Best Presidents

[One Bad Pig]

I generally put the presidents of reconstruction low on the list.

Cleveland was post-Reconstruction.

[Individualist]

Interesting. I put Cleveland high on my list.

I'd put Harding high, too.

[joel]

Had Lincoln failed, would all probably be speaking German.

An actor cannot be justified by hypothetical counterfactuals regarding future events of which the actor could not have had knowledge. (e.g., "It's okay to bomb the civilians in that city; after all, one of them might have grown up to be the next Hitler.")

Lincoln's primary purpose was preservation of the Union.

Yes, by force, violating the principle of consent of the governed. I just don't see how that is justified.

Um.. perhaps you should look up what Presidents do in wartime. See FDR.

Yes, he was horrible too in this regard: e.g., interning Japanese-Americans.

I generally put the presidents of reconstruction low on the list.

Cleveland was post-Reconstruction.

And looking around a bit, it seems that, if anything, Cleveland was critical of the government's actions in Reconstruction.

[Faramir]

Well, without turning this into a Civil war debate, this is a very "southern" perspective.

Actually, I would say it is a very accurate perspective, but not a very "southern" perspective.

I was born and raised in the deep south and we are thoroughly taught Lincoln worship just like the rest of the country.

I was a big fan of Lincoln and put at or near the top of the best presidents list.

This changed about two years ago when I began to study the civil war era in detail.

Like Joel, the more I learn, the lower my opinion of Lincoln becomes.

Please don't dismiss this unpopular (but accurate IMO) view of Lincoln as a 'southern' thing, because it isn't. And even if it were, that does not make it wrong!!!!

Lincoln is, for the most part, idolized equally on both sides of the Mason-Dixon. I was one of his biggest fans at one time.

[technomage]

Actually, I would say it is a very accurate perspective, but not a very "southern" perspective.

Some examples of why your opinion of Lincoln is less than it once was would be helpful.

[themuzicman]

You do know that the Great Depression started three and a half years before FDR took office, eh?

More accurately, his policies extended the effects of the depression, which would have continued in perpetuity (without change) had WW2 not happened.

Michael

[Faramir]

Some examples of why your opinion of Lincoln is less than it once was would be helpful.

Joel has already touched on some of my reasons:

I used to think that too. But the more I learn about Lincoln, the worse he appears to me. Now, he is at the bottom of my ranking of all presidents.
"Preserved the union" can be translated "kept the southern states under subjugation by conquest, thus destroying the notion that the federal government governs by authority of the consent of the governed." He showed us that the federal government rules by conquest and thus has no just powers from the consent of the governed. He also started the war without constitutional authority (without Congress' declaring war).

As for ending slavery, that is a very good thing. However, the Civil War was not fought primarily over slavery. Lincoln stated that he was willing to keep the slaves in bondage if by that the slaveholders could be induced to stay in the union. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it" (italics in original, Letter to Horace Greeley http://showcase.netins.net/web/creat...es/greeley.htm). And the emancipation proclamation was primarily a tool to coerce subjugation of the southern states (it would have preserved slavery for any states who would have voluntarily returned to the union). And it was not done through the proper channel of legislation by the legislative branch, but done by unconstitutional executive order.

Lincoln supported the idea of the white race as a superior race.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been 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 I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior"
Fourth debate at Charleston, Illinois, http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/debate4.htm

Also, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, arrested even northern citizens without a warrant, and egregiously violated the 1st Amendment rights of free speech and free press, by censoring speech and arresting people who questioned his policies. Lincoln greatly expanded the size of the federal government, caused massive inflation by introducing paper money, and engaged in corporate welfare.

Lincoln was far from the "great emancipator" history paints him as. He stated quite clearly that he would keep every slave in bondage if it meant preserving the union.

When he spoke of freeing the slaves, it was almost always in a context of recolonizing them somewhere else, usually Liberia. He was not about equality but about segregation. He wanted to rid the country of what he considered to be an inferior race. He was not so much against slavery but for free white labor. His home state did not allow free blacks to migrate there, he supported this law while a state legislature.

That is in addition to his horrible human rights violations (no habeus corpus, shutting down opposing presses, exiling a political opponent, etc.) .

His Gettysburg speech is the epitome of hypocrisy. "Government by the people, for the people, " etc. when he was waging a war to force a large group of people to be governed by a government they did not want.

This is a far different picture from what is painted in schools and universities in the South as well as the North.

[Individualist]

A cursory look allows you to determine "constitutional" from "unconstitutional"?

"Unconstitutional." The simple word, by itself, boots nothing: if you would be so kind (and we can split this discussion from the current thread), what precisely makes these ruling "unconstitutional"?



There's one little problem with that--the Constitution does not make any provision for nullification. None whatsoever.

In contract law, if one party objects to the acts of another party in the contract, they are still bound to the terms unless the contract has an explicit "release" clause . If you view the Constitution as a contract, then you surely must note that there is no such clause, even for purported malfeasance of one or more parties.

So in contract law, if one of the parties violates the terms of the contract, the other party usually takes them to court. In the Constitution, there is no recourse for malfeasance--so you take the offending party to court. That's what judicial review is all about.

I'll start another thread.

[Individualist]

Virginia and Kentucky did not nullify the Sedition Act. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions condemned the acts as unconstitutional, and encouraged the other states to nullify the law--yet no other states accepted those resolutions. (Now, to be sure, some of the other states had Federalist-dominated legislatures, which would have supported the A&S Acts.)

It should also be noted that the Kentucky Resolution was written by Jefferson--who opposed the idea of centralized power unless it suited his purposes. Consistency never was something Jefferson was overburdened with.

Wasn't enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts stopped in Kentucky and Virginia?

Wisconsin did not "nullify" the Fugitive Slave Act--in 1854, the Wisconsin Supreme Court used that nasty, nasty judicial review you so despise to declare the law unconstitutional. (And in 1859, the US Supreme Court overturned the Wisconsin ruling.)

Whether done by the state legislature, the state court system, or a state convention, if the state's enforcement of the law is affected, it is nullification. When did I say anything against judicial review?

Pennsylvania did not "nullify" the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850--they attempted to nullify the earlier act of 1793. (Again, the Supreme Court ruled against their attempt at nullification.)

Sorry about referencing the wrong act. But what do you mean by "attempted"? Wasn't Pennsylvania actually nullifying the 1793 act before Prigg v. Pennsylvania?

[One Bad Pig]

Lincoln was far from the "great emancipator" history paints him as. He stated quite clearly that he would keep every slave in bondage if it meant preserving the union.

When he spoke of freeing the slaves, it was almost always in a context of recolonizing them somewhere else, usually Liberia. He was not about equality but about segregation. He wanted to rid the country of what he considered to be an inferior race. He was not so much against slavery but for free white labor. His home state did not allow free blacks to migrate there, he supported this law while a state legislature.

I don't know why anyone who's studied Lincoln would be surprised by this. Anyone who's studied the racial attitudes of the time wouldn't be surprised either. I do think, however, that his views changed over time, and in this he stands out.

[technomage]

Wasn't enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts stopped in Kentucky and Virginia?

I'll move my response to this post to the new thread.

[Individualist]

I don't know why anyone who's studied Lincoln would be surprised by this. Anyone who's studied the racial attitudes of the time wouldn't be surprised either. I do think, however, that his views changed over time, and in this he stands out.

I don't know how Lincoln's views on race and segregation have anything to do with his opinion of slavery.

[hamashiachagape]

I don't know why anyone who's studied Lincoln would be surprised by this. Anyone who's studied the racial attitudes of the time wouldn't be surprised either. I do think, however, that his views changed over time, and in this he stands out.

I confirmed this via a gentleman who has a History degree at my synagogue. Yes, Lincoln was not the great emancipator of his time that everyone makes him out to be, sad to say. He had absolutely no problem with slavery.

[technomage]

I confirmed this via a gentleman who has a History degree at my synagogue. Yes, Lincoln was not the great emancipator of his time that everyone makes him out to be, sad to say. He had absolutely no problem with slavery.

Such a statement looks only at the Proclamation, and at the letter to Greeley: it ignores Lincoln's involvement in the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment.

[One Bad Pig]

I confirmed this via a gentleman who has a History degree at my synagogue. Yes, Lincoln was not the great emancipator of his time that everyone makes him out to be, sad to say. He had absolutely no problem with slavery.

I wouldn't say he had absolutely no problem with slavery, even when his attitude toward blacks was consonant with the majority of Americans. He was behind early efforts to repatriate slaves to Liberia, for example. I think that as he interacted more with blacks on a personal level, especially as president, that his views changed. His Second Inaugural speech was certainly quite hostile to slavery.