Picture of Lincoln practicing law before becoming President:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PuZoLkvmBb...ken+Lawyer.jpg

Politicians tend to get bad press. They rank at about the same level as used car dealers, yet you need a good politician who knows not only what needs to be done, but how it can be done. When you need open heart surgery, do you go to the surgeon with 20 years experience or the wet behind the ears rookie fresh out of school?

Lincoln was very smart about looking at the big picture and how to get there, not only the grand vision, but the endless deals, maneuvering, ego managing that goes into building a coalition. He had no ego (for a politician), he played the country hick card to the hilt, even though he was always 2-3 steps ahead of anyone else.

The more interesting question is what modern president could have done as good a job as Lincoln in his place?

Kennedy, Eisenhower and Obama did not have the experience. Reagan, Bush sr. and jr., Carter did not have the political skills. LBJ could'nt make the hard military decisions. Nixon did not have sufficient gravitas to rally the country.

I think only FDR and perhaps Truman would have had a shot.

My nomination would be a tie between Washington and Jefferson, with Andrew Jackson as a runner-up. The steps these men took to prevent concentrations of power, even at their own expense, sets them above every other noteable president to date, imo. They were exemplary leaders in most aspects of their careers, which is more than can be said for any presidents in this century, save perhaps Wilson's efforts with the League of Nations (until the coward caved).

My least favorites include Lincoln and FDR, as both were conniving rat-bastards who purposely engineered wars without regard to the lives that would be lost to further their own agendas. I see there are fans of both here, but the first question I would ask of them is "If they were such great presidents, why did they preside over the most and second-most costly conflicts America has ever fought?" A detailed examination of their conduct in office reveals that both were, above all else, manipulators and hypocrites. It irks me that they are remembered as great leaders simply because of wartime propaganda to that effect. If any wish to challenge that belief, I have ample evidence to back it up. Name something "great" they did, and I will give you something more ignoble done under the same auspices.

I'm reserving a spot on the "least favorites" list for President Obama once the major economic effects of his reckless policies have made themselves felt, sometime between mid-2012 and 2015, sooner if he is re-elected and the Democrats retain a majority in both houses. The full effects will not be felt for between six months and a few years after that, depending upon how the global market is affected. It's something of a toss-up between "worse than now" and "another depression".

That is an interesting question. I would say that FDR, more than Truman, would fit the mold. Truman certainly was and is underestimated in terms of political acumen, but he really lacked the the oratory ability of his predecessor. One could not have instituted sort of unpopular and controversial, yet necessary acts of Lincoln's administration without this abililty. In that one would have to consider both Ronald Reagan and William Jefferson Clinton, as both had the ability to smooth the public opinion through speech, reassuring them that 'everything is going to be alright.'

We have to remember that Lincoln did, in fact, lack the much touted executive experience, and was a military novice; though to his credit he spend endless hours schooling himself on the matters. Still, his adminstration made more than it's share of blunders, as did he in the position of Commander-in-Chief as illustrated by the revolving door of commanders of The Army of the Potomac.

Come on now. The road to the American Civil War began at the ratification of the Consitution. By 1854 the republic in a de-facto state of civil war. To lay it upon the doorstep of Lincoln is intellectually dishonest.

In terms of your 'great' and 'ignoble' statement, the same can be said for every political leader, including Washington, Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

I haven't studied Jackson that much, but I would disagree on Jefferson. I'm a huge fan of the man, and as I've said before I read seven different biographies of him between July 2006 and December 2007, including Dumas Malone's titanic 3500-page 6-volume Jefferson the Virginian.

While I admire him as a philosopher and scientist, I believe that both he and Madison were brilliant politcal theorists who weren't all that good when it came to actually doing the job. They both had their good points as presidents, but they both suffered from short-sightedness as well. Jefferson's embargo against England hurt American merchants without affecting the British at all, and his idea of doing away with the ocean-going navy in favor of a bunch of gunboats was silly at best.

Now that I think of it, I always put Washington first because of his qualities as a man, but as an actual politician I think he was weak. He did manage to keep the US neutral in the Anglo-French war, but as soon as Jefferson stepped down as Secretary of State he succumbed to Madison's finagling and authorized that awful Jay Treaty.

As for Lincoln, you make some interesting points. I prefer to see him as willing to do what needed to be done to keep the country together.

But Jefferson was a slave owner himself. Look it up! Some think he may have even raped black women considering they couldn't really refuse their master! Funny how you'd side yourself with a man with such evil morals and then ridicule the South for doing the same exact thing!

Jefferson was a typical Clinton minded person himself. On one note he hated the idea of slavery but on the other hand he just couldn't stop himself from supporting it. Sort of like how Clinton hated drugs but later swore up and down he didn't inhale! :roll: Heck, according to Clinton he was just using his penis as a tongue depressor to make sure Monica didn't have strep throat! :rotfl2: It was ANYTHING but sexual relations in other words!

Why would you support these sleaze-balls and liars?

Btw, the greatest president in US history was "Ike". He's the only one that I can see that didn't have some form of personal agenda and did the job to protect American's and America alike. Washington as well, but then again, he didn't want the job and was just forced into the position. Being first makes him immune from having any scandalous personal agendas to use the country for his own personal gain.

Worst president ever - Lincoln hands down. Forced the nation into a bloody civil war that's still really not over. Just not as bloody these days. He did this for personal reasons despite the unpopularity of the entire thing. Nobody wanted to go to war. He got the war started. Charleston was in the South. South Carolina had already seceded. Fort Sumter was in Southern hands at that point. Lincoln invaded the South. There are stories on both sides about who shot first. Of course the north claims the South shot first. Typical. We did nothing wrong - yet you're warships just happened to be entering the harbor! Give me a freakin break!

Second worst - Obama. Probably going to lead us into another bloody civil war. Also promotes socialism and redistribution of wealth. All anti-capitalist ideologies and that have been proven to fail. Why work if you're going to pay people to be lazy bums? Where's the incentive for people to want to work? Also, people are not happy under socialism. Why? Because there's no self satisfaction in it. Life is a game. Nobody wants the government to play the game for them (unless they're really lazy). People like earning things on their own. People like to explore their options and grow on their own. When the government controls the people, the game is played for you. You're just a puppet and life is dull and boring.

Third worst - Clinton. Allowed international terrorists to go unchecked during his entire 8 year watch even when they attacked this nation during his first 4 year reign. While his economic plan seemed like it was working out well for the country, it eventually floundered when the trade towers fell. Thus, he really did leave a mess in GWB's lap and left him no choice but to engage in a war on terrorism that is still to this day draining this economy more and more.

He was also a sleazebag liar that womanized and cheated on his own wife during his watch. That's unacceptable! All signs of a person who thinks they are above God just because of their political position in the country. Also, because he appointed Al "freakin" Gore as his running mate. Talk about another disgusting sleazebag! He is currently under investigation for sexually assaulting a woman in Seattle. Hope he gets slapped with a sex crime. He's just disgusting! Glad his wife left his disgusting butt too! I can't see why she stayed with him so long!? :nope:

In both cases, they were found Not Guilty. Neither of them was ever "exonerated". In a criminal case, Exoneration must come after conviction.

Thorn69, I'm guessing you're from the South?

nothing wrong with that, its just interesting to see that feelings still run so deep 145 years after the end of the war.

I grew up in Richmond, Va.

My mother's side fought for the North. Great Great grandfather was from New York and was a Capt. He died at Gettysburg. Don't know much else about him because I'm more interested in the South.

Father's side fought for the South. Great Great grandfather fought at the battle of Bentonville, NC and was wounded. He also fought at the battle of Battery Wagner (Fort Wagner), SC against the 54th Mass lead by Col. Robert Gould Shaw as depicted in the book and movie "Glory". He was an artilleryman as well as an infantryman with a NC regiment. He's got my respect wholeheartedly. Never owned a slave either. Just did what was right for NC at the time and fought for his State's right to secede.

After the books I've listed as having read on the man, you think you need to tell me to look it up? Of course he was a slaveowner, as were Madison and Washington. Have you read Jefferson's writings on the subject? He was conflicted at the very least, if not actually hypocritical. He tried to get Virginia to free the slaves twice, then seemed to slip into a torpid complacency. Jefferson is an enigma, and remains so to this day.

Yes, I'm very well versed on Sally Hemings, and can show you all the pro-and-con evidence if you have a few hours to spare.

And you're attacking again, for no apparent reason. When have I ever ridiculed the South? I simply answered your allegations with facts, which you still haven't bothered to answer.

Jefferson was a true genius, and fascinates me, warts and all. What makes you think I ever supported Clinton? You seem to be making this up as you go along.

Didn't you just get done accusing me of only siding with the "popular opinion?" Which is it?

Just like Ike?

I'm still waiting for you to produce facts rather than shout diatribe.

True, Ike tried to divorce his wife and was known to have marital problems BEFORE being elected. He was in a war zone when he found another woman, unlike Clinton who just had an affair with a lowly intern and never in his life was ever close to a war zone. Big time draft dodger!

Ike had his fling PRIOR to being elected and I'm not all that sure that Summersby's account is all that accurate considering her book was written way after (1977) the man died (1969). That's a bit low. Of course she got the last word so that makes her right in your book. Typical. :roll:

Might as well enter the fray.

Top of the list:
1: Jefferson
2: Jackson
3: Grant

Bottom of the list:
1: Wilson
2: Johnson (LBJ)
3: Roosevelt (FDR)

That's a good list. Though I'd put JFK in place of your LBJ. It was JFK that got us involved with Vietnam. LBJ just went all out after JFK and destroyed all those innocent trees! Never hit crap as far as NVA and VC goes (they were underground getting a headache) but he did kill a helluva lot of trees. I got to give him credit for pissing off the tree-hugger crowd - F'n hippies!. :har:

I trust you won't be surprised if I disagree. You may be surprised to hear that I've heard the same argument from Southern nationalists, many of whom believe that North and South cannot coexist without one dominating the other. I consider that to be lazy thinking on their part, and to some degree, on the part of Yanks (for lack of a word I like using more to describe Northerners :DL)

In my view, the primary causation behind the war was purely economic. It is somewhat difficult to find statements to this effect, given the political atmoshpere of those times, but I believe the numbers speak for themselves, as they often do in the years following a "good" war. The North was suffering from a lack of cotton to fuel its growing textile industry, as it simply could not compete the prices Britain was willing to pay. The agricultural advances that would make the US the breadbasket of the world were not yet in place, and in any case the worldwide demand was not there, as most nations of the time were still largely agrarian. While thousands upon thousands flocked from the farms to the mills to earn a better wage and (contrary to popular belief, better working conditions), the mills themselves were without supply, which raised prices, which forced demand down. The North was in an economic pickle.

The South controlled the primary market (agrarian), by virtue of its usage of slaves, which made the then-labor-intensive industry considerably more practical. Were it not for slaves, it is dubious that the South ever would have risen to its status as the number one cotton exporter in the world in such a short time. None of us would condone the usage of slaves today, but both the North and South did at the time, as the South used the slaves and the North supplied them. People tend to overlook this fact and the nature of the slave trade when they subscribe to the common "knowledge" that the North refuted slavery while the South endorsed it.

There were two primary factors behind the usage of the abolitionists' cause as a way to dictate policy in the South, both economic. The first was that tariffs levied unevenly on exports would make it more attractive for the South to sell cotton to the North, while a tariff on British imports of machinery would make Northern goods more appealing to Southern consumers. This is the reason oft-touted by Southern nationalists and apologists when they argue that the cause of the South was, in fact, States' Rights. I also used to be a proponent of the same argument until I flipped the table and looked at things from the Southerners' economic point of view; their industry simply wasn't viable if slavery was abolished. It was simply too labor-intensive and too seasonal. This is evidenced by the fact that after slavery was abolished, it was replaced by share-cropping, which was virtually always little more than indentured servitude.

This leads us to the second reason for the North adopting the abolitionists' cause, and it is again an economic rationale. If the former slaves had to be paid, Southern exports would become more expensive and thus less attractive to British consumers, forcing Southern producers to export to the North instead, as there was no significant importer overseas (other than France, whose trade was impeded by Britain) who would pay enough to make the shipping costs worth the while. As it turns out, this was the weaker part of the reason, due to the aforementioned adoption of sharecropping, which the North evidently didn't care about.

The next interesting phenomenon, though not a cause of the war, is also purely economic, and it comes in the form of maltreatment that blacks suffered in the North. Free blacks were almost always paid less, and violence was used against them when they undercut the wages of white immigrant workers. Enslaved blacks in the South were often treated with a "paternalistic" attitude, though this does nothing to alleviate the fact that they were slaves and that they were cared for because they were property, but it does provide a stark contrast to the way blacks were treated in the North when they were "free men".

The final nail in the coffin is the way the Union itself treated blacks, both slave and free, during the war and reconstruction. Don't make me go over what a bunch of horse-crap the Emancipation Proclamation was, we all know it didn't free anyone. Similarly, I will not discuss the Union's acceptance of slavery in member states. We should already know about that by now. But what is really interesting is the number of black Confederates who served in the war, or who remained in the service of their former master's families thereafter. This could be attributed to poor education, as I'll readily admit, and it could be due to the natural relationships that people tend to develop over time, or both, but it is interesting that so many newly "free" men would choose to remain in their place of bondage. Numbers from the period are sketchy at best, but there is plenty of written testimony, and even today there is a far higher percentage of blacks in former Confederate states than in former Union states. Did they stay because they didn't know anything else? Did they stay because they were comfortable there? Did they stay just because others did? I don't know, but it seems like the South wasn't full of black slaves who were willing to run for the North at the first opportunity.

My intent is not to prove that slavery is, or ever has been, an acceptable institution, nor is it to mitigate the plight of slaves, but I would like to shed some light on whether or not slavery was really the cause of the civil war or whether there were other, more prominent economic motives, as often tends to be the case.

I sincerely doubt that, but I guess it depends upon how we define greatness and ignobility. I've already described what I see as "greatness" in the aforementioned presidents, and I trust the cost in lives and material between Lincoln and FDR are aleady well understood. In what case did any of my picks outweigh the discrepancy between the two?