Best/Worst Presidents

[Direckshun]

I've been watching the History Channel a lot this week on their special highlighting all 47 Presidents we've had. It calls itself the "ultimate guide" to the Presidents, but it's mostly a great primer on all the Presidents.

Anyway, it's been a while since we've done this.

But who are the best 5 Presidents in American history in your opinion, and who were 5 of the worst? Do your best to explain.

Also, where would you place our most recent Presidents (because why not): Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter

[La literatura]

It just occurred to me that either way (mocking child molestation vs. lying about someone defending it), you come across as a pathetic lowlife.

Will that occur to you?

[RNR]

Originally Posted by La literatura

Oh, so you're just lying when you say I defend child molesters. I see. You came across as mocking child molestation ("butt-hurt" and whatnot).

Practice law on someone else schoolboy~

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

Lincoln was a protectionist. He knew that he could win the presidency without a single southern state, and he exploited it. He proposed high tariffs on imported goods to protect Northern manufacturers, and then spent most of the revenue from those tariffs, on pet projects for the North. His whole goal was to redistribute wealth from the south to the north through tariffs and corporate welfare.

The problem with his plan was that "these United States" was a voluntary union of sovereign states. The southern states began to secede because of his northern protectionism. When the southern states started seceding, he realize that his big tax and spend policies wouldn't work without them. So he blockaded southern ports in order to choke their economies and force them to rejoin the union. Instead, he forced the south to act in self defense and fire the first shot of the civil war.

Lincoln never wanted to end slavery. He made it very clear several times. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free any slaves at all. It only applied to states south of the Mason-Dixon line, which he had no authority over, and it was only a wartime tactic. The goal of the EP was to get the southern slaves to revolt against their owners, and to sway England to not ally with the southern states. Even after the civil war, Lincoln did not want to Emancipate the slaves form the northern states.


That right there is enough to make him the worst president of all-time, and that doesn't even touch on his blatant disregard for the constitution.
-He suspended habeas corpus without congress.
-He imprisoned federal judges for ruling against him.
-He deported a congressman for voting against his proposals.
-He used the military to detain Maryland Legislatures, so that they could not vote on secession.
-He shut down newspapers and arrested editors and reporters for not reporting the official government stories.
-He instituted the first draft and had deserters executed.
-He instituted the first income tax.


I could keep going, but I've probably wasted enough time as it is.

Regardless of how he got things done or the motivation behind his interests, what is your proposed alternative?

Are you suggesting that in an increasingly industrialized society, the appropriate option was to concede to the South and allow them to accelerate a slave practice that was both immoral but also increasingly less profitable? These "pet projects" were projects that accelerated the industrialization of America, including the expansion of the railroads. Are you suggesting that we would have made anything close to the kind of economic progress we built over time without a unified north and south? Are you suggesting that kicking the can down the road like other administrations did was even an option at this point?

Regardless of the interests or the reasons why, it goes like this. The Civil War led to a unified north and south, accelerated the end of slavery and the industrialization and expansion of America, and allowed us to reconstruct into a superpower. In exchange, a devastating amount of lives and property were lost. The alternative was to allow tensions to escalate for years, completely restrict expansion, fall behind in the world because we continued to cater to agrarian interests in an increasingly industrializing society, potentially exist in a US that divided north/south... all this happening maybe for 20 years or more. And throughout that time, not leaving out the idea that the North and the Confederacy would have eventually fought a "civil war" anyway, even if Lincoln chose to punt.

I get that Lincoln is deified in ways he shouldn't be. But in my view, the war was inevitable and Lincoln, regardless of intentions, made the strategic choices that led to what I believe was the better outcome. Therefore, he absolutely belongs in the list of top presidents.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

Practice law on someone else schoolboy~

If you think that's law, then it's really no surprise you come across as so ignorant and confused on this forum.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by La literatura

If you think that's law, then it's really no surprise you come across as so ignorant and confused on this forum.

it is babbling on on making a case. That's what you do and what you want to get me to play along with. You got your panties in a bunch which was amusing. I could try to care what you think if you would like, better yet just a second.....ok I just tried to care and I cannot~

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by frazod

The industrial revolution would have ended slavery just as certainly as the war did, only without half a million casualties.

Holy balls, that just happened.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

That is a gross oversimplification:
1) War had become an inevitability. It was an issue that was punted on for years by Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan. In a very inept manner that pitted the South against the Union. The Confederacy rebellion had been brewing and likely was inevitable, unless the Union granted major concessions that we would to this day, very much regret. Conflict was inevitable. And the Union had to balance out resisting conflict vs. squashing it -- being weak and sitting back and doing nothing was NOT an option. Lincoln chose to squash it once and for all. Devastating, but think about the implications of if he would have lost.
2) The industrial revolution argument is one that is nice in theory, but it isn't backed by scholars. There is no proof that the southern cotton trade was declining anytime soon, in fact scholars believe the trade was growing and likely would have continued on for years. The Civil War accelerated the path to phasing out slavery, it eliminated outright the disgusting practice of slavery, and allowed America to accelerate the path to a unified nation
3) Lives were lost during the Civil War. But how many years of continued conflict and rebellion, especially between an industrial north and an agrarian south, both of whom relied heavily on each other and needed each other for trade... how many lives would we have lost?
4) Let's not rule out that punting on this issue wouldn't have led to an eventual rebellion. Especially as an agrarian south that was losing money from an increasingly less profitable slave trade wanted more.

The idea that the industrial revolution would have ended the civil war is based on pie-in-the-sky logic. We lost lives. But look at the benefits. It also saved the lives of slaves from maybe 20+ years of the continued practice of abuse and slavery. It kept the south from seceding from the union. It forced the north and south to learn to work together, which was incredibly important as the north began to industrialize while the south had superior agrarian resources. And it also kept us from 20 or so years of heated border tensions between the two regions. It arguably helped us accelerate expansion of the US as well as accelerate our industrial strength.

So no, I do not believe Lincoln did "terrible things" nor do I believe there was any other option but to go to war with the objective of creating a non-slave union.

This is an excellent post. Rep.

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Regardless of how he got things done or the motivation behind his interests, what is your proposed alternative?

Are you suggesting that in an increasingly industrialized society, the appropriate option was to concede to the South and allow them to accelerate a slave practice that was both immoral but also increasingly less profitable? These "pet projects" were projects that accelerated the industrialization of America, including the expansion of the railroads. Are you suggesting that we would have made anything close to the kind of economic progress we built over time without a unified north and south? Are you suggesting that kicking the can down the road like other administrations did was even an option at this point?

He didn't do anything to try and curb slavery prior to the civil war. In fact, he spoke to the exact opposite. The industrial revolution happened without central planning from the federal government, and it would have continued without it . I believe that a unified north and south did lead to greater economic progress, but I believe that, with time, that would've happened regardless. Lincoln's goal wasn't to create a unified north and south and end slavery. They were unintended benefits of his terrible decisions. They were also things that would've happened regardless. However, the consequence of removing the restraint of voluntary membership of the United States has led to massive expansion of the federal government that otherwise would not have occurred. In turn this has led decreasing freedom.

Regardless of the interests or the reasons why, it goes like this. The Civil War led to a unified north and south, accelerated the end of slavery and the industrialization and expansion of America, and allowed us to reconstruct into a superpower. In exchange, a devastating amount of lives and property were lost. The alternative was to allow tensions to escalate for years, completely restrict expansion, fall behind in the world because we continued to cater to agrarian interests in an increasingly industrializing society, potentially exist in a US that divided north/south... all this happening maybe for 20 years or more. And throughout that time, not leaving out the idea that the North and the Confederacy would have eventually fought a "civil war" anyway, even if Lincoln chose to punt.

If Lincoln would've sought to unify the north and south, rather than pit them against each other, then you could give him credit for it. Lincoln's goal was power, and he knew that he could win and keep the presidency by keeping the North happy, at the expense of the south. He pushed the south over the tipping point, and damn near lost the whole union as a result.

I get that Lincoln is deified in ways he shouldn't be. But in my view, the war was inevitable and Lincoln, regardless of intentions, made the strategic choices that led to what I believe was the better outcome. Therefore, he absolutely belongs in the list of top presidents.

The problem is that they weren't strategic choices. If you spend your rent money on lottery tickets, that is a bad decision regardless of the outcome. Using your logic, if someone spends all of their rent money on lottery tickets, and wins, they are a genius.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

He didn't do anything to try and curb slavery prior to the civil war. In fact, he spoke to the exact opposite. The industrial revolution happened without central planning from the federal government, and it would have continued without it . I believe that a unified north and south did lead to greater economic progress, but I believe that, with time, that would've happened regardless. Lincoln's goal wasn't to create a unified north and south and end slavery. They were unintended benefits of his terrible decisions. They were also things that would've happened regardless. However, the consequence of removing the restraint of voluntary membership of the United States has led to massive expansion of the federal government that otherwise would not have occurred. In turn this has led decreasing freedom.

The industrial revolution did not happen without central planning. One of the major outcomes of the Civil War was that we built a transcontinental railroad which opened up an unbelievable amount of doors for expansion and interstate trade. I get that one of Lincoln's interests was to build that railroad (maybe crooked interests), but the outcome was right, that infrastructure needed to build to allow for better trade.

And again, the idea that the industrial revolution would have moved us to the post-civil war state is naive. It likely would have taken a very, very long time. You have southern agrarians who are stuck in their ways and will fight every last battle to protect their interests. There was no indication that slave-led plantations were becoming unprofitable, therefore, no indication that there was any likelihood that slave trade was going away anytime soon. Who knows how long it would have taken. But it would have cut into interstate trade and our ability to keep up with the industrial revolution.

If Lincoln would've sought to unify the north and south, rather than pit them against each other, then you could give him credit for it. Lincoln's goal was power, and he knew that he could win and keep the presidency by keeping the North happy, at the expense of the south. He pushed the south over the tipping point, and damn near lost the whole union as a result.

This is what the previous presidents had been doing for years. They were essentially punting to the next President. There is no assurance that the two sides wouldn't have fought a civil war eventually. And who knows how costly those concessions could have become. They undoubtedly would have SIGNIFICANTLY stalled progress to becoming the superpower we are now.

The problem is that they weren't strategic choices. If you spend your rent money on lottery tickets, that is a bad decision regardless of the outcome. Using your logic, if someone spends all of their rent money on lottery tickets, and wins, they are a genius.

It was a strategic choice to make firm decisions, whereas the previous administrations tried to negotiate to appease both sides. Which led to continued conflict and tensions. And Lincoln's commitment to the railroad was the right one even if maybe for crooked interests and even if there were some abuses in how the railroad industry handled the power they got.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by frazod

You I don't get my American history from revisionist dumb**** liberals or the movies.

Revisionist dumbshit conservatives and YouTube videos only!

[King_Chief_Fan]

well, I do know the worst is still in office

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

well, I do know the worst is still in office

And got a 2nd term! Gawd, Americans are so stupid!

[frazod]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Revisionist dumbshit conservatives and YouTube videos only!

Actually, they're called books, comrade. Maybe if you tweet enough of your friends somebody will be able to explain what those are.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by La literatura

What other cool, irrelevant facts can you spew out for us? Who knows -- at some point, it might add up to an argument that isn't embarrassing.

Like the temper tantrum you're throwing? Damn, who knew it would be this easy to move into your pointy little head. Neg reps and everything!

[frazod]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Without Lincoln we would have no country. We would be a tier III state of England.

You defintley have demented logic.

The one thing I will say is that had the war not ended like it did, we'd all be speaking German right now. Nothing but a unified America could have survived the 20th century.