Ranking of U.S. Presidents by historians

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

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.

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Yeah, wow.

Originally Posted by thorn69

Lincoln imposed a tax directed at wealthy Southerners in order to reap that wealth away from the South to give away to the North.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

You're absolutely right. See my post above.

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!

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.

Furthermore, all this nonsense about beating slaves is a bit much.

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.

I'm just asking that people use some common sense and think for themselves about this.

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

Fact: Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and other founding forefathers added the RIGHTS to slavery into the US Constitution.

Only because they had no choice.

They said that it troubled them to think about it but they found it to be a necessity for the foundation of our country.

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.

[Bilge_Rat]

I would rank Abraham Lincoln in the top 3 with Washington and FDR and would personally rank him no. 1

A great president is one who had a profound influence on the history of the USA.

In 1861, the USA was a collection of individual states heading towards anarchy. 13 states left before he even took office. The federal government was powerless. Every governor, congressman and senator had his own idea on running the war. Members of his cabinet thought him a country fool and openly plotted to replace him. His own generals were generally a bunch of incompetent drunks. Foreign governements were hoping the CSA would win, etc.,

Despite all these problems, Lincoln turned out to be a very smart politician and statesman who managed to win the war and change the country for the better, despite fighting the bloodiest war in america's history. Even his decision to rid the country of slavery was more of a smart political calculation than an ideological decision.

There were countless times during the Civil War when the Union could have fallen apart if a weaker or less able person was in command. He was the right man at the right time and he created the modern USA that we know today.

[Sailor Steve]

Bilge_Rat, I agree about Lincoln, but there actually are a couple of things that make me rate Washington first.

1. Lincoln was a much more astute politician than most of his contemporaries gave him credit for. In his inaugural address he swore he wouldn't fire the first shot, and then carefully manipulated President Davis and Governor Pickens into doing just that. He wasn't the country bumpkin he played himself to be, and he was good at what he did. That said, I think he honestly believed that the Union had to be preserved at any cost, including slavery and including his own life.

2. He was a lawyer.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Bilge_Rat, I agree about Lincoln, but there actually are a couple of things that make me rate Washington first.

1. Lincoln was a much more astute politician than most of his contemporaries gave him credit for. In his inaugural address he swore he wouldn't fire the first shot, and then carefully manipulated President Davis and Governor Pickens into doing just that. He wasn't the country bumpkin he played himself to be, and he was good at what he did. That said, I think he honestly believed that the Union had to be preserved at any cost, including slavery and including his own life.

2. He was a lawyer.

I'd agree with that. Abraham Lincoln was a politican, and a shrewd one at that. There is no reason that a great politician would not make for a great politician.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Bilge_Rat, I agree about Lincoln, but there actually are a couple of things that make me rate Washington first.

1. Lincoln was a much more astute politician than most of his contemporaries gave him credit for. In his inaugural address he swore he wouldn't fire the first shot, and then carefully manipulated President Davis and Governor Pickens into doing just that. He wasn't the country bumpkin he played himself to be, and he was good at what he did. That said, I think he honestly believed that the Union had to be preserved at any cost, including slavery and including his own life.

2. He was a lawyer.

Picture of Lincoln practicing law before becoming President:

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Bilge_Rat, I agree about Lincoln, but there actually are a couple of things that make me rate Washington first.

1. Lincoln was a much more astute politician than most of his contemporaries gave him credit for. In his inaugural address he swore he wouldn't fire the first shot, and then carefully manipulated President Davis and Governor Pickens into doing just that. He wasn't the country bumpkin he played himself to be, and he was good at what he did. That said, I think he honestly believed that the Union had to be preserved at any cost, including slavery and including his own life.

2. He was a lawyer.

Well said. Slavery issue aside, let's ask Pres. Lincoln about Nergo rights. Enter the political answer....

[Highbury]

I am actually going to discuss the OP and not the Civil War... hope nobody minds...

I would have to say the underrated Woodrow Wilson deserves a tip of the hat. His timing of keeping the US out of WWI until the right moment when the world's previous dominant powers were all but spent was the foundation of the superpower the country is today.

I could be really picky and say the list leaves out the 13 Presidents prior to Washington though

[Moeceefus]

Originally Posted by Highbury

I am actually going to discuss the OP and not the Civil War... hope nobody minds...

I would have to say the underrated Woodrow Wilson deserves a tip of the hat. His timing of keeping the US out of WWI until the right moment when the world's previous dominant powers were all but spent was the foundation of the superpower the country is today.

I could be really picky and say the list leaves out the 13 Presidents prior to Washington though

Wilson and friends played a huge part in the outbreak of WW2 I'd say. As for the Civil War, regardless of the issues involved, Lincoln did the right thing keeping the country united. Imagine the states as thier own fractious nations. We certainly wouldn't have the power we have enjoyed over the years and would have been invaded by foriegn powers by now I'd think. It could have ended up the nazi or soviet states of america had history played out differently in regards to the civil war.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by Highbury

I am actually going to discuss the OP and not the Civil War... hope nobody minds...

I would have to say the underrated Woodrow Wilson deserves a tip of the hat. His timing of keeping the US out of WWI until the right moment when the world's previous dominant powers were all but spent was the foundation of the superpower the country is today.

I could be really picky and say the list leaves out the 13 Presidents prior to Washington though

Wilson never wanted to go to war, ever. He burst into tears when the Declaration of War went through Congress.

[gimpy117]

no surprise with W and his abysmal ranking

[UnderseaLcpl]

Excellent post, SH, but I think youre overlooking some things. Prepare yourself for a veritable barrage of classical and post-modern economic theory, replete with empyrical evidence. There's a reason that the Keynesian economic theory prevalent in the New Deal has been overturned and I intend to show you what that reason is.

For the time being, however, I'm just messing around on the GT forums. I'll get on the case tommorrow afternoon or something. Sorry for the wait, I'm just too tired to do any serious research or dig out the boxes that my books are packed in. That's a real yawn, not a sarcastic one.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Well, this this thread has strayed from its original topic a tad.

[tater]

Originally Posted by thorn69

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.

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.

[Platapus]

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.