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.
Morality has no factual basis, its simply a view one holds.

Lincoln caused lynchings by forcing an end to slavery instead of letting it go its own course. Allot less violence would have occurred if the south wasn't forced to change and was allowed to do it on its own, when the time was right.
 
Yes, and that was unconstitutional, too. It pales beside Lincoln's transgressions, however.

So what if the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional?

What if the French had instead sold it to the British? Then the USA would now be an eastern nation surrounded by Canada. Or would you have rather that the United States have fought a costly war with France over the land?

Jefferson acted in the best interests of the nation.

The focus among many here has become far too narrow.

.
 
So Jefferson's unconstitutional act was justifiable because it was for the best interests of the United States but Lincoln's were also in the best interests of the United States. So why the duplicity?

Also, what State or States did Lincoln violate the rights of anyway?
 
but Lincoln's were also in the best interests of the United States.
600K dead, and yet you are sure Lincoln was acting in the best interest of the US? If you don't know what rights that Lincoln violated after reading this thread, then you aren't paying attention.
 
Seriously.
What did Lincoln do that was unconstitutional?

What State or State's did Lincoln violate the rights of?

What makes Lincoln a despotic tyrant in the opinion of those here that propagate that idea?

There must be something I'm missing........

Please answer the questions. I'm not interested in 'He's a despotic tyrant because he violated the Constitution and States' rights'. What specifically did he do to who that justifies this attitude?

Surly someone knows............
 
Lincoln Crossing the Rubicon



Suspending the Constitution

Fort Sumter was bombarded on April 12, 1861. By the end of the month, the Republican administration had ripped the guts out of the Constitution, as constitutional government passed away in the United States, not to return for almost five years. Here is the sequence of events:

First, on April 15, Lincoln called up the militia from all of the states to put into the field an army of more than 75,000 men. The Constitution puts this power with the Congress: Article I, Section 8, sets forth the powers of Congress: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections....”

Six governors rejected Lincoln’s call as illegal. The governor of North Carolina, John Ellis, responded,

I regard the levy of troops made by the administration for the purpose of subjugating the states of the South as in violation of the Constitution, and a usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina.
The other five governors answered in the same vein.
Second, also on April 15, Lincoln called Congress into session, as required by the Constitution for “extraordinary Occasions,” but delayed the meeting of Congress almost three months. By contrast, when Pearl Harbor was attacked, Roosevelt called Congress into session the very next day, December 8, 1941.

Third, less than a week later, April 21, he ordered the purchase of war materials, five naval vessels, which under the Constitution required congressional appropriations.

Fourth, the same day, he ordered the navy to blockade all Southern ports. A blockade is an act of war, requiring the resolution of Congress.

Fifth, on April 27, he suspended the right of habeas corpus — unquestionably one of the most important of our civil liberties, for it prohibits government from making arrests without just cause, that is, from locking people up and throwing the key away, so to speak. In time, more than 10,000 were arrested and imprisoned by military officers, often for crimes that never existed in any law book, manufactured by the generals, often just plain silly. One unfortunate fellow, while drunk, was arrested and imprisoned for shouting, “Hurrah for Jeff Davis!” Under the Bill of Rights, a person cannot be charged with a crime except by an indictment from a grand jury, nor can a person be convicted except by a jury of fellow civilians. No military trial of civilians was permitted, or so said the Constitution.
 
Lincoln’s denial of these most basic constitutional rights led to the destruction of civilian government in Maryland, where in late 1861 he had soldiers arrest and imprison the members of the legislature believed to be Southern sympathizers and who might vote for Maryland’s secession. Democratic government ceased in Maryland for the duration of the war.

Preceding the arrest of the Maryland legislators, Lincoln’s most shocking, even treacherous act, swept under the rug by Lincoln’s loving biographers, grew out of ex parte Merryman. John Merryman was a known Southern sympathizer in Maryland. He was arrested by General Cadwallader and imprisoned in Fort McHenry in Baltimore. Merryman petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted by Chief Justice Roger Taney, and the general was ordered to bring Merryman into court for adjudication. The general refused.

You can read the whole article here, but I'm sure you won't believe it.
 
Interesting article albeit a bit one sided.

What are trying to say by proxy of the editorial article?

What STATE had it's rights violated? Maryland???
What did Lincoln do that was unconstitutional? Not call Congress into special session as fast as FDR did 60+ years LATER?


And can we skip past the cut-and-paste.....surly you can directly address the question without presenting an entire editorial article to be read. I don't mean to be a stickler but your posts tend to be just cut-and-paste with no commentary AKA drive-by posts. A link to it with snippits as a foundation to YOUR comments directly addressing your point are considered good form.
 
I don't feel like wasting time commenting Brux, you think Lincoln was great, I think he wasn't. You don't think the States had a right to secede, I think they did. Besides these questions were already settled on the field of battle.

You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the whole thing off
 
If you don't have an answer then maybe someone else does....No problem Nate. There has been a lot of others with your point of view. I'm sure they can handle it.

No worries......
 
Actually, I think we're going to end this one right here.

What more could possibly be said that hasn't been said before?

This one has run its course.

Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top