Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill O'Reilly Poll Who do you regard as the absolute best President in America's history?
BillOReilly.com ^ | September 29, 2011 | Steeler6

Posted on 09/28/2011 11:28:27 PM PDT by Steelers6

Who do you regard as the absolute best President in America's history? Abraham Lincoln 36% Thomas Jefferson 14% George Washington 31% Franklin Roosevelt 2% Someone else 17% 11676 total votes


TOPICS: Editorial; Miscellaneous; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bestpresident; poll
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
To: Mozilla

I would also have to throw Andrew Jackson on that list. Read his veto of BUS 2.


21 posted on 09/29/2011 3:07:53 AM PDT by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

I would take JQ Adams out of there. Good man, brilliant mind, terrible President.


22 posted on 09/29/2011 3:09:22 AM PDT by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Steelers6

invalid....re 0’pinhead...


23 posted on 09/29/2011 3:09:45 AM PDT by gunnyg ("A Constitution changed from Freedom, can never be restored; Liberty, once lost, is lost forever...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelers6

Washington first followed by Davis.


24 posted on 09/29/2011 3:10:18 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelers6

George Washington.


25 posted on 09/29/2011 3:33:02 AM PDT by patriot08 (TEXAS GAL- born and bred and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelers6

O’Reilly’s new book about Lincoln must be elevating Abe to sainthood status (as most Northerners do). (I haven’t read it and don’t intend to, as his promos indicate it will be skewed to the views of those of the North East US.)

He was a brutal tyrant that permitted his Union Generals to wipe out the Confederate States’ abilities to own properties and engage in commerce. He is held up as the man who “did away with slavery”. Hah! He only did away with slavery in the States that had joined with the Confederacy. Slaves in Union States were still legal, and many were owned by blacks. ....He permitted his Union soldiers to raze Southern cities and then allowed carpet baggers to claim properties and wealth because the legal documents of ownership had been destroyed by the soldiers. ....I have none of the “worship” of Lincoln that so many others do. I feel the same about JFK. Neither of the two deserve the attention they now enjoy.


26 posted on 09/29/2011 3:33:15 AM PDT by octex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelers6

Washington — and it’s not even close. Soldier to statesman effortlessly. Passed on king/emperor. Walked away after two terms. Defined the role of President.


27 posted on 09/29/2011 3:34:30 AM PDT by wizwor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelers6

Polls= Wasting valuable time reading about and participating.


28 posted on 09/29/2011 3:34:35 AM PDT by Eye of Unk (Sarah Palin and John Bolton--- 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

Nixon was vilified by the press, mostly for not being as handsome as JFK. LBJ, and I suspect just about every other president, did far worse. One of Nixon’s faults was loyalty to subordinates. If he had started throwing people under the bus he might have survived. He also had a deep respect for the office, that made him reluctant to sully it. He could have contested the 1960 election results in Illinois, but chose not to, to prevent people from losing faith in the electoral process.


29 posted on 09/29/2011 3:36:56 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Ceterum autem censeo, Obama delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: octex
I have reservations about Lincoln, but he did preserve the Union and end slavery.

Of course, without Lincoln, there would probably have been no need to “save” the Union, and from my reading, slavery was moribund in the South, anyway. It's not likely that slavery would have survived another generation, absent the Civil War. The real troublemakers, then as now, was the Supreme Court, with the Dred Scott decision that lead to the election of Lincoln and precipitated the Civil War. So, so unnecessary.

For the bondsman, that would have been a generation too long, but at what a monstrous price in blood and treasure was his freedom purchased. And the conditions of emancipation hardened Southern sentiment against the freedmen far more than it would have been had abolition arisen spontaneously from local conditions and suffused the Yankees with an odious and persistent self-righteousness that has lead to ever greater impositions on freedom in this Republic. (A self-rightousness absent from the modest and self effacing Lincoln.)

Still, the place of Lincoln in history is secure: he must be counted one of the great presidents because of his achievements. Another Republican would have been elected in 1860, and the South would have seceded, if Lincoln had not run, whether the alternative Republican would have been more successful or not, we cannot tell. But Lincoln did succeed.

30 posted on 09/29/2011 3:57:11 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Ceterum autem censeo, Obama delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Steelers6

We will be discovering “firsts” established by Washington for centuries to come. First to give medals to enlisted men (previously awarded only to officers), first to swear with hand on the Bible, first to use mules in farming (don’t laugh, this was a biggie in agricultural progress), first to create the American legend of character triumphing over power and riches which so impressed Europeans that both King George III and Napoleon declared him the greatest man of the age. It just goes on and on.


31 posted on 09/29/2011 4:07:52 AM PDT by Liberty Wins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crazyhorse691
Carter, Obama, Clintoon...I'm sorry I misread the question 180 degrees. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Robert E. Lee...Jackson, Teddy, and Reagan. LBJ was my favorite when I was a kid, but, Nixon also.

Snuck in a non-president there.

Washington, Polk, Lincoln, TR, Reagan. Not necessarily in that order.

32 posted on 09/29/2011 4:13:00 AM PDT by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: octex
He was a brutal tyrant that permitted his Union Generals to wipe out the Confederate States’ abilities to own properties and engage in commerce.

Isn't that what you do in a war? Remove your opponents ability to wage it in any way, shape, or form?

33 posted on 09/29/2011 4:17:48 AM PDT by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

I wouldn’t say that betraying the legitimate government of China in favor of the communists was a good thing.


34 posted on 09/29/2011 4:19:31 AM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo

My picks, except Jefferson replaces Polk.


35 posted on 09/29/2011 4:25:42 AM PDT by catman67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: octex
Hear! Hear!

I agree...and I am also a born and bred northerner. Lincoln used the "slavery issue" to promote the war effort...that's all.

And once the South was beaten, he was all for "kindness and brotherhood"; but during the conflict it was total war that included the killing of civilians and utter destruction of civilian targets.

In my personal opinion...I've not much use for Lincoln at all.

36 posted on 09/29/2011 4:27:23 AM PDT by Logic n' Reason (The stain must be REMOVED (ERADICATED)....NOW!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
and from my reading, slavery was moribund in the South, anyway. It's not likely that slavery would have survived another generation, absent the Civil War.

Slavery, remember, combined both economic (cheap, immovable labor) with societal (firm belief by many South elite that owning slaves wasn't just a property right, but a moral imperative - not to mention a matter of social status).

I've been reading some material recently suggesting that one of the reasons the Founding Fathers didn't address slavery is that they thought it too contentious for something that would die out within a generation or two of them ... NOT something that would persist to the middle of the 19th Century. What changed the matter was the cotton gin, which in the South put renewed emphasis on manual agricultural labor, and gave slavery a second life.

Personally, I think slavery would have persisted much further into the late 19th Century, and possibly into the 20th Century, without the Civil War as the needs for cheap and assured manual labor persisted with the growth of the railroads and industrialization in the South (both of which the Civil War ensured remained Northern institutions throughout the remainder of the 19th Century)
37 posted on 09/29/2011 4:31:45 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Logic n' Reason

Right. I’m a Southern but, completely agree.

If any modern president had caused such a brother vs brother war, they would be charged with crimes against humanity and hung in the public square.


38 posted on 09/29/2011 4:39:02 AM PDT by wolfcreek (Perry to Obama: Adios, MOFO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: catman67
My picks, except Jefferson replaces Polk.

My complaint against Jefferson is that once in office he compromised some of his basic principles on government and its relationship with the states. He did increase the power of government and the power of the presidency. Polk didn't compromise. Agree or disagree with his basic beliefs, Polk entered office with an agenda. He accomplished what he set out to do. And he left office after a single term, just as he said he would.

39 posted on 09/29/2011 4:40:39 AM PDT by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
I've been reading some material recently suggesting that one of the reasons the Founding Fathers didn't address slavery is that they thought it too contentious for something that would die out within a generation or two of them

The main reason it wasn't addressed was because the Founders believed it was not within the authority of the federal government to make a decision on slavery.

It was the purview of the States.

40 posted on 09/29/2011 4:45:22 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am ~Person~ as created by the Laws of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson