of quotes and use them out of context. They will never encourage a reader to actually read the source material, because then a whole different understanding would take place. Here is a for-instance... In the myth section that claims Lincoln is against natural rights, he uses a quote which is underlined below. Why doesn't Dilorenzo include the next sentence, in bold?

Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any greater length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. [Laughter.] I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.]

Here's a link to the actual source http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/debate1.htm

Dilorenzo is not a historian. He is an economist with an radical agenda. He hates any central governments, any taxes, any government regulations, etc. He's trying to find a scapegoat for his hatred.
 
He hates any central governments, any taxes, any government regulations, etc.

What's not to hate about them and what they do to the cause of individual freedom?

I regards to the second sentence you say is overlooked by DiLorenzo I say that its explained in myth #3.

Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of "colonization" or shipping all black people to Africa, Central America, Haiti--anywhere but here. "I cannot make it better known than it already is," he stated in a Dec. 1, 1862, Message to Congress, "that I strongly favor colonization." To Lincoln, blacks could be "equal," but not in the United States.
 
HJB, good post, but your popping the bubble man. Let then give up thier cards more first.

Let their hatred spoil thier now very thin veils. You pop the bubble too soon and they will desipate and put their masks back on.
 
Colonization...see Liberia. Those that CHOSE to go back did have that chance. You make it seem like he was advocating FORCING them to leave. That's not the case, that was a misrepresentation....not a myth after all. Many freed slaves still felt they were in bondage in a forign contry. Lincoln's willingness to get them home is hardly despotic. Nope, not a myth.


Your other misrepresentation was the inuendo that Lincoln was a white supremacists. But it turns out IN context that he was saying that blacks would never be seen as equal. Well it's 125 years later and NEVER might not be true, certainly you know people that have that perspective. Only 30 years ago the south's segregatition of blacks was evidence of what he was saying.
 
Here is an example of what Nate's cut and past revisionist history author has done.

Myth: Nate doesn't hate black people and thinks that the issue has nothing to do with them destroying his individual rights.
Nate45 said:
What's not to hate about them and what they do to the cause of individual freedom?

Nate's statment was taken out of context and made to look like something it was NOT. See what some out of context quoting can make someone APPEAR to be saying.

Dishonesty does not change history but is used prolifically to revise it.
 
On character---Clinton wins. Or should I say loses?

Jimmy Carter--the worst. A left wing socialist who hurt our country, and continues to this day. Gave away the Panama Canal that Panama gave to China to manage and deny us access to in case of conflict.

Carter is proof that adhereing to a left wing agenda doesn't guarantee respect from the rest of the socialist world.


FDR.---- A great president at the right time. England had Churchill, we had FDR. But, he introduced a socialist context into our government that's been with us every since. Thankfully, he didn't listen to Eleanor or we'd have been a socialist state way back, instead of just heading there.

Nixon--one of the more brilliant with great potential, but lying and coverup brought him down.

Reagan--the greatest president in modern times. He put American first, politics second---and he was big on politics.

O'Bama---I know he's not the president just yet, but he's left wing liberal all the way and dances to the tune of the extremists who control his party. He's not his own man. He's owned heart and soul by those, without which, he couldn't have come this far. If he has his way, he'll take us all the way to the aforementioned socialist state.

George Bush---If he has a legacy, it may very well be the appointment of two Justices, without whom we may have just recently lost the Second Amendment.

As for the rest of his legacy, too early to tell. A victory in Iraq and Afghanistan would help him a lot. As far as domestic issues, he's made some blunders.

When is he gonna get those two Border Patrol Agents the hell out of prison!

I better stop now, else I'm gonna get carried away.:D
 
Last edited:
The South did not secede to keep the slavery system growing inasmuch to keep it stabilized. The South/CSA actually banned the African Slave Trade/importation of slaves as one of its 1st acts. The idea that the South 'went to War' as the aggressor is highly debatable ie. Virgina did not secede until after Ft. Sumpter - and Virginia's logic was that it opposed Union troops crossing its borders for the purpose of coercing/making war against another state. Slavery was practically already at an end in Virginia and was being phased out.


Lincoln's racism? I would say Lincoln was personally more racist than Jefferson Davis ie. Lincoln repeatedly referred to 'slaves' and 'Africans' as an 'inferior race' - and he stated repeatedly that the 'South is doing what we would do if we were in their place...' Lincoln's wife was from a slave-holding Kentucky family. In contrast, Jefferson Davis adopted a 'mulatto'<sp>child named Jim/John Limber whom he treated as his son. Davis' plantation in Mississippi was later used by the Freedman's Bureau because it was deemed to be a model community. The Davis family had designed it so as to assist 'slaves' to develop trades, have their own shops and community/courts...so they could be successfully freed and integrated into society. Jefferson Davis' brother had actually met with Robert Owen<a uptopian socialist>to design the community. Jefferson Davis was married to the granddaughter of a New Jersey governor. The C.S.A.'s vice president , Alexander Stephens<sp> opposed secession in 1860. Stephens was in fact a rabid racist. The irony is that he argued against secession in 1860 because he believed his close personal friend Abraham Lincoln shared his racist views and would not destabilize the South via reforms that were too radical.


Part of the problem the South faced with slavery is that cities like Charleston and New Orleans actually had larger slave populations than white pouplations - so the idea of suddenly turning over such places to suddenly freed slaves - was a very difficult and chaotic concern. The South also had larger freedmen populations too.


Part of the problem was that slaves and slave owners were locked together. It's easy to say 'Free the Slaves' - but the practical aspects of doing so are not so easy ie. 'Where do they go?' 'How do they economically survive?' The slavery system was an archaic welfare system. In 1860 a young adult male slave cost what would today be the cost of a brand new top of the line Mercedez Benz. Plantations were often 'land poor' and their credit/$ was woven in the appraised value of 'slaves.' Slave owners were often obligated to the care and liabilities of their slaves. Davis viewed the problem through Southern eyes and favored the gradual ending of slaves - as well as some repatriation schemes - as did Lincoln! Lincoln was not a radical abolitionist.


Davis wanted to expand slavery into Western states so as to dilute it while still protecting the stratification of Deep South states, so as to not destabilize the South. Lincoln opposed such expansion and favored Northern Free State hegemony, which the South distrusted because it meant Northern States could in essence disrupt the South and exploit it. Most Supreme Court Judges, Diplomats, and U.S. Presidenthad been overwhelmingly mostly southerners until 1860.


I believe Lincoln was a Great President. He was a true leader, but I also believe he was not a saint, and a lot of the 'Father Abraham mythology' is not deserved. I tend to view Jefferson Davis as a great leader. There were many aspects of Davis' character that were similar to Lincoln's. By the end of the War, Davis suffered from chronic stress related migraine headaches and neuralgia. He was practically blind in one eye. He had a daily medical regimen of 'castor oil, a grain of opium, chalcocum wine<for gout>and he inhaled burning rosemary leaves for his intense headaches... He lost one son - a small child who fell off a balcony in a tragic accident. And at the end of the war he lost Jim Limber who was torn from the Davis family by a Union soldier. Limber was pleading an screaming for Davis...as he was taken away... For over almost two years Davis was held in solitary confinement, and his guards were instructed to never speak to Davis.The young officer in charge of Davis was later involved in some of the worst massacrs of native Indian tribes in American history.


Davis was a great man and so was Lincoln, but they were men of their times. The political relationship between Davis and Judah Benjamin might be realistically seen as similar to that between Bismark and Bleischroeder - Old South and New South like Old Prussia and the New Germany/Austro-Hungary.


Looking at the charactor of Lincoln and Davis - I'd say the worst president was Buchanan. He left'em a big mess. In contrast to Lincoln and Davis - he was totally inept and passive. When he left office, it was like he was fleeing.
He made Jimmy Carter look like Superman. Buchanan was very weak.
However, one could argue that he was actually in favor of Southern secession - and was trying to assist it via his inaction.;)
 
Lincoln's sin was that he was a pragmatist. He was going to do what it took.

The Confederacy's biggest handicap was that it wasn't pragmatic enough.

They put their states rights ideology above even the efficient conduct of their war effort at times. I've read that a rail line that was to be constructed to supply the Army of Virginia was delayed indefinitly because of squabbling between the governors of two states it would pass through and the central government that was pushing to have it built.

The book "Dixie Betrayed" is full of instances where the Confederacy contradicted itself or delayed important war decisions to debate the matter in the context of state's rights vs. central government.

At the end they finally gave in and determined that slaves who volunteered to fight (regardless of what their masters wanted) would be granted their freedom at the end of hostilities. This came too late and the war ended before any of that batch got to fight.

What is important is that the measure was tacit acknowledgement that a federal government DID have the right to tell people what to do with their "property".

Which made the whole war unecessary to begin with...

One thing that has always mystified me is how many people of a libertarian bent hold up the Confederacy as some sort of ideal. One would think that libertarianism and institutionalized slavery would be incompatible. Kind of like a staunch capitalist waxing eloquent about Cambodia's Khymer Rouge. Never made sense to me.

But I find that a lot of people are more about the process of things. If the right documents are signed and voted on, that's what matters. The process. The intent or the unintended consequence is of considerably less importance.
 
Confederate libertarian

One thing that has always mystified me is how many people of a libertarian bent hold up the Confederacy as some sort of ideal. One would think that libertarianism and institutionalized slavery would be incompatible. Kind of like a staunch capitalist waxing eloquent about Cambodia's Khymer Rouge. Never made sense to me.

Most of us libertarian minded people also uphold the secession 1776, and don't forget that 12 of the 13 states at that time allowed slave owning.

Slavery in north America was basically a hold-over from the colonial period, established by English Aristocrats. It is easy for us today to look at slave owners two hundred years ago as being evil, but just imagine yourself being born into that world. Imagine your whole life from the first you can remember, your family owned slaves and that was normal. It would be very difficult to change your mindset about something your family has been doing for several generations. I don't see these men's views on the structure of government being any less correct because of a glaring moral flaw like slavery.

Just as an aside: General Lee (Confederate) freed the slaves he had inherited because he felt it the morally right thing to do. General Grant (Union) kept his slaves until he was forced to free them by the 13th amendment.
 
Just as an aside: General Lee (Confederate) freed the slaves he had inherited because he felt it the morally right thing to do. General Grant (Union) kept his slaves until he was forced to free them by the 13th amendment.

Lee freed his father-in-laws slaves because the will required it... and Lee put it off as long as he could.

Grant had one slave given to him by his father-in-law, that he freed within a year. I believe it was in the 1850's when he was at the farm in Missouri.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top