Worst Four Presidents

[Perianne]

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Lyndon Johnson
3. Barack Obama
4. Jimmy Carter

Your opinion?

[Noir]

I wouldn't be in a position to compare, however, why've you chosen Abe as the worst?

[tailfins]

1. Woodrow Wilson
2. John F. Kennedy
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
4. Lyndon Johnson

Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama are not on that list because their incompetence prevented them from enacting much of their poison agenda.

[revelarts]

Woodrow Wilson
Warren Harding
Franklin Roosevelt
Lyndon Johnson or W Bush

And before people start jumping on me for adding Bush I'd like someone one to tell me 3 Positive constitutional things that W did to help the country. (btw Going to war on false pretenses is not one.)

[DLT]

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Lyndon Johnson
3. Barack Obama
4. Jimmy Carter

Your opinion?

I would replace #1 with FDR, who kicked off/started most of this socialism crap we're now suffering from. Other than that, the list is correct IMO.

[Perianne]

I wouldn't be in a position to compare, however, why've you chosen Abe as the worst?


I would replace #1 with FDR, who kicked off/started most of this socialism crap we're now suffering from. Other than that, the list is correct IMO.

Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant and of course Obama can relate to him.

Had Lincoln not done the things he did, I would likely live in the Confederate States of America and would not have had to suffer under Lyndon Johnson, James Earl Carter, Jr., and Barack Obama.

What might have been if not for Lincoln.

http://redstatements.co/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/obamalincoln.jpg

[revelarts]

Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant and of course Obama can relate to him.
Had Lincoln not done the things he did, I would likely live in the Confederate States of America and would not have had to suffer ....


:whistling2:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5BL4RNFr58

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

1, bamboy
2. bammy boy
3. bamscum
4. Carter

And in that order.. Tyr

[Gunny]

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Lyndon Johnson
3. Barack Obama
4. Jimmy Carter

Your opinion?

I almost agree. I don't think Johnson belongs there. Woodrow Wilson was worse. James Buchanan was worse. Calvin Coolidge was worse. He brought on the depression Hoover got blamed for.

And Obama trumps Lincoln. Those two were the most unconstitutional presidents we've had.

[tailfins]

I almost agree. I don't think Johnson belongs there. Woodrow Wilson was worse. James Buchanan was worse. Calvin Coolidge was worse. He brought on the depression Hoover got blamed for.

And Obama trumps Lincoln. Those two were the most unconstitutional presidents we've had.

What? Calvin Coolidge was a textbook example of a conservative.

[Gunny]

What? Calvin Coolidge was a textbook example of a conservative.

But he created the conditions that put us in the Great Depression. It just all fell apart on Hoover, another textbook example of a conservative.

[Gunny]

Oh and I forgot. Roosevelt was the biggest commie we ever had.

[Gunny]

And I can't believe both Lincoln and Obama were/are lawyers. What or whose law is it they read because it sure isn't the US Constitution.

[NightTrain]

I'm really surprised to see Lincoln anywhere near this list.

Is this a North/South thing? I've always considered him a great President. He wasn't responsible for the Civil War, he was responsible for winning it.

[Gunny]

I'm really surprised to see Lincoln anywhere near this list.

Is this a North/South thing? I've always considered him a great President. He wasn't responsible for the Civil War, he was responsible for winning it.

Sort of. But look at the facts. Lincoln violated the Constitution at every turn to force people who voluntarily joined the US and were just as free to leave to bend to military might. You can go right down the Bill of Rights and figure out which one he DIDN'T violate.

[NightTrain]

Sort of. But look at the facts. Lincoln violated the Constitution at every turn to force people who voluntarily joined the US and were just as free to leave to bend to military might. You can go right down the Bill of Rights and figure out which one he DIDN'T violate.

Well, it was a very unique situation... yeah, he did things, but Congress was suddenly missing half of it's members to the Confederacy and the government (and country) was in utter chaos.

Some of his actions may have been highly questionable at the time, but I think history has vindicated him.

I think everyone can agree that it was an emergency situation and a man of action was needed.

It would have been a lot more sinister had Lincoln been responsible for the war - but he wasn't.

He got handed a real shitty situation and he fixed it - and I can't argue with the results.

[Gunny]

Well, it was a very unique situation... yeah, he did things, but Congress was suddenly missing half of it's members to the Confederacy and the government (and country) was in utter chaos.

Some of his actions may have been highly questionable at the time, but I think history has vindicated him.

I think everyone can agree that it was an emergency situation and a man of action was needed.

It would have been a lot more sinister had Lincoln been responsible for the war - but he wasn't.

He got handed a real shitty situation and he fixed it - and I can't argue with the results.

That was the whole point to the war. Control of Congress. History hasn't vindicated him. Revisionist BS has. And I disagree. Lincoln WAS responsible for the war.

So were his Northern power broker cronies. The US Civil War was the same as any other war -- it was about power and money. An industrial north and an agricultural south. The north wanted the south's agriculture, just not the Southerners with it. Same crap goes on today. The didn't need the north. Europe was its biggest market.

So what you can't earn or won't pay for, you just take by force. Something wrong there.

[Perianne]

I'm really surprised to see Lincoln anywhere near this list.

Is this a North/South thing? I've always considered him a great President. He wasn't responsible for the Civil War, he was responsible for winning it.

Even if he was not all that Gunny said, yes, it is a North/South thing. Google "Lincoln was worst President".

[Gunny]

Even if he was not all that Gunny said, yes, it is a North/South thing. Google "Lincoln was worst President".

Are you kidding? That was the abridged version of my rant.

[Perianne]

Are you kidding? That was the abridged version of my rant.

I understand. I have an unabridged version of Lincoln, too. Geez, how I despise the man and all the praise he gets from the Northerners and liberals.

[Gunny]

I understand. I have an unabridged version of Lincoln, too. Geez, how I despise the man and all the praise he gets from the Northerners and liberals.

The first Republican President. Goes to show how these people with reverse course in a second for a vote.

[NightTrain]

Yeah, born in Minnesota, and live in AK. Don't get more Northern than that.

I still say he was a great Prez! :happy0203:

[Perianne]

Yeah, born in Minnesota, and live in AK. Don't get more Northern than that.

I still say he was a great Prez! :happy0203:

You know Lincoln planned to bomb Alaska?

[revelarts]

That was the whole point to the war. Control of Congress. History hasn't vindicated him. Revisionist BS has. And I disagree. Lincoln WAS responsible for the war. So were his Northern power broker cronies. The US Civil War was the same as any other war -- it was about power and money. An industrial north and an agricultural south. The north wanted the south's agriculture, just not the Southerners with it. Same crap goes on today. The didn't need the north. Europe was its biggest market.
So what you can't earn or won't pay for, you just take by force. Something wrong there.

It's interesting that some will claim that the civil war's really ..mainly... about "power and money" but if someone suggest the same about Iraq or the "war on terror" suddenly you're a "traitor" or a crazy "leftist".

There's FAR more legit and moral reason for the civil war than there was for Iraq or Vietnam or the war on terror or pick your foreign adventure.

Concerning breaking "bill of rights", well people seem very concerned about that for Lincoln and the Civil War but mention the sacred Bill of rights and constitution in reference to the BS "war on terror" and suddenly it can be chucked in the river for our "safety". And torture really isn't.

And the rights of all the slaves being busted to unholy hell before the civil war, which would have been upheld as legal by the Confederacy is not even considered or mentioned as an issue. Because ....at least the Confederacy wouldn't have allowed Johnson or Carter. lol. (both southerners BTW).

The twisted moral logic and history to piss on Lincoln and the blithe ignoring and justifications of the recent constitutional and military abuses by W and others would be laughable if it weren't so amazingly sad.

[jimnyc]

The twisted moral logic and history to piss on Lincoln and the blithe ignoring and justifications of the recent constitutional and military abuses by W and others would be laughable if it weren't so amazingly sad.

Interesting that you seem to always go back to Bush, and bypass the current atrocity, who continued everything Bush did, and did MUCH more against the COTUS and rights than Bush could ever have dreamed up. I know you're no fan of Obama, but why do you bypass what is currently killing our country in order to go back years? In fact, I'm willing to vet/debate that Obama is MUCH MUCH worse - but some still want to jump on Bush. THAT is what I find amazingly sad, folks kind of ignoring what is CURRENTLY destroying our country.

[revelarts]

Interesting that you seem to always go back to Bush, and bypass the current atrocity, who continued everything Bush did, and did MUCH more against the COTUS and rights than Bush could ever have dreamed up. I know you're no fan of Obama, but why do you bypass what is currently killing our country in order to go back years? In fact, I'm willing to vet/debate that Obama is MUCH MUCH worse - but some still want to jump on Bush. THAT is what I find amazingly sad, folks kind of ignoring what is CURRENTLY destroying our country.
The thread's question is about the worse 4, I make that judgment partly based on unconstitutional pioneers and innovators.
Obama is just standing on Bush's shoulders that's why i sight him. Bush opened the doors that Obama has run through. Why does everyone ignore that? You know very well i've complained about Obama's constitution busting actions on many occasions but the Bush admin created the climate for his actions.

The patriot act, bailouts for big banks, the TSA, torture, the pre-emptive war doctrine "the Bush Doctrine", openly spying on every american without warrant, indefinite detention without due process, taking the rights of governors to run the the national guard, world wide authority to kill anyone anywhere at anytime, assumed more presidential authority that the constitution outlines, ALL where PUSHED through by the Bush admin. Obama partly came to office promising to correct many of those unconstitutional issues but I knew he was lying because as senator he voted for some of them. What Obama's done is just anchor those precedents/policies or gone a step or 2 beyond.
But Bush CREATED them that's why i "go back years". And many on the right at the time either justified, made excuses for or cheered Bush's actions. But now Obama is somehow so much worse than Bush and is a clear enemy of the constitution. Yes it's true, he is, He kills americans without trial. and drones strikes MORE countries without congressional approval, and attacked Libya without congressional approval, and is unconstitutionally using executive orders to make law, (as Bush and many other presidents have).

But like Wilson and FDR, the Bush admin shifted the american system in a way that could have been reversed by a follow up President and a strong congress but the follow up Presidents simply piled on. i don't give the highest ranks to follow up players.

[jimnyc]

The thread's question is about the worse 4, I make that judgment partly based on unconstitutional pioneers and innovators.
Obama is just standing on Bush's shoulders that's why i sight him. Bush opened the doors that Obama has run through. Why does everyone ignore that? You know very well i've complained about Obama's constitution busting actions on many occasions but the Bush admin created the climate for his actions.

The patriot act, bailouts for big banks, the TSA, torture, the pre-emptive war doctrine "the Bush Doctrine", openly spying on every american without warrant, indefinite detention without due process, taking the rights of governors to run the the national guard, world wide authority to kill anyone anywhere at anytime, assumed more presidential authority that the constitution outlines, ALL where PUSHED through by the Bush admin. Obama partly came to office promising to correct many of those unconstitutional issues but I knew he was lying because as senator he voted for some of them. What Obama's done is just anchor those precedents/policies or gone a step or 2 beyond.
But Bush CREATED them that's why i "go back years". And many on the right at the time either justified, made excuses for or cheered Bush's actions. But now Obama is somehow so much worse than Bush and is a clear enemy of the constitution. Yes it's true, he is, He kills americans without trial. and drones strikes MORE countries without congressional approval, and attacked Libya without congressional approval, and is unconstitutionally using executive orders to make law, (as Bush and many other presidents have).

But like Wilson and FDR, the Bush admin shifted the american system in a way that could have been reversed by a follow up President and a strong congress but the follow up Presidents simply piled on. i don't give the highest ranks to follow up players.

Fair enough, I can understand your POV. I don't want to debate the war, was just curious. I personally think Obama is 10x worse, and perhaps the worst ever, only time will tell. If he makes this deal with Iran, and lifts all sanctions, and agrees to limits on inspections - he jumps out to the lead of the losers.

And I was one of those that went along with a fair amount of what Bush did, and cheered some, and still do. No way in hell do I see them as the same, as you imply. Obama has been one bad decision and one overreach after another.

If you see them as the same, or Bush being worse, that's your choice of course. I see nothing whatsoever that Obama did good for our country, nothing whatsoever - except setting us back many, many years. At least I saw Bush as an honest man, even if you disagreed. A man of God, even if you disagreed. A man of principles, even if you disagreed. A man who loved his country with all of his heart. Obama is literally NONE of those things.

[Voted4Reagan]

Carter - totally ineffective, Hostage Crisis, Helicopters in the desert...
Andrew Johnson- Impeached
Lyndon Johnson - Vietnam War
Obama - Same as Carter... a foreign Policy Disaster

[Gunny]

It's interesting that some will claim that the civil war's really ..mainly... about "power and money" but if someone suggest the same about Iraq or the "war on terror" suddenly you're a "traitor" or a crazy "leftist".

There's FAR more legit and moral reason for the civil war than there was for Iraq or Vietnam or the war on terror or pick your foreign adventure.

Concerning breaking "bill of rights", well people seem very concerned about that for Lincoln and the Civil War but mention the sacred Bill of rights and constitution in reference to the BS "war on terror" and suddenly it can be chucked in the river for our "safety". And torture really isn't.

And the rights of all the slaves being busted to unholy hell before the civil war, which would have been upheld as legal by the Confederacy is not even considered or mentioned as an issue. Because ....at least the Confederacy wouldn't have allowed Johnson or Carter. lol. (both southerners BTW).

The twisted moral logic and history to piss on Lincoln and the blithe ignoring and justifications of the recent constitutional and military abuses by W and others would be laughable if it weren't so amazingly sad.

There was no moral reason for the Civil War. Lincoln freed only the slaves in the South and it was a military tactic, not a moral one. The goal was to get Southern troops off the line to go defend uprisings at home. The war was fought to control the government and economy of the US. And I'm not saying it was just the North. The wealthy on BOTH sides created that war. The poor on both sides just got to kill each other over it.

[Gunny]

Carter - totally ineffective, Hostage Crisis, Helicopters in the desert...
Andrew Johnson- Impeached
Lyndon Johnson - Vietnam War
Obama - Same as Carter... a foreign Policy Disaster

You can't blame Andrew Johnson. He tried to carry out Lincoln's post war policies and Congress emasculated him completely because they wanted revenge, not reconciliation.

[Perianne]

So, we all agree that Lincoln was the worst? And Obama is right there with him?

[Gunny]

So, we all agree that Lincoln was the worst? And Obama is right there with him?

And the happiest camper about it is Jimmy Carter.:laugh:

[NightTrain]

You know Lincoln planned to bomb Alaska?

What? That's ridiculous.

William H. Seward, who was Lincoln's Secretary of State, is the one who negotiated with the Russians and bought Alaska 2 years after Lincoln was assassinated.

Incidently, Seward was also targeted for assassination at the same time as Lincoln, but they only wounded him in his home.

[Gunny]

What? That's ridiculous.

William H. Seward, who was Lincoln's Secretary of State, is the one who negotiated with the Russians and bought Alaska 2 years after Lincoln was assassinated.

Incidently, Seward was also targeted for assassination at the same time as Lincoln, but they only wounded him in his home.

I'm wondering how Lincoln could bomb Alaska given we didn't even have cars then, much less planes. That's a big place for those little round black balls they called bombs back then. Guess he was hiring the Lone Ranger. He's the only one I ever saw make one work. AND ... it only wounded the bad guy.:laugh:

[NightTrain]

That was the whole point to the war. Control of Congress. History hasn't vindicated him. Revisionist BS has. And I disagree. Lincoln WAS responsible for the war.

So were his Northern power broker cronies. The US Civil War was the same as any other war -- it was about power and money. An industrial north and an agricultural south. The north wanted the south's agriculture, just not the Southerners with it. Same crap goes on today. The didn't need the north. Europe was its biggest market.

So what you can't earn or won't pay for, you just take by force. Something wrong there.

Secession was the reason for the war, ignited by the South attacking Ft. Sumpter.

It is well known that the South was pissed about Lincoln's election and had threatened to leave if he was elected because they wanted to expand slavery friendly States in our westward expansion, something that Lincoln was adamantly opposed to. They knew that if the new incoming States were slave-free, they'd be outvoted and would be powerless to advance their cause - and indeed, would soon be forced by legislation to give it up. Truth.

Slavery was the main ingredient of the South's anger. They wanted slaves; the rest of the country did not, as it was a barbaric practice.

Once you join the United States, there is no wording that allows for a withdrawal in the Constitution, no matter how pissed off you are about where the country is headed.

[NightTrain]

I'm wondering how Lincoln could bomb Alaska given we didn't even have cars then, much less planes. That's a big place for those little round black balls they called bombs back then. Guess he was hiring the Lone Ranger. He's the only one I ever saw make one work. AND ... it only wounded the bad guy.:laugh:

She might be confused about some of the skirmishes fought between Alaskan Indians and the U.S. Navy back in the day... those did happen, but it was for your usual reasons involving pissed off locals killing a couple of frontiersmen and the Navy responding by shelling the holy hell out of a village and blowing up their canoes.

But that all went down years after Lincoln was dead and buried.

[Gunny]

Secession was the reason for the war, ignited by the South attacking Ft. Sumpter.

It is well known that the South was pissed about Lincoln's election and had threatened to leave if he was elected because they wanted to expand slavery friendly States in our westward expansion, something that Lincoln was adamantly opposed to. They knew that if the new incoming States were slave-free, they'd be outvoted and would be powerless to advance their cause - and indeed, would soon be forced by legislation to give it up. Truth.

Slavery was the main ingredient of the South's anger. They wanted slaves; the rest of the country did not, as it was a barbaric practice.

Once you join the United States, there is no wording that allows for a withdrawal in the Constitution, no matter how pissed off you are about where the country is headed.

Secession and slavery are the reasons the US give. To the victor goes the spoils, right? The North didn't care about slavery. The North wanted a high export tariff to force the South to feed their industry. The South wanted a low export tariff since they made all their money from Europe. Slavery was a red herring.

As far as secession goes, if I join a gym and I don't like it, I can quit, right? Nothing precluded ANY state from leaving as freely as they entered until an 1868 case the Supremes used to cover the US's ass. The Articles of Confederation said once in you're in. The Articles of Confederation were superceded by the US Constitution that says no such thing.

[Perianne]

You know Lincoln planned to bomb Alaska?


What? That's ridiculous....

Lincoln was planning to nuke Alaska! :)

[revelarts]

Fair enough, I can understand your POV. I don't want to debate the war, was just curious. I personally think Obama is 10x worse, and perhaps the worst ever, only time will tell. If he makes this deal with Iran, and lifts all sanctions, and agrees to limits on inspections - he jumps out to the lead of the losers.

And I was one of those that went along with a fair amount of what Bush did, and cheered some, and still do. No way in hell do I see them as the same, as you imply. Obama has been one bad decision and one overreach after another.

If you see them as the same, or Bush being worse, that's your choice of course. I see nothing whatsoever that Obama did good for our country, nothing whatsoever - except setting us back many, many years. At least I saw Bush as an honest man, even if you disagreed. A man of God, even if you disagreed. A man of principles, even if you disagreed. A man who loved his country with all of his heart. Obama is literally NONE of those things.

we can agree to disagree,

You say you, saw "Bush as an honest man.... A man of God... A man of principles... A man who loved his country with all of his heart."
well that's fine and he may in fact BE some of those things.

But I don't judge Bush on his PR or folky homespun character, but on his political actions where he clearly acted unconstitutional and often dishonestly from what i can tell. His heart may have in fact been in the right place even in his deceptions (for the good of the country) but it does NOTHING IMO to dispel the harm done to our system of gov't. frankly I'd rather have a half crazy, shifty looking atheist who never saluted the flag but did adhere strictly to the constitution. Than some guy who goes to church every sunday and cries every time he passes "ol glory" but thinks the Constitution can be ignored on his "good" judgement.

[NightTrain]

Secession and slavery are the reasons the US give. To the victor goes the spoils, right? The North didn't care about slavery. The North wanted a high export tariff to force the South to feed their industry. The South wanted a low export tariff since they made all their money from Europe. Slavery was a red herring.

I understand that the victors write the history books, but in this case the tension over slavery is well documented.


Despite compromises in 1820 and 1850, the slavery issues exploded in the 1850s. Causes include controversy over admitting Missouri as a slave state in 1820, the acquisition of Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation) as a slave state in 1845 and the status of slavery in western territories won as a result of the Mexican–American War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War) and the resulting Compromise of 1850 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850).[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-21) Following the U.S. victory over Mexico, Northerners attempted to exclude slavery from conquered territories in the Wilmot Proviso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmot_Proviso); although it passed the House, it failed in the Senate. Northern (and British) readers recoiled in anger at the horrors of slavery as described in the novel and play Uncle Tom's Cabin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom%27s_Cabin) (1852) by abolitionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States)Harriet Beecher Stowe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Beecher_Stowe).[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMcPherson198888.E2.80.9391-22)[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-23) Irreconcilable disagreements over slavery ended the Whig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)) and Know Nothing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing) political parties, and later split the Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Democratic_Party) between North and South, while the new Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republican_Party_(United_States)) angered slavery interests by demanding a definite end to its expansion. Most observers believed that without expansion slavery would eventually die out; Lincoln argued this in 1845 and 1858 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%27s_House_Divided_Speech).[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGuelzo200961-24)[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEFoner2010100-25)Meanwhile, the South of the 1850s saw an increasing number of slaves leave the border states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(Civil_War)) through sale, manumission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manumission) and escape. During this same period, slave-holding border states had more free African-Americans and European immigrants than the lower South, which increased Southern fears that slavery was threatened with rapid extinction in this area.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-26)With tobacco and cotton wearing out the soil, the South believed it needed to expand slavery.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-27) Some advocates for the Southern states argued in favor of reopening the international slave trade to populate territory that was to be newly opened to slavery.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-28) Southern demands for a slave code to ensure slavery in the territories repeatedly split the Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Democratic_Party)betw een North and South by widening margins.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTELipset1960349-29)[N 3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-Slavecodesplit-34)
To settle the dispute over slavery expansion, Abolitionists and proslavery elements sent their partisans into Kansas, both using ballots and bullets. In the 1850s, a miniature civil war inBleeding Kansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas) led pro-South Presidents Franklin Pierce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Pierce) and James Buchanan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan) to attempt a forced admission of Kansas as a slave state through vote fraud.[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-35) The 1857 Congressional rejection of the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecompton_Constitution) was the first multi-party solid-North vote, and that solid vote was anti-slavery to support the democratic majority voting in the Kansas Territory.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEPotter1976299-327-36) Violence on behalf of Southern honor reached the floor of the Senate in 1856 when a Southern Congressman, Preston Brooks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Brooks), physically assaulted Republican Senator Charles Sumner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sumner) when he ridiculed prominent slaveholders as pimps for slavery.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-37)
The earlier political party structure failed to make accommodation among sectional differences. Disagreements over slavery caused the Whig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)) and "Know-Nothing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing)" parties to collapse. In 1860, the last national political party, the Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Democratic_Party), split along sectional lines. Anti-slavery Northerners mobilized in 1860 behind moderate Abraham Lincoln because he was most likely to carry the doubtful western states. In 1857, the Supreme Court's Dred Scott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford) decision ended the Congressional compromise for Popular Sovereignty in Kansas. According to the court, slavery in the territories was a property right of any settler, regardless of the majority there. Chief Justice Taney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney)'s decision said that slaves were "... so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect". The decision overturned the Missouri Compromise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise), which banned slavery in territory north of the 36°30' parallel.[35]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEFehrenbacher1981208-38)
Republicans denounced the Dred Scott decision and promised to overturn it; Abraham Lincoln warned that the next Dred Scott decision could threaten the Northern states with slavery. The Republican party platform called slavery "a national evil", and Lincoln believed it would die a natural death if it were contained.[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEPotter1976275-39) The Democrat Stephen A. Douglas developed the Freeport Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeport_Doctrine) to appeal to North and South. Douglas argued, Congress could not decide either for or against slavery before a territory was settled. Nonetheless, the anti-slavery majority in Kansas could stop slavery with its own local laws if their police laws did not protect slavery introduction.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-40)Most 1850 political battles followed the arguments of Lincoln and Douglas, focusing on the issue of slavery expansion in the territories.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGuelzo200961-24)
But political debate was cut short throughout the South with Northern abolitionist John Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist))'s 1859 raid at Harpers Ferry Armory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpers_Ferry_Armory) in an attempt to incite slave insurrections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_insurrection). The Southern political defense of slavery transformed into widespread expansion of local militias for armed defense of their "peculiar" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_institution) domestic institution.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEPotter1976356-384-41) Lincoln's assessment of the political issue for the 1860 elections was that, "This question of Slavery was more important than any other; indeed, so much more important has it become that no other national question can even get a hearing just at present."[N 4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-LincolnSpeech-44) The Republicans gained majorities in both House and Senate for the first time since the 1856 elections, they were to be seated in numbers that Lincoln might use to govern, a national parliamentary majority even before pro-slavery House and Senate seats were vacated.[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-45) Meanwhile, Southern Vice President, Alexander Stephens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Stephens), in the Cornerstone Speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech), declared the new confederate "Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTESchott1996334-46) The Republican administration enacted the Confiscation Acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiscation_Acts) that set conditions for emancipation of slaves prior to the official proclamation of emancipation.[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-47) Likewise, Lincoln had previously condemned slavery and called for its "extinction."[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-48)
Considering the relative weight given to causes of the Civil War by contemporary actors, historians such as Chandra Manning argue that both Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Army) and Confederate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Army) fighting soldiers believed that slavery caused the Civil War. Union men mainly believed the war was to emancipate the slaves. Confederates fought to protect southern society, and slavery as an integral part of it.[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-49) Addressing the causes, Eric Foner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Foner) would relate a historical context with multidimensional political, social and economic variables. The several causes united in the moment by a consolidating nationalism. A social movement that was individualist, egalitarian and perfectionist grew to a political democratic majority attacking slavery, and slavery's defense in the Southern pre-industrial traditional society brought the two sides to war.[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEFoner198118.E2.80.9320.2C_21.E2.80.9324-50)

You know things are pretty extreme when Senators assault each other while in session over an issue.

No, the 1850s saw a huge amount of controversy over slavery and it embroiled the entire nation in it.


As far as secession goes, if I join a gym and I don't like it, I can quit, right? Nothing precluded ANY state from leaving as freely as they entered until an 1868 case the Supremes used to cover the US's ass. The Articles of Confederation said once in you're in. The Articles of Confederation were superceded by the US Constitution that says no such thing.

Joining a Nation and then withdrawing from it is a bit more complex than your gym membership cancellation. I would go so far as to compare it to trying to get out of your cell phone contract prematurely... both would require an Act of Congress.

James Madison, often referred to as "The Father of the Constitution", strongly opposed the argument that secession was permitted by the Constitution. In a March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster (congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification), Madison discussed "revolution" versus "secession":



I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.


Thus Madison affirms an extraconstitutional right to revolt against conditions of "intolerable oppression"; but if the case cannot be made that such conditions exist, then he rejects secession—as a violation of the Constitution.

I think we can all agree that Madison would be the unquestioned authority on what the Constitution allowed.


Andrew Jackson said this :


But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union.

To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.

Once you're in, you're in... unless you can prove tyrannical oppression, and then we're talking revolution which is a whole new animal.

[revelarts]

Secession was the reason for the war, ignited by the South attacking Ft. Sumpter.

It is well known that the South was pissed about Lincoln's election and had threatened to leave if he was elected because they wanted to expand slavery friendly States in our westward expansion, something that Lincoln was adamantly opposed to. They knew that if the new incoming States were slave-free, they'd be outvoted and would be powerless to advance their cause - and indeed, would soon be forced by legislation to give it up. Truth.

Slavery was the main ingredient of the South's anger. They wanted slaves; the rest of the country did not, as it was a barbaric practice.

Yes this^
agreed

the only significant lines of difference in the Confederate constitution and the U.S. constitution was it's addition of strong wording concerning the perpetuation of "negro slavery".

When Lincoln was nominated as the candidate for the NEW republican party, the party itself was formed out of groups that were antislavery based. And even though Lincoln himself was willing to make all kinds of compromises on slavery as a candidate the south saw his elections as the DEATH NELL for the practice and as a signal to leave the union.

Jefferson Davis in his farewell speech to congress made it clear that it was because of slavery that his state was seceding, the other states wrote the same in their letters of secession.

And they all knew it would mean war, they all knew it for decades and had tried to work around it with various compromises and court decisions.

Slavery was THE reason for the war, no slavery no civil war period end of story.

revisionist create a straw man Lincoln of 3rd history text to knock down.
Fredrick Douglas and other abolitionist never painted Lincoln as a hard line abolitionist or white knight, neither do current 8th grade - college history books.
He was very willing to allow slavery to maintain the Union, but the southern states didn't believe it and left anyway.
Without any public complaint about trade with Europe or other issues brought up by the revisionist historians.

When they left Lincoln made the hard, but everyone knew, inevitable choice to keep the union together. AND since it was war anyway, those that left would lose the immoral practice they left to maintain, legal slavery. the only thing they really cared about.



Once you join the United States, there is no wording that allows for a withdrawal in the Constitution, no matter how pissed off you are about where the country is headed.
While there's no wording that allows for withdrawal there's also no wording that demand a State remain either.
I think there's a case to made for the ability to peacefully succeed but I think as horrible as the Civil War was it's was in the end one for the ideals of the DOI "all men create equal" and as J.Q. Adams and others put it, Civil War would be "the last battle of the American Revolution."

[NightTrain]

Lincoln was planning to nuke Alaska! :)

Ahhh, now I get it.

I have my coffee mainline drip going now, and the synapses are beginning to fire.

[NightTrain]

While there's no wording that allows for withdrawal there's also no wording that demand a State remain either.


According to James Madison, secession wasn't allowed.

He certainly knew a hell of a lot more about it than this knucklehead parked in AK.

[fj1200]

But he created the conditions that put us in the Great Depression. It just all fell apart on Hoover, another textbook example of a conservative.

No. Hoover intervened in the economy at almost every turn and signed the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which really kicked it off. And I don't recall the Federal Reserve being particularly helpful either.

[Kathianne]

Secession was the reason for the war, ignited by the South attacking Ft. Sumpter.

It is well known that the South was pissed about Lincoln's election and had threatened to leave if he was elected because they wanted to expand slavery friendly States in our westward expansion, something that Lincoln was adamantly opposed to. They knew that if the new incoming States were slave-free, they'd be outvoted and would be powerless to advance their cause - and indeed, would soon be forced by legislation to give it up. Truth.

Slavery was the main ingredient of the South's anger. They wanted slaves; the rest of the country did not, as it was a barbaric practice.

Once you join the United States, there is no wording that allows for a withdrawal in the Constitution, no matter how pissed off you are about where the country is headed.

Indeed. If the framers could have ended slavery, they likely would have. Instead they did the 'compromise' to get the Constitution ratified.

It was an example of 'war postponed' with the predictable bloodier results.

[Gunny]

I understand that the victors write the history books, but in this case the tension over slavery is well documented.



You know things are pretty extreme when Senators assault each other while in session over an issue.

No, the 1850s saw a huge amount of controversy over slavery and it embroiled the entire nation in it.



Joining a Nation and then withdrawing from it is a bit more complex than your gym membership cancellation. I would go so far as to compare it to trying to get out of your cell phone contract prematurely... both would require an Act of Congress.

James Madison, often referred to as "The Father of the Constitution", strongly opposed the argument that secession was permitted by the Constitution. In a March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster (congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification), Madison discussed "revolution" versus "secession":





Thus Madison affirms an extraconstitutional right to revolt against conditions of "intolerable oppression"; but if the case cannot be made that such conditions exist, then he rejects secession—as a violation of the Constitution.

I think we can all agree that Madison would be the unquestioned authority on what the Constitution allowed.


Andrew Jackson said this :



Once you're in, you're in... unless you can prove tyrannical oppression, and then we're talking revolution which is a whole new animal.

I don't disagree that slavery was "an" issue. It just wasn't "the issue". It was the excuse. I'm from the South. Lived all over as a military brat, then as a Marine. The worst racists I've ever met were from the northern Midwest. I'm not excusing the South. But I'm also not excusing anyone else. The biggest chapter of the KKK was in Indiana, not Alabama.

I don't believe in enslaving another human, just so we get that straight. Americans didn't invent slavery. We were just the last ones to get caught with it. And we've had it held over our heads for 180 years. Lincoln was so "cool" he wanted to end them back to Africa.

You can't take a complex situation over power and money and hang it on the most obvious thing. Then again, people voted for Obama so I guess you can. You got to be able to see past the smokescreen.

[LongTermGuy]

I don't disagree that slavery was "an" issue. It just wasn't "the issue". It was the excuse. I'm from the South. Lived all over as a military brat, then as a Marine. The worst racists I've ever met were from the northern Midwest. I'm not excusing the South. But I'm also not excusing anyone else. The biggest chapter of the KKK was in Indiana, not Alabama.

I don't believe in enslaving another human, just so we get that straight. Americans didn't invent slavery. We were just the last ones to get caught with it. And we've had it held over our heads for 180 years. Lincoln was so "cool" he wanted to end them back to Africa.

You can't take a complex situation over power and money and hang it on the most obvious thing. Then again, people voted for Obama so I guess you can. You got to be able to see past the smokescreen.


well said..^^

~ "Lincoln was so "cool" he wanted to end them back to Africa." ~


`Just think...if slavery never started n America back in the day....The black folks would of been so much happier in their own home country....

[Gunny]

well said..^^

~ "Lincoln was so "cool" he wanted to end them back to Africa." ~


`Just think...if slavery never started n America back in the day....The black folks would of been so much happier in their own home country....

Slavery would have ended without a war. Mechanization was making it obsolete. The wealthy 2 percent of Southerners owned slaves. The rest were poor dirt farmers. They didn't fight over any slaves. They fought over the federal government intruding in their back yards.

And lest we forget, the riots in the North by second class citizens who didn't give a crap about slavery in the South while they were themselves enslaved in northern textile mills. They owed their souls to the company store that just "happened to be" the owners of the factories. Sixteen hours a day 7 days a week? Black slaves in the South were treated better.

[revelarts]

You mention 2% of whites were slaver owners, your facts are off here.
from the 1860 census info the percentage of slaves owners


<tbody>

<tbody>
Mississippi:
49%


South Carolina:
46%


Georgia:
37%


Alabama:
35%


Florida:
34%

</tbody>


<tbody>
Louisiana:
29%


Texas:
28%


North Carolina:
28%


Virginia:
26%


Tennessee:
25%

</tbody>


<tbody>
Kentucky:
23%


Arkansas:
20%


Missouri:
13%


Maryland:
12%


Delaware:
3%

</tbody>


</tbody>

And there were apx 4-5 million slaves or more in the U.S..
the Civil war ended in 1865. If the confederacy had won (or the North had allowed secession) the new Confederacy had unambiguously embedded slavery into it's New Constitution. Including provisions that ensured any new states coming into the Confederacy would be slave states and uphold the rights of slaves holders throughout the confederacy.

So given that so many did own slaves and they had just created a constitution protecting slavery and
currently and into the next 20+ years they had an economy that worked well off the free labor,
how long do you think it would have taken before they decided that the newly minted constitution should be altered.
It would have taken an amendment to the ONLY provisions in the constitution that were different from the U.S. constitution.

Some assume that mechanization would have ended the practice. (a pragmatic solution that allows the south to still claim the practice is legit where tech was NOT viable btw) But we all know that slavery is still around TODAY. even in the U.S..
How much more would it have been in, for example the coal mines of Tennessee and Kentucky? They weren't highly mechanized well into the mid 1900s. How much more profitable would coal mines have been with disposable slave labor?
Even sweat shops in the 1990s paid people, how much more profitable would slave labour have been? The Railroads still needed to be built, slave labor to cross the west would be pragmatic. Would the early Henry Ford Car factory be more profitable if it could have used slave labor?
People love household servants, do you really think people would give them up if it was legal to have them run the vacuum and washer?

But lets say miraculously there was a powerful SOUTHERN ANTI-SLAVERY movement right after the civil war, to remove slavery from the Confederate Constitution. How long do you think that legal fight would have lasted? It had already been fought in the U.S. congress for 70 years with states that had far fewer slaves, now in a country were they were ALL in, would abolition ..lead primarily by the pragmatics of mechanization... been quicker?

Would it have taken half the time, 35 years? So that would mean slavery from 1865 to 1900. but finally the anti-slavery amendment to the confederate constitution passes it's congress without veto. So around 1900 the confederacy would have ended slavery maybe. Just before WW1. Great, so do you think there'd be any separate but equal issues? Would these freed slaves have any rights close to the benevolent people who only freed the slaves for the PRAGMATIC reasons of mechanization? Would they generously share in the benefits of full citizenship because of mechanization?

sorry Gunny, LTG, Perianne your views are a smoke screen to a moral horror that the country just has to own.
it doesn't mean all whites or the southern whites were evil or that those of north were angels, or that some blacks didn't also own slaves , or that africans didn't sell others africans as well. No one is promoting those straw men.
None of that clears the historical horror that the country just has to own.

The fact is the South was primarily trying to preserve a morally horrific institution that, dehumanized an ethnic group, condoned serial rape and murder and justified the near complete subjugation of human beings for personal wealth and comfort.
And no amount of smokes can with sincerity, humanity or christian charity cover the stink from that.
Neither you or I were there or are culpable but we do no one any good but trying to cover the stink today with frivolous obfuscations.

[LongTermGuy]

You mention 2% of whites were slaver owners, your facts are off here.
from the 1860 census info the percentage of slaves owners


<tbody>

<tbody>
Mississippi:
49%


South Carolina:
46%


Georgia:
37%


Alabama:
35%


Florida:
34%

</tbody>


<tbody>
Louisiana:
29%


Texas:
28%


North Carolina:
28%


Virginia:
26%


Tennessee:
25%

</tbody>


<tbody>
Kentucky:
23%


Arkansas:
20%


Missouri:
13%


Maryland:
12%


Delaware:
3%

</tbody>


</tbody>

And there were apx 4-5 million slaves or more in the U.S..
the Civil war ended in 1865. If the confederacy had won (or the North had allowed secession) the new Confederacy had unambiguously embedded slavery into it's New Constitution. Including provisions that ensured any new states coming into the Confederacy would be slave states and uphold the rights of slaves holders throughout the confederacy.

So given that so many did own slaves and they had just created a constitution protecting slavery and
currently and into the next 20+ years they had an economy that worked well off the free labor,
how long do you think it would have taken before they decided that the newly minted constitution should be altered.
It would have taken an amendment to the ONLY provisions in the constitution that were different from the U.S. constitution.

Some assume that mechanization would have ended the practice. (a pragmatic solution that allows the south to still claim the practice is legit where tech was NOT viable btw) But we all know that slavery is still around TODAY. even in the U.S..
How much more would it have been in, for example the coal mines of Tennessee and Kentucky? They weren't highly mechanized well into the mid 1900s. How much more profitable would coal mines have been with disposable slave labor?
Even sweat shops in the 1990s paid people, how much more profitable would slave labour have been? The Railroads still needed to be built, slave labor to cross the west would be pragmatic. Would the early Henry Ford Car factory be more profitable if it could have used slave labor?
People love household servants, do you really think people would give them up if it was legal to have them run the vacuum and washer?

But lets say miraculously there was a powerful SOUTHERN ANTI-SLAVERY movement right after the civil war, to remove slavery from the Confederate Constitution. How long do you think that legal fight would have lasted? It had already been fought in the U.S. congress for 70 years with states that had far fewer slaves, now in a country were they were ALL in, would abolition ..lead primarily by the pragmatics of mechanization... been quicker?

Would it have taken half the time, 35 years? So that would mean slavery from 1865 to 1900. but finally the anti-slavery amendment to the confederate constitution passes it's congress without veto. So around 1900 the confederacy would have ended slavery maybe. Just before WW1. Great, so do you think there'd be any separate but equal issues? Would these freed slaves have any rights close to the benevolent people who only freed the slaves for the PRAGMATIC reasons of mechanization? Would they generously share in the benefits of full citizenship because of mechanization?

sorry Gunny, LTG, Perianne your views are a smoke screen to a moral horror that the country just has to own.
it doesn't mean all whites or the southern whites were evil or that those of north were angels, or that some blacks didn't also own slaves , or that africans didn't sell others africans as well. No one is promoting those straw men.
None of that clears the historical horror that the country just has to own.

The fact is the South was primarily trying to preserve a morally horrific institution that, dehumanized an ethnic group, condoned serial rape and murder and justified the near complete subjugation of human beings for personal wealth and comfort.
And no amount of smokes can with sincerity, humanity or christian charity cover the stink from that.
Neither you or I were there or are culpable but we do no one any good but trying to cover the stink today with frivolous obfuscations.



`Read my comment above...since you mentioned my name...it was sarcasm...actually African Americans are very happy to be here deep inside...if it wasn't for past history they wouldn't be...here.

[PixieStix]

I wonder what America would have looked like without a President Lincoln.

I am not surprised that some think that Lincoln was one of the worst Presidents, because when we all realize that we know everything and hind sight is 20/20....... Is it that North South thing, AGAIN?

Around the world, governments routinely suspend elections, citing the justification of a "national emergency." Yet Lincoln set a precedent that would guarantee the voting rights of the American people through subsequent wars and economic depressions. Though our understanding of him is more nuanced than it once was, and we are more able to recognize his limitations as well as his strengths, Abraham Lincoln remains the great example of democratic leadership—by most criteria, truly our greatest president. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/lincolns-contested-legacy-44978351/?c=y&page=1)



What would we have done different as President?

Oh and by the way, I till think Obama is the 4 worst Presidents ever :coffee:

[tailfins]

I wonder what America would have looked like without a President Lincoln.

I am not surprised that some think that Lincoln was one of the worst Presidents, because when we all realize that we know everything and hind sight is 20/20....... Is it that North South thing, AGAIN?

Around the world, governments routinely suspend elections, citing the justification of a "national emergency." Yet Lincoln set a precedent that would guarantee the voting rights of the American people through subsequent wars and economic depressions. Though our understanding of him is more nuanced than it once was, and we are more able to recognize his limitations as well as his strengths, Abraham Lincoln remains the great example of democratic leadership—by most criteria, truly our greatest president. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/lincolns-contested-legacy-44978351/?c=y&page=1)



What would we have done different as President?

Oh and by the way, I till think Obama is the 4 worst Presidents ever :coffee:

Your premise is faulty because a dictator cannot truly be a President.

[Gunny]

You mention 2% of whites were slaver owners, your facts are off here.
from the 1860 census info the percentage of slaves owners


<tbody>

<tbody>
Mississippi:
49%


South Carolina:
46%


Georgia:
37%


Alabama:
35%


Florida:
34%

</tbody>


<tbody>
Louisiana:
29%


Texas:
28%


North Carolina:
28%


Virginia:
26%


Tennessee:
25%

</tbody>


<tbody>
Kentucky:
23%


Arkansas:
20%


Missouri:
13%


Maryland:
12%


Delaware:
3%

</tbody>


</tbody>

And there were apx 4-5 million slaves or more in the U.S..
the Civil war ended in 1865. If the confederacy had won (or the North had allowed secession) the new Confederacy had unambiguously embedded slavery into it's New Constitution. Including provisions that ensured any new states coming into the Confederacy would be slave states and uphold the rights of slaves holders throughout the confederacy.

So given that so many did own slaves and they had just created a constitution protecting slavery and
currently and into the next 20+ years they had an economy that worked well off the free labor,
how long do you think it would have taken before they decided that the newly minted constitution should be altered.
It would have taken an amendment to the ONLY provisions in the constitution that were different from the U.S. constitution.

Some assume that mechanization would have ended the practice. (a pragmatic solution that allows the south to still claim the practice is legit where tech was NOT viable btw) But we all know that slavery is still around TODAY. even in the U.S..
How much more would it have been in, for example the coal mines of Tennessee and Kentucky? They weren't highly mechanized well into the mid 1900s. How much more profitable would coal mines have been with disposable slave labor?
Even sweat shops in the 1990s paid people, how much more profitable would slave labour have been? The Railroads still needed to be built, slave labor to cross the west would be pragmatic. Would the early Henry Ford Car factory be more profitable if it could have used slave labor?
People love household servants, do you really think people would give them up if it was legal to have them run the vacuum and washer?

But lets say miraculously there was a powerful SOUTHERN ANTI-SLAVERY movement right after the civil war, to remove slavery from the Confederate Constitution. How long do you think that legal fight would have lasted? It had already been fought in the U.S. congress for 70 years with states that had far fewer slaves, now in a country were they were ALL in, would abolition ..lead primarily by the pragmatics of mechanization... been quicker?

Would it have taken half the time, 35 years? So that would mean slavery from 1865 to 1900. but finally the anti-slavery amendment to the confederate constitution passes it's congress without veto. So around 1900 the confederacy would have ended slavery maybe. Just before WW1. Great, so do you think there'd be any separate but equal issues? Would these freed slaves have any rights close to the benevolent people who only freed the slaves for the PRAGMATIC reasons of mechanization? Would they generously share in the benefits of full citizenship because of mechanization?

sorry Gunny, LTG, Perianne your views are a smoke screen to a moral horror that the country just has to own.
it doesn't mean all whites or the southern whites were evil or that those of north were angels, or that some blacks didn't also own slaves , or that africans didn't sell others africans as well. No one is promoting those straw men.
None of that clears the historical horror that the country just has to own.

The fact is the South was primarily trying to preserve a morally horrific institution that, dehumanized an ethnic group, condoned serial rape and murder and justified the near complete subjugation of human beings for personal wealth and comfort.
And no amount of smokes can with sincerity, humanity or christian charity cover the stink from that.
Neither you or I were there or are culpable but we do no one any good but trying to cover the stink today with frivolous obfuscations.\

Might want to check your facts again. Don't know where you got them from but I'm throwing up the BS flag.

I'm not trying to cover up anything. Neither I nor any of my ancestors owned any slaves. The yankee side were puritans and the Southern side too dirt poor. I'm offended by the propoganda that tries to make Southerners out the bad guys when yankees were just as bad. Black in the South, Irish in the North. At least Southerners took care of their assets. Northerners just replaced them another hungry immigrant.

So, there's no excuse. But maybe we need to move on 180 years later?

[NightTrain]

I don't disagree that slavery was "an" issue. It just wasn't "the issue". It was the excuse.


According to the Declarations by the secessionist States themselves, it was "the issue".

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 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."


Texas :


"The servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations."


South Carolina :


"Those [Union] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States."


Georgia


"That reason was [the North's] fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity."

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

The declarations by these 5 states alone mentioned the word "slave" a whopping 83 times. (CTRL+F and type in 'slave').

The rest of these States' grievances were generally about how the Northern States refused to deport escaped slaves back to their masters and why they think they were able to leave the Union.

Oh, and they all said they hated Lincoln.

Not once in the State's own declarations was a tariff reason argued - they said they needed slaves for their free labor value to continue to produce and that it was only common sense to continue slavery. Naturally, any industry in the world would see exponentially better profits with free labor.

So you're right on one count - it was about the economy. But it wasn't the North's, it was the South's greed for huge profits by utilizing slave labor.

When the Southern States saw the writing on the wall regarding the looming outlawing of slavery, they tried to take their ball and go home. And that's not allowed.

[revelarts]

..sorry Gunny, LTG, Perianne your views are a smoke screen to a moral horror that the country just has to own.
it doesn't mean all whites or the southern whites were evil or that those of north were angels, or that some blacks didn't also own slaves , or that africans didn't sell others africans as well. No one is promoting those straw men.
None of that clears the historical horror that the country just has to own.

The fact is the South was primarily trying to preserve a morally horrific institution that, dehumanized an ethnic group, condoned serial rape and murder and justified the near complete subjugation of human beings for personal wealth and comfort.
And no amount of smokes can with sincerity, humanity or christian charity cover the stink from that.
Neither you or I were there or are culpable but we do no one any good but trying to cover the stink today with frivolous obfuscations....

Gunny I have a link to where i got my info from see more below.
Notice in many states from 1850 to 1860 the number slaves INCREASED. Arkansas Doubled the number of slaves. in 10 years. mechanization at work?

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/slave-maps/slave-census.jpg
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/slave-maps/slave-census.htm



http://www.raogk.org/census-records/slave-schedule/

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ajac/


And BTW Perriane and others 1st brought up lincoln and secession... and conveniently left out any mention of slavery and the like.

[Gunny]

Gunny I have a link to where i got my info from see more below.
Notice in many states from 1850 to 1860 the number slaves INCREASED Arkansas Doubled the number of slaves. in 10 years. mechanization at work?

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/slave-maps/slave-census.jpg
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/slave-maps/slave-census.htm



http://www.raogk.org/census-records/slave-schedule/

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ajac/


And BTW Perriane and others 1st brought up lincoln and secession... and conveniently left out any mention of slavery and the like.

I'm not arguing for anyone else. Point is, you choose to use a state census rather than an overall census which always makes stuff look worse. Most Southerners couldn't afford to eat, much less own a slave. I'm not saying slavery didn't exist, nor that it is wrong by today's standards. I'm saying it's misrepresented as worse than it was. So is smoking. My point is about the representation.

You think you aren't a slave? Check your federal income tax return and get back to me. You're free? To do what? If it exceeds jacking off in your own home you're just playing the odds against the cops. We have more regulations/laws/rules than any slave in 1850 had. This nation is the antithesis of what it was founded on. Freedom.

Slavery is fine as long as the government endorses and legislates it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I HAVE STAYED OUT OF THIS DEBATE ABOUT SLAVERY BUT DO WANT TO SAY THIS.

The South had every legal right to secede.. As to slavery yes it was an issue but most Southerners fought for their rights again a tyrannical Federal government that was corrupt and acting upon the wishes of its Yankee merchants , industrialists and elitist wealthy class.
Less than ten percent of Southerners owned slaves, the South was poor and an agriculture based society.
Hell most southern soldiers fighting were themselves just barely above the level of a slave.

Don't get me started on this.
I have studied it for 50+ years. I doubt that anybody can tell me anything OF IMPORTANCE ABOUT IT THAT I DO NOT ALREADY KNOW AFTER READING WELL OVER A HUNDRED BOOKS ON IT AND THE CIVIL WAR TO!

TOOK ME NEAR 25 YEARS TO EVER FORGIVE THE YANKEES, I HATED 'EM UNTIL I WAS 40!!
Sherman's march to the sea was pure terrorism sanctioned by his commander Lincoln.
If possible, Id stomp both their sorry asses right now!--Tyr

[revelarts]

Tyr i have to say, for people say that it's really about some dirt farmers trying to get the feds off their backs, but ignore the millions of people in slavery is disingenuous. especially since NOTHING was feared to change under Lincoln except slavery. NightTrains points it out in his docs.

Tyr I hope you don't mind but I also have to piggy back on one of your statements.

"Sherman's march to the sea was pure terrorism sanctioned by his commander Lincoln.
If possible, Id stomp both their sorry asses right now!"

I get your point and agree that a lot of what Sherman did was way wrong.

But somehow people don't understand it when others point out that many of the things done during American Slavery in the South since 1609 were more horrific and long lasting than Sherman's March and that some people DESERVED to have their sorry asses stomped for trying to maintain the institution.

[Gunny]

I HAVE STAYED OUT OF THIS DEBATE ABOUT SLAVERY BUT DO WANT TO SAY THIS.

The South had every legal right to secede.. As to slavery yes it was an issue but most Southerners fought for their rights again a tyrannical Federal government that was corrupt and acting upon the wishes of its Yankee merchants , industrialists and elitist wealthy class.
Less than ten percent of Southerners owned slaves, the South was poor and an agriculture based society.
Hell most southern soldiers fighting were themselves just barely above the level of a slave.

Don't get me started on this.
I have studied it for 50+ years. I doubt that anybody can tell me anything OF IMPORTANCE ABOUT IT THAT I DO NOT ALREADY KNOW AFTER READING WELL OVER A HUNDRED BOOKS ON IT AND THE CIVIL WAR TO!

TOOK ME NEAR 25 YEARS TO EVER FORGIVE THE YANKEES, I HATED 'EM UNTIL I WAS 40!!
Sherman's march to the sea was pure terrorism sanctioned by his commander Lincoln.
If possible, Id stomp both their sorry asses right now!--Tyr

Why not get you started? They got ME started ....:laugh:

[Gunny]

Tyr i have to say, for people say that it's really about some dirt farmers trying to get the feds off their backs, but ignore the millions of people in slavery is disingenuous. especially since NOTHING was feared to change under Lincoln except slavery. NightTrains points it out in his docs.

Tyr I hope you don't mind but I also have to piggy back on one of your statements.

"Sherman's march to the sea was pure terrorism sanctioned by his commander Lincoln.
If possible, Id stomp both their sorry asses right now!"

I get your point and agree that a lot of what Sherman did was way wrong.

But somehow people don't understand it when others point out that many of the things done during American Slavery in the South since 1609 were more horrific and long lasting than Sherman's March and that some people DESERVED to have their sorry asses stomped for trying to maintain the institution.



And I'll say disingenuous is thinking anyone cared about slavery. You are one of the people I have spoken about. You believe all the lies you've been told and don't think for yourself.

[NightTrain]

I HAVE STAYED OUT OF THIS DEBATE ABOUT SLAVERY BUT DO WANT TO SAY THIS.

The South had every legal right to secede.. As to slavery yes it was an issue but most Southerners fought for their rights again a tyrannical Federal government that was corrupt and acting upon the wishes of its Yankee merchants , industrialists and elitist wealthy class.
Less than ten percent of Southerners owned slaves, the South was poor and an agriculture based society.
Hell most southern soldiers fighting were themselves just barely above the level of a slave.

Don't get me started on this.
I have studied it for 50+ years. I doubt that anybody can tell me anything OF IMPORTANCE ABOUT IT THAT I DO NOT ALREADY KNOW AFTER READING WELL OVER A HUNDRED BOOKS ON IT AND THE CIVIL WAR TO!

TOOK ME NEAR 25 YEARS TO EVER FORGIVE THE YANKEES, I HATED 'EM UNTIL I WAS 40!!
Sherman's march to the sea was pure terrorism sanctioned by his commander Lincoln.
If possible, Id stomp both their sorry asses right now!--Tyr


Yeah, what Gunny said!

Jump right in, Tyr. It's educational, if nothing else... I learned a bit from this debate, so it was time well spent. I actually wasn't going to get going on it, but then in a moment of weakness I took Gunny's bait.

Besides, you're dead wrong.

[Gunny]

Yeah, what Gunny said!

Jump right in, Tyr. It's educational, if nothing else... I learned a bit from this debate, so it was time well spent. I actually wasn't going to get going on it, but then in a moment of weakness I took Gunny's bait.

Besides, you're dead wrong.
Curious statement. Lincoln did not believe blacks were equal. He tried to send them back to Africa. Where do you think Liberia cam from. He also stated slaves could remain in then current slave states.

Pick your argument. Slavery was wrong by today's rules, but not by the rules of the day. We all accept that.

Was the war actually over slavery? Not even close. I'm almost white as Hell and I'd STILL rather be a Southern slave than a sweatshop worker in the North.

[Gunny]

Gunny I have a link to where i got my info from see more below.
Notice in many states from 1850 to 1860 the number slaves INCREASED. Arkansas Doubled the number of slaves. in 10 years. mechanization at work?

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/slave-maps/slave-census.jpg
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/slave-maps/slave-census.htm



http://www.raogk.org/census-records/slave-schedule/

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ajac/


And BTW Perriane and others 1st brought up lincoln and secession... and conveniently left out any mention of slavery and the like.

Machines were putting slavery out of business. They were cheaper to maintain.

[revelarts]

http://mynetbox.info/images/xtra/johnbrown-.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr i have to say, for people say that it's really about some dirt farmers trying to get the feds off their backs, but ignore the millions of people in slavery is disingenuous. especially since NOTHING was feared to change under Lincoln except slavery. NightTrains points it out in his docs.

Tyr I hope you don't mind but I also have to piggy back on one of your statements.

"Sherman's march to the sea was pure terrorism sanctioned by his commander Lincoln.
If possible, Id stomp both their sorry asses right now!"

I get your point and agree that a lot of what Sherman did was way wrong.

But somehow people don't understand it when others point out that many of the things done during American Slavery in the South since 1609 were more horrific and long lasting than Sherman's March and that some people DESERVED to have their sorry asses stomped for trying to maintain the institution.


The ones stomped, the poor whites -many that starved to death were not slave owners. Most were women and children trying to survive until their husbands came home from the war. Sherman conducted pure unadulterated terrorism with deliberate intent to inflict massive death , destruction and misery upon a civilian population.
If possible Id break him like a damn twig and cut on him until his ass bleed to death.
Id damn sure let my inner Injun loose on the ffing bastard.
Why that bastard was not shot do like a mad dog after the war always has baffled me.. --Tyr

[NightTrain]

Curious statement. Lincoln did not believe blacks were equal. He tried to send them back to Africa. Where do you think Liberia cam from. He also stated slaves could remain in then current slave states.

Pick your argument. Slavery was wrong by today's rules, but not by the rules of the day. We all accept that.

Agree.


Was the war actually over slavery? Not even close.

No, I already said it was over secession. But the reason the Confederacy tried to withdraw was entirely over slavery - they even spelled that out in their Declarations when they did.


I'm almost white as Hell and I'd STILL rather be a Southern slave than a sweatshop worker in the North.

Well... I don't think you would, if you were being honest about it. Choosing to work in a sweatshop is a hell of a lot better than being owned like a draft horse and having no free will.

[Gunny]

Agree.



No, I already said it was over secession. But the reason the Confederacy tried to withdraw was entirely over slavery - they even spelled that out in their Declarations when they did.



Well... I don't think you would, if you were being honest about it. Choosing to work in a sweatshop is a hell of a lot better than being owned like a draft horse and having no free will.

The excuse was slavery. The reason was the federal government trying to control their lives. Again, the majority did not own slaves. The South used slavery as an excuse as much as the North did. But slavery was NOT the issue.

[Perianne]

150 years ago today, John Wilkes Booth shot the worst President, Abraham Lincoln.

Booth is remembered as a villain. Lincoln is remembered as a hero.

[aboutime]

I blame Lincoln for today's present ACORN, Community Organizing, Hate Monger-in-chief of

the NEW BLACK PANTHER, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD DESTROY AMERICA GANGS.

The Worst 4 Presidents were:

In the following Order:

1. Lincoln
2. Obama
3. Obama
4. Obama

And Unlike Obama....MY STATEMENT ABOVE IS 100% TRUTH!

[Gunny]

I blame Lincoln for today's present ACORN, Community Organizing, Hate Monger-in-chief of

the NEW BLACK PANTHER, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD DESTROY AMERICA GANGS.

The Worst 4 Presidents were:

In the following Order:

1. Lincoln
2. Obama
3. Obama
4. Obama

And Unlike Obama....MY STATEMENT ABOVE IS 100% TRUTH!

I blame Lincoln for the destruction of the 6th Amendment. Idiots have been in control ever since.

[red state]

The F'ing FIVE.....In no particular order:

1. Obama

2. Carter

3. Wilson

4. Lincoln

5. Jackson

Well, possibly in close enough order to stand by it.

Obama......OBVIOUS and unquestionably BAD.

Carter......Good grief do I need to go into all the bad times I saw under Carter?

Wilson......Study up on this guy. He possibly took the US in a new chapter that led to socialism

Lincoln......Obama's idol and possibly where Obama gets his corrupt, unconstitutional ideas from. I wonder if B.O. will throw his adversaries in prison as Lincoln did. So much about Lincoln to discuss (be DISGUSTED) that I'll simply let that ride for now.

Jackson.....Jackson, founder of Memphis, TN was a scoundrel who used his political and military power for financial gain...often times at the expense of someone's life if need be. Jackson had the trail of tears (BLOOD) when over 4,000 Cherokee perished. Crockett was sickened that he had ever fought for and under this SOB. To this day, many Cherokee will carry two $10 bills rather than have Jackson's $20. He was an outright liar and a traitor to the very people who helped him become a hero. Had it not been for the literate, civilized Cherokee, things on the battlefield may have gone another way. Jackson later rewarded these comrades by calling for their removal based on the Cherokee's so-called "savagery", "ignorance" and "unwillingness" to get along. All lies of course....

I take it back. I believe Jackson, Lincoln and Obama are tied for MOST EVIL.

For certain, Lincoln has the most blood on his hands and Jackson was a traitor to those who fought along side him. Lincoln forced the Irish to fight when others didn't have to and, YES, Lincoln was dead set on keeping the United States (UNITED)......it had nothing to do with slavery. Lincoln even addressed this. The US had proven to be tyrants by forcing folks from their land, unfairly taxing some while not taxing others at all. This is why I probably should lump Jackson and Lincoln in as the ALL TIME worse presidents before 1900 and Obama is THE worse after 1900.

[LongTermGuy]

​Obama number #1


....the absolute worst ...most sneaky...Deceitful...harmful and most dangerous with an army of brain dead....emotional `protective`agenda driven...drooling foaming at the mouth followers....






~ "yes we can"~
https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.TdPuGOccdPkHlXhJTkK%2bgw&pid=15.1&P=0

[Perianne]

​Obama number #1


....the absolute worst ...most sneaky...Deceitful...harmful and most dangerous with an army of brain dead....emotional `protective`agenda driven...drooling foaming at the mouth followers....






~ "yes we can"~


LTG, I believe we think Obama is the worst because we are living his crap every day. We only know Lincoln from the history books and did not have to live under his tyranny day after day. We are suffering now because of the governmental machine he put in motion. Like other presidents, Lincoln swore to uphold the constitution and then proceeded to shred it.

[tailfins]

Why are you letting FDR skate?


The F'ing FIVE.....In no particular order:

1. Obama

2. Carter

3. Wilson

4. Lincoln

5. Jackson

Well, possibly in close enough order to stand by it.

Obama......OBVIOUS and unquestionably BAD.

Carter......Good grief do I need to go into all the bad times I saw under Carter?

Wilson......Study up on this guy. He possibly took the US in a new chapter that led to socialism

Lincoln......Obama's idol and possibly where Obama gets his corrupt, unconstitutional ideas from. I wonder if B.O. will throw his adversaries in prison as Lincoln did. So much about Lincoln to discuss (be DISGUSTED) that I'll simply let that ride for now.

Jackson.....Jackson, founder of Memphis, TN was a scoundrel who used his political and military power for financial gain...often times at the expense of someone's life if need be. Jackson had the trail of tears (BLOOD) when over 4,000 Cherokee perished. Crockett was sickened that he had ever fought for and under this SOB. To this day, many Cherokee will carry two $10 bills rather than have Jackson's $20. He was an outright liar and a traitor to the very people who helped him become a hero. Had it not been for the literate, civilized Cherokee, things on the battlefield may have gone another way. Jackson later rewarded these comrades by calling for their removal based on the Cherokee's so-called "savagery", "ignorance" and "unwillingness" to get along. All lies of course....

I take it back. I believe Jackson, Lincoln and Obama are tied for MOST EVIL.

For certain, Lincoln has the most blood on his hands and Jackson was a traitor to those who fought along side him. Lincoln forced the Irish to fight when others didn't have to and, YES, Lincoln was dead set on keeping the United States (UNITED)......it had nothing to do with slavery. Lincoln even addressed this. The US had proven to be tyrants by forcing folks from their land, unfairly taxing some while not taxing others at all. This is why I probably should lump Jackson and Lincoln in as the ALL TIME worse presidents before 1900 and Obama is THE worse after 1900.

[red state]

Why are you letting FDR skate?

Sorry, TailFins, I missed the question somehow and never mean to avoid questions.....just get lost somehow.
My answer regarding FDR, late tho it may be, would be for the following reasons:

1. He was the president during WWII (the greatest generation) and he did have the wisdom to FIGHT and allow our BEST to kick @$$.

2. Isn't FDR, Lincoln and B.O. one and the same (the unholy trinity if you will)?

Seriously, I could have lumped him in but I'd never forget to hold JACKSON, LINCOLN, CARTER & B.O. accountable so I'll limit my choice to 4 with Wilson still being a hated president for me. Perhaps we should have had a top 10 BEST or a top 10 WORST.

I'll start the top 10 BEST:

WASHINGTON
Washington
Washington
REAGAN
Reagan

Of course, we've all heard "I Like IKE". HA!!!!!

[aboutime]

tailfins. Despite how you might feel about FDR, in the past tense, and so many years later.

There's a pretty good chance...You, Me, and most Senior Americans still alive today...might not be here today...Had it not been for FDR, and CHURCHILL.

Yes, he was probably deserving of being labeled like Obama. But we all know your hatred extends even further...sitting behind your keyboard, and screen. Like most of us, able to pretend to be so Holier-than-thou...AS the anonymous fixture of your imagination.

Personally, based on the ever changing destruction of America today.
My Lowest FIVE are all ONE NAME.......OBAMA.

[red state]

tailfins. Despite how you might feel about FDR, in the past tense, and so many years later.

There's a pretty good chance...You, Me, and most Senior Americans still alive today...might not be here today...Had it not been for FDR, and CHURCHILL.

Yes, he was probably deserving of being labeled like Obama. But we all know your hatred extends even further...sitting behind your keyboard, and screen. Like most of us, able to pretend to be so Holier-than-thou...AS the anonymous fixture of your imagination.

Personally, based on the ever changing destruction of America today.
My Lowest FIVE are all ONE NAME.......OBAMA.

Exactly! I'm not crazy about FDR but I can respect what I mentioned about it (as opposed to Carter or B.O.) Whatever you can say about the guy's liberalism and even his bully tactics (which favor the bully tactics of ye good ole ABE or Big EARED B.O. or even possomgrin Carter) FDR was a man of action and had respect for the military and enough confidence in them to ALLOW them to do their job.....unlike a Bush or the S.O.W. currently in OUR White House.

You see, I don't have to like you or your policies on a whole if you are president but if you're a MAN about certain things and actually do GREAT things, then I have no choice but to respect you. Still, I don't like FDR and I believe in different times, he'd be almost as bad as some of the others......good thing is; we also had some others to keep his kind in check back then and today................................not so much. My pastor said this morning that with all that is going on he thanks God for a checks & balances (but we don't even have that now).

[Abbey Marie]

1, bamboy
2. bammy boy
3. bamscum
4. Carter

And in that order.. Tyr

Lol, Tyr, I was going to make the SAME list!

[red state]

Lol, Tyr, I was going to make the SAME list!

Yeah, and Perianne beat me to the HOMODEPOT bit....RATS!!! You're a big girl and I'm a big ole boy.....we'll get over it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Exactly! I'm not crazy about FDR but I can respect what I mentioned about it (as opposed to Carter or B.O.) Whatever you can say about the guy's liberalism and even his bully tactics (which favor the bully tactics of ye good ole ABE or Big EARED B.O. or even possomgrin Carter) FDR was a man of action and had respect for the military and enough confidence in them to ALLOW them to do their job.....unlike a Bush or the S.O.W. currently in OUR White House.

You see, I don't have to like you or your policies on a whole if you are president but if you're a MAN about certain things and actually do GREAT things, then I have no choice but to respect you. Still, I don't like FDR and I believe in different times, he'd be almost as bad as some of the others......good thing is; we also had some others to keep his kind in check back then and today................................not so much. My pastor said this morning that with all that is going on he thanks God for a checks & balances (but we don't even have that now).


FDR's job was to get us into the war sooner. To disregard the public sentiment and do what was right and best. He chose not to do so for his own political career as he wanted to be president again. We should have went in, in 1939. A two year delay that cost Britain dearly! And that vastly improved the strength and resources available to the Third Reich and to the Japanese as well. So much so that the Japs attacked only because they had gained that additional strength, moral and feeling of invincibility.
FDR is not in the top 4 worst but is definitely in the top ten worst. Much of the glory that FDR gets rightly should go to Churchill!!
I've studied both men intensively for decades. Churchill would rate a 97 out of a 100 while FDR WOULDN'T EVEN BREAK 80!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-TYR

[red state]

FDR's job was to get us into the war sooner. To disregard the public sentiment and do what was right and best. He chose not to do so for his own political career as he wanted to be president again. We should have went in, in 1939. A two year delay that cost Britain dearly! And that vastly improved the strength and resources available to the Third Reich and to the Japanese as well. So much so that the Japs attacked only because they had gained that additional strength, moral and feeling of invincibility.
FDR is not in the top 4 worst but is definitely in the top ten worst. Much of the glory that FDR gets rightly should go to Churchill!!
I've studied both men intensively for decades. Churchill would rate a 97 out of a 100 while FDR WOULDN'T EVEN BREAK 80!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-TYR

Thank you for that....I truly had forgot and fell victim to the re-education started when I was in school instead of EDUCATION that our students today suffer ten fold. I did know from what little I studied on FDR to know that I didn't like him and that we had to make provisions so that NEVER again did we 'almost' have a mini- monarchy/dictatorship. I, like many, focus too much on the weaknesses of Chamberlain. I knew that my Grandfather couldn't stand FDR or Jackson (and he was a JACKSON himself and a true military leader during WWII jumping from island to island in the Pacific). He said that FDR had been in office, more men would have died.....they don't teach that in the history books that I've seen either. I'm actually surprised at how little our kids know. I was lucky in that I literally listened to stories form elders on WWI, WWII and even the so-called Civil War that I was taught was the war between the States or the War to Stop Northern Aggression. I here folks talk about the South attacking Fort Sumter (which really was a poor fort and a insignificant target of a few Union Soldier who found themselves in the middle of a State that had already given good warning that the Union wasn't welcome, but rarely, if ever, do we here about the criminals doing the AWFUL stuff they were doing that made thing worse instead of better for a peaceful transition rather than an abrupt one. Liberals are good at keeping truth under the carpet but anyone with any sense sees the "LUMPS".

Thanks, Tyr. Man, the icecream and fireworks was FANTASTIC last night......:salute: Maybe next year.