Worst President Ever?

[Coyote]

I am not a fan of the man. His legal incident is what it is. I think it is often overlooked that Presidents almost universally, are morally flexible to some extent or another. I dont think the man is a crook, nor do I think Bush is evil or a crook himself. Or if by definition, Clinton is a crook, then every President we have had is probably a crook.

I think in order to be a good president you have to have a certain ruthlessness, and as you put it - moral flexability.

When you don't - you end up with someone like Carter, who I think is a genuinely good and ethical person but was one of the worst presidents ever.

 

[Coyote]

Keeping the Union together was what made Lincoln a great president and Buchannon one of the worst.

There are no clear cut answers as to the constitutionality of seccession - in fact there appear too be perfectly reasonable arguments that can be made for a right of seccession as well as equally reasonable arguments for the preservation of the union.

Certain pundits try to lay the blame of the Civil War completely on the shoulders of Lincoln. They give no room for the fact that Lincoln genuinely believed that the Constitution (and its authors) intended for the Union to be perpetual. So, although we can debate the merits of both sides endlessly we should at least acknowledge that Lincoln's interpretation of the Constitution was a reasonable one - every bit as reasonable as that of the seccessionists.

Let Lincoln's own words speak for him: Lincoln's First Inaugeral Address

and look at George Washington's Farewell Address

You can also read what James Madison (often called the "Father of the Constitution") had to say towards the end of his life, in response to some of the rhetoric coming from the South and about the secession: http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/98/refight.html

If you read those, you can see that Lincolns First Inaugeral Address and other documents such as Andrew Jackson's Proclamation on Nullification are perfectly reasonable interpretations of what the framers of our republic intended.

Given all that it's easy to understand why Lincoln believed that the secession was illegal and unconstitutional and that by allowing the southern states to secceed from the Union he would be breaking his presidential oath to uphold the Constitution.

Does that make him a bad President?

I don't think so.

 

[Coyote]

First of all, the government caused the Great Depression, and the current chairman of the Federal Reserve admits that the Fed was the main cause.

The Great Depression was a world wide event and, in America complicated by the Dust Bowl (caused by the unfortunate confluence of drought, years of wheat speculation, and tearing up the very grass that held the soil). A mess way to complicated to lay at the feet of the federal reserve.

 

[Napoleon]

Given all that it's easy to understand why Lincoln believed that the secession was illegal and unconstitutional and that by allowing the southern states to secceed from the Union he would be breaking his presidential oath to uphold the Constitution.

That Lincoln believed and ultimately succeeded in keeping the Union together is not what made him the worst President. That Lincoln repeatedly violated the Constitution and greatly overstepped his authority in the process is what makes him the worst President.

 

[Bunz]

That Lincoln believed and ultimately succeeded in keeping the Union together is not what made him the worst President. That Lincoln repeatedly violated the Constitution and greatly overstepped his authority in the process is what makes him the worst President.

Ah I see, will that apply to the current Occupier in Chief?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

The Great Depression was a world wide event and, in America complicated by the Dust Bowl (caused by the unfortunate confluence of drought, years of wheat speculation, and tearing up the very grass that held the soil). A mess way to complicated to lay at the feet of the federal reserve.

The U.S. did not exist in a vacuum - even in 1929. Its markets were world markets. I believe we can lay the blame for the 1929 Stock Market crash (and the Depression it launched) squarely at the feet of the Federal Reserve's inept monetary policy:

"...the Federal Reserve expanded the money supply by more than 60 percent from mid-1921 to mid-1929.[2] The flood of easy money drove interest rates down, pushed the stock market to dizzy heights, and gave birth to the “Roaring Twenties.” By early 1929, the Federal Reserve was taking the punch away from the party. It choked off the money supply, raised interest rates, and for the next three years presided over a money supply that shrank by 30 percent. This deflation following the inflation wrenched the economy from tremendous boom to colossal bust."

Link

Furthermore, a growing number of historians are coming to the realization that if FDR had taken no action at all, the economy would have rebounded fairly quickly. Instead, his New Deal programs actually prolonged the Great Depression by several years...

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4

Whether one agrees with this or not, one thing is certain: the Free Market did not cause the Great Depression.

Nothing could be further from the truth. It was government intervention in the market that set the stage for the Great Depression and made it much worse than it would have been otherwise. Here's a brief list of some of the government intervention and regulation in the economy prior to 1929:

The first labor unions, then called federations were active in 1820. National labor union - 1866. American Federation of Labor - 1886. Dept. of Labor, 1913. Dept. of the Interior 1849. Dept. of Agriculture - 1862. Anti-Trust Acts 1902. Dept. of Commerce 1903. Shift from private to state-funded education began in the 1800's. Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. Federal Highway Act of 1916. Air Commerce Act of 1926. The Income Tax and Federal Reserve Act- 1913 (the graduated income tax and centralized bank are both planks of The Communist Manifesto). Also had the estate tax act in 1916. Corporate Tax Act of 1909. Zoning laws and regulations, which the Supreme Court ruled constitutional in 1921. And we had federal ownership of land throughout the history of our country. Contrary to what some might say, this constitutes a heavily regulated and unfree market. This is anything BUT unregulated capitalism.

The Great Depression was caused by government influence in the economy, not unregulated capitalism. Primarily, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act - which even a liberal like Al Gore admits was a major factor, the increase of the income tax (the top rate went from 25% to 63%), and the manipulation of credit, specifically the shrinking of the money supply, through the government central bank, the Federal Reserve:

http://www.shambhala.org/business/goldocean/causdep.html


"And, of course, there was the political regime of Franklin D. Roosevelt. To finance government expenditures to pay for his beloved New Deal welfare programs, Roosevelt and his cohorts began printing massive amounts of government notes. To ensure that gold would not expose what they were doing, legal-tender laws were enacted. But that wasn't the worst of it. The Roosevelt people next canceled — nullified — extinguished — every single gold clause in every single contract, public and private.

And even that wasn't the worst of it. Roosevelt and his cronies nationalized — confiscated — the gold coins of the American people and then made it illegal for Americans to own gold. Imagine — after 150 years of the strongest monetary system in history — a system free from government assault — a system that was a bulwark for American liberty — the American people became subject to serving time in a U.S. federal penitentiary for owning a gold coin!

What about the Constitution? What about enumerated powers? Unfortunately, Roosevelt had sufficient cronies on the Court to sustain his policies, especially after his infamous and shameful court-packing scheme."

From: http://www.fff.org/freedom/0596a.asp

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Keeping the Union together was what made Lincoln a great president

Here's the core of where we disagree - keeping the Union together simply for the sake of keeping the Union together, and to set up an environment which ultimately leads to loss of liberty and unalienable rights, is a failure.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I see. Keeping the nation together as a unit is "irrelevant" to whether Lincoln was the worst president.

See above.

 

[Coyote]

Here's the core of where we disagree - keeping the Union together simply for the sake of keeping the Union together, and to set up an environment which ultimately leads to loss of liberty and unalienable rights, is a failure.

Lincoln felt that it was a constitutional obligation - not simply keeping it together for the sake of keeping it together. He felt that by allowing it to break up in the matter that it did would be a betrayal of his oath. I think that is the gist of his stance and I respect that - upholding the constitution does not make a man a tyrant, fascist or dictator as some would say.

 

[PLC1]

Here's the core of where we disagree - keeping the Union together simply for the sake of keeping the Union together, and to set up an environment which ultimately leads to loss of liberty and unalienable rights, is a failure.

In your view, then, the choice was between the balkinization of the USA, or the loss of liberty and "unalienable" rights. Given that premise, since the union is still together, we must have given up our liberty due to the preservation of that union.

What liberties have individuals lost as a result of the preservation of the union?

 

[Libsmasher]

Truth-bringer:

Excellent job in enumerating the causes of the Great Depression. There are zillions of simple-minded folk who swallow the canard that it was the fault of "unregulated capitalism", never bothering to actually investigate the details of that economic disaster for themselves. Pro-freedom people are used to the endless litany of problems blamed on capitalism, the real cause of which always ends up being government interference.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

In your view, then, the choice was between the balkinization of the USA, or the loss of liberty and "unalienable" rights. Given that premise, since the union is still together, we must have given up our liberty due to the preservation of that union.

What liberties have individuals lost as a result of the preservation of the union?

We have lost the liberty to keep all of the income we earn.

We have lost the liberty to voluntarily choose our own currency with which to pay public and private debts.

We have lost our 4th amendment rights to the IRS/government.

We have lost our 5th amendment rights to the IRS/government.

We have lost our right to engage in many peaceful, honest, voluntary activities that were previously guaranteed under the 10th amendment.

We have lost many of our 1st amendment rights - churches can be punished by the IRS as 301(c) organizations now for criticizing government. The FCC can regulate speech in all sorts of manners never authorized by the Constitution.

We have lost many freedoms to unconstitutional federal departments and cabinets. Ask AIDS patients if they had the liberty to choose drugs that had been used safely for years in Europe. No, they didn't. The FDA prevented it. We have lost too many liberties to list. People like you, who constantly keep their heads in the sand, are a big reason why.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Lincoln felt that it was a constitutional obligation

But it wasn't his constitutional obligation. He was mistaken. The Constitution was never a viable contract. Even if it were, why on earth would anyone want to agree to a permanent contract that can be changed by the government at any time? You'd have to be a ***** to accept those terms. If you were going to sign a loan agreement with a bank and they said "Oh, by the way, this is permanent and we can change the agreement by a majority vote of our shareholders to anything we want at any time" - would that be fair? No. Not to any reasonable person.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

upholding the constitution does not make a man a tyrant, fascist or dictator as some would say.

Here's a good article proving Lincoln was indeed operating outside of his authority as President when he abolished habeas corpus.

 

[vyo476]

Lincoln felt that it was a constitutional obligation - not simply keeping it together for the sake of keeping it together. He felt that by allowing it to break up in the matter that it did would be a betrayal of his oath. I think that is the gist of his stance and I respect that - upholding the constitution does not make a man a tyrant, fascist or dictator as some would say.

I seem to remember his Constitutional justification was an interpretation of the "more perfect Union" line, which was tenuous at best. Ironically, the discarded Articles of Confederation had a specific anti-secession clause, which would have made Lincoln's justification a lot easier.

I've spent a lot of time pondering this one. On the one hand, slavery was an intolerable evil, and I would have supported the Union's cause if for other reason than to see it erased.

On the other hand, forcing a state to remain a part of the United States is kind of against the point, isn't it? Once a democracy loses the consent of its people to govern, what is it?

This creates a deeply ironic situation - that I would have supported a war to end slavery but would also have recognized the South's right to break away and form a new nation of their own, a nation with the consent of its people to govern. In essence, I'm saying I would have supported the US government's right to intercede in another nation's affairs to correct what we see as a social problem. Sound a little like Iraq to anyone else?

Little historical side note (and another fun irony): The first state to really consider secession (as in, to consider it officially in a meeting of state legislative officials) was Massachusetts, sometime (can't remember exactly when) during the run up to the War of 1812, which my illustrious state did not support.