5 Best and Worst Presidents in American History?

[Rick]

1) Is it right to imprison those who disagree? You can say its constitutional until you are blue in the gills but is it right?

It appears that when you can't debate based on facts, you make up your own facts.

From wiki:

On April 27, 1861, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana, during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory.

response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede

Get it yet?

 

[Apathy]

It appears that when you can't debate based on facts, you make up your own facts.

From wiki:



response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede

Get it yet?

Yes wikipedia known for its factual informantion.

 

[Rick]

Yes wikipedia known for its factual informantion.

To anyone who has read an american history book past page 50, this is extremely well known undisputed history.

 

[Apathy]

To anyone who has read an american history book past page 50, this is extremely well known undisputed history.

Ad hominem from a man who lacks a logical argument. I guess I win.

 

[Rick]

Ad hominem from a man who lacks a logical argument. I guess I win.

You can't refute anything. Read a history book and get a clue.

 

[Apathy]

You can't refute anything. Read a history book and get a clue.

Ad hominem is not worth refuting... It has already been refuted to the point it is considered a logical fallacy.

 

[Gipper]

You can't refute anything. Read a history book and get a clue.

Oh, but he has...read history books...revisionist history books that sh*t on America...and he believes the lies.

 

[Rick]

Ad hominem is not worth refuting... It has already been refuted to the point it is considered a logical fallacy.

Let me make it REALLY simple for you -

google this:

"abraham lincoln" "habeas corpus" maryland

 

[dogtowner]

To anyone who has read an american history book past page 50, this is extremely well known undisputed history.

What about all the instances prior to the war and without any form of rebellion ? Such as Maryland state representatives who voted or just spoke of things thast did not jibe with Mr Lincoln's notions ? Or perhaps the Ohio congressman who was first imprisoned without H-C and later exiled just for disagreeing ?

Even the doting historians of his day did not displute that he was a "glorious dictator". See a Harper's Bazzar article from the period...
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1863/march/abraham-lincoln-dictator.htm

 

[Rick]

What about all the instances prior to the war and without any form of rebellion ? Such as Maryland state representatives who voted or just spoke of things thast did not jibe with Mr Lincoln's notions ?

Citations?

Even the doting historians of his day did not displute that he was a "glorious dictator". See a Harper's Bazzar article from the period...
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1863/march/abraham-lincoln-dictator.htm

Harper's Weekly, a journal which before the war was called by many Harper's Weakly because of it's pre-war anti-abolition, anti-lincoln, pro-southern stance, hardly constitutes a "historian".

The article you cited calls a lincoln a dictator for 1. instituting a draft, 2. raising more money to fight the war, and 3. nationalizing the currency, positions which would have been supported by the vast majority of politicians since lincoln's time.

The fear engendered by possible defeat sometimes causes people to go overboard - eg FDR sending japanese-americans to internment camps. That however does not obviate the fact that a country cannot be operated during a large scale general war which threatens the very existence of the country in the same manner as during peacetime.

It's also easy to sit in your easy chair in 2010 in safety and with 20-20 hindsight nitpick lincoln. If you were him when his panicked army came running back to washington after being defeated at the battle of bull run 20 miles away, or southern sharpshooters came within range of the whitehouse, or the possible seccession of maryland presented you with the specter of DC being a tiny island in a sea of confederate territory, or had been the target of assassination attempts, you might have had a different perspective.

 

[Gipper]

The fear engendered by possible defeat sometimes causes people to go overboard - eg FDR sending japanese-americans to internment camps. That however does not obviate the fact that a country cannot be operated during a large scale general war which threatens the very existence of the country in the same manner as during peacetime.

It's also easy to sit in your easy chair in 2010 in safety and with 20-20 hindsight nitpick lincoln. If you were him when his panicked army came running back to washington after being defeated at the battle of bull run 20 miles away, or southern sharpshooters came within range of the whitehouse, or the possible seccession of maryland presented you with the specter of DC being a tiny island in a sea of confederate territory, or had been the target of assassination attempts, you might have had a different perspective.

The Civil War was a HUGE mistake which Lincoln is primarily responsible for. The death, suffering, and property destruction was unnecessary.

The cost of the Civil War exceeded $10 Billion in 1865 dollars. http://www.civilwarhome.com/warcosts.htm

All Lincoln had to do was either 1. follow the Constitution and let the South secede or 2. pay the slave owning states to emancipate the slaves - without a doubt the cost to do this would have been considerably less than prosecuting a war to say nothing of the deaths and suffering.

The Civil War is a terrible stain on our history and led to the huge omnipresent stinking federal government that we have today which ignores the Constitution.

 

[Rick]

All Lincoln had to do was either 1. follow the Constitution and let the South secede or 2. pay the slave owning states to emancipate the slaves - without a doubt the cost to do this would have been considerably less than prosecuting a war to say nothing of the deaths and suffering.

The Civil War is a terrible stain on our history and led to the huge omnipresent stinking federal government that we have today which ignores the Constitution.

I disagree that the slave-owning states would say "OK, we'll sell you our slaves, and then that era is over." Many establishment southerners believed deeply in slavery as an institution and an integral part of their way of life, and strongly resented any attempts to overturn it. One should also remember that actual warfare began with the southern attack on fort sumpter, not anything lincoln did. In fact in his first inaugural used words that were intended to avert war.

 

[Gipper]

I disagree that the slave-owning states would say "OK, we'll sell you our slaves, and then that era is over." Many establishment southerners believed deeply in slavery as an institution and an integral part of their way of life, and strongly resented any attempts to overturn it. One should also remember that actual warfare began with the southern attack on fort sumpter, not anything lincoln did. In fact in his first inaugural used words that were intended to avert war.

Well we will never know.

However, had Lincoln offered money it might have worked. Remember, money talks, BS walks.

And yes the South was very militant, but as I stated, Lincoln had two choices that would have averted war. He chose war.

The South wanted to secede. They had no intentions of conquering the North.

 

[dogtowner]

I disagree that the slave-owning states would say "OK, we'll sell you our slaves, and then that era is over." Many establishment southerners believed deeply in slavery as an institution and an integral part of their way of life, and strongly resented any attempts to overturn it. One should also remember that actual warfare began with the southern attack on fort sumpter, not anything lincoln did. In fact in his first inaugural used words that were intended to avert war.

Slaves were fixed assets with real costs and expenses that impacted the profitability of the farming business. Abolitionists wanted slaved owners to write off these assets without compensation. Imagine robot abolitionists demanding the Toyota mothball all it's robots prior to the end of their functional life withotu compensation. Think Toyota would like that ? (I chose Toyota as they actually manufacture in America.) Plantation owners were easing into technology to replace manual labor (again as they could justify the expense) as tech was more reliable than people and more efficient. This is why the rest of the slave owning world was happy to take the money as it got them to tech labor and greater profitability quicker.

You must get over the generations of lies thast have built up and gain a true understanding of the southern zeal which was a state's rights matter from the word go (this went back to the the great debate over the Constitution and the role of the federal government. It was fought non-stop despite everyone agreeing on what you see at the national archi9ve. If they were sick of hearing about it its understandable after 80 years.

Want citations ? Do yourself a favor and read this:

 

[dogtowner]

Well we will never know.

However, had Lincoln offered money it might have worked. Remember, money talks, BS walks.

And yes the South was very militant, but as I stated, Lincoln had two choices that would have averted war. He chose war.

The South wanted to secede. They had no intentions of conquering the North.

The north could not survive without the south and Lincoln needed to change the electoral paradigm (he won without any electoral votes from the south and that could not occur again with the manner in which the contry was growing). Scary stuff.