Posted on 02/21/2011 1:00:39 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
On Presidents’ Day, Americans take a day to recognize the office of the presidency – and to reflect upon the country’s best.
FrumForum asked freshman Republican members which president they admired the most, but excluded President Reagan from contention to give the other presidents a fair chance. The fourteen Republican members who responded gave a range of answers, but President Abraham Lincoln came out on top.
Interestingly, these freshman congressmen have something in common with President Obama, who has identified Lincoln as his favorite president. Independent voters also agreed – a new Gallup poll shows that Lincoln was their favorite president.
“President Lincoln’s ability to guide our country through our most difficult period in history stands as a testament to both his leadership, character and patriotism,” Congressman Lou Barletta (PA-11) told FrumForum.
“[H]e served as president during one of the most dangerous and trying times our nation has ever faced and he was able to keep our country from falling apart. Lincoln saved our democracy and is the reason our nation is still thriving today,” concurred Rep. Steve Chabot (OH-1).
That same Gallup poll predictably showed Reagan with a 24 point lead over the second place finisher, George Washington.
The congressmen who favored Theodore Roosevelt, the president who finished second in the FrumForum polling, cited his love for the environment and his respect for states’ rights. “Teddy Roosevelt is one of my favorites because of his can-do spirit, his respect for states’ rights, and his exemplary foresight to ensure that the beauty of our nation was left for future generations,” said Congressman Paul Gosar (AZ-01).
“Teddy Roosevelt… believed in and promoted American exceptionalism. In addition, he was instrumental in introducing the U.S. as a world power,” agreed Rep. Bill Flores (TX-17).
Thomas Jefferson was the non-Reagan favorite of Rep. Rick Crawford (AR-1): “Thomas Jefferson was a Renaissance Man. Not only did he write the Declaration of Independence, but he was an author, inventor, farmer, diplomat, and public servant, only to name a few. A true ‘man of the people.’”
Congressman Michael Grimm (NY-13) told FrumForum that he had served under George H.W. Bush – and that he was his choice for favorite non-Reagan president. “President George H. W. Bush was my Commander in Chief when I served as a Marine during Operation Desert Storm. He has the best experience any president can have from his service in the military, to his leadership as an ambassador, his time as a U.S. congressman, his role as the Director of the CIA, and his two terms as Vice President. President George H. W. Bush is the greatest and most dignified American I have ever had the privilege and honor to meet,” he said.
Rep. Chip Cravaack (MN-8) pointed to the economic accomplishments of the Coolidge administration to explain his choice: “During the Coolidge administration the federal budget shrank, the national debt was cut in half, unemployment stood at 3.6%, consumer prices rose just 0.4% and Americans personal wealth increased 17.5%,” he said.
Congressman Kevin Yoder (KA-3), on the other hand, proudly noted that President Eisenhower was from his home state. “He is a proud son of Kansas and a true American hero. Eisenhower worked his way to the highest level of service in the military and public office yet maintained his strong Kansas principles of humility and hard work… When he left office, he left our country with greater prosperity and through his service he made a lasting impression for future generations,” he said.
According to Gallup, 19% of all Americans view Reagan as the nation’s best president, with Lincoln, Clinton, Kennedy and George Washington trailing behind.
With files from Nicole Glass and Shawn Summers.
Or any chance of getting any actual facts out of them apparently.
As in any debate, you are free to conduct your own research, unless you are afraid to face up to what you may find. However, in the spirit of enlightenment, I will offer you a starting place:
In May 1861 the New York Journal of Commerce published a list of 100 Northern newspapers that opposed the Lincoln administration. Lincoln ordered the Postmaster General and the army to shut them all down. This was only the beginning.
Check for yourself.
Then again, maybe not...
LOL! Since I didn't notice it until you pointed it out, I'm guessing I must have had a unionized teacher.
Good one, Colonel:)
FReepers with a point of view which differs from yours makes them a slave owner?
A slaver would be a political supporter of the slavocracy, not necessarily a slave owner.
What slavocracy? The IRS?
As in any debate, the assert-er is generally obliged to provide supporting evidence. It's absurd for K-Stater to prove your case for you.
In May 1861 the New York Journal of Commerce published a list of 100 Northern newspapers that opposed the Lincoln administration.
I did some looking around to try to corroborate this claim but the hits I found all redound to an unsubstantiated assertion by DiLorenzo. Do you have anything by a credible source?
I did so, but you chose to use Google instead. Feel free to conduct your own research into the issue at your library.
New York Journal of Commerce (New York, N.Y)
Published 1827-1893 : Daily : OCLC 01775475
NY 01 New York 93-31986
I daresay that you must be able to find the requisite information today, since I was able to do so many years ago without recourse to the World Wide Web. Inter-library loan was most helpful.
Slaver? Really? I was not aware that I owned any slaves, nor, in fact, that I ever issued a statement supporting the abhorrent institution of slavery. In fact, the only slaves I can think of supporting are the beneficiaries of racist social programs created and maintained by our overbearing federal government, extracted from my earnings (and, presumably, yours) at the point of the IRS's gun. That is some impressive clairvoyance, there.
You bitch and moan about Lincoln, “OMG, Lincoln was such a tyrant”, but there is no criticism of the “nation” that was founded with slavery at it’s core. Habeas corpus was suspended during wartime, vs. people being enslaved for a lifetime, doesn’t exactly match up.
‘What slavocracy? The IRS?’
Nope, that would be the only government in world history formed for the main purpose of promoting slavery — the Confederacy.
You one of those that doesn't "contribute" to the IRS every year by any chance?
I'm asking you to support your claim of 300 newspapers shut down on the order of Lincoln. Had I thought that there was any truth to that then I would look it up on my own. But instead I'm expecting you to provide your source.
In May 1861 the New York Journal of Commerce published a list of 100 Northern newspapers that opposed the Lincoln administration. Lincoln ordered the Postmaster General and the army to shut them all down. This was only the beginning.
Even assuming your story was true that would still leave you 200 newspapers short of your claim.
I'm asking you to support your claim of 300 newspapers shut down on the order of Lincoln. Had I thought that there was any truth to that then I would look it up on my own. But instead I'm expecting you to provide your source.
In May 1861 the New York Journal of Commerce published a list of 100 Northern newspapers that opposed the Lincoln administration. Lincoln ordered the Postmaster General and the army to shut them all down. This was only the beginning.
Even assuming your story was true that would still leave you 200 newspapers short of your claim.
Next time the IRS has you whipped, rapes your wife, or sells your children to some unknown stranger, let me know about it. Until then your comparison is silly.
You don't understand the power of the IRS? You didn't answer my question either.
To answer your question, I am totally disabled and dependent on Social Security, so owe no taxes.
Well, that's one way to put it. Although a more accurate way is to say that Federal troops suppressed by far the worst riot in US history, one that had at least 100 and possibly well over a thousand killed by the rioters.
With men hung from trees and set on fire. With orphanages attacked and burned by the rioters.
You also imply this took place in the context of an election, which is untrue.
Do you also consider the OJ rioters and the race rioters of the 60s to have been innocent "protestors" shot down by The Man?
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume 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. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
This clearly shows that south carolina succeeded because of the slavery issue. They also did it just because a republican was elected president. They realized they had lost the power to make the non-slave states support slavery.
Lincoln and congress from the beginning to the end of the war said that this was a rebellion not states succeeding. That is why the U.S. government did not sign a peace treaty with the confederate government at the end of the war. The U.S. government never recognized the confederate government as a legitimate government.
South Carolina started the war by firing on Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter was a federal fort and therefore owned by all the states.
As far as whether succession was allowed as someone posted here previously the constitution was silent on that. Andrew Jackson, a southerner, during his presidency made this proclamation to the people of south carolina;
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.
To sum up; south carolina seceded because they felt slavery was threatened. Abraham Lincoln attempted to stop succession by declaring in his inaugural address that he had no plans to end slavery in slave states. This wasn't good enough for the southern states. President Lincoln then decided to send supplies to Fort Sumter and even told south carolina he was doing this hoping to avoid hostilities. The south carolinians fired on fort sumter. After this hostile action is when Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to quell the insurrection. Bottom line up front the southern states succeeded to keep their institution of slavery.
I think that picking Lincoln is intellectually dishonest and manipulative at worst or naive at best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.