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.
S832, the numbers of blacks living the Confederacy numbered in the millions. So much so that southerners insisted on blacks being counted in order to determine the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives. So they were "people" enough to be counted, but just not "people" enough for them to be treated like...people.

It was not a small group of people. And it would probably have meant something to you, had you been a member of that group.

And the Confederacy certainly believed it was worth it to wage a war resulting in that many deaths in order to preserve secesssion...which was done to preserve slavery.

Takes two to tango and your argument cannot just be applied the North.

Basically, the Civil War was our test as a nation. It answered a very important question.

Did we really mean all that "Natural Rights of Man" stuff we wrote into the Declaration of Independence?

Really mean it? Or was it just for some people and not for others?

Was all that stuff from Locke and Jefferson and Franklin and all those fine men just so much pillow talk? Didn't we go to war over that stuff before? Are we not prepared to do so again, if necessary? Aren't you? Or is it just so long as your freedom is safe but others are in bondage...you're fine with that?

The Constitution, as it was originally written, was not a perfect document. Nor were the Articles of Confederation.

The mechanism for perfecting it is the amendment process.

The Constitution after ratification of the 13th Amendment is surely a superior document to the Constitution that existed before it.
 
right and wrong are all that of opinions and not facts, but this is does not really matter as causing the death of 500,000 people makes any argument of moral high-ground moot
 
Slavery was a issue but the ultimate fight was if States have the right to control what happens in their own land, I still would prefer if states had control over it instead of the federal government.
 
right and wrong are all that of opinions and not facts, but this is does not really matter as causing the death of 500,000 people makes any argument of moral high-ground moot
Click to expand...

That makes absolutely no sense.
 
right and wrong are all that of opinions and not facts, but this is does not really matter as causing the death of 500,000 people makes any argument of moral high-ground moot
Click to expand...

"Causing the death"? Gosh, what a passive statement. A lot of people died in the War of Independence too, and really only about a 3rd of the population really wanted to break away from England. Do you think it was worth it?

Would you care to calculate the numbers of people who died directly or indirectly as a result of slavery since it's inception on this continent? For it existed a long time before the Civil War.

How many died because of malnutrition or abuse or sickness? How many were lynched or shot or mauled by bloodhounds? How many were raped?

How many families were broken up at auction? How many millions were kept in an artificial state of ignorance and illiteracy by state laws?

And most shamefully, how many people were so brainwashed over the generations that they bought into Stockholm Syndrome, having their basic dignity as human beings drummed out of their heads?

Where is the moral high ground in allowing that to continue?

That slavery was evil and needed to be extinguished is not a matter for opinion. Not if you actually believe in all this "freedom" stuff this country was founded on.
 
the ultimate fight was if States have the right to control what happens in their own land
Click to expand...

Even if that were true, by your own logic, was that worth the death of those people?

I really wish this whole secessionist myth could be put to rest. It is so counterproductive and aggravating. It makes gun owners look like a bunch of nonsensical reactionaries who can't get along in a modern world, whose understanding of American history stopped sometime around the mid-nineteenth century. Is it any wonder average, non-gun owning people are afraid of us?

I understand that image isn't everything, but come on, secession, seriously? Lincoln a true, despotic tyrant worthy of assassination as some have implied, seriously? Time to rejoin the modern world, folks.
 
Regarding the war of independence, I think it could have been avoided also but we won't get into that.

I certainly wouldn't send my kid to die for something which didn't benefit him.

The civil war didn't benefit enough people to warrant its creation, slavery would have died off on its own without it.
 
So go be a Quaker then. I think that the social and political benefits gained by the nonetheless very tragic Civil War were amply demonstrated to you.

Sometimes things are about more than you and your family, as sad as the result may be.
 
I won't be the one fighting it then, my self preservation and my families self preservation trumps all moral ideals that people obsess about.

I would fight for what benefits me or my family, but thats all.
 
Easy enough to say, now that so many have died in various wars creating the nation that allows you to think that way. All of them fighting for ideals that transcend "what's in it for me?"

Guys like Washington and all those men under him.

Heck, even the rank and file Confederate soldier was motivated by some ideals.

Home and culture and people. Ideals. Pride. Tradition. The fear that everyone else in town would know they weren't mustering. Values.

Even if I disagree with what they were ultimately fighting to preserve, there was an ethos there. I would sooner count myself among their number than with the faithless and self-serving.
 
Well the confederates were attacked, so it makes more sense for them to fight then the union soldiers who really gained nothing from it.
 
Rebelled isn't the correct word, I don't think the federal government had the right to force its laws on the states.

I believe its only real purpose was for defending the shoreline, not passing laws on internal matters which should be handled locally.
 
HJB said:
Since the applicable question is Lincoln's views of secession, and whether he subverted the constitution,
Click to expand...
No, that isn't the applicable question. However, if you think it is, I can see that discussing this further is pointless.
 
Rebelled isn't the correct word, I don't think the federal government had the right to force its laws on the states.

I believe its only real purpose was for defending the shoreline, not passing laws on internal matters which should be handled locally.
Click to expand...

I don't believe YOU believe that. I could be wrong, you tell me. If DC were a State would it be proper for the SCOTUS to be telling them that they have to adhere to the Second Amendment? Do you think the Federal Government has the right to enforce laws on the States? Or is it only when you have blacks that deserve equal treatment under the law you disagee with? Both are Constitutionally protected no?

Federal law is made via the House (the people) and the Senates (the STATES') before the President even has a say. If Federal lawq is passed and a State doesn't agree too bad. The process is representation of each to the whole. In turn the will of the whole being determined by the each mandates the loyalty of each to the whole. The United States has plenty of prevision for changing of representatives and repealing of law to make rebellion over the deep desire to retain human bondage for financial gain as repugnant as it is deservedly held to be. Following that loss with segregation, poll taxes, lynchings, etc. goes even further to demonstrate the true nature of the despotism of those that hold those values. It is even more demonstrative of that despotism to work to revise history to make Lincoln, not the slave holding, lynching, segregating, poll taxers the villian. Then to fain righteous indignation and claim a State right to hold humans in bondage for financial gain, lych them, segregate them, and charge them money to vote makes the 'righteous' part transparently disengenuous.

I noticed a marked LACK of rebuttel to HJB's facts. Just more misinformation sprouts where the turds fell. How about that? Does his consistant disproving of the lies you build your beliefs on NOT make you MAYBE re-think the conclusions you came to from those lies? NO? hrmmmm... Probabley NOT the real reason you hold those beliefs.

Simple question I guess is DO YOU BELIEVE BLACK PEOPLE ARE AS VALUABLE AND AS PRECIOUS AS HUMAN BEINGS AS WHITE PEOPLE? Both in deserving of every single respect a white person rates? Are they as capable of every acomplishment as whites? Do you believe the answers to above are all yes?

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.
Click to expand...
Interesting quote huh...
 
Nope, the federal government has no place when it comes to state laws, anyway watch as the US eventually joins a North American Union and the same principle will apply that you support so whole heartedly.

But your right, its irrelevant now as its already been decided through war.

What the federal government gives can always be taken away.
 
Originally Posted by HJB
Since the applicable question is Lincoln's views of secession, and whether he subverted the constitution,

No, that isn't the applicable question. However, if you think it is, I can see that discussing this further is pointless.
Click to expand...

It is applicable because this is a thread on presidents, not secession.
 
Nope, the federal government has no place when it comes to state laws, anyway watch as the US eventually joins a North American Union and the same principle will apply that you support so whole heartedly.
Click to expand...

As would you by your own confession. If States choose to join a 'North American Union' they have every right to according to your very own words. You would support those States in that decision wouldn't you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top