Ranking of U.S. Presidents by historians

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Typical.

And again with the insults. I'm still waiting for your rebuttal of the Declarations of Causes documents. You haven't posted a single fact yet.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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.

That reminds me of an old story where a Northerner asks a Southerner "When will you guys just accept that the war is over?"

To which the Southerner replies "I guess when you damnyankees stop shooting at us"

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

(for lack of a word I like using more to describe Northerners )

I prefer 'human'. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And again with the insults. I'm still waiting for your rebuttal of the Declarations of Causes documents. You haven't posted a single fact yet.

Most of these "facts" you've claimed are real are biased "he said/he said" arguments from long ago and aren't really facts Steve. It's always been one side's story or the other. People have to choose which side they want to believe in I guess. There's just as much "fact" on both sides of this argument. But what was really right back then Steve? Going to war against the South and burning down their cities and homes for choosing to leave in peace? According to the Constitution, they had that right. Would you condone a nasty war like that today if Obama wanted to invade Arizona for passing their law and enforcing it? Come on, you're smart enough to say "No" to that I'd hope! Anytime the government resorts to military use against it's own people in order to force policy on them - it's wrong. As you can see, Lincoln's goal of keeping the Union as a whole hasn't really kept us together. It's just lead to a back and forth argument that will never die. It's pointless to continue to argue. You'll never get me to see things your way and you'll never see things mine.

When you grow up in a city that had a lovely street called Monument Ave. lined with beautiful statues of some of the Civil war's greatest Southern Generals trashed with a statue of Arthur Ashe holding a tennis racket and a book, maybe you'd understand! It was obviously done as a slap in the face to anybody who has respect for the South. Or when Robert E. Lee Blvd got it's name changed to Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd to appease the blacks in the city and once again slap the face of Southern respect!

Richmond was the Capital of the Confederacy. It's also the city I grew up in a long time ago. Now it's being dismounted by sheer ignorance and people who for some reason believe the war was fought on the grounds of slavery. That's just ignorant BS! It's these same people who want the truth about the Civil war to be swept away. Funny how it's not us good ole boy Southerners that want it changed. We have nothing to hide. We want it to stay the way it is. It's history after all and a part of the foundation of the US and the way it is today. Love it or leave it!

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by krashkart

I prefer 'human'. Thanks.

You got it, half-Yank

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Most of these "facts" you've claimed are real are biased "he said/he said" arguments from long ago and aren't really facts Steve. It's always been one side's story or the other. People have to choose which side they want to believe in I guess. There's just as much "fact" on both sides of this argument. But what was really right back then Steve? Going to war against the South and burning down their cities and homes for choosing to leave in peace? According to the Constitution, they had that right. Would you condone a nasty war like that today if Obama wanted to invade Arizona for passing their law and enforcing it? Come on, you're smart enough to say "No" to that I'd hope! Anytime the government resorts to military use against it's own people in order to force policy on them - it's wrong. As you can see, Lincoln's goal of keeping the Union as a whole hasn't really kept us together. It's just lead to a back and forth argument that will never die. It's pointless to continue to argue. You'll never get me to see things your way and you'll never see things mine.

When you grow up in a city that had a lovely street called Monument Ave. lined with beautiful statues of some of the Civil war's greatest Southern Generals trashed with a statue of Arthur Ashe holding a tennis racket and a book, maybe you'd understand! It was obviously done as a slap in the face to anybody who has respect for the South. Or when Robert E. Lee Blvd got it's name changed to Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd to appease the blacks in the city and once again slap the face of Southern respect!

Richmond was the Capital of the Confederacy. It's also the city I grew up in a long time ago. Now it's being dismounted by sheer ignorance and people who for some reason believe the war was fought on the grounds of slavery. That's just ignorant BS! It's these same people who want the truth about the Civil war to be swept away. Funny how it's not us good ole boy Southerners that want it changed. We have nothing to hide. We want it to stay the way it is. It's history after all and a part of the foundation of the US and the way it is today. Love it or leave it!

Why don't you calm down, Steve is not your enemy. I happen to believe the Civil War was fought over slavery myself, always seemed pretty obvious. But no matter, if you disagree, that's ok. Just be civil.

Neal

[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.

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Why don't you calm down, Steve is not your enemy. I happen to believe the Civil War was fought over slavery myself, always seemed pretty obvious. But no matter, if you disagree, that's ok. Just be civil.

Neal

Was I not being civil? Certainly opposing Steve's views, and apparently yours, doesn't make me uncivil? I'm not trash talking anybody and don't plan on it. I wanted to drop the issue earlier but Steve persisted in continuing the argument.

BTW Neal, the Civil War was fought over States rights. I realize that slavery falls into that, but it was not the main cause for the war. It would appear that you've fallen victim to the same liberal teachings the rest of us have. I had to put down "what they wanted to hear" on my tests just to pass grade school - Not what I believed to be right and what other publications have stated. Instead of school systems teaching BOTH sides of the argument, they only teach the one side that won the war's argument. But like I've said, the victor is not always right. They just had better numbers on their side. And in the case of the Civil War - The repeating rifle.

Why do I support States rights? Simple. Because what affects the people in one state doesn't necessarily affect the people in another. Therefore they are ignorant to the problem. For instance, it's simple for people up north to condemn Arizona about its stance with illegal immigration. They don't have to contend with the problem themselves. It may even bolster their numbers to have these people given a free pass to vote democratic on the next election! I would imagine they would have a different opinion if they had to face the problem on a daily basis though. It's not like their jobs are being sold out to the lowest bidder who's willing to work for less than minimum wage!

Honestly, I think Arizona should just abandon their new law and just change it to say that illegal immigration is OK - just not here. Offer the illegals bus fare to New York State, Michigan, Vermont, and Maine. Let those people chew on the bleak reality they seem to be so in favor of. I doubt they'd be so welcoming. Bottom line - It's so easy to sit in judgment over others when the problems aren't your own.

And as Forrest Gump said best, "That's all I have to say about that"

[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.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

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)

interesting choices, but why Grant? I have a lot of respect for him as a general, but he was not really cut out to be a politician.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by thorn69

BTW Neal, the Civil War was fought over States rights. I realize that slavery falls into that, but it was not the main cause for the war. It would appear that you've fallen victim to the same liberal teachings the rest of us have. I had to put down "what they wanted to hear" on my tests just to pass grade school - Not what I believed to be right and what other publications have stated. Instead of school systems teaching BOTH sides of the argument, they only teach the one side that won the war's argument. But like I've said, the victor is not always right. They just had better numbers on their side. And in the case of the Civil War - The repeating rifle.

And for the umteenth time: Then cite the evidence! Otherwise, everything you said is nothing more than conjecture.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Was I not being civil? Certainly opposing Steve's views, and apparently yours, doesn't make me uncivil? I'm not trash talking anybody and don't plan on it. I wanted to drop the issue earlier but Steve persisted in continuing the argument.

BTW Neal, the Civil War was fought over States rights. I realize that slavery falls into that, but it was not the main cause for the war. It would appear that you've fallen victim to the same liberal teachings the rest of us have. I had to put down "what they wanted to hear" on my tests just to pass grade school - Not what I believed to be right and what other publications have stated. Instead of school systems teaching BOTH sides of the argument, they only teach the one side that won the war's argument. But like I've said, the victor is not always right. They just had better numbers on their side. And in the case of the Civil War - The repeating rifle.

Why do I support States rights? Simple. Because what affects the people in one state doesn't necessarily affect the people in another. Therefore they are ignorant to the problem. For instance, it's simple for people up north to condemn Arizona about its stance with illegal immigration. They don't have to contend with the problem themselves. It may even bolster their numbers to have these people given a free pass to vote democratic on the next election! I would imagine they would have a different opinion if they had to face the problem on a daily basis though. It's not like their jobs are being sold out to the lowest bidder who's willing to work for less than minimum wage!

Honestly, I think Arizona should just abandon their new law and just change it to say that illegal immigration is OK - just not here. Offer the illegals bus fare to New York State, Michigan, Vermont, and Maine. Let those people chew on the bleak reality they seem to be so in favor of. I doubt they'd be so welcoming. Bottom line - It's so easy to sit in judgment over others when the problems aren't your own.

And as Forrest Gump said best, "That's all I have to say about that"

States rights was just a convenient excuse. Countries dont go to war over whether certain powers should be exercised at the state or federal level. The primary cause was slavery. The southern radicals like Senator Robert Rhett who pushed South carolina to declare independence wanted not only to preserve slavery, but to bring back the African slave trade.

Whether individual states had a right to secede was legally debatable, you had as many argument on one side as the other. The federal government was perfectly within its rights to say individual states do not have a right to secede and will be brought back into the Union by force, if required.

The irony of course is that Lincoln was quite ready to live with slavery to preserve the Union. If the southern states had not attempted to break away, it would have been pretty much business as usual. As late as the summer of 1862, Lincoln would have been willing to maintain slavery in the South in exchange for a return of the rebel states to the Union.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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 )

Do you start all of your papers with an insult?

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.

You have side-stepped a whole lot to try and prove your point, but the facts of history are against you. However, you are correct about one thing: Modern agricultural techniques were not in place. The gains of the industrial revoluntion, however, were in full swing. The northern states' industrial capacity, of which the textile industry was only a small part, gave those states an enormous amount of wealth and manufacuring capacity, which translated into jobs, population, and ultimately, power. The South, being an agrarian society, was largely the proverbial one-trick pony. It relied on slavery to fuel it's output. In fact, it relied so heavily on slavery that anywhere from 35-44% of the some 9 million people in the southern states was the property of another person.

The south was reeling after the Tariff of 1828, and following the Nullification Crisis in 1832, in which President Jackson prepared to use the US Army to enforce a compromise tariff in South Carolina, the southern states were, to say the least, sore. With western expansion imminent, and the northern abolition movement catching the ears of their politicians, the southern economic way of life was threatened. So, yes, economic reasons were the primary concern of the south, but at the heart of every economic issue was that of slavery. It is inescapable.

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.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the 1804 establishment of the Mason-Dixon Line and the 1808 ban of the importing of African slaves would speak otherwise. While it is true that this process did not eliminate slavery overnight, and that some states, like Pennsylvania, reported slaves on the census into the mid-19th century, this became the exception, rather than the rule.

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.

See Tariff of 1828.

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.

Finally, we agree on something.

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.

This is sophism. You ignore the wealth, political control, and industrial capacity of the north in order to make your point. To reiterate, it was the south who was economically and politically threatened by the north. Hence, a change in policy towards slavery was a real threat to southern prosperity. You, to prove your point, have inverted the equation.

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".

I would take Steve's line in stating that photographic evidence refutes the above.

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.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a political maneuver, designed to state that Union victory was inevitable, and as such, it did not require southern consent in eliminating slavery. A shrewd decision, in my opinion.

Similarly, I will not discuss the Union's acceptance of slavery in member states.

Please do.

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.

According to the official records:

Total African American Recruitment
Union Army: 186,097
Confederate Army: Less than 50

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.

No one is calling you a white supremacist or an advocate of the institution of slavery, and I will take exception to anyone who does.

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?

See above for a small piece on Andrew Jackson. Of course, he also supported slavery and was an outspoken advocate of the Native American genocide, let alone discussion of the Battle of Horseshoe bend and the subsequent Treaty of Fort Jackson.

Thomas Jefferson could be cited as an example of weak vacillation, unable to part with his creature comforts and effectively end the abominable practice of slavery.

George Washington could be characterized as a second-rate milita colonel, who's near limitless ambition, masked by a pretentious pseudo-modesty, cost countless lives and required the efforts of a foreign military to rectify.

Of course, much of the above is true, as are Lincoln's failing. Still, they common trait they all share is that the quality of their work and their legacies outweighs their flaws. It is more than most of us could expect of ourselves.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Most of these "facts" you've claimed are real are biased "he said/he said" arguments from long ago and aren't really facts Steve.

You started this by claiming the Civil War was not about slavery. For everyone's benefit I'll repeat the facts that you claim are only "he said/she said".

Texas

the Federal Government has failed to accomplish the purposes of the compact of union between these States, in giving protection either to the persons of our people upon an exposed frontier, or to the property of our citizens; and, whereas, the action of the Northern States of the Union is violative of the compact between the States and the guarantees of the Constitution; and whereas the recent developments in Federal affairs, make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and prosperity of the people of Texas and her Sister slaveholding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression:

South Carolina

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River. The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

Mississippi

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Alabama

WHEREAS, anti-slavery agitation persistently continued in the non-slaveholding States of this Union...

Georgia

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

I'm still waiting.