The Worst President in US History

[themadkat]

The idea that Obama could reach the greatness of Lincoln is absurd. I'm so sick of the anti-Lincoln rhetoric amongst people.

And I don't see what's so damned special about him. The honest truth is, the more I learn about the Civil War, the more I conclude that both sides were wrong.

[TheEgoist]

Explain how the Union was wrong, please. Don't explain their mistakes. There is a difference.

[softwareNerd]

Re: Lincoln, If anyone is interested, this is audio of a good lecture, by Allen Guelzo, about the Lincoln-Douglas debates. [HT: Freespace]

(Post duplicated.)

[fountainhead777]

I love how all the famous presidents and the ones that I learned were good in high school are the ones most disliked here. I can see why though. Go public education...

[Peripeteia]

Before Lincoln, we were known as these United States. It is only after him that we truly became the United States.

Because of his actions, the Republic endured, and slavery perished. That is the legacy of Abraham Lincoln.

[jws1776]

Lincoln -

He raised an army to invade his own people

Ignored the Constitution: state's rights, the right for state's to leave the union

Responsible through his lap dogs Grant and Sherman for war atrocities

Allowed immigrants that came to northern states to join the army and kill Southern men, rape Southern women and destroy Southern cities. Non-American's trained and armed to kill Americans in the South, many who were descendants of former US soldiers that fought in the Revolutionary War, and War of 1812.

Subjegated a once free people that comprised the Southern states.

- -

In looking back, it is interesting that his death at the hands of John Wilkes Booth was just par for the course. Lincoln chose to live by the sword and so it made sense that he also died by it. Seriously - over four years after the War of Southern Independence began, did Lincoln think after causing the deaths of so many people that he would be immune from meeting the same fate that so many soldiers met on the fields of Fredricksburg, Manassas, Antitiem, and Gettysburg. He contradicted himself in speeches prior to being elected regarding slavery and other issues. He was a coward and a fraud and DiLorenzo does a great job at exposing Lincoln for what he is in both of his books.

Slavery has throughout the history of mankind died of natural causes in western civilizations and would have evenutually done the same in the Southern states as it did already in the north. Lincoln used it as an excuse for his unjust war. Slavery still exists in at least four countries in the world today - in parts of the world where it originated.

[TheEgoist]

Lincoln -

He raised an army to invade his own people

Ignored the Constitution: state's rights, the right for state's to leave the union

Responsible through his lap dogs Grant and Sherman for war atrocities

Allowed immigrants that came to northern states to join the army and kill Southern men, rape Southern women and destroy Southern cities. Non-American's trained and armed to kill Americans in the South, many who were descendants of former US soldiers that fought in the Revolutionary War, and War of 1812.

Subjegated a once free people that comprised the Southern states.

- -

In looking back, it is interesting that his death at the hands of John Wilkes Booth was just par for the course. Lincoln chose to live by the sword and so it made sense that he also died by it. Seriously - over four years after the War of Southern Independence began, did Lincoln think after causing the deaths of so many people that he would be immune from meeting the same fate that so many soldiers met on the fields of Fredricksburg, Manassas, Antitiem, and Gettysburg. He contradicted himself in speeches prior to being elected regarding slavery and other issues. He was a coward and a fraud and DiLorenzo does a great job at exposing Lincoln for what he is in both of his books.

Slavery has throughout the history of mankind died of natural causes in western civilizations and would have evenutually done the same in the Southern states as it did already in the north. Lincoln used it as an excuse for his unjust war. Slavery still exists in at least four countries in the world today - in parts of the world where it originated.

This is completely ludicrous.

1. There is no right to state-by-state secession.

2. What is wrong with allowing immigrants fighting in the war?

3. What was wrong with Sherman and Grant's vicious tactics? War is Hell

4. The South was a fucking slave pen. It wasn't free in the least.

[gags]

Lincoln -

He raised an army to invade his own people

Ignored the Constitution: state's rights, the right for state's to leave the union

Responsible through his lap dogs Grant and Sherman for war atrocities

Allowed immigrants that came to northern states to join the army and kill Southern men, rape Southern women and destroy Southern cities. Non-American's trained and armed to kill Americans in the South, many who were descendants of former US soldiers that fought in the Revolutionary War, and War of 1812.

Subjegated a once free people that comprised the Southern states.

- -

In looking back, it is interesting that his death at the hands of John Wilkes Booth was just par for the course. Lincoln chose to live by the sword and so it made sense that he also died by it. Seriously - over four years after the War of Southern Independence began, did Lincoln think after causing the deaths of so many people that he would be immune from meeting the same fate that so many soldiers met on the fields of Fredricksburg, Manassas, Antitiem, and Gettysburg. He contradicted himself in speeches prior to being elected regarding slavery and other issues. He was a coward and a fraud and DiLorenzo does a great job at exposing Lincoln for what he is in both of his books.

Slavery has throughout the history of mankind died of natural causes in western civilizations and would have evenutually done the same in the Southern states as it did already in the north. Lincoln used it as an excuse for his unjust war. Slavery still exists in at least four countries in the world today - in parts of the world where it originated.

I don't understand these fairly common (lately) claims that Lincoln was a horrible president. It seems like a Libertarian/Anarchist, out of context view of history. What was Lincoln's motivation for his "unjust" war?

[gags]

He was a coward and a fraud and DiLorenzo does a great job at exposing Lincoln for what he is in both of his books.

By the way, since you brought up DiLorenzo, he certainly isn't the last word on Lincoln.

http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubi.../pub_detail.asp

[Maximus]

3. What was wrong with Sherman and Grant's vicious tactics? War is Hell

The North was in no danger from the Southern succession. The Southern states had no intention of wresting the seat of power from D.C., and Lee only moved Northward as a self defense measure to Lincoln's invasion. The atrocities perpetrated on the civilians in the South were unnecessary to victory, as the Federals had more resources, it only shortened the war.

4. The South was a fucking slave pen. It wasn't free in the least.

The vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves. The vaunted Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves held in Federal territory.

This also was not a "Civil War" in the sense that the Confederacy was not seeking to take over and control the United States, but to form their own government. To say that the Southern states did not have that right flies in the face of our founding document. To Wit:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Maximus

[softwareNerd]

And I don't see what's so damned special about him. The honest truth is, the more I learn about the Civil War, the more I conclude that both sides were wrong.

It seems that the last few decades has seen an increase in the bashing of previously respected historical figures. I think too many past historians lionized folk like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and so on. Famous people have always had their detractors, but the lionizers were the mainstream, and they were the ones making their way into typical textbooks. Of course, all those great historical figures are not so simple; they each had good and bad aspects. Good historians should weigh it all, and also make some summary judgments.

Today's writers are happy to expose the weaknesses of historical figures. However, while doing so, it is insufficient to stop at a point where one says of some such historical figure: he was a mix of good and bad. That's too easy; it would be true of almost anyone one can name, and any historian who stops there is abrogating his responsibility. As a historian, studying men, it the historian's responsibilty to weigh the good and the bad and make a judgement of the overall person. Yes, one can still have some people who come out pretty balanced, but I'd wager that most famous figures would not.

We don't have to go back to the old-fashioned lionizing, but we do have to weigh. Otherwise, we're analogous to the libertarians who say that just because the U.S. is imperfect, it follows that it is morally equivalent to (say) Iran. When it comes to history textbooks, there's a real problem. In the limited space available, if one includes too much about the foibles of a historical character, one might give the impression that they're more important than they really are. Perhaps all history books should come with a chapter explaining that all historical figures are mixes, that all historical times were mixtures, and that just because a historian judges a certain time (or person) to have been great, does not imply it (or they) were flawless. Then, with that chapter acting as a caveat, the main part of the text can focus on the summarized judgments.

The other problem with historical commentary is the procedure of judging people by contemporary knowledge and standards, rather than by their own context.

[Jake_Ellison]

The vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves. The vaunted Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves held in Federal territory.

The vast majority of Southerners accepted and encouraged a society in which it was acceptable to own slaves. Just as Afghanis enabled al Qaeda and the Taliban to take over their country and attack us. A society should be judged on their laws and government, not on what "comodity" the majority can afford to purchase and own.

To say that the Southern states did not have that right flies in the face of our founding document. To Wit:

It is preposterous to look at a society which considers it perfectly in order for men to enslave each other, and then assign them rights in the name of a document created specifically to protect freedom and rights. It is a monumental travesti of everything Objectivism stands for, and every principle the FF's stood for. Rights are for those who respect others' rights.

The Southern states had no rights whatsoever. They were a society who's foundation was one of the most irrational, anti-human and anti American ideas in human history: that based on pigments in their skin some men have no rights whatsoever, and are here solely to be used and bred by other men.

[Grames]

The North was in no danger from the Southern succession.

The existence of a hostile power adjacent to the capitol would be a constant danger for the duration of the rebellion.

The Southern states had no intention of wresting the seat of power from D.C., and Lee only moved Northward as a self defense measure to Lincoln's invasion.

An acknowledgement of their own position of weakness, not nobility. The same motive constrains Iranians from invading the U.S. today, not forbearance.

The atrocities perpetrated on the civilians in the South were unnecessary to victory, as the Federals had more resources, it only shortened the war.

Shortening the war is all the justification ever needed.

The vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves. The vaunted Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves held in Federal territory.

Again, this is only because they couldn't all afford slaves not because of the purity of their little shriveled racist hearts.

This also was not a "Civil War" in the sense that the Confederacy was not seeking to take over and control the United States, but to form their own government. To say that the Southern states did not have that right flies in the face of our founding document. To Wit:

That founding document was about RIGHTS, goddammit. There was absolutely no fucking way the southern rebellion was in defense of any legitimate right. There is no right to own slaves, or right to organize an economy around slaves, or a right to honor a tradition of slaveholding, and therefore to assert a right to secede in defense of any of the foregoing is every bit as lawless and despicable!

[TheEgoist]

The North was in no danger from the Southern succession. The Southern states had no intention of wresting the seat of power from D.C., and Lee only moved Northward as a self defense measure to Lincoln's invasion. The atrocities perpetrated on the civilians in the South were unnecessary to victory, as the Federals had more resources, it only shortened the war.

They seized federal property. Threat enough. THey WERE a threat, and a slave society at that.

The atrocities perpetrated? Funny how some of the most pro-war, unconditional surrender types I know go ahead and bitch about the Civil War as something unjust. Hiroshima and Nagasaki = Fine. Sheman's Campaign = Atrocious.

The vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves. The vaunted Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves held in Federal territory.

Jake already tackled this quickly.

This also was not a "Civil War" in the sense that the Confederacy was not seeking to take over and control the United States, but to form their own government. To say that the Southern states did not have that right flies in the face of our founding document. To Wit:

There is no guarantee for that new government to continue existing, especially if it was founded on the defense of immoral principles.

[Marc K.]

This also was not a "Civil War" in the sense that the Confederacy was not seeking to take over and control the United States, but to form their own government. To say that the Southern states did not have that right flies in the face of our founding document.

This is one of the most incredibly illogical statements I've ever heard. You are going to use the Declaration of Independence as evidence in support of how a state may legitimately subjugate its people? Rights apply more to the state than to the people? The Declaration, as a founding document, would be equally at home (intellectually speaking) in support of the North or the South? Or for that matter, in support of America or Iran? Do you think we should change the name of the document from the "Declaration of Independence" to the "Declaration of Universal Enslavement to the State"?

Here, with the appropriate emphasis, is what the Declaration actually says:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, ... -- Declaration of Independence

You need to stop reading Noam Chompsky and start reading..., I don't know, how about Ayn Rand.

[TheEgoist]

This thought process is mostly fueled by people saying that the Southern secession was really about States Rights, not slavery. Of course their biggest gripe over states rights was the continued possession of slaves.

[Eiuol]

This thought process is mostly fueled by people saying that the Southern secession was really about States Rights, not slavery. Of course their biggest gripe over states rights was the continued possession of slaves.

What else would it be about? It's not like the North freed the slaves when they declared war. Slavery wasn't even abolished until near the end of the war (I don't remember the year it was abolished). The South was certainly immoral for allowing slavery, but it's not like the North's stated goal was to "free the slaves". In my opinion, if I lived in the North, I'd be glad the South wanted to secede and I'd let them. Would it be my obligation to "rescue the slaves" from the South?

I'm sort of going off on a tangent here. My point is that given everything I learned about the Civil War, it was never primarily about slavery. Abolishing slavery was a result of the war, not a cause. It matters a whole lot whether or not a war is started for the right reasons, even if the results were pretty positive. The ends don't justify the means.

Anyway, my vote for worst president is Woodrow Wilson. He helped start the Fed. Enough said.

[softwareNerd]

... the Civil War, it was never primarily about slavery. Abolishing slavery was a result of the war, not a cause.

I don't think anyone claims that abolishing slavery was Lincoln's purpose. Nevertheless, the war clearly was "about slavery". While not the only issue, slavery was the key dispute that appeared irreconcilable, every since the forming of the U.S.

BTW: There are other threads that focus specifically on Lincoln, and that have well-argued posts. Worth searching for, if anyone is interested.

Edited June 7, 2009 by softwareNerd

[TheEgoist]

Eioul, the reason slavery still existed in the 1850s was directly because of Southern Democrats blocking any progress in the matter. The South was THE reason for slavery's perpetual existence. The reason they seceded was because Lincoln WAS very anti-slavery, being as close to an abolitionist as a mainstream politician could be.

And anyway, states rights are not a valid argument for enslavement or genocide or anything else. Wrong is wrong, whether it be on the federal or state level.

[agrippa1]

Jake already tackled this quickly.

Quickly, but not completely. What about not freeing northern slaves?

If slavery was not illegal at the start of the war, and if Lincoln, when issuing the declaration, specifically excluded non-southern slaves, how can you claim that the declaration of war against the seceding south is about anything other than secession rights?

The argument that the South was immoral because it employed slavery fails to distinguish the South from the North. Since the North also employed slavery, their declaration of war based on that rationale seems about as valid as it would for invading a sovereign state for the same reason, that is, none. The argument that a neighboring sovereign state may be "hostile" does not justify invasion, and it shouldn't have justified invasion of seceding states.

Is anyone here going to seriously contend that if the South had freed slaves simultaneously to its secession, that the North would have acted differently?

Or are we going to claim that a "wild hypothetical" and therefore not worthy of answer?

On edit:

Back to the subject, though, I nominate Barack Hussein Obama as worst president.

Edited June 7, 2009 by agrippa1

[Marc K.]

What about not freeing northern slaves?

America is a Constitutional Republic and there was a proper and peaceful way to address the severe injustice that was occurring in the country: constitutionally.

Abraham Lincoln was an abolitionist who was elected to office and the South saw that as a threat to their way of life, so instead of dealing with the issue constitutionally they decided to abrogate the constitution and start a war with their countrymen. And they did it all to preserve slavery.

Lincoln was perfectly justified in acting to preserve the nation and, as an act of war, freeing the southern slaves. Freeing all slaves would have to wait until December 1865 and the ratification of the 13th Amendment.

Is anyone here going to seriously contend that if the South had freed slaves simultaneously to its secession, that the North would have acted differently?

Or are we going to claim that a "wild hypothetical" and therefore not worthy of answer?

It is a self defeating hypothetical; of course the North would have acted differently, because the South would have been acting differently. It is the South who started the Civil War because they wanted to preserve slavery. If the South had decided that slavery was immoral and a fundamental contradiction to every idea the country was founded upon and had freed their slaves, then Lincoln wouldn't have posed a threat to their way of life. And they would have had no reason to secede.

[softwareNerd]

Is anyone here going to seriously contend that if the South had freed slaves simultaneously to its secession, that the North would have acted differently?

If slavery had not been the issue it was, festering for decades, causing so much moral soul-searching among so many, the South would never have seceded. This is what makes slavery the driving issue that caused the civil war. No slavery, no war.

This does not in any way imply that the war was fought as a means for the North to abolish slavery, in the short-run sense of freeing slaves immediately. I think all pro-Lincoln folk would agree that Lincoln did not think: "I'll start a war to free the slaves". Yet, slavery was the crucial issue around which tension swirled. That is the sense in which the civil war was primarily about slavery.

[Maximus]

Eioul, the reason slavery still existed in the 1850s was directly because of Southern Democrats blocking any progress in the matter. The South was THE reason for slavery's perpetual existence. The reason they seceded was because Lincoln WAS very anti-slavery, being as close to an abolitionist as a mainstream politician could be.

Lincoln did not consider Blacks to be equal to Whites, and stated that the two races could not peacefully co-exist on this continent, so let's not white-wash his views.

The economy in the Southern states was almost completely agricultural. To have immediately abolished slavery would have bankrupted the economy, which the war succeeded in doing anyway. The South lagged behind the North in economic development until well into the twentieth century. The solution to the problem of slavery was technology, machinery, to replace the need for intensive human labor involved in pre-industrial farm work. The slavery issue would have been resolved with out the horrific bloodshed of the war within a couple of decades. This is why, and how, the slave trade came to be done away with in England - the industrial revolution, in combination with Christian abolitionist groups.. Remember also, that it was not white Southern plantation owners who sailed to Africa and hunted down, captured and shipped their human cargo back to the US, it was slave traders from England, Portugal and other countries who brought them here, after having purchased them from Muslim slavers (who did capture them or purchase them from African tribes who sold their defeated tribal warfare opponents into slavery). It was Northerners involved in the slave trade who, for the most part, bought them and resold them in the South. There is more to the history of the time than is normally covered in the modern educational system. It was a very complicated issue, which could have been avoided if the Founders had not compromised their principles in the beginning.

And anyway, states rights are not a valid argument for enslavement or genocide or anything else. Wrong is wrong, whether it be on the federal or state level.

Of course it is not justification for enslavement or genocide, and no one is arguing that it is. State's rights is a separate issue, and one that is alive to this day.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Maximus

[TheEgoist]

Lincoln did not consider Blacks to be equal to Whites, and stated that the two races could not peacefully co-exist on this continent, so let's not white-wash his views.

False. Lincoln suggested a separate colony for blacks because of southern violence that would ensue after their emancipation. It wasn't that he thought two races would not be able to live peacefully, but that he wanted to protect black people from the anger of racist Americans. Of course this plan was rather absurd, and Lincoln eventually dropped it.

The economy in the Southern states was almost completely agricultural. To have immediately abolished slavery would have bankrupted the economy, which the war succeeded in doing anyway.

Honestly man, fuck you for this. You know who wasn't considering the plight of the poor Southern farmer? The slaves who supported the farmers lives with their work and constant labor. I couldn't give a damn if every southern farmer ended up dying of starvation because they lost their slaves.

This is classic altruism/utilitarianism that was used in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia that led to the mass slaughter of innocent human beings. This is not hyperbole, what you just said is stole cold evil.

[Maximus]

Honestly man, fuck you for this.

Ad Hominem. Please refrain from your emotionalism. You will get no further response from me until you can conduct yourself as an adult.