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.
Bro, you are unbelievable. No one in his right mind would deny these colonies - occupied largely by those of UK descent and immigration - WAS UK land.
It’s absurd to paint it any other way.
And military stores were basically British stores as surely as the colonies that directed regular militia enlistment and practice were created and granted by Britain.
Don’t be ashamed of that. It’s apparent you seem to think there’s some shame in this.
“First of all, George Washington well knew that slavery was morally wrong, and freed his slaves in his will.”
This often repeated claim is highly misleading at best and untrue in significant ways.
George Washington had two classes of slaves. He had slaves that he had purchased or inherited from his family, and he had slaves that were brought into the marriage by Martha. Martha’s were the majority of the Washington slaves.
At his death only his own slaves were freed. Those that had originally belonged to Martha were not, and at her death they passed on to her descendents, one being Robert E Lee’s father in law.
George Washington was comfortable enough with slavery that he tried to recover two who ran away while he was President. And while serving in Philadelphia he rotated his servants back to Virginia to prevent them from being declared free, which by law would happen if they spent sufficient time in Pennsylvania.
“Thomas Jefferson also understood the evils of slavery,”
Jefferson certainly wrote the language that you quoted, but significantly he didn’t free any of his own slaves.
“So, bottom line: if you want to compare 1775 with 1861, then let’s at least get the right people in their proper roles, FRiend.”
I agree. The British, like Lincoln, invoked an emancipation proclamation as a wartime measure. And they were fighting against slave holding American rebels.
The 1776 Patriots were rebels, traitors to the ruling government, and many owned slaves. The Loyalists, like Lincoln, stood for perpetual union, loyalty to the legitimate government, and emancipation.
If the immorality of slavery is paramount, if rebellion is treason, then the modern neo-Yankee wrapping himself in a cloak of morality and loyalty to the union needs to explain how the Founders escape their condemnation for the very things that they use to condemn the Confederacy.
The answer appears to be in some sort of flexible morality, a moral relativism, where what is evil in 1860 is somehow not all that evil in 1776.
For sources on when the North started preparing (it was before April 15), FR's best resident historian rustbucket has us covered.
Please see his posts 401, 406, 413, 416, 418, 420, 422, 424 and 425 on this old FR thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1927955/posts?page=401#401
Yes, eventually the peace was brokered by RE Lee and other surrendering generals.
What a shame that hundreds of thousands of potentially productive lives were cut short.
I think the big secret was Virginia, the most populous of the slave states would only join the insurrection if there was a war, and so the slave power started the war they needed to get Virginia in.
Certainly Virginia had no problem putting down an insurrection in Pennsylvania when RE Lee’s father was governor.
So is Jersey island UK land?
No. It is under the British crown, but he English parliament has no authority there. They are self governing.
The English parliament had no authority to make law for the colonies. The English parliament had no representation from the colonies. By contrast Dunwich, a city completely under water at the time, had three representatives at the time.
The colonial charters permitted self government. Rich lords of England didn’t want to pay for the 7 years war, and decided that they could tax someone who couldn’t vote against them. That unconstitutional pretense led to the American Revolution.
By contrast, the desire to win an election that the Democratic party had lose caused the War of the Great Rebellion.
I was reading Manfred Rommel’s preface to the new copy of “Infantry Attacks” by Erwin Rommel. Manfred makes the point that virtues such as courage in support of evil ends pervert virtue to evil. That lesson should be learned and internalized by all Americans.
There is a wonderful story about how traitors in Washington who had militia companies were offered by US Army officers a chance to take an oath of loyalty in front of their men, and when they refused, their disloyal militia companies were disarmed (government weapons were withdrawn) and disbanded.
Only the new loyal militia companies created after that permitted the conditions so Lincoln could be inaugurated. The traitors had widely agreed that because Lincoln was a western man he would have to be murdered.
My recollection is that was written by Abner Doubleday, but he was otherwise occupied at the time, so it is at least not first hand from A. Doubleday.
Of course rebellion against legitimate authority is treason. Against illegitimate authority, such as the pretended authority of England to tax the Colonies is not treason.
Who would decide which was which? Fortunately, in the US constitution, we have an organization which resolves controversies per Article 3 of the Constitution.
Have they? Yes, they have. Texas v. White ruled that the insurrection of 1860-1865 was illegal.
I’m sure the French would have loved to know all this. Then they could sue because how dare the English fight against them in said 7-year war to keep them out of these totally independent colonies? They should only have had to fight inept American militia. Which, BTW, colonists were only allowed as opposed to full regular military professions and pay. And the fact many colonies were overseen by royal governors? They knew the LIMITS of colonial authority as opposed to limits on Britain, which you all seem to be pretending didn’t exist. Ever hear of the old Navigation Acts? The colonies were restricted in what they could manufacture, FGS. Britain had no control?
This really is a ludicrous argument.
The Founding was rebellion, and redcoats were not invaders. Period.
The institution of slavery became worse over time. The southern slave power worked to make slavery worse, and to prevent slaves from being freed, educated. Though Washington freed his slaves, Jefferson did not because Virginia changed the terms by which slaves could be freed.
Regarding States Rights, the right of habeas corpus was routinely denied to persons accused of being run away slaves. That led to gangs of kidnappers roaming northern states and picking up people to be forced to the south and into slavery. States were not permitted to enforce procedures that interfere with such crimes. The slave power was opposed to states rights.
It always amused me that neo-confederates complain about Lincoln’s restrictions on habeas corpus. Of course they are ok with it, if the slave catchers ever asserted that a victim was a run away slave.
North Carolina permitted black freedmen to vote until 1835. After that, not.
Slavery was getting worse over time. Slave owners of 1776 had much for which to answer. Those of 1860 had much more for which to answer.
And here you've been so good up til now, but now starting to go nuts on me.
Do you often have trouble controlling that?
Property rights under English law are roughly the same as American law.
Does the saying, "A man's home is his castle" ring a bell to you?
So when our Founders complained in the Declaration of Independence that:
they were simply expressing what they considered the natural rights of Englishmen.
the OlLine Rebel: "And military stores were basically British stores as surely as the colonies that directed regular militia enlistment and practice were created and granted by Britain."
You don't understand.
The 1775 Massachusetts militias and their weapons were not purchased or provided by the British, and did not belong to the British.
Just as in 1861, weapons armories, arsenals, forts, etc., illegally seized by slave-holding secessionists did not belong to secessionists.
That's why, as I've said before, though it's not right to compare 1775 to 1861, if you absolutely insist, then at least get the roles correct: those slavery-imposing British seizing weapons from Americans in 1775 correspond to those slave-holding secessionists seizing armories & arsenals, etc. from Americans in 1861.
the OlLine Rebel: "Don’t be ashamed of that.
It’s apparent you seem to think there’s some shame in this."
Sorry, but now you're just babbling incoherently.
You need to control that.
“and so the slave power started the war they needed to get Virginia in.”
“the slave power”. Of course this phrase described the majority of American Presidents right up through Zachary Taylor. “The slave power” was a favorite phrase for a political faction back in the 1800s who saw the world in terms of class warfare. They were supporters of Lincoln, and a number of these ‘48er’ European revolutionaries even served as Union generals.
This is the opening of their letter of support to the re-elected President Lincoln:
” Sir:
We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.
From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver? “
from the “Address of the International Working Men’s Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America “ written by their corresponding secretary for Germany, Karl Marx.
“States were not permitted to enforce procedures that interfere with such crimes.”
So- now you’re complaining about an absence of States Rights? That’s rich.
“It always amused me that neo-confederates complain about Lincoln’s restrictions on habeas corpus.”
Well of course. What else is a neo-Yankee going to do but affect an amused condescension? After all jailing northern political opponents without trial and shutting down the opposition press by force is hard to defend.
“Slavery was getting worse over time. Slave owners of 1776 had much for which to answer. Those of 1860 had much more for which to answer.”
And here we have an attempt at justifying the neo-Yankee double standard regarding the slave owning of the Founders versus the slave owning of 80 years later.
Of course it conveniently ignores the standard argument that slavery is in itself a moral evil; instead we get this relativistic judgement that 1860s slavery was a moral evil deserving death and destruction whereas Founding era slavery was, well, you know, somehow less.
This allows the modern neo-Yankee to justify a brutal war against slave owning Americans in 1860, while conveniently trying to maintain a claim on the Founders as well. How’s that for consistency?
The Union act of 1707 unified England, Scotland, and Wales into Great Britain. Didn’t unify Virginia, New York or the other colonies, just as it didn’t unify India. Didn’t even unify Ireland with Great Britain.
Your assertion that the colonies were part of the UK is bunk.
Color me not surprised.
That 1860 slavery deserved murder is your straw man. It was Jeff Davis that started the war. It was the insurrection and war that he started that justified the killing.
The US captured Jeff Davis, and could have killed him, but didn’t. RE Lee could have been killed, but didn’t. US terms to the insurrectionists were very generous.
Perhaps too generous. Mosby in particular should have suffered more than he did.
Note how the slave power used ‘states rights’ as a term of art.
States rights for them meant people from Virginia could go to NY, and the state laws of NY were not allowed to have effect.
If you think that is a proper use of states rights, you may be a supporter of the slave power.
By contrast, NY teachers were permitted to teach students how to read and write. If they went to another state and did that, states rights meant that they would not be permitted to do it if the state they went to forbade it.
See how that works? States rights means as interpreted by the slave power means the slave power wins, and anyone opposed to the slave power loses.
If you think that is fair, then you might be a neo-confederate.
Washington kept his own accounts and Martha's strictly separate.
Pelham: "At his death only his own slaves were freed."
Washington did not dispose of Martha's assets in his own will.
Pelham: "George Washington was comfortable enough with slavery that he tried to recover two who ran away while he was President."
Washington was typical of Virginia slave owners in the late 1700s, only somewhat more... what would be the right word, "progressive"?
Pelham: "Jefferson certainly wrote the language that you quoted, but significantly he didn’t free any of his own slaves."
Jefferson was perhaps a step down from Washington, in that Jefferson could never quite put his own money where his mouth was.
Still, Jefferson's Declaration of Independence language clearly shows he understood, and his plans as president to use Federal money to purchase freedom for slaves shows he was willing to act -- with Other People's Money.
But the bottom line for all Southern slave-holders was just that: their bottom lines.
Slavery was increasingly profitable, even in Jefferson's time, and they could not imagine doing without it.
Pelham: "The British, like Lincoln, invoked an emancipation proclamation as a wartime measure.
And they were fighting against slave holding American rebels."
Once war began, the Brits did a role reversal, as Jefferson's Declaration of Independence words show: the Brits went from imposing slavery to offering slaves their freedom.
But we are talking about the beginnings of war, in both 1775 and 1861.
In both cases it was the slave imposing power (1775 British, 1861 secessionists) which began the war by assaulting and seizing stores of American arms, ammunition, military facilities, etc.
Pelham: "The 1776 Patriots were rebels, traitors to the ruling government, and many owned slaves.
The Loyalists, like Lincoln, stood for perpetual union, loyalty to the legitimate government, and emancipation."
You have it exactly backwards.
In 1775 as in 1861 American patriots stood for the United States, rule of law, limited representative government, and the concept that "all men are created equal" -- at least all white English speaking men.
In 1775 as in 1861, war began when Brits and secessionists made lawless assaults on peaceful people in order to confiscate their weapons, ammunition and other military resources.
Pelham: "If the immorality of slavery is paramount, if rebellion is treason, then the modern neo-Yankee wrapping himself in a cloak of morality and loyalty to the union needs to explain how the Founders escape their condemnation for the very things that they use to condemn the Confederacy."
In 1860, neither Lincoln nor the Republican party in general campaigned to abolish slavery in Slave States.
But Deep South slave-holders saw Lincoln's election as a mortal threat to their "peculiar institution" and as a result first declared their secession, then started and formally declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861 -- see Article 3, Section 3 US Constitution).
So while the issue of slavery was "paramount" to Deep-South slave holders, it was not "paramount" to Unionists in 1861.
Slavery only became important to Unionists later in the war, as a weapon to use against secessionists.
In short: while the immorality of slavery was important, even before 1861, it was the usefulness of emancipation as a weapon against slave-holding secessionists which guaranteed freedom for millions of African-Americans.
Pelham: "The answer appears to be in some sort of flexible morality, a moral relativism, where what is evil in 1860 is somehow not all that evil in 1776."
You sound very confused and disoriented.
I hope my words here have been of some help, FRiend.
“You have it exactly backwards.
In 1775 as in 1861 American patriots stood for the United States, rule of law, limited representative government, and the concept that “all men are created equal” —”
Oh? And we find that definition of Patriot where, exactly?
Well in your subjective opinion of course, which you want the rest of us to conflate with objective truth in the same manner that you do.
“You sound very confused and disoriented.
I hope my words here have been of some help, FRiend.”
So it’s little wonder that you see an opposing view as “disoriented” and “confused”. Why, anyone who fails to be impressed with an amateur internet psychologist of your standing would have to be afflicted. It surely couldn’t be that you make poor arguments and find a need to resort to ad hominem to save your sorry ass.
Donny, donny, don’t pretend to be dense.
‘The Slave Power’ was a term of art employed by the International Working Men’s Association. That you echo it 150 years later is a testament to how their ideas have penetrated certain ideological camps. Neo-yankeedom evidently being one of them.
The International Working Men’s Association was the same organization that employed Karl Marx as their recording secretary. It was an amalgamation of left-wing socialist, communist and anarchist associations, and included the veterans of the failed revolutions of 1848. Many of those 48ers migrated to America and became ardent supporters of abolition and Abraham Lincoln, as their letter penned by Marx illustrates.
Washington and Jefferson and other large slave holders didn’t refer to themselves as “the Slave Power”. No, that term of art was invented by people who think in terms of Class Warfare to denigrate and objectify Americans like Washington and Jefferson.
You’re certainly welcome to use the term Slave Power. But we should clarify its origin.
Rusty and Non-Sequitur firing away at 50 yards in 2007!
Well, well... thanks so much!
It's always a delight to read rusty's work -- he is sometimes wrong, but seldom if ever inaccurate -- and here going at it guns-ablazing with our "late" colleague, Non-Sequitur, and all the way back in 2007.
That's almost before my time... ;-)
In summary, what their debate shows is that my basic ideas are correct: there is no detailed breakdown of the rate of state militia mobilizations in late 1860 and early 1861 -- before Lincoln's inauguration.
All we have are bits and pieces of data, here and there, which suggest but do not confirm what was happening "behind the scenes."
For example, we know that in early November 1860 -- five weeks before declaring secession -- the South Carolina legislature authorized raising a 10,000 man army.
This was almost certainly the first mobilization in the country, and came at a time when the entire US Army was circa 16,000 mostly scattered in small posts out west.
We do not have data from other seceding states, but surely it's safe to suppose they followed South Carolina's lead, in raising militias along with declaring secession.
This could lead us to conclude that by the time Texas declared its secession on February 1, 1861, the seven original Confederate states were raising militias perhaps 70,000 strong.
But that is surely inaccurate because first we have to ask: what were all those state militias like before the secession crisis, let's say, in 1859?
How big were they, were they fully armed and trained?
Surely we have to assume that all those states had some militia back in 1859, and that at least some small part of it was armed, trained and ready to be deployed if needed.
So the question for those four months -- between Lincoln's election on November 6, and his inauguration on March 4 -- is: what increases and improvements did various states make to the size and readiness of their militias?
Answer: we don't know.
Nor do we know much about the rates at which the national governments filled their authorizations for 100,000 Confederates (March 6) and 75,000 Federal troops (April 17).
I have one report saying the Confederacy had 60,000 men by April 17, plus we have several reports showing the arrivals of very small Union units in Washington within a couple of weeks after Lincoln's April 17 call-up.
Nothing suggests there was a vast build-up of Union forces in the months before Fort Sumter.
Indeed, everything we do know suggests that in every step of the way from peace in 1860 to war in 1861, Deep-South slave-holding secessionists lead the way, and long-suffering Northern Unionists only reluctantly tried to match them.
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.