Posted on 02/13/2013 7:59:52 AM PST by Kaslin
As President Obama prepares his State of the Union Address and the nation looks forward to a Presidents Day holiday, Americans should consider the warning examples of our worst chief executives.
While few of Washington and Lincoln's successors could hope to replicate their epic achievements, every president can — and must — focus on avoiding the appalling ineptitude of John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan and their feckless fellow travelers on the road to presidential perdition. The common elements that link our least successful leaders teach historical lessons at least as important as the shared traits of the Rushmore Four: Broken promises and gloomy temperaments lead inevitably to an alienated public.
All the chief executives unmistakably identified as failures displayed a self-destructive tendency to violate the core promises of their campaigns. Take Tyler, the unbending Virginia aristocrat who won election to the vice presidency in 1840 and assumed the highest office when his predecessor died just a month after inauguration. The new chief executive, dubbed "His Accidency" by critics, used 10 unpopular vetoes to block implementation of his own party's longstanding ledges. Most of his Cabinet resigned in protest, and eventually they all quit while the hostile Senate voted down four new Cabinet appointments — a record that stands to this day.
Between 1853 and 1861, Pierce and Buchanan completed back-to-back disastrous terms in which personal weakness and pro-Southern sympathies shattered confident promises of unifying leadership. Buchanan pledged to stop "agitation of the slavery question" and to "destroy sectional parties." By the end of his term, seven Southern states seceded from the union and the nation lunged toward the Civil War.
After that war and Lincoln's assassination, Andrew Johnson (Lincoln's vice president) defied members of the martyred president's Cabinet and congressional leaders, ignoring commitments to lead former slaves to dignity and full civil rights.
In the 20th century, Herbert Hoover's slogan promised "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage," but he presided over the beginning of the Great Depression. Similarly, Jimmy Carter's 1976 platform pledged to reduce unemployment to 3%, but Carter ran for re-election with more than twice that rate.
No wonder that Hoover and Carter, like other unsuccessful presidents, came across as gloomy, self-righteous sufferers. Hoover's secretary of State said that a meeting with him was "like sitting in a bath of ink." Carter staked his presidency on a notoriously sour televised address that became known as "The Malaise Speech," warning the appalled public of a "crisis of the American spirit."
None of our least successful presidents displayed the self-deprecatory humor of Lincoln or the sunny dispositions that powered the Roosevelts (Theodore and Franklin) and Ronald Reagan. A visitor described the Pierce White House as a "cold and cheerless place," noting the isolation of the invalid first lady, in deep mourning for three dead sons.
When Buchanan welcomed successor Lincoln, he plaintively declared: "My dear, sir, if you are as happy on entering the White House as I on leaving, you are a very happy man indeed."
The result of the depressing and erratic leadership of our six most conspicuous presidential failures is that all managed to estrange a once-admiring electorate within the space of a single term. Tyler,Pierce, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan all earned rejection by their own party, failed to win their own party's nominations, entering retirement as discredited figures. Hoover and Carter appeared on national tickets and campaigned vigorously but got wiped out in historic landslides, with each incumbent carrying a mere six states.
Democrats, who denounce George W. Bush as the worst president ever, along with Republicans who apply the same ugly title to Barack Obama, can't explain away the inconvenient fact that both of our most recent incumbents won re-election with 51% of the vote. Regardless of controversies blighting Bush's second term, or setbacks that might afflict Obama's, their legislative and electoral successes place them in a different category from the White House worst.
This baleful history should warn the current occupant and all successors against visibly disregarding commitments while encouraging voters to steer clear of presidential candidates with dour, inflexible temperaments. By selecting aspirants with clear, consistent agendas and cheerful, persuasive personalities, we'll face fewer shattered presidencies that leave reviled incumbents and a disillusioned electorate.
Actually that was Jeff Davis’ give to the nation. Jeff Davis called for raising 100,000 soldiers. The pretended confederate government began the war by firing on Ft. Sumter.
Get help. Projection is a form of mental illness, if you can’t turn it off. There are treatments.
False.
From Day One, step-by-step, secessionists assaulted the United States with militarily forces, in every way and in every place they could:
Summary: from Day One, secessionists threatened and took military actions against the United States in every place, and in every way, they could.
No "brokered peace" was ever possible, under either President Buchanan or Lincoln, since neither would negotiate, directly or indirectly, with any Confederate emmisary.
Once the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States -- May 6, 1861 -- Lincoln's peace terms became in effect: "unconditional surrender", and Lincoln kept firing general after general until he found some who understood.
You forget that there is an absolute, undeniable and unbreakable standard for precisely what constitutes a "fair" and "just" treaty settlement over Germans.
It is exactly the standard Germans set by the terms they imposed on defeated nations such as Belgium and Russia, and would have imposed on France and Holland in 1914: i.e., reparations and lebensraum.
By that standard, the 1919 Treaty of Versailles was totally fair, just and even kinder & gentler than Germany deserved.
So the appropriate German response should have been, thankfulness and even worship of those exalted beings who imposed such a merciful treaty on their sorry, stinking *sses.
But, being gluttons for punishment, German leaders naturally decided they needed a second, stiffer, drink from the war-bottle.
Your claim that Forts Sumter and Pickens had something to do with tax collecting is not supported by any historical evidence I know of.
As for foreign forts on US territory, did you forget that Britain maintained forts in US Northwest Territory for 30 years between the end of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 peace treaty?
These British forts were not considered casus belli by various American governments and were eventually removed as small parts of a larger peace settlement.
Also add that every modern and peaceful nation permits foreign ports of call by foreign warships.
Of course if you were an insurrectionist desperate to start a war, such a thing may make you nervous. The pretended confederates wanted to start a war, and the presence of the forts made them nervous. So they started their war, as was necessary to get Virginia, the most populous slave state, to join them (as previously agreed by the slave power).
There was also a raid by the Confederates of St. Albans Vermont, from their base in Canada.
My top 5:
1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. FDR
4. Woodrow Wilson
5. Lucifer (but then I repeat myself in all of the above)
Sending troops into enemy territory to fight is NOT “taking over”. It is fighting, trying to gain an advantage militarily to reach whatever ends are desired. Just because they did indeed try to infiltrate neighboring enemy territory does not mean it was the intention to confiscate that territory to annex to their country. Else the US would’ve wanted fully to wrest Canada from the UK, or the US would’ve intended to annex France or Germany from them in either war.
BTW, MD was a “Union” state by force. MD was 1 of the few truly divided in this war and it was a slave state, with MANY southern sympathizes/self-identified. Don’t be misleading. Natives mobbed them and it was hardly any kind of “invasion”.
BTW, thank you for so systematically reminding me how similar the AmRevWar was to this. Yet 1 is OK and the other is not. Hmmm.
Which is what I intended, not "New Hampshire", duh.
Let's see, how do I keep Vermont and New Hampshire separate?
New Hampshire says, "live free or die".
Vermont says, "give me free-stuff or give me... more FREE STUFF!"
Shouldn't be so hard to remember which is which, right? ;-)
In fact, the Confederacy laid claim and attempted to "take over" Union states and territories of Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona, as well as Union sympathizing areas of secessionist dominated states in Western Virginia, Eastern Tennessee, Western North Carolina and parts of Arkansas.
Further, RE Lee's 1863 campaign into Pennsylvania was intended to not only decisively defeat the Union army, but also to establish a permanent base across the rail line junctions in the state capital of Harrisburg.
Such a base could threaten all major northern and western cities as well as provide supplies for the Confederacy.
If successful, why would they ever give that up?
So the Confederacy was as aggressive towards the Union as it could be -- often failed, but not for lack of trying.
Well, you're quite welcome, but it's obviously a case of people seeing just what they want to see.
I'd say that, except in the fact of war between opposing forces, there is no comparison between the American Revolution and Civil War, for examples:
By stark contrast the Southern Slave Power was vastly over represented and had dominated Federal Government since the founding of the republic.
Indeed, Lincoln was the first mildly anti-slavery president ever elected.
By stark contrast, in 1860 Federal tariffs on slave-states imports were the same as in 1792, and had been reduced by over half since 1830.
By stark contrast, the Confederacy did formally declare war on the United States (May 6, 1861) after fully six months of assaulting and seizing Federal armories, arsenals, forts, ships, mints, etc.
By stark contrast, the first secessionists documents list only one major reason for secession: their fear of what newly elected mildly anti-slavery Republican President Lincoln might do some time in the future to slow the growth and expansion of slavery.
Indeed, their only major actual complaint was the Federal government hadn't done enough to enforce Federal fugitive slave laws.
This list goes on and on, so the bottom line is: the only way to compare the starts of Revolution and Civil Wars would be to give the Confederacy the part of the Brits, and the Union that of our long-suffering Founding Fathers.
Then it might make a little sense... ;-)
To you the last secession was about slavery, you are mixing up cause and effect.
I'd say you've pretty well expressed the attitude of Slave-Power secessionists in 1860 & 1861.
By sharp contrast our Founders in 1776, in their Declaration of Independence, said:
Most Slave Power secessionists in 1861 didn't bother to publish their reasons for secession, but for those who did*** it was almost entirely a potential threat to slavery represented by the recent election of mildly anti-slavery Republican Abraham Lincoln.
***if you do a word search, you'll find the words "slave" or "institut" appear nearly 100 times in these documents.
The word "tariff" does not appear and "tax" only once: a tax on slaves.
central_va: "To you the last secession was about slavery, you are mixing up cause and effect."
Sorry, but it's you who are confused.
Without exception, secessions documents explaining their reasons show slavery as the main, if not only reason for disunion.
Again, don’t color MD as simply a Federal state. It was heavily pro-south and basically divided. Lincoln knew he couldn’t be surrounded so sent in troops to hold it at gunpoint and later made sure pro-south politicians were arrested and unable to vote. Rather than run away and establish temp quarters as in earlier conflicts.
It’s disingenuous to glibly call it Fed territory, and I have little doubt similar situations existed in other of what used to be called border states.
You still can’t admit that invading territory for war purposes does not mean it is for permanency. Else we might have Canada, Mexico, Cuba, France, Germany, Japan, and Iraq. Why would we give any up?
You seem to be justifying anything a gov does OK as long as everyone is represented. That doesn’t fly, as even we know that full official representation doesn’t mean intolerable choices won’t be made for law. So did Tom Jefferson seem to understand this, stating after the fact that we must be on guard (I’m not a big fan of Jeff, either). He didn’t say we simply be on guard for not being represented.
TWR was not the only reason for war. The BOR basically tells the story of the RevWar and its circumstances. Soldiers were being sent to the colonies long before the Lex issue, and they were forced into people’s homes to give them board. The Boston Massacre happened years before open hostilities, and was instigated by rebels against redcoats stationed in these “treasonous” parts. Instead of Lex, we could’ve had Salem a few months earlier, but tempers were tempered. Just the fact that rebels presented any kind of front was a military threat.
The DOI was a full year plus after war started, when Boston had been under siege for about that whole duration. The purposes were nicely laid out long after the fact. In fact that was a complaint of Adams - why can’t we easily declare independence when we’ve already been hostile for such a long time?
You cannot juxtapose Confederate rebels into British, when clearly it was all Brit territory prior and there was no such thing as a USA. There was no such thing as a CSA before USA. We were the rebels as surely as the Southerners were. I’m proud of that, not ashamed, and it’s better we start calling our side rebels rather than avoiding the fact to make it somehow nicer. Seems to me most think rebel is bad, so only Confeds get that nomenclature.
I don’t think that they wanted Massachusetts LOL (but they did want New York City).
What a bunch of war-mongers.
To sheep, other sheep are different.
In fact, Maryland was far less divided than our pro-Confederates claim.
the OlLine Rebel: "Lincoln knew he couldn’t be surrounded so sent in troops to hold it at gunpoint and later made sure pro-south politicians were arrested and unable to vote."
You just have to remember the sequence of events there.
When the Maryland legislature voted 53 to 13 against secession, on April 29, 1861, no legislator was jailed, there was no official war declared (though de facto it started on April 12 at Fort Sumter), and no Confederate or Union soldier had yet been killed in battle with the other side.
Then on May 6, 1861 the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, and a month later, June 10, the first battle deaths on both sides (Big Bethel).
Here's why that's important: the Confederacy's formal declaration of war, on May 6, 1861, meets the US Constitution's definition of "treason" for Confederate sympathizers in Union states such as Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri.
Article 3, Section 3:
This meant that Union legislators who voted for secession, after May 6, 1861, were subject to arrest and imprisonment.
the OlLine Rebel: "It’s disingenuous to glibly call it Fed territory, and I have little doubt similar situations existed in other of what used to be called border states."
All the Border States -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri -- had large majorities of Unionists, as demonstrated by their votes and military services.
All voted by large majorities not to secede.
All contributed two or three soldiers to the Union for every one to the Confederacy.
In the Upper South states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas, it was originally the same -- majority unionists -- until the Confederate assault on Fort Sumter convinced most they would have to chose sides, and so they chose two & three to one for secession.
But they all had significant Unionist territories, which in Western Virginia seceded from Virginia, and in Eastern Tennessee tried to secede from Tennessee.
So it would be every bit as, in your words, "disingenuous" and "glib" to call those Upper South states "Confederate", FRiend. ;-)
the OlLine Rebel: "You still can’t admit that invading territory for war purposes does not mean it is for permanency."
Sorry, but you are the one who can't confess the truth here: the Confederacy attempted by military force to take over Union states and territories of Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona and even Colorado (which they never actually reached).
Other Union states suffered Confederate raids (i.e., Gen. John Morgan) on a smaller scale but with the same ideas as Union General Sherman's "March to the Sea", including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Kansas.
Still others suffered smaller Confederate units disrupting and stealing supplies, including California, Colorado and (yes) Vermont.
Such highly aggressive Confederate actions against the Union, when added to their formal declaration of war (May 6, 1861) constituted as grave a threat as the United States has ever faced, and required the Constitutional response of war to achieve the Confederacy's Unconditional Surrender.
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.