In another thread, people are discussing their 'ten worst' US Presidents. I'd like to be more positive and ask for your top ten, with the following conditions:

• No President who has not been out of office for at least 12 years. That used to be the standard for professional historians, who understood that time can change the perception of a President for better or worse
• Please note your criteria for what makes a President great

Thanks in advance

Corrected from 123 years to 12

James K. Polk

Under his leadership and through the Mexican American war gained for the United States more than 500,000 square miles. That is like adding 4 whole Germany size land areas to the US.

And he would have gotten Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Len, Sinaloa, Sonora and Tamaulipas if he had not been undermined in the negotiations.

Historian John C. Pinheiro, analyzing Polk's impact and legacy, wrote that:

Quote:

---

Polk accomplished nearly everything that he said he wanted to accomplish as President and everything he had promised in his party's platform: acquisition of the Oregon Territory, California, and the Territory of New Mexico; the positive settlement of the Texas border dispute; lower tariff rates; the establishment of a new federal depository system; and the strengthening of the executive office. He masterfully kept open lines of communication with Congress, established the Department of the Interior, built up an administrative press, and conducted himself as a representative of the whole people. Polk came into the presidency with a focused political agenda and a clear set of convictions. He left office the most successful President since George Washington in the accomplishment of his goals

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

In another thread, people are discussing their 'ten worst' US Presidents. I'd like to be more positive and ask for your top ten, with the following conditions:

• No President who has not been out of office for at least 123 years. That used to be the standard for professional historians, who understood that time can change the perception of a President for better or worse
• Please note your criteria for what makes a President great

Thanks in advance

---

1860 to current. I don't think any best or worst President list cannot include Lincoln, so I used him as the starting point.

1 - Lincoln - Was the best President policy-wise and without him there is no America as we know it

2 - Teddy Roosevelt - My favorite, a mix of strong defense, regulation, environmentalism and capitalism in a palatable mix.

3- Eisenhower - I liked his view on leaning toward the people socially, but fiscally conservative. I agree with his Foreign Policy. He was universally popular and knew how to work with the Dems.

4 - Reagan - Brought back American standards and pride.

5 - FDR - I do not agree with everything he believed in, but he led America through the Depression and WW2. He left the US much stronger and balanced than when he entered office. I don't see how FDR can't be on this list.

Redbrickbear said:

---

James K. Polk

Under his leadership and through the Mexican American war gained for the United States more than 500,000 square miles. That is like adding 4 whole Germany size land areas to the US.

And he would have gotten Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Len, Sinaloa, Sonora and Tamaulipas if he had not been undermined in the negotiations.

Historian John C. Pinheiro, analyzing Polk's impact and legacy, wrote that:

Quote:

---

Polk accomplished nearly everything that he said he wanted to accomplish as President and everything he had promised in his party's platform: acquisition of the Oregon Territory, California, and the Territory of New Mexico; the positive settlement of the Texas border dispute; lower tariff rates; the establishment of a new federal depository system; and the strengthening of the executive office. He masterfully kept open lines of communication with Congress, established the Department of the Interior, built up an administrative press, and conducted himself as a representative of the whole people. Polk came into the presidency with a focused political agenda and a clear set of convictions. He left office the most successful President since George Washington in the accomplishment of his goals

---

---

Really didn't know that much about him. Thanks, learned something today.

Chester A. Arthur

Rose up through the party machine and patronage/spoils system. Was nominated for VP to protect the party bosses against James Garfield's reform positions. When Garfield was assassinated, Arthur took up and let the charge to enact civil service reform and loosen the power and control of the party bosses. Also passed the first immigration laws to prohibit the entry of "paupers, criminals and lunatics", as well as the Chinese Exclusion Act. Made lots of political enemies in the process. Unbeknownst to most, had been diagnosed with a fatal kidney ailment early in his term. Made a half-hearted effort at re-election so as to not appear to admit failure. Died less than 2 years after leaving office. Only then did everyone realize the good he had done.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/chester-a-arthur/

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

In another thread, people are discussing their 'ten worst' US Presidents. I'd like to be more positive and ask for your top ten, with the following conditions:

• No President who has not been out of office for at least 123 years. That used to be the standard for professional historians, who understood that time can change the perception of a President for better or worse
• Please note your criteria for what makes a President great

Thanks in advance

---

1860 to current. I don't think any best or worst President list cannot include Lincoln, so I used him as the starting point.

1 - Lincoln - Was the best President policy-wise and without him there is no America as we know it

2 - Teddy Roosevelt - My favorite, a mix of strong defense, regulation, environmentalism and capitalism in a palatable mix.

3- Eisenhower - I liked his view on leaning toward the people socially, but fiscally conservative. I agree with his Foreign Policy. He was universally popular and knew how to work with the Dems.

4 - Reagan - Brought back American standards and pride.

5 - FDR - I do not agree with everything he believed in, but he led America through the Depression and WW2. He left the US much stronger and balanced than when he entered office. I don't see how FDR can't be on this list.

---

Laughably untrue.

He is probably our worst. No other USA president shredded the Constitution or killed so many Americans (600,000)

Hitler and Hideki Tojo did not kill as many (400,000 death in WWII)

All with the worst Constitutional justification.


[ Abraham Lincoln's Presidential record was notable for his despotic use of power and his blatant disregard for the Constitution. Lincoln ordered thousands of arrests, kept political enemies in prison without bringing charges against them, refused these hapless men their right to trial by a jury of their peers, and ignored orders from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to release them. In his first few months in office he made the most direct violations of the Constitution in the Nation's history. He increased the size of the Regular Army without Congressional approval, spent money without Congressional authorization, suspended the writ of habeas corpus without authority and generally acted as if he had never heard of the other two branches of the government.] ~ Michael Hutcheson

"Mr. Lincoln is quite a genuine Representative of American prejudiced and negro hatred and far more concerned for the preservation of slavery…showing all his inconsistencies, his pride of race and blood, his contempt for Negros and his constant hypocrisy… Mr. Lincoln takes care in urging his colonization scheme to furnish a weapon to all the ignorant and base." -Frederick Douglas, Taken from The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglas.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

In another thread, people are discussing their 'ten worst' US Presidents. I'd like to be more positive and ask for your top ten, with the following conditions:

• No President who has not been out of office for at least 123 years. That used to be the standard for professional historians, who understood that time can change the perception of a President for better or worse
• Please note your criteria for what makes a President great

Thanks in advance

---

1860 to current. I don't think any best or worst President list cannot include Lincoln, so I used him as the starting point.

1 - Lincoln - Was the best President policy-wise and without him there is no America as we know it

2 - Teddy Roosevelt - My favorite, a mix of strong defense, regulation, environmentalism and capitalism in a palatable mix.

3- Eisenhower - I liked his view on leaning toward the people socially, but fiscally conservative. I agree with his Foreign Policy. He was universally popular and knew how to work with the Dems.

4 - Reagan - Brought back American standards and pride.

5 - FDR - I do not agree with everything he believed in, but he led America through the Depression and WW2. He left the US much stronger and balanced than when he entered office. I don't see how FDR can't be on this list.

---

Laughably untrue.

He is probably our worst. No other USA president shredded the Constitution or killed so many Americans (600,000)

Hitler and Hideki Tojo did not kill as many (400,000 death in WWII)

All with the worst Constitutional justification.


[ Abraham Lincoln's Presidential record was notable for his despotic use of power and his blatant disregard for the Constitution. Lincoln ordered thousands of arrests, kept political enemies in prison without bringing charges against them, refused these hapless men their right to trial by a jury of their peers, and ignored orders from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to release them. In his first few months in office he made the most direct violations of the Constitution in the Nation's history. He increased the size of the Regular Army without Congressional approval, spent money without Congressional authorization, suspended the writ of habeas corpus without authority and generally acted as if he had never heard of the other two branches of the government.] ~ Michael Hutcheson

"Mr. Lincoln is quite a genuine Representative of American prejudiced and negro hatred and far more concerned for the preservation of slavery…showing all his inconsistencies, his pride of race and blood, his contempt for Negros and his constant hypocrisy… Mr. Lincoln takes care in urging his colonization scheme to furnish a weapon to all the ignorant and base." -Frederick Douglas, Taken from The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglas.

---

I figured would hear from you on that.

By the way, can you find one legitimate ranking that has Lincoln as you describe.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

In another thread, people are discussing their 'ten worst' US Presidents. I'd like to be more positive and ask for your top ten, with the following conditions:

• No President who has not been out of office for at least 123 years. That used to be the standard for professional historians, who understood that time can change the perception of a President for better or worse
• Please note your criteria for what makes a President great

Thanks in advance

---

1860 to current. I don't think any best or worst President list cannot include Lincoln, so I used him as the starting point.

1 - Lincoln - Was the best President policy-wise and without him there is no America as we know it

2 - Teddy Roosevelt - My favorite, a mix of strong defense, regulation, environmentalism and capitalism in a palatable mix.

3- Eisenhower - I liked his view on leaning toward the people socially, but fiscally conservative. I agree with his Foreign Policy. He was universally popular and knew how to work with the Dems.

4 - Reagan - Brought back American standards and pride.

5 - FDR - I do not agree with everything he believed in, but he led America through the Depression and WW2. He left the US much stronger and balanced than when he entered office. I don't see how FDR can't be on this list.

---

Laughably untrue.

He is probably our worst. No other USA president shredded the Constitution or killed so many Americans (600,000)

Hitler and Hideki Tojo did not kill as many (400,000 death in WWII)

All with the worst Constitutional justification.


[ Abraham Lincoln's Presidential record was notable for his despotic use of power and his blatant disregard for the Constitution. Lincoln ordered thousands of arrests, kept political enemies in prison without bringing charges against them, refused these hapless men their right to trial by a jury of their peers, and ignored orders from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to release them. In his first few months in office he made the most direct violations of the Constitution in the Nation's history. He increased the size of the Regular Army without Congressional approval, spent money without Congressional authorization, suspended the writ of habeas corpus without authority and generally acted as if he had never heard of the other two branches of the government.] ~ Michael Hutcheson

"Mr. Lincoln is quite a genuine Representative of American prejudiced and negro hatred and far more concerned for the preservation of slavery…showing all his inconsistencies, his pride of race and blood, his contempt for Negros and his constant hypocrisy… Mr. Lincoln takes care in urging his colonization scheme to furnish a weapon to all the ignorant and base." -Frederick Douglas, Taken from The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglas.

---

I figured would hear from you on that.

---

It's necessary to fight Lincoln worship and propaganda whenever you see it.

Average Americans don't even know about Polk....yet they think Lincoln fought a war to free slaves.

Its wild.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

In another thread, people are discussing their 'ten worst' US Presidents. I'd like to be more positive and ask for your top ten, with the following conditions:

• No President who has not been out of office for at least 123 years. That used to be the standard for professional historians, who understood that time can change the perception of a President for better or worse
• Please note your criteria for what makes a President great

Thanks in advance

---

1860 to current. I don't think any best or worst President list cannot include Lincoln, so I used him as the starting point.

1 - Lincoln - Was the best President policy-wise and without him there is no America as we know it

2 - Teddy Roosevelt - My favorite, a mix of strong defense, regulation, environmentalism and capitalism in a palatable mix.

3- Eisenhower - I liked his view on leaning toward the people socially, but fiscally conservative. I agree with his Foreign Policy. He was universally popular and knew how to work with the Dems.

4 - Reagan - Brought back American standards and pride.

5 - FDR - I do not agree with everything he believed in, but he led America through the Depression and WW2. He left the US much stronger and balanced than when he entered office. I don't see how FDR can't be on this list.

---

Laughably untrue.

He is probably our worst. No other USA president shredded the Constitution or killed so many Americans (600,000)

Hitler and Hideki Tojo did not kill as many (400,000 death in WWII)

All with the worst Constitutional justification.


[ Abraham Lincoln's Presidential record was notable for his despotic use of power and his blatant disregard for the Constitution. Lincoln ordered thousands of arrests, kept political enemies in prison without bringing charges against them, refused these hapless men their right to trial by a jury of their peers, and ignored orders from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to release them. In his first few months in office he made the most direct violations of the Constitution in the Nation's history. He increased the size of the Regular Army without Congressional approval, spent money without Congressional authorization, suspended the writ of habeas corpus without authority and generally acted as if he had never heard of the other two branches of the government.] ~ Michael Hutcheson

"Mr. Lincoln is quite a genuine Representative of American prejudiced and negro hatred and far more concerned for the preservation of slavery…showing all his inconsistencies, his pride of race and blood, his contempt for Negros and his constant hypocrisy… Mr. Lincoln takes care in urging his colonization scheme to furnish a weapon to all the ignorant and base." -Frederick Douglas, Taken from The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglas.

---

I figured would hear from you on that.

---

It's necessary to fight Lincoln worship and propaganda whenever you see it.

Average Americans don't even know about Polk....yet they think Lincoln fought a war to free slaves.

Its wild.

---

Most Americans don't know that Wilson entertained KKK leaders as honored guests at the White House.

They also don't know that Watergate, bad as it was, was provoked at least in part by Nixon's discovery that the Kennedy campaign spied on his office in 1960.

Most Americans also don't know that Grover Cleveland was once Sheriff of Erie County, and was also accused of rape (Maria Halpin).

Oldbear83 said:

---

In another thread, people are discussing their 'ten worst' US Presidents. I'd like to be more positive and ask for your top ten, with the following conditions:

• No President who has not been out of office for at least 123 years. That used to be the standard for professional historians, who understood that time can change the perception of a President for better or worse
• Please note your criteria for what makes a President great

Thanks in advance

---

If I am reading the criteria correctly, there are only 24 to choose from for the top 10 list:

George Washington
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
William H. Harrison
John Tyler
James K. Polk
Zachary Taylor
Millard Fillmore
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses S. Grant
Rutherford B. Hayes
James A. Garfield
Chester A. Arthur
Grover Cleveland
Benjamin Harrison
Grover Cleveland
-----

Out of this 24 there are a handful of duds that did not serve long and one repeat (Cleveland):
William H. Harrison
Zachary Taylor
James Garfield

As such, we are picking 10 from a list of 20 presidents.

In my opinion, the list starts and stops with George Washington. This nation would not exist in any form without him. All the others are playing for second.

I think Washington takes top billing for me, followed by Teddy Roosevelt. Establishing the National Park System and protecting our public spaces from the avaricious and gluttonous hands of the private sector so that all may enjoy is right up my alley. As much as I'd love to visit General Electric's Grand Canyon or McDonald's Arches Park (Utah), some things are meant to be left undisturbed.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

In another thread, people are discussing their 'ten worst' US Presidents. I'd like to be more positive and ask for your top ten, with the following conditions:

• No President who has not been out of office for at least 123 years. That used to be the standard for professional historians, who understood that time can change the perception of a President for better or worse
• Please note your criteria for what makes a President great

Thanks in advance

---

1860 to current. I don't think any best or worst President list cannot include Lincoln, so I used him as the starting point.

1 - Lincoln - Was the best President policy-wise and without him there is no America as we know it

2 - Teddy Roosevelt - My favorite, a mix of strong defense, regulation, environmentalism and capitalism in a palatable mix.

3- Eisenhower - I liked his view on leaning toward the people socially, but fiscally conservative. I agree with his Foreign Policy. He was universally popular and knew how to work with the Dems.

4 - Reagan - Brought back American standards and pride.

5 - FDR - I do not agree with everything he believed in, but he led America through the Depression and WW2. He left the US much stronger and balanced than when he entered office. I don't see how FDR can't be on this list.

---

Laughably untrue.

He is probably our worst. No other USA president shredded the Constitution or killed so many Americans (600,000)

Hitler and Hideki Tojo did not kill as many (400,000 death in WWII)

All with the worst Constitutional justification.


[ Abraham Lincoln's Presidential record was notable for his despotic use of power and his blatant disregard for the Constitution. Lincoln ordered thousands of arrests, kept political enemies in prison without bringing charges against them, refused these hapless men their right to trial by a jury of their peers, and ignored orders from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to release them. In his first few months in office he made the most direct violations of the Constitution in the Nation's history. He increased the size of the Regular Army without Congressional approval, spent money without Congressional authorization, suspended the writ of habeas corpus without authority and generally acted as if he had never heard of the other two branches of the government.] ~ Michael Hutcheson

"Mr. Lincoln is quite a genuine Representative of American prejudiced and negro hatred and far more concerned for the preservation of slavery…showing all his inconsistencies, his pride of race and blood, his contempt for Negros and his constant hypocrisy… Mr. Lincoln takes care in urging his colonization scheme to furnish a weapon to all the ignorant and base." -Frederick Douglas, Taken from The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglas.

---

This take is just as bad, if not much worse, than blind Lincoln worship.

You're putting every soldier who died in the Civil War at Lincoln's feet alone? You need to read up on the constitutionality of Lincoln's position to wage war in the first place.

The only place where it can be argued Lincoln was in significant breach of the constitution was in the broad exercise of wartime powers on civilian arrests, but then he's also in line with every American wartime president in that regard (and every wartime government in history that I'm aware of). Otherwise Lincoln's lawfulness to pursue war against a breakaway American faction (not nation) was upheld by Article II, and in times when it wasn't at the point of action it was subsequently obtained by Congress.

The South argued that they were lawfully justified in seceding through something called "compact theory," which purports that states exist in a state of treaty with the federal government, meaning they could simply withdraw from that treaty and be within their legal right to do so.

This was of course nonsense, as Lincoln and his cabinet rightly asserted, and drawing from not just the Constitution but nationally accepted interpretations like the Federalist Papers, Lincoln's case (as ours would be today), was that once bound by the Constitution a state does not have the right to forcibly break those bonds.

And if you're clinging to "Lincoln didn't wage war to free the slaves" as a justification for how evil he was, a reasonable mind could grasp that in 5th grade American history class. Read the whole story.

Oops, meant to say 12 as in twelve, not 123.

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

In another thread, people are discussing their 'ten worst' US Presidents. I'd like to be more positive and ask for your top ten, with the following conditions:

• No President who has not been out of office for at least 123 years. That used to be the standard for professional historians, who understood that time can change the perception of a President for better or worse
• Please note your criteria for what makes a President great

Thanks in advance

---

1860 to current. I don't think any best or worst President list cannot include Lincoln, so I used him as the starting point.

1 - Lincoln - Was the best President policy-wise and without him there is no America as we know it

2 - Teddy Roosevelt - My favorite, a mix of strong defense, regulation, environmentalism and capitalism in a palatable mix.

3- Eisenhower - I liked his view on leaning toward the people socially, but fiscally conservative. I agree with his Foreign Policy. He was universally popular and knew how to work with the Dems.

4 - Reagan - Brought back American standards and pride.

5 - FDR - I do not agree with everything he believed in, but he led America through the Depression and WW2. He left the US much stronger and balanced than when he entered office. I don't see how FDR can't be on this list.

---

Laughably untrue.

He is probably our worst. No other USA president shredded the Constitution or killed so many Americans (600,000)

Hitler and Hideki Tojo did not kill as many (400,000 death in WWII)

All with the worst Constitutional justification.


[ Abraham Lincoln's Presidential record was notable for his despotic use of power and his blatant disregard for the Constitution. Lincoln ordered thousands of arrests, kept political enemies in prison without bringing charges against them, refused these hapless men their right to trial by a jury of their peers, and ignored orders from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to release them. In his first few months in office he made the most direct violations of the Constitution in the Nation's history. He increased the size of the Regular Army without Congressional approval, spent money without Congressional authorization, suspended the writ of habeas corpus without authority and generally acted as if he had never heard of the other two branches of the government.] ~ Michael Hutcheson

"Mr. Lincoln is quite a genuine Representative of American prejudiced and negro hatred and far more concerned for the preservation of slavery…showing all his inconsistencies, his pride of race and blood, his contempt for Negros and his constant hypocrisy… Mr. Lincoln takes care in urging his colonization scheme to furnish a weapon to all the ignorant and base." -Frederick Douglas, Taken from The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglas.

---

This take is just as bad, if not much worse, than blind Lincoln worship.

You're putting every soldier who died in the Civil War at Lincoln's feet alone? You need to read up on the constitutionality of Lincoln's position to wage war in the first place.

The only place where it can be argued Lincoln was in significant breach of the constitution was in the broad exercise of wartime powers on civilian arrests, but then he's also in line with every American wartime president in that regard (and every wartime government in history that I'm aware of). Otherwise Lincoln's lawfulness to pursue war against a breakaway American faction (not nation) was upheld by Article II, and in times when it wasn't at the point of action it was subsequently obtained by Congress.

The South argued that they were lawfully justified in seceding through something called "compact theory," which purports that states exist in a state of treaty with the federal government, meaning they could simply withdraw from that treaty and be within their legal right to do so.

This was of course nonsense, as Lincoln and his cabinet rightly asserted, and drawing from not just the Constitution but nationally accepted interpretations like the Federalist Papers, Lincoln's case (as ours would be today), was that once bound by the Constitution a state does not have the right to forcibly break those bonds.

And if you're clinging to "Lincoln didn't wage war to free the slaves" as a justification for how evil he was, a reasonable mind could grasp that in 5th grade American history class. Read the whole story.

---

Hey, the list is my opinion. It is neither good nor bad, it is my opinion. Just like he is entitled to his ill-conceived notions on Lincoln, I am allowed my ill-conceived ranking.

I mean opinions are one thing, and Lincoln can certainly be challenged on more than a few of his policies and decisions, but labeling him as "maybe our worst" president is a special category of stupid that sounds like it could've only come directly out of the mouth of a traitorous turncoat like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

parch said:

---

I mean opinions are one thing, and Lincoln can certainly be challenged on more than a few of his policies and decisions, but labeling him as "maybe our worst" president is a special category of stupid that sounds like it could've only come directly out of the mouth of a traitorous turncoat like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

---

Hard to think of another President who sparked off a massive civil war/war of secession that killed 600,000+ Americans.

Do we have another President who has as much American blood on his hands?

parch said:

---

I mean opinions are one thing, and Lincoln can certainly be challenged on more than a few of his policies and decisions, but labeling him as "maybe our worst" president is a special category of stupid that sounds like it could've only come directly out of the mouth of a traitorous turncoat like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

---

I don't disagree...

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

I mean opinions are one thing, and Lincoln can certainly be challenged on more than a few of his policies and decisions, but labeling him as "maybe our worst" president is a special category of stupid that sounds like it could've only come directly out of the mouth of a traitorous turncoat like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

---

Hard to think of another President who sparked off a massive civil war/war of secession that killed 600,000+ Americans.

Do we have another President who has as much American blood on his hands?

---

Lincoln sparked off? My guy, Lincoln literally said this in his inaugural.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

And he held this intention up until Beauregard opened up on Sumter and the states illegally broke with the constitution to form a legion of traitors - the South literally sparked it off. Lincoln was constitutionally obligated to act. Had he not, the constitution itself would have been rent asunder as a document of zero conformal meaning.

To take the agency of secession out of the Southern states' hands entirely is not something I've literally ever seen attempted in meaningful historical literature.

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

I mean opinions are one thing, and Lincoln can certainly be challenged on more than a few of his policies and decisions, but labeling him as "maybe our worst" president is a special category of stupid that sounds like it could've only come directly out of the mouth of a traitorous turncoat like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

---

Hard to think of another President who sparked off a massive civil war/war of secession that killed 600,000+ Americans.

Do we have another President who has as much American blood on his hands?

---

Lincoln sparked off? My guy, Lincoln literally said this in his inaugural.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

And he held this intention up until Beauregard opened up on Sumter and the states illegally broke with the constitution to form a legion of traitors - the South literally sparked it off. Lincoln was constitutionally obligated to act. Had he not, the constitution itself would have been rent asunder as a document of zero conformal meaning.

To take the agency of secession out of the Southern states' hands entirely is not something I've literally ever seen attempted in meaningful historical literature.

---

Yes he has no purpose to interfere with slavery. Again showing the problems with the modern lie that Lincoln was waging a war against slavery and for the slave.

What he was doing was waging a war to preserve the Union. By waging war against the states and the people who had voted to leave.


[the day after Lincoln asked for and received an amendment that would bolster the Militia Act of 1795 by changing the Insurrection Act to allow him, without the consent of a state, to use both federal troops and federalized state militias against the seven Southern states. Then, on the 15th of April, ignoring all the still unresolved or unadjudicated secession arguments and movements that had taken place in the country for almost a century, he issued a proclamation stating that since the seven Southern states he named were in insurrection against the government of the United States, he was calling for seventy-five thousand troops to be supplied to suppress the rebellion. In addition, Lincoln immediately brought several thousand state troops from Massachusetts and New York to Washington to garrison the capital.

Only then did the states of Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia also vote to secede and join the Confederacy.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

I mean opinions are one thing, and Lincoln can certainly be challenged on more than a few of his policies and decisions, but labeling him as "maybe our worst" president is a special category of stupid that sounds like it could've only come directly out of the mouth of a traitorous turncoat like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

---

Hard to think of another President who sparked off a massive civil war/war of secession that killed 600,000+ Americans.

Do we have another President who has as much American blood on his hands?

---

Lincoln sparked off? My guy, Lincoln literally said this in his inaugural.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

And he held this intention up until Beauregard opened up on Sumter and the states illegally broke with the constitution to form a legion of traitors - the South literally sparked it off. Lincoln was constitutionally obligated to act. Had he not, the constitution itself would have been rent asunder as a document of zero conformal meaning.

To take the agency of secession out of the Southern states' hands entirely is not something I've literally ever seen attempted in meaningful historical literature.

---

Yes he has no purpose to interfere with slavery. Again showing the problems with the modern lie that Lincoln was waging a war against slavery and for the slave.

What he was doing was waging a war to preserve the Union. By waging war against the states and the people who had voted to leave.


[the day after Lincoln asked for and received an amendment that would bolster the Militia Act of 1795 by changing the Insurrection Act to allow him, without the consent of a state, to use both federal troops and federalized state militias against the seven Southern states. Then, on the 15th of April, ignoring all the still unresolved or unadjudicated secession arguments and movements that had taken place in the country for almost a century, he issued a proclamation stating that since the seven Southern states he named were in insurrection against the government of the United States, he was calling for seventy-five thousand troops to be supplied to suppress the rebellion. In addition, Lincoln immediately brought several thousand state troops from Massachusetts and New York to Washington to garrison the capital.

Only then did the states of Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia also vote to secede and join the Confederacy.]

---

Of course it was a war to preserve the union. First and foremost, all the way through. Part of that equation was the south's right to slavery, which itself violated the declaration and was part of the reactionary fervor with which the south prosecuted the war. Lest you forget when the South told you who they were and what they were fighting for weeks after Sumter.

"Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slaverysubordination to the superior raceis his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders 'is become the chief of the corner'the real 'corner-stone'in our new edifice."

Must've been some random crackpot's opinion in a Virginia holler somewhere. Oh wait, that was the Confederacy's vice president, Alexander Stevens, to a room of hundreds of people.

Upon his election Lincoln forced no man to surrender a slave, no man to surrender their rights, no man to pick up a musket. Those aims were forced on him, and he was successful in each one. An American hero.

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

I mean opinions are one thing, and Lincoln can certainly be challenged on more than a few of his policies and decisions, but labeling him as "maybe our worst" president is a special category of stupid that sounds like it could've only come directly out of the mouth of a traitorous turncoat like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

---

Hard to think of another President who sparked off a massive civil war/war of secession that killed 600,000+ Americans.

Do we have another President who has as much American blood on his hands?

---

I guess the South seceeding, taking Fort Sumter and forming the Army of Northern Virginia had nothing to do with sparking off a war!!!!

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

I mean opinions are one thing, and Lincoln can certainly be challenged on more than a few of his policies and decisions, but labeling him as "maybe our worst" president is a special category of stupid that sounds like it could've only come directly out of the mouth of a traitorous turncoat like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

---

Hard to think of another President who sparked off a massive civil war/war of secession that killed 600,000+ Americans.

Do we have another President who has as much American blood on his hands?

---

I guess the South seceeding, taking Fort Sumter and forming the Army of Northern Virginia had nothing to do with sparking off a war!!!!

---

It's insane. It's akin to blaming FDR for Pearl Harbor and every single American who died in World War 2.

Someone is confusing President Snow from Hunger Games with Lincoln.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Someone is confusing President Snow from Hunger Games with Lincoln.

---

Never saw that movie, so I don't get the reference.

But using some logic that we have heard on this board, the Govt having 20 people play to the death would have been a good move.

Also, the source this Confederate just pulled that tripe from comes from a guy with this literally in his bio:

John Marquardt is a native of Connecticut but a Southerner at heart. After attending the University of Georgia, Marquardt realized the truth and the value of the Southern tradition.

That was published by the Abbeville Institute, which was founded with the sole purpose of justifying the South's cause. It is filled with psuedo-historians playacting at real historical research and suffusing their "findings" with noxiously racist dog whistles and broken interpretations. If you wonder where the current of "slavery did more good than evil" comes from, look no further than the Abbeville "Institute."

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

I mean opinions are one thing, and Lincoln can certainly be challenged on more than a few of his policies and decisions, but labeling him as "maybe our worst" president is a special category of stupid that sounds like it could've only come directly out of the mouth of a traitorous turncoat like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

---

Hard to think of another President who sparked off a massive civil war/war of secession that killed 600,000+ Americans.

Do we have another President who has as much American blood on his hands?

---

I guess the South seceeding, taking Fort Sumter and forming the Army of Northern Virginia had nothing to do with sparking off a war!!!!

---

Did the Founding Fathers spark off a war by founding the Continental army and building up forces at Bunker Hill in Boston and Charleston?

Who invaded whom?

parch said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

I mean opinions are one thing, and Lincoln can certainly be challenged on more than a few of his policies and decisions, but labeling him as "maybe our worst" president is a special category of stupid that sounds like it could've only come directly out of the mouth of a traitorous turncoat like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

---

Hard to think of another President who sparked off a massive civil war/war of secession that killed 600,000+ Americans.

Do we have another President who has as much American blood on his hands?

---

I guess the South seceeding, taking Fort Sumter and forming the Army of Northern Virginia had nothing to do with sparking off a war!!!!

---

It's insane. It's akin to blaming FDR for Pearl Harbor and every single American who died in World War 2.

---

Imperial japan and later Nazi Germany declared war on the United States.

When did the southern states (in their new political union) declare war on the USA?

It would be wrong to blame FDR for all World War II American deaths.

It is not wrong at all to blame Lincoln for the American deaths in the civil war.

You never even seem to entertain the idea that it was not necessary (or moral/constitutional) to wage a brutal war of conquest to bring States back into the Union who have voluntary left.

Not to mention that when Lincoln ran out of volunteers he went to pressing the poor Irish immigrants into the war.

Sparking off massive draft riots in Northern cities.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

I mean opinions are one thing, and Lincoln can certainly be challenged on more than a few of his policies and decisions, but labeling him as "maybe our worst" president is a special category of stupid that sounds like it could've only come directly out of the mouth of a traitorous turncoat like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

---

Hard to think of another President who sparked off a massive civil war/war of secession that killed 600,000+ Americans.

Do we have another President who has as much American blood on his hands?

---

I guess the South seceeding, taking Fort Sumter and forming the Army of Northern Virginia had nothing to do with sparking off a war!!!!

---

Did the Founding Fathers spark off a war by founding the Continental army and building up forces at Bunker Hill in Boston and Charleston?

Who invaded whom?

---

Yes, the Founding Fathers started a war to break away from England. According to the British, the Colonists were wrong. The Brits lost, the Federal Government did not. As I said, if Lincoln had lost the US as we know it would not exist.

You are saying that you believe that States have the right to declare war on the US.

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

I mean opinions are one thing, and Lincoln can certainly be challenged on more than a few of his policies and decisions, but labeling him as "maybe our worst" president is a special category of stupid that sounds like it could've only come directly out of the mouth of a traitorous turncoat like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

---

Hard to think of another President who sparked off a massive civil war/war of secession that killed 600,000+ Americans.

Do we have another President who has as much American blood on his hands?

---

I guess the South seceeding, taking Fort Sumter and forming the Army of Northern Virginia had nothing to do with sparking off a war!!!!

---

It's insane. It's akin to blaming FDR for Pearl Harbor and every single American who died in World War 2.

---

You never even seem to entertain the idea that it was not necessary (or moral/constitutional) to wage a brutal war of conquest to bring States back into the Union who have voluntary left.

---

If it was indeed a "brutal war of conquest," Lincoln would not have handed back control of these states to the conquered. If in fact it actually was a "brutal war of conquest," as Sherman so desperately wanted it to be, this nation would be much better off today as the morally profligate traitors of the corrupt heart of the South would not have been able to continue to brutally oppress their former slaves and run their states into the bleak darkness of fiscal and educational mismanagement for the next 100 years, which today makes them some of the most backward backwoods of our country.

The unconstitutionality, based on the framing of the framers, was with the Confederacy. The compact theory interpretation of the states' relationship with the federal government is not in canon. A state is not a sovereign and cannot make the decisions of a sovereign. If one claims to be, it is in breach of the constitution and must be brought into law.

Andrew Jackson, 1832:
"Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure"

James Madison, 1833:
"I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in 98-99 as countenancing the doctrine that a State may at will secede from its constitutional compact with the other States. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it"

Robert Lee, 1861:
"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled"

parch said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

I mean opinions are one thing, and Lincoln can certainly be challenged on more than a few of his policies and decisions, but labeling him as "maybe our worst" president is a special category of stupid that sounds like it could've only come directly out of the mouth of a traitorous turncoat like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

---

Hard to think of another President who sparked off a massive civil war/war of secession that killed 600,000+ Americans.

Do we have another President who has as much American blood on his hands?

---

I guess the South seceeding, taking Fort Sumter and forming the Army of Northern Virginia had nothing to do with sparking off a war!!!!

---

It's insane. It's akin to blaming FDR for Pearl Harbor and every single American who died in World War 2.

---

A certain well-known poster and contrarian (who shall go nameless) once did exactly that on these boards, arguing that by introducing embargoes in 1940-41 on scrap metals and petroleum products that Japan needed for its war machine, FDR was essentially responsible for Pearl Harbor. So, because FDR wouldn't supply the materials to build and maintain the Japanese war machine, the poster argued he was responsible for Pearl Harbor, at least in part.

One of the more remarkable takes on these boards over the years.

Mothra said:

---

parch said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

I mean opinions are one thing, and Lincoln can certainly be challenged on more than a few of his policies and decisions, but labeling him as "maybe our worst" president is a special category of stupid that sounds like it could've only come directly out of the mouth of a traitorous turncoat like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

---

Hard to think of another President who sparked off a massive civil war/war of secession that killed 600,000+ Americans.

Do we have another President who has as much American blood on his hands?

---

I guess the South seceeding, taking Fort Sumter and forming the Army of Northern Virginia had nothing to do with sparking off a war!!!!

---

It's insane. It's akin to blaming FDR for Pearl Harbor and every single American who died in World War 2.

---

A certain well-known poster and contrarian (who shall go nameless) once did exactly that on these boards, arguing that by introducing embargoes in 1940-41 on scrap metals and petroleum products that Japan needed for its war machine, FDR was essentially responsible for Pearl Harbor. So, because FDR wouldn't supply the materials to build and maintain the Japanese war machine, the poster argued he was responsible for Pearl Harbor, at least in part.

One of the more remarkable takes on these boards over the years.

---

Ah yes, the old "what else was Japan supposed to do as a result of the embargo other than murder 2,000 Americans in a desperate sneak attack" argument. Classic.

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

I mean opinions are one thing, and Lincoln can certainly be challenged on more than a few of his policies and decisions, but labeling him as "maybe our worst" president is a special category of stupid that sounds like it could've only come directly out of the mouth of a traitorous turncoat like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

---

Hard to think of another President who sparked off a massive civil war/war of secession that killed 600,000+ Americans.

Do we have another President who has as much American blood on his hands?

---

Lincoln sparked off? My guy, Lincoln literally said this in his inaugural.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

And he held this intention up until Beauregard opened up on Sumter and the states illegally broke with the constitution to form a legion of traitors - the South literally sparked it off. Lincoln was constitutionally obligated to act. Had he not, the constitution itself would have been rent asunder as a document of zero conformal meaning.

To take the agency of secession out of the Southern states' hands entirely is not something I've literally ever seen attempted in meaningful historical literature.

---

Yes he has no purpose to interfere with slavery. Again showing the problems with the modern lie that Lincoln was waging a war against slavery and for the slave.

What he was doing was waging a war to preserve the Union. By waging war against the states and the people who had voted to leave.


[the day after Lincoln asked for and received an amendment that would bolster the Militia Act of 1795 by changing the Insurrection Act to allow him, without the consent of a state, to use both federal troops and federalized state militias against the seven Southern states. Then, on the 15th of April, ignoring all the still unresolved or unadjudicated secession arguments and movements that had taken place in the country for almost a century, he issued a proclamation stating that since the seven Southern states he named were in insurrection against the government of the United States, he was calling for seventy-five thousand troops to be supplied to suppress the rebellion. In addition, Lincoln immediately brought several thousand state troops from Massachusetts and New York to Washington to garrison the capital.

Only then did the states of Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia also vote to secede and join the Confederacy.]

---

"Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man;

-Alexander Stevens, to a room of hundreds of people.

---

He sounds like Lincoln and the Congressional Republicans.

Which is not strange since Lincoln and Alexander Stevens were in fact political allies and good friends in Congress.

"You & we are different races...this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence." -Lincoln to a group of Black community leaders at the White House 8/14/1862

"I tell him [Fredrick Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship."
- Abraham Lincoln

"The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if... the African, shall be planted within them." ~Abraham Lincoln, "Speech at Peoria,"

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. I am not...in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which...forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." -Abraham Lincoln

"I, for one, am very much disposed to favor the colonization of such free negroes as are willing to go, in Central America...I want nothing to do, either with the free negro or the slave negro." - Sen. Trumbull (R-IL) 13th Amendment Author, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate during the war and political ally of President Lincoln

[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Ben Butler said: "Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later Lincoln was assassinated.]

"What next? Free them, and make them politically & socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of people will not"
-Lincoln 8/21/1858

"In the State where I live we do not like Negroes. We do not disguise our dislike…The whole people of the Northwestern States are opposed to having many Negroes among them.~ Republican Senator from Ohio Mr. John Sherman, April 2, 1862.

"That the unoccupied territory of the United States and such as they may hereafter acquire shall be reserved for the white race, a thing cannot be except by the exclusion of slavery and the African." Horace Greeley on the Republican Party platform

"The Republicans of the border states & the West were, during the 1860s, strongly in favor of deportation of all Africans. The most prominent advocates of this plan were Montgomery Blair, F. P. Blair, and J. R. Doolittle. Their letters contain many references to the colonization scheme." -Fleming

Oh and Northern Democrats:

"I hold that the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no reference to negroes at all when they declared all men to be created equal. They did not mean negroes, nor the savage Indians, nor the Fiji Islanders, nor any other barbarous race. They were speaking of white men...and to none otherswhen they declared that doctrine. I hold that this Government was established on the white basis. It was established by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men, and none others." -Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas


Oh and lets not forget before those who came before Lincoln...and whom he agreed with.

"I am now convinced that the sense in which the word 'citizen' was used by those who framed and ratified the Federal Constitution was not intended to embrace the African race" -President Martin Van Buren

"Why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawnys, of increasing the lovely white and red?" -Benjamin Franklin

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

I mean opinions are one thing, and Lincoln can certainly be challenged on more than a few of his policies and decisions, but labeling him as "maybe our worst" president is a special category of stupid that sounds like it could've only come directly out of the mouth of a traitorous turncoat like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

---

Hard to think of another President who sparked off a massive civil war/war of secession that killed 600,000+ Americans.

Do we have another President who has as much American blood on his hands?

---

I guess the South seceeding, taking Fort Sumter and forming the Army of Northern Virginia had nothing to do with sparking off a war!!!!

---

It's insane. It's akin to blaming FDR for Pearl Harbor and every single American who died in World War 2.

---

You never even seem to entertain the idea that it was not necessary (or moral/constitutional) to wage a brutal war of conquest to bring States back into the Union who have voluntary left.

---

If it was indeed a "brutal war of conquest," Lincoln would not have handed back control of these states to the conquered. If in fact it actually was a "brutal war of conquest," as Sherman so desperately wanted it to be, this nation would be much better off today as the morally profligate traitors of the corrupt heart of the South would not have been able to continue to brutally oppress their former slaves and run their states into the bleak darkness of fiscal and educational mismanagement for the next 100 years, which today makes them some of the most backward backwoods of our country.

The unconstitutionality, based on the framing of the framers, was with the Confederacy. The compact theory interpretation of the states' relationship with the federal government is not in canon....

---

Besides making the mistake of thinking that the North or the Republican party in general were fighting for the rights a Black people...something they were not doing.

You seem to think sovereign political communities have no right to choose their own system of government.

If you think the Citizens of the Southern States who had been living there for 200 years in established political communities were in fact "morally profligate traitors of the corrupt heart of the South"

Then why not let them leave? Why wage and illegal war to keep them in a political union they did not wish to remain within?

It makes no sense.

"What we of the North do not understand is that the South-meaning thereby the greatest brains of the South-instead of regarding the states rights doctrine as a mere theory...held it as a sacred inheritance for which they were ready to die"-James Redpath (Abolitionist)

"Whether the Southern people were justified in seceding has nothing to do with the fact or the right of secession. If a community is dissatisfied, from any cause or from none...they have the right-the inalienable right-to change them"-James Redpath (Abolitionist)


"the South's sons were among those that drafted the U.S. Constitution...Yet as the early of the country soon demonstrated, that Union was just a Union of States, and not a nation in any organic sense."- Prof Carl Degler (Stanford Historian, Pulitzer Prize Winner)

parch said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

I mean opinions are one thing, and Lincoln can certainly be challenged on more than a few of his policies and decisions, but labeling him as "maybe our worst" president is a special category of stupid that sounds like it could've only come directly out of the mouth of a traitorous turncoat like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

---

Hard to think of another President who sparked off a massive civil war/war of secession that killed 600,000+ Americans.

Do we have another President who has as much American blood on his hands?

---

I guess the South seceeding, taking Fort Sumter and forming the Army of Northern Virginia had nothing to do with sparking off a war!!!!

---

It's insane. It's akin to blaming FDR for Pearl Harbor and every single American who died in World War 2.

---

You never even seem to entertain the idea that it was not necessary (or moral/constitutional) to wage a brutal war of conquest to bring States back into the Union who have voluntary left.

---

James Madison, 1833:
"I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in 98-99 as countenancing the doctrine that a State may at will secede from its constitutional compact with the other States. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it"

---

[In the course of the Constitutional Convention's debates, James Madison also came to admit that "the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice, and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually." He conceded that the "use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." He acknowledged that expressly providing for military coercion against delinquent states should be avoided in the Constitution, since using force in a union of states might prove self-destructive.]

[there was no provision in U.S. Constitution prohibits state from seceding from union made clear by proposal at 1787 Constitutional Convention to grant new federal government specific power to suppress a seceding state.
"today, no impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt for a moment that each State ratified the form of government summited in the firm belief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom."
-Charles F. Adams Jr. (Pres. AHA, Union Vet)]

"But the actual occasion of quarrel was political and constitutional. The North held tenaciously to the Federal conceptions of Alexander Hamilton. In the South Jefferson's idea of sovereign state rights was paramount."-Winston Churchill

"This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, States, in their political capacity. No coercion is applicable to such bodies, but that of an armed force." -Oliver Ellsworth

"Our constitutional history started with the states retaining all powers of sovereignty unimpaired, save those conferred upon the national Gov't. The evolution...has consisted largely in determining the line of demarcation between state & national authority."-Coolidge 5/30/1925

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

parch said:

---

I mean opinions are one thing, and Lincoln can certainly be challenged on more than a few of his policies and decisions, but labeling him as "maybe our worst" president is a special category of stupid that sounds like it could've only come directly out of the mouth of a traitorous turncoat like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

---

Hard to think of another President who sparked off a massive civil war/war of secession that killed 600,000+ Americans.

Do we have another President who has as much American blood on his hands?

---

I guess the South seceeding, taking Fort Sumter and forming the Army of Northern Virginia had nothing to do with sparking off a war!!!!

---

Did the Founding Fathers spark off a war by founding the Continental army and building up forces at Bunker Hill in Boston and Charleston?

Who invaded whom?

---

Yes, the Founding Fathers started a war to break away from England. According to the British, the Colonists were wrong. The Brits lost, the Federal Government did not. As I said, if Lincoln had lost the US as we know it would not exist.

You are saying that you believe that States have the right to declare war on the US.

---

A better question to ask is do people have the right to form their own governments and choose their own system of laws and their own political associations.

The American States in 1776 had the right to independence and the right to form their own system of government....regardless of what the British said.

The people of Texas in 1835 had the right to independence and the right to form their own system of government....regardless of what the central government in Mexico City said.

And the people of the Southern States had the right to independence and the right to form their own system of government...regardless of what the federal government in Washington said.

Or another way of saying it.....You can not be against the British, against the Mexicans, but then for Lincoln's position.

"the Southern states only claimed the right to go their own way... their policy would be defensive; the North, which denied this right & was determined to keep them in the Union by force, had to take the offensive. A formidable task confronted the aggressors."- Winston Churchill