You're delusional.

I don't own any "northern school books." Or do you consider historians like Shelby Foote liberal, northerners?

The war was about slavery, period, this has been done to death here, with you silly POV entirely discredited. It is revisionism, plain and simple.

I'm highly conservative, BTW.

I would imagine that everyone has their own "ranking" of the Presidents according to the individual's opinion. Why we would need some sort of list like this escapes me as the likelihood of anyone agreeing with the list in total, is practically nil.

Actually, thorn, you're the one who is twisting history to suit your own desire to deflect blame. We just had this discussion three months ago. Where were you then?

Read this, then maybe we can have a real discussion without seeing only our own agendas.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...9&postcount=47

I always get the urge to jump into this type of thread, but I always remind myself that I would look foolish next to Steve: SubSim's own American history and constitutional scholar. He's spent some serious time with some serious books. I am no intellectual slouch: I hold a Ph.D; I am a tenured university professor. My position also entails heavy professional research. Still, I confess to being intimidated by the depth of Steve's knowledge on the subject. I know that is not his intention, but I cannot stave off the sensation.

In general, the notion of "ranking" Presidents is silly on its face.

President #2 is how much better than #3? 2.0389y87668% better? LOL.

There are only 4 broad placements for Presidents that are not entirely subjective.

1-termers

2+-termers

1 termers who were prevented from running a 2d time (death, etc)

Impeached Presidents.

2+ terms beats 1, by an objective measure, the choice of the electorate.

1 termers who died are arguable subjectively (he would have won a 2d term...)

Impeached are at the bottom (have ti say the dishonor trumps even a 2d term).

The only thing it had to do with slavery was Lincoln and other abolitionists saw that slavery was making the South very rich. Lincoln imposed a tax directed at wealthy Southerners in order to reap that wealth away from the South to give away to the North.

Nobody in the US had a problem with slavery until they saw that OTHER people were becoming rich from it. Then the jealousy kicked in, and if you look you will see that 99% of the abolitionist originated up north where farming and agriculture was scarce. These people couldn't benefit from slavery so they became bitterly jealous of the South for profiting from it.

It was a Constitutional RIGHT to own and buy slaves at that time. Don't forget that it was Lincoln who invaded and ATTACKED the South and began the actual war. So why would anybody resort to armed combat first in a civil dispute unless they knew they were wrong? Usually the side that shoots first in that matter is the wrong side because they've allowed themselves to become so consumed with absolutism and deemed that violence is the only method to win their case.

What grounds would Lincoln have to attack the South, or why would the South secede from the north over slavery when it was still their legal RIGHT to buy and sell slaves according to the US Constitution of 1861? That doesn't make any sense at all!

Furthermore, all this nonsense about beating slaves is a bit much. Why would a Southern plantation owner buy a slave (which cost them quite a bit of money back then) just to blatantly beat and kill him? That makes no sense at all either. Besides, it was called "flogging". It was the common form of discipline used on EVERYBODY during that time period. Military deserters who were caught would be often be flogged in the same manner, if not shot, or hanged just the same. So much fiction has influenced the facts of what was real and what wasn't. I just don't see slave buyers beating slaves just to beat them. What good is an injured, sick, or dead slave when you're trying to make a profit off their labor? I think much of this is one or two incidents that ballooned up into something more than it really happened. I could be wrong but I'm betting I'm not since I'm using common sense and to think about much of this and not some biased liberal school book that was printed up north.

I'm just asking that people use some common sense and think for themselves about this. The popular opinion about things is not always right. In most cases it's wrong because people tend to believe in something because it's personally benefiting them. It's greed opinion and unfortunately that's what's popular. Just like I said before. If Nazi Germany had won the war, you'd be a strong believer in Nazism and anything else would be "crazy" sounding to you.

Like I've also said, blacks were treated just like slaves up in the north as well. This is documented. It wasn't until the 1960s civil rights movement that blacks were ever really "free" in the US and there were just as many segregated schools and water fountains in New York city as there ever was in Birmingham, Alabama believe it or not. All this racism AFTER the civil war. So quit trying to act like the people up north had a heart for the blacks and the people in the south didn't. That's what modern history is teaching people today and that's just wrong.

Fact: Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and other founding forefathers added the RIGHTS to slavery into the US Constitution. They said that it troubled them to think about it but they found it to be a necessity for the foundation of our country. What the people in the South were doing was exactly what Franklin and Jefferson and all the others saw as a necessity for the country to grow. Therefore, Lincoln declared war on the South for practicing their Constitutional RIGHT if you're still thinking the war was about slavery. In either case, Lincoln was wrong to attack the South and what the South was doing was their Constitutional right at that time. Maybe not morally right, but I think I've shown several times now that the north didn't really have a problem with slavery as much as they had a problem with the people who were benefiting from it the most.

:roll:Wow
How someone could write that after the offer given above in #18 and endorsement of the value of that offer in......

Looks like nothing more than the "popular opinion" expressed by a man with one of the most post counts on this forum using his position, along with the aid of his moderator buddies to bully that opinion onto others. Here's a challenge for you Steve... Why don't you man-up and actually argue for the unpopular opinion for once? It's so easy to hide behind years and years of prejudice teachings that depict the losing side as being the wrong one!

Like I said before, it's people like Steve here who'd be the biggest Nazi supporter had they won. :nope:

Because Steve is not right in this case. He's ashamed of his own ancestry for practicing their Constitutional rights of that time and standing up in the face of tyrannical rule and refusing to be taxed unfairly on their Constitutional right to buy and own slaves. This tax is why the South seceded and Lincoln just couldn't allow that. The Union would have floundered without the South's money and their crops!

I find it deplorable that one would belittle his own ancestry. That's just sad. :nope:

Imagine if people like Steve here got their way in today's modern battle against a person's Constitutional right. Now the issue is firearms. People like Steve will side with the winning side because he's safe there. He has no real opinion or credibility in my book. I don't associate myself with people that can't think outside their box that was erected by someone else.

:o Yeah, wow. :roll:

The first seven states seceeded upon Lincoln's election, several months before he took office. Exactly how did he impose this tax?

The other four seceeded specifically because of Lincoln's call for volunteers to "Put down the rebellion."

You need to provide documentation for everything you say on a subject this touchy.

The northern states tried to outlaw slavery in the Constitution itself, seventy years before the secession began. They certainly weren't jealous then.

Actually the South fired first, attacking the Federal fort in Charleston Bay.

You're absolutely right. See my post above.

The US Constitution was written in 1787. They agreed to Southern terms at the time because they felt that without ALL the states joining in they would fail. As Benjamin Franklin had said during the revolution, "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately." Lincoln was of the very next generation, and that feeling still prevailed, which is why he felt the need to put the Union first ahead of the Abolition questiion.

I don't know why Southern owners would beat slaves, but the photographic evidence makes the proper question "Why DID they?" Because they most certainly did.

Please read the post I referred you to, and then you can ask that same question of yourself.

Only because they had no choice.

They felt they had to bow to the demands of the southern States or lose the whole country. Read Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention.

Before you post what you've been spoon-fed, follow your own advice and read what they wrote at the time, both the Constitutional arguments and the arguments leading to the Civil War.

Again, read my linked post and answer my statements directly, one-at-a-time, and use documents from that time. I'm curious to see what you come up with.

Where does "resigned" fall in this ranking?

Can you back that up with facts, or is it just your opinion?

Popularity of opinion has nothing to do with it. I look at everything that is said in every case, and I judge it accordingly. Unlike you, I have nothing to lie about.

Again, opinion, or do you have facts. I don't cast aspersions on you. I did say when I thought you were wrong, but that's not the same thing. And as for nazis, I'm not the one who recommended killing people just for being in the country illegally.

Again, you need to show factual evidence of this tax that was imposed before Lincoln took office.

[/quote]I find it deplorable that one would belittle his own ancestry. That's just sad. :nope:[/quote]
I'm not belittling anything, nor am I ashamed of it. Like all history, it just is. Or was.

So you don't associate with yourself? You are guilty of the very thing you accuse me of.

"Constitutional right?" Where in the Constitution does it say one man has the right to deny another his own rights by "owning" him? Chapter and verse, please.

Now please answer my arguments with actual facts. If you can't show proper documentation to back up what you say, then you are stating opinion, not fact. Lincoln passed a tax that made the southern states seceed? You've said it several times, now prove it. Until you do, it's all hot air.

And while we're on the subject, what kind of discussion is it wherein one party produces evidence and the other counters it with name-calling and derision. Do you actually have any facts at all?

At the bottom, I would say. On the other hand, Like LBJ, Nixon was a good administrator. His biggest problems seems to have been paranoia.

As to Impeachment, two presidents have been impeached so far, and in both cases it was a witchhunt by opposing parties. And in both cases they were exonerated. Being found guilty and removed from office would have been bad for them, but since "impeachment" does not equal "conviction", I don't rate them because of that. I'm not a big fan of either one of them, but I don't think that's the criterion that should be used here.

Besides, it's never good to rate someone of your own generation. That is best left for the future.

How did this become a Civil War thread!?!?!?!? :damn:

Because someone with an axe to grind wasn't satisfied with saying he didn't like two presidents, but felt the need to rant about his pet cause.

That's the way it happens sometimes.