Ranking of U.S. Presidents by historians

Down South, Lincoln is not well liked at all, nor was Grant. Depending if you believe in States rights or not - Lincoln was wrong and Grant was a war criminal. Thank God, Sherman was never a President! His actions in the South definitely equate to war crimes! (Burning down entire towns and cities and encouraging the raping and pillaging of your enemy IS a war crime)

You also have to consider that history has been rewritten to make some of these folks seem like national heroes. Lincoln is thought to be the man that ended slavery and racial discrimination in the US. This is far from the truth however. He didn't value blacks as ever being equals to whites at all. He even had slaves working for him throughout his entire life. He freed the slaves in the South during a time he had no control over the South. The South was a separate country at that time. His actions to free the slaves weren't based on compassion or even one of human equality. They were based on stirring up trouble for the South and to get blacks in the South to rise up against wealthy Southerners. Foolishly, many blacks and whites thought and still think it was about some rich white guy in power caring about blacks. How simple minded people are!

The Civil war was started because of Lincolns tyrannical rule and taxing system - NOT SLAVERY as is taught in many school systems these days. He tried to tax the hell out of rich Southern plantation owners and aimed a tax directly at them. it wasn't going to effect rich Northerners like himself and his family. When the South refused to pay this unfair tax, they united and agreed to secede from the Union. When told of this, Lincoln was quoted as having said, "Now who am I going to tax?"

If you watch the movie "Glory", based on the life of Col. Robert Gould Shaw and the 54th Massachusetts regiment, you will clearly see that northerners didn't value blacks as their equals. When the 54th was founded, Col. Robert Gould Shaw (a white man) was placed in command of an ALL black regiment. However, when it came time to pay his troops at the end of the month, his troops were only given 1/2 the pay of a white troop. All northern black troops petitioned this DISCRIMINATION to Congress and were eventually back-paid in full AFTER the war was over - considering of course they lived through it.

People should realize that when you win a war you get the advantage of talking bad about your enemy and making them look as evil as Satan himself. After all, they lost. You get the advantage of rewriting history because people tend to side with the victor. Nobody likes to hang with the losing side. Look at how we bash Nazi Germany today. Imagine if the Nazis had won. What would your history book tell you then? Of course you'd believe it because you'd be brainwashed that any other opinion that differed from your own was wrong, anybody who opposed you was a racist, etc etc etc. Just think, YOU'D be the biggest, proudest, Nazi in the world right now!

That's how history works folks! It's filled with a bunch of untruths and personal bias. It's the fact that we'd rather side ourselves with the victor instead of the loser and that's exactly what makes us a bunch of sheeple willing to listen and obey anything we're told.

[MH]

Ronald Regan

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Guessing you mean FDR?

FWI there were two President Roosevelts.

I honestly wasn't aware....but yes FDR, the 32nd POTUS

Originally Posted by tater

FDR was actually kind of scary when you look at his constraints on civil liberties—not just during the war, but also on private commerce in his poor attempts to fix the Depression (experiments that were actually counter-productive).

I'll take your word for it because I can't say I know much about him

What I do know/recall is the way he helped the UK when she stood alone against the Axis

[August]

Originally Posted by thorn69

It's filled with a bunch of untruths and personal bias.

That is caused by rabble rousers on both sides. Take the stuff you just wrote for example. That evil Yankee Despoiler theme remains quite popular among certain segments of the south even today, mostly those who want to redirect attention away from the fact that their oh so pure southern ancestors bought and sold human beings like cattle and it took a huge and bloody civil war to get them to stop it. But the more it's repeated the more good people such as yourself begin to believe it.

Originally Posted by August

That is caused by rabble rousers on both sides. Take the stuff you just wrote for example. That evil Yankee Despoiler theme remains quite popular among certain segments of the south even today, mostly those who want to redirect attention away from the fact that their oh so pure southern ancestors bought and sold human beings like cattle and it took a huge and bloody civil war to get them to stop it.

I wrote nothing about evil yankees in my post. Re-read it and point it out. I'm not attacking the north but I am attacking the popular mistruths that originated from the north after the civil war was won.

Fact is August - northerners bought and sold human beings as well. As a matter of fact, it was done more in the north than it was in the south. The US Constitution even claimed that slaves were property of their owners and explained what to do about runaways. This is the same Constitution that many northern presidents used as a power basis and made no qualms about it while they were in power. You try to blame Southerners for practicing what was considered law of the time and paint them with the same vile brush as being all the same. Paint your northern brethren with that same brush while you're at it. They were just as guilty for slavery if not more so. Just because they won the war, doesn't give them the right to vilify their foe with falsifications and push the entire blame of slavery on them to boot. That's just appalling!

[tater]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Some stuff about the Civil War not being predicated by slavery

Nonsense. The reaction to Lincoln was absolutely about slavery, not taxes. The (brand new) Republican party was heavy with abolitionists. The South feared the new administration for that reason, it had squat to do with taxes.

This has been done to death, with modern state's rights people trying to paint the CW as "State's Rights" when it was all about a State's right to OWNB HUMAN BEINGS.

Originally Posted by tater

Nonsense. The reaction to Lincoln was absolutely about slavery, not taxes. The (brand new) Republican party was heavy with abolitionists. The South feared the new administration for that reason, it had squat to do with taxes.

This has been done to death, with modern state's rights people trying to paint the CW as "State's Rights" when it was all about a State's right to OWNB HUMAN BEINGS.

Um, No! You're completely wrong about that. Look further than your liberal northern school books. Do some research for yourself and you will see that the civil war didn't really have anything to do with slavery at all. It began based on unfair taxes that Lincoln aimed at the wealthy South. You can't escape from the truth. It's been written!

I know the truth hurts, but you must accept what you've been denied your entire life. Lincoln is not your savior. He was just a rich man who had blacks sewing his pants just like Jefferson had.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Do some research for yourself and you will see that the civil war didn't really have anything to do with slavery at all. It began based on unfair taxes that Lincoln aimed at the wealthy South.

In all fairness, I think the onus is on you here to show something.
"Nothing to do with slavery" sounds like hooey to me.

As far as I recall, the taxation/tariff system in place was put in place to protect Southern agriculture (cotton etc) and was unfair to the growing industrial North. Could well be wrong, mind. Anyone know?


EDIT - Just going to post this for some source material

[Sailor Steve]

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

[Takeda Shingen]

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.

[tater]

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).

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by thorn69

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.

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

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!

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.

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

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.

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!

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. [/quote]
I'm not belittling anything, nor am I ashamed of it. Like all history, it just is. Or was.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Tchocky

In all fairness, I think the onus is on you here to show something.
"Nothing to do with slavery" sounds like hooey to me.

As far as I recall, the taxation/tariff system in place was put in place to protect Southern agriculture (cotton etc) and was unfair to the growing industrial North. Could well be wrong, mind. Anyone know?


EDIT - Just going to post this for some source material

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.

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

I always remind myself that I would look foolish next to Steve: SubSim's own American history and constitutional scholar.