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

[Hugh Damright]

As I've already pointed out, secession was about the preservation of slavery.

Without the desire to preserve slavery, there would have been no secession and no war.

[blah blah blah] slavery.

Why do you keep repeating "slavery" over and over? Could it be that you think that slavery was unconstitutional?? Or maybe you think that the institution of slavery was such a bogeyman that it discredits the idea of respecting a Constitution?

 

[Citizen Carrier]

Am I to use some sort of code word then when discussing the stated, documented reason for secession?

All I have argued here is that secession was about that institution. I am tired of people either ignoring or living in ignorance of that.

As I said, pointing that out irritates people who would rather elevate the motivations for secession to something akin to declaring independence from England.

When people declare it to be about state's rights, it is my habit to ask them what "right" in particular, by their own admission, were they willing to fight a war that claimed 620,000 people to preserve.

Somewhere around then, they point out that the "institution" was Constitutional.

At which point I ask them if it would be all right if I were able to get an amendment declaring them property.

In other words, just because somebody wrote it down on paper and said the right words over it, that don't make it right. Especially not in God's eyes.

When it comes to human bondage, waving a piece of paper in front of my face just doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.

Does it with you?

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Again, one must wonder where people develop this notion that secession was not first and foremost about the preservation of slavery.

Do you really think that hundreds of thousands of Southern men died so that a handfull of rich plantation owners could keep their slaves?

Slavery would have died out on its own in another 20 or so years without the war.

Lincoln stated if he could keep the Union together without freeing a single slave, he would do so.

The amount of money spent by the North to fight the war was more than enough to simply buy the freedom of every slave in the South, had that been their goal.

And the ultimate question. Why was the North so intent on having the new states be non-slave states? Not because they cared about slaves. Because in congress, slaves counted as 2/3 a person when counting how many congressmen a state had. Virtually all slave owners were Southern democrats. It was a given that slave owners in new states would also be democrats. The Northern republicans were fighting tooth and nail to prevent more democrats in the House.

 

[HJB]

The Fugitive Slave Acts were passed to enforce a provision of the US Constitution which said that runaway slaves must be returned. That is not something that began in the 1850's

It didn't begin in 1850 but the fugitive slave law associated with the 1850 Compromise was intended to toughen it up.

Dred Scott didn't change anything, it merely reaffirmed what had always been the situation. What do you imagine should have happened when a person traveled with his slave(s) into a "free state"? Should the slave have suddenly been free, able to stay in the State against his Master's will, etc?

Dred Scott involved a slaveowner moving to, not visiting, a free state. But in either case, I think the slave states should have respected the fact that the free states did not recognize humans as property, and should not have expected to be able to bring slaves whether visiting or relocating.

It seems then that it was the US Constitution which infuriated him.

No, there had always been a very uneasy agreement between free and slave states as to the expansion of slavery. Hence the Missouri compromise. The slave states in the 1850's pushed too hard against the free states, and then left in a huff when there was a backlash.

 

[HJB]

Do you really think that hundreds of thousands of Southern men died so that a handfull of rich plantation owners could keep their slaves?

John Singleton Mosby, the confederate raider, acknowledged that the war was over slavery, but that he had fought for his "country."

Soldiers fight for their country, their family, their friends. It doesn't change the fact that the central cause of the war was slavery.

Slavery would have died out on its own in another 20 or so years without the war.

Maybe, but in the prewar years, the slave states were intent on expanding it.

Lincoln stated if he could keep the Union together without freeing a single slave, he would do so.

Because he knew that as much as he hated slavery, his constitutional duty was to preserve the country.

 

[Webleymkv]

There are so many who have caused lasting damage to liberty: Lincoln, Hoover, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, Bush Jr.

But the worst President would have to have help enact the single greatest threat to liberty and do nothing constructive during his administration and none of the afforementioned fit the bill. Sooooo, the (dis)honor goes to...........

John Adams Sr. for the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

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

 

[nate45]

Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

Damn, there is definitely some deep flaw within the ideology and very nature of federalists, they just cannot bring themselves to abide by the constitution.

 

[LanceOregon]

John Adams Sr. for the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

What negative effect is that law now having on our nation, 220 years later????

Many historians are now ranking Adams right up there with Washington and Jefferson in terms of his greatness.

I cannot possibly see him being a candidate for the worst President.

Even with all of the attacks on Lincoln and FDR, it appears that President Carter is clearly the most despised of them all.

And here he is the only American President to ever win a Nobel Peace Prize ( 2002 ). And actually, he rightfully should have shared in the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize as well.

.

 

[LanceOregon]

If states do have a right to leave the Union, then what does this say for the future of our country?

Hispanic immigration has made huge changes in many states. California will soon have a Hispanic majority. And within a couple of decades, many feel that the entire southwest, from California to Texas will primarily be Hispanic.

What is there then to stop these states from leaving the Union? This is exactly what happened in Kosovo, where illegal immigration of Albanian Muslims eventually became the majority of the local population. And now the western world has supported Kosovo leaving Serbia, and becoming a new nation.

Is this the future of the United States? To become Balkanized??? Think about it.

.

 

[Webleymkv]

What negative effect is that law now having on our nation, 220 years later????

Many historians are now ranking Adams right up there with Washington and Jefferson in terms of his greatness.

Well, for one thing the Alien Enemy Act is still in effect (apprehension and/or deportation without due process based solely on place of birth seems kind of shaky to me). Secondly, it wasn't so much what the Alien and Sedition Acts did as what they could've done. The president was given way too much power and had Adams chose to exercise them more liberally, or had three of them not been repealed and a later, less scrupulous President decided to exercise them, tyranny could've very easily ensued. I have a feeling that Adams' favorable historical portrait has more to do with his activities during the Revolution than his presidency.

Even with all of the attacks on Lincoln and FDR, it appears that President Carter is clearly the most despised of them all.

And here he is the only American President to ever win a Nobel Peace Prize ( 2002 ). And actually, he rightfully should have shared in the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize as well.

What exactly has Carter done that's propagated world peace? Was it the talks at Camp David between Israel and Palestine? They're still fighting. Was it his hadling of the Iranian Hostage Crisis? They're still our enemy. Carter has some wonderful ideas, unfortunately most of them didn't work. I'm having a rather hard time thinking of anything Carter did that showed any lasting benefit to our country or the world at all.

 

[LanceOregon]

“I’d organize my list in five tiers, with the top tier being the Presidents I thought were the best in maintaining the values we find in the Constitution, and the bottom tier being those who ‘took the law into their own hands.’

So that should be the sole criteria for evaluating a President's accomplishments in office?

There are numerous very mediocre Presidents within your first tier. Including all of those that served in office the years leading up to both the Civil War and the Great Depression.

Most historians rate Kennedy, Truman, and especially Theodore Roosevelt very high in terms of their success as being President. I see no grounds at all for you to rate any of them so extremely low.

You also seem to have forgot that there have been two Presidents named Bush.

.

 

[Webleymkv]

Most historians rate Kennedy, Truman, and especially Theodore Roosevelt very high in terms of their success as being President. I see no grounds at all for you to rate any of them so extremely low.

While I don't take issue with TR being quite good, I see Truman and Kennedy as being mediocre at best. Most of the accomplishments that Truman took credit for were already in motion before he was president. Other than being a martyr, I can't think of a single thing that Kennedy accomplished that had a lasting positive effect on our country. Matter of fact, if you look at Kennedy's arrogance and outright disdain for others in Washington before his assasaination and the conspiracy theories thereafter (regardless of their truthfulness), it could be argued that Kennedy cause lasting harm to our country. Afterall, when a President is murdered sucspiciously after such great friction between himself and the rest of Washington, it's bound to make his successors at least a bit hesitant to challenge the establishment at all. Perhaps if Kennedy wasn't so unwilling to work with anyone, our mediocre-at-best Democratic and Republican parties would be less dogmatic.

 

[copenhagen]

Quote:
As I've already pointed out, secession was about the preservation of slavery.

Without the desire to preserve slavery, there would have been no secession and no war.

[blah blah blah] slavery.

Why do you keep repeating "slavery" over and over? Could it be that you think that slavery was unconstitutional?? Or maybe you think that the institution of slavery was such a bogeyman that it discredits the idea of respecting a Constitution?

Same reason Al Gore keeps on talking about Global Warming. If you say something long enough, people will start to believe you...:barf:

Hispanic immigration has made huge changes in many states. California will soon have a Hispanic majority. And within a couple of decades, many feel that the entire southwest, from California to Texas will primarily be Hispanic.

What is there then to stop these states from leaving the Union?

By all means, let them go...

 

[LanceOregon]

What exactly has Carter done that's propagated world peace? Was it the talks at Camp David between Israel and Palestine? They're still fighting. Was it his hadling of the Iranian Hostage Crisis? They're still our enemy. Carter has some wonderful ideas, unfortunately most of them didn't work. I'm having a rather hard time thinking of anything Carter did that showed any lasting benefit to our country or the world at all.
__________________

Oops, I really had a major brain fart, and mixed up different Nobel Prizes in my head.

I was actually thinking of the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize, that was shared by Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin for the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. Carter was very instrumental in those negotiations, and should have shared in the Peace Prize for that year too.

Egypt and Israel still remain at peace today.

It was President Clinton who was cheated in the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize. He definitely should have shared in that award. Although as you point out, the Palestinian situation is still not resolved.

When President Carter got the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, the Nobel committee listed these accomplishments:

"President Carter and The Carter Center have engaged in conflict mediation in Ethiopia and Eritrea (1989), North Korea (1994), Liberia (1994), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1994), Sudan (1995), the Great Lakes region of Africa (1995-96), Sudan and Uganda (1999), and Venezuela (2002-2003). Under his leadership The Carter Center has sent forty-five international election monitoring delegations to elections in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. These include Panama (1989), Nicaragua (1990), Guyana (1992), Venezuela (1998), Nigeria (1999), Indonesia (1999), East Timor (1999), Mexico (2000), China (2001), and Jamaica (2002)."

I think that one can clearly argue that President Carter deserved the Nobel Peace Prize far more than Al Gore deserved getting it last year.

The Nobel committee must have been doing drugs when it made the 2007 Peace Prize choice.

.

 

[Webleymkv]

President Carter and The Carter Center have engaged in conflict mediation in Ethiopia and Eritrea (1989), North Korea (1994), Liberia (1994), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1994), Sudan (1995), the Great Lakes region of Africa (1995-96), Sudan and Uganda (1999), and Venezuela (2002-2003). Under his leadership The Carter Center has sent forty-five international election monitoring delegations to elections in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. These include Panama (1989), Nicaragua (1990), Guyana (1992), Venezuela (1998), Nigeria (1999), Indonesia (1999), East Timor (1999), Mexico (2000), China (2001), and Jamaica (2002)."

None of the dates listed fall within Carter's presidency. Likewise, many of the nations listed remain shall we say "less than stable." Likewise the governments of Mexico and China remain either notoriously corrupt or shady at best.

 

[Ruthless4christ]

Lincoln did not trample on the constitution.

well how about neglecting his constitutional duty to call congress in time of emergancy? He delayed them meeting for almost three months, meanwhile making decisions which according to the constitution, the congress should have made. (calling out malitia taking out millions of dollars out of the treasury etc.


how about ordering the arrest of Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, over the Ex Parte Merryman decision when he stated that lincolon did not have the constitutional rights to arrest americans withought pressing charges? I mean you want to talk about what the historians of the day were saying...

how about shutting down hundreds of newspapers (using military police) when they spoke in a negative manner toward the war(not neccesarly inciting rebellion or supporting slavery)?

How about when on the night of september 12 1861, 51 members of the maryland legislature were arrested without charges by US soldiers?

how about in the november of 61 state elections of maryland lincoln ordered that all union soldiers in maryland be allowed to vote even if they wer not residents?

hello...............

 

[Ruthless4christ]

Hey guys check this out, at the the time of the cival war, New Mexico(inluding todays arizona) was 200,000 sq miles, yet after ten years of being a slave state, only 21 slaves lived in the territory, and only 12 of them were resident.

Its clear to m ethat they seceded to defend thier 12 slaves.

 

[nate45]

Ruthless4christ

You know Lincoln subverted the COTUS, I know it, you are not going to convince the Lincoln worshipers. They believe that what he did was great, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them otherwise.

More than 140 years of government propaganda has done its work.

Lincoln was the 'great emancipator'

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Even with all of the attacks on Lincoln and FDR, it appears that President Carter is clearly the most despised of them all.
And here he is the only American President to ever win a Nobel Peace Prize ( 2002 ). And actually, he rightfully should have shared in the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize as well.

Wrong. Theodore Roosevelt won the Peace Prize in 1905 due to his involvement in negotiating the end of the Russo-Japanese War and easing of the revolts in the Phillipines.

Seeing the likes of Yasser Arafat and others of his ilk to receive the Peace Prize basically loses ALL credibility in my book. Their organization is complete garbage in my not so humble opinion...

 

[Ruthless4christ]

Sherman destroyed the infrastructure that supported the enemy military. There really was no significant murdering or raping or any other violent crimes against civilians. It is routinely exaggerated. Shermans march was much more of a psychological dagger through the South than a physically destructive one.

years after the war General SHerman wrote ina letter to a friend, I know that in the beginning I, too, had the old West Point notion that pillage was a capital crime, and punished it by shooting

he was also quoted as saying that an army commander
may take your house, your fields, your everything, and turn you out helpless to starve, It may be wrong, but that dont alter the case

these concepts wer strictly against the international coads and rules of war, and the world was horrified. Stalin also destroyed the infrastructure of his enemies, with the polish and ukrainian guerillas. he just loaded up whole towns into cattle cars and htey wer never seen again. but then again Stalin Is routinely exaggerated as well...poor man