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.
Bruxly, please explain to me any major differences in the seccissions of 1776 and 1861. Really, I'd like to know if there are any. Somehow some people can look at the actions of 13 states in 1776 as good and noble, but the actions of 11 states in 1861 were criminal and needed to be stopped. Please explain.

The people that believe(d) they had a RIGHT to hold people in slavery are far more despotic then Lincoln.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, unless you consider Lincoln drafting citizens to fight his war. Being forced away from your home to face cannon and rifle fire is not freedom. You're a victim of a despot whether you are being forced to pick his cotton or fight his unjust wars.
 
They were very similar. Two big differences are that the fledgling United States was fighting to gain liberty and the south was fighting to keep slavery. The other is that the South lost.......surendered I believe.

Now I can hear it now, THE SOUTH WANTED LIBERTY TOO!! Well they had that but it didn't extend to holding human beings in slavery.....hardly a liberty thing there. Liberty being ownership of one's own life it's kind of tough to insist it's also your liberty to own someone else's life too........
 
Promoting/inciting/aiding a rebellion against the United States IS a crime in case you were unaware. There are limits to what you have a right to say just so you understand.
Click to expand...

so disagreeing against lincoln as he proceeded todo something that was debatably illegal wasa gainst the law? He want to war withought congresses consent, and kept congress for being called for many monthsuntill the war was under full swing. meanwhile he shut down newspapers and threw people in prison for speaking against his war that was not even aproved by congress...move it up a notch... if people write against the war in Iraq, should they be thrown in jail? i mean supposedly iraq is a great threat to the US.
 
They weren't against a policy of the President, they were promoting DIRECT rebellion against the US. HUGE difference...

Your looking for anything at all to find something wrong with what Lincoln did. Look hard enough and long enough you'll find an imperfection. He was faced with a unique situation where members Congress it's self were working to split the nation. It's so easy to look back and find a mis-step. Your scouring a bail of hay trying to find a blade of graas so you deny it's a bail of hay. The bil of hay is that when the Confederate States of America began gathering US States to thier soverienty they were holding US territory and shouldn't have been surprised that the United States was coming for it's territory. And for those then Confederate States to claim thier United States rights and protections as a US State were being violated is propoterous. Can't have it both ways. Rebellling then claiming rights as member States of the nation your rebelling FROM were violated demonstrates duplicity not virtue. To rebel in the name of 'rights' so you can continue denying ther human beings rights shows that same irrationality.

Lincoln's actions saved this great nation. If perfection is the standard no human act lives up. Lincoln contiued the work of the founders by making every person a whole person in this country. Due to his leadership EVERY person now has liberty as ownership of their OWN lives. For that he is recognized as a great President and held in the same esteem as the founding fathers.
 
The reason the Confederacy didn't have the right to succeed was the land and infrastructure was all obtained by the U.S.
Click to expand...
When the States ratified the US Constitution, they did not surrender their land, infrastructure, sovereignty, or anything of that nature. Such an assertion seems to indicate a vision of national government, as if the States consolidated themselves into one sovereignty ... as if the federal/state relationship is like the state/county relationship! Lincoln said something to that effect, and I believe that was one of the reasons for secession and one of the reasons why Lincoln was the worst.
 
Worst during his Presidency? Jimmy Carter.
Worst after his Presidency? Jimmy Carter.

Worst for the Nation? -F.D.R. and Lyndon Johnson.

Roosevelt the second for his New Deal and socialism, and Johnson for his Great Society and War on Poverty.

My Honorable Dischaarge has Carter's signature on the bottom, I won't even put it on the wall.
 
Does anyone wish to nominate George Washington as the worst president ever? After all, he led an armed rebellion against the King's army who was there to protect the colonies. This rebellion made it possible for all the other presidents we listed to one day assume office. Of course, he led the rebellion before he ever became president. How did he become a general when he wasn't comissioned by the King? What kind of man was he?

Bruxley, I need you to explain all of this to me.
 
When the States ratified the US Constitution, they did not surrender their land, infrastructure, sovereignty, or anything of that nature. Such an assertion seems to indicate a vision of national government, as if the States consolidated themselves into one sovereignty ... as if the federal/state relationship is like the state/county relationship! Lincoln said something to that effect, and I believe that was one of the reasons for secession and one of the reasons why Lincoln was the worst.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY!! some people here dont seem to understand that AFTER the cival war our structure of government was completely differant than BEFORE the war and not all teh same rules applied.
 
Well, I was expecting somebody to take this approach. I am prepared to defend my position using the official documents and history of the Confederacy itself to prove my point.
Click to expand...

They weren't against a policy of the President, they were promoting DIRECT rebellion against the US. HUGE difference...
Click to expand...

At the time of the cival war Everybody understood, that the war aha not so much to do with slavery and a whole lot to do with money, (we wont say all or nothing, since talking in extremes usually make us look foolish.)

some quotes for yall

From England

the south instead of seceding for the sake of slavery, seceded in spite of the fact that its separate maintenance will expose them...to risks and losses against which the Union would afford security Charles Dickens


From europe
The war between the North and the South is a tarrif war. The war is further not for any principle,does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty. Karl Marx


From America

Your dispatch is recieved;and if genuine, which its exdraordinary character leads me to doubt, I have to say, that 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. Gov. Ellis, of North CArolina when requested for troops.

there is no class of men in this country who have so large a stake in sustaining the government, whose prosparity depends so completely upon being upheld...who have so much to los...as the merchants of this city Henry J. Raymond, founder of the New York Times
 
Take an American history class if you need educated on Washington or the origins of the US.
Click to expand...

hey can we just be polite and swap our arguments without dissing each other out? that way we can have fun without getting mad or being shut down
 
They weren't against a policy of the President, they were promoting DIRECT rebellion against the US. HUGE difference...
Click to expand...

a quote from the Chicago Times in july of 1861

It cannot be possibe that a Christian nation can desire to see thousands and tens of thousands of thier people and tens of thopusands of a kindred people butchered, and all teh expenses and hoorors of a civil war incurred without some adequate motive. To assume a differant ground, would be to confess ourselves barbarians or demons. We then repeat the question as to what adequate motive we have for inaugurating a cival war?

THey were afterword shut down by a military Officer, all becuase they wanted to know why we needed to INVADE the south. Only questioning morality, not inciting rebellion
 
We could look at this from a different point of view.

Step back from the politics of the situation and look at it from a philosophical point of view.

Men were created by God, and God gave man free will and also the desire for freedom. Man was also given the ability to make decisions and solve problems. Our system of government was originally designed, and arguably still works under the assumption that people can, for the most part, take care of themselves and solve their own problems. This philosophy of life has produced the most prosperous and happy population in the world.

Now take a look at England. All guns are banned except through very strict licensing requirements. Knives are banned except for pen-knives. It is a crime to text-message and walk at the same time, and a person's head must be elevated at a 45 degree angle or higher when walking to avoid collision with light poles, which are now padded to prevent injury. The wearing of hats is prohibited inside buildings because they obstruct the view of the surveillance cameras.

Now remember the Confederate States. Their argument was over States Rights. As I said before, God created man to be free. If the Confederate States had seceded, some may have chosen to free the slaves, but some may also have kept slaves. If the Confederate States were truly anti-slave, then what does it matter if it was done state by state or through the federal government? It is a moot point if all of the Confederate States wanted to free the slaves.

In conclusion, God created man to be free. Both England and the Confederate States were/are far less accepting of freedom to all than the United States of America was then and is now. So we can fight and bicker all day about what the law said and who was right or wrong, or we can recognize that all people in the USA are more free because some men wanted to finally achieve that freedom for which God had created.
 
Your looking for anything at all to find something wrong with what Lincoln did. Look hard enough and long enough you'll find an imperfection
Click to expand...

All im saying is that when a man goes so far as to suspend congress, and pretty much make himself a king just so he can deal with a problem HIS way...well that amkes him a pretty abd president, since he swore to uphold the constitution and ends up doing everything it says a president cant.
 
you are very right GPossenti but thinka bout this. We say terrorists want to destroy america and they are bad. (I agree) However most muslum nations hate America, for abortian, and adultery(which are in my opinion pretty bad things) Are we fighting a war to allow us to continue aborting babies?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top