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.
Precisely speaking, the term "slave power" was used from almost the beginning of the Republic to refer to extra votes provided by the Constitution's 3/5 of slaves rule.
Indeed, it was "slave power" which first elected Thomas Jefferson President in 1800.
Without Jefferson's "slave power" President John Adams would have been re-elected.
It's the reason Jefferson was, at the time, called "The Negro President".
Indeed, that term "Negro President" for Jefferson adds a special cutting irony to slave-holder denegrations of Lincoln as a "Black Republican".
_ditto_ from post #279: "Add Buchanan to the list as another "Dough Face" who bowed to the Slave Power.
The same was true for control of Congress and the Courts.
You are correct that from Jackson onward until the election of Lincoln, the Slave Power controlled the not just the Executive, but also the the Legislative and the Judicial branches."
In fact, when you look at the list of Presidents from Washington through Buchanan, there was not one openly anti-slavery.
Indeed, very few elected Presidents did not themselves own slaves -- the Adamses, van Buren, Buchanan -- and except for John Adams, they were all Dough-faced Northern Democrats.
So Lincoln was the first President ever elected who was even mildly anti-slavery.
And minority Republicans only got elected because Southern Democrat "fire eaters" having ruled for generations, suddenly walked out and split apart their majority Democrat party.
In Congress the Southern Slave Power ruled through its majority Democrat party, which was very seldom and only briefly out-of-power in both houses.
In the Supreme Court, Slave Power domination was powerful enough to pass Dred-Scott (1857) by a vote of seven to two!
Only Massachusetts Whig Justice Curtis and Ohio Republican Justice McLean voted against Dred-Scott.
In fact, it was exactly this Slave-Power domination of Federal Government which drove Republicans to break-off and effectively destroy the old slavery-friendly Whig party.
Republicans feared, with good cause, that the next major Supreme Court decision would effectively make slavery legal in every state and territory.
So bottom line: the term "Slave Power" was not invented by Karl Marx, but rather by Americans themselves, at the time of the Founding, to refer to the extra votes constitutionally provided owners of human "property".
Terms like "Slave Power" and "Slavocracy" were later used by Republicans (1850s) to provide focus among "low information" Northerners who couldn't quite understand why they should not vote for Democrats.
;-)
And rebellion is only morally justified when faced with intollerable opression and all pleas and petitions for relief have been ignored.
Searching the historical record, I can see absolutly no evidence of intollerable opression by the general government upon the southern states prior to secession.
And thus was the AmRevWar unjustified.
British rule may’ve denied some rights for their citizens, but it’s hard to call the overall climate “intolerable” or “oppressive” as many colonials agreed. They were hardly the level of even emperors of China.
But better they stood up before it might get truly bad.
Finally it comes out from one of you neo-confederates. You never liked the idea of American independence from the start!
The people who wrote the Declaration of Independence said specifically what the abuses and intollerable opression was. Here's the list:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
And for the Confederates, their list of grivences pretty much boiled down to "Those damn Yankees don't like slavery."
But you are being true to your Sainted Confederate ancestors at least. They hated the United States just as much as you do and like you, they Rejected the Declaration of Independence.
Such rantings from you legalists is always used to justify killing fellow Americans. The arguments are primitive, varied, and subject to interpretation to fit the political agenda. You use your man made rules and org charts to make money and further your agenda and if some fellow human violates some “rule of law” kill him. There is a higher law that bestows a right to life and liberty, and that is God’s law. Get off that legalist BS and follow what is right. Every tyrant who wins a war always paints a rosy picture of himself and vilifies the defeated.
Such rantings from you legalists is always used to justify killing fellow Americans. The arguments are primitive, varied, and subject to interpretation to fit the political agenda. You use your man made rules and org charts to make money and further your agenda and if some fellow human violates some “rule of law” kill him. There is a higher law that bestows a right to life and liberty, and that is God’s law. Get off that legalist BS and follow what is right. Every tyrant who wins a war always paints a rosy picture of himself and vilifies the defeated.
Thanks, that's a key difference between the Founders' Declaration of Independence and slave-holders' Reasons for Secession.
The Confederates would have disagreed with you. They said that only certain people had the right to life and liberty, not all people.
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.
This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact.
But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.
This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
What? Bullshiite!
Excuse my language but you know little of me and insult me. I am using logic, that’s all.
My very net NAME is made to honor the RevWar rebels. The best in the Rev, the MDers who fought steadfast in virtually every conflict they entered and are the reason everyone stereotypes Rev soldiers as wearing red-faced blue. In fact, this is my name everywhere on the Internet, since I 1st signed onto a forum c.1997. Read my page, incidentally. It does NOT REFER TO THE Civil War which is subordinate in my mind, and done to death.
To me the greatest human ever is George Washington - yeah, even though he had slaves.
You can argue details but don’t dare accuse ME of being ashamed of US rebellion and independence. The thought would be laughable to my family and friends!
As to your bullshiite about HATING the US, suffice to say for myself you’re full of it. As for modern southern sympathizers, how many do you know who don’t otherwise exhibit great patriotism for this very country? As a bloc I’ve experienced almost unanimous patriotism from them, while Northerners despise our country, can never simply say “I love the USA” and want to turn it into something like Cuba.
Not only did you not comprehend my final statement in the answered post, but you also may have missed my final statement in this post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2988107/posts?page=201#201
Hate the founding, hate our independence - absurd!
_Ditto_: "Finally it comes out from one of you neo-confederates.
You never liked the idea of American independence from the start! "
the OlLine Rebel: "What? Bullshiite!
Excuse my language but you know little of me and insult me.
I am using logic, that’s all."
But in fact, OLR, your argument made no sense, Ditto did not insult you in the least, but Ditto's response was brilliant, hit it out of the ball park.
So instead of crying tears about your alleged love of country, you should thank Ditto for pointing out how illogical your argument is, and should promise not to post such BS again, FRiend. ;-)
Neoliberalnot post #114: "No Freeper would condone the killing of his fellow Americans with desires to simply be left alone."
Neoliberalnot post #122: "I condemn Lincoln for ordering the death of soldiers on both sides.
...you are bean counter stuck with the notion that written rules somehow are to be followed, even if it means killing people who wish to be left alone."
Neoliberalnot post #224: "Your support of the dc empire that became a killing machine for both their own and those that they disagreed with does not fit the red state world view of smaller government that is supposed to serve, not kill, their countrymen."
Neoliberalnot post #247: "No one will ever convince me that killing my fellow Americans is justified to satiate the lust for power and money..."
Neoliberalnot Posts #285/286: "You use your man made rules and org charts to make money and further your agenda and if some fellow human violates some “rule of law” kill him.
There is a higher law that bestows a right to life and liberty, and that is God’s law."
And responses:
BroJoeK responding to post #100: "...the US Constitution, to which we owe due fealty, expressly deals with issues of "rebellion", "insurrection", "domestic violence", "invasion", "war" and "treason".
Those are all unlawful acts, and the Federal Government is required to defeat them."
rockrr responding to post #114: "What’s that got to do with anything?"
rockrr responding to post #122: "The south did not want to "be left alone" - the south merely wanted to do any damned thing they pleased.
The south wasn't going anywhere, but was setting itself as a belligerent, hostile, and aggressive competitor to the nation in a fashion that didn't just invite war, but demanded it."
BroJoeK responding to post #122: "Once the Confederacy started war (i.e., Fort Sumter) and then formally declared war (May 6, 1861), then Lincoln had no other choice.
Constitutionally, he had to defeat the Power which invaded and attempted to destroy the United States."
BroJoeK responding to post #224: "The basic constitutional function of any government, such as the United States, is to defend its citizens against military powers who attack and declare war on it, such as the Confederate States of America.
No real Confederate admitted that they were "countrymen" of Union citizens.
That's why they felt perfectly free to to start and declare war on the United States."
rockrr responding to post #247: "You’ve just captured the essence of the confederacy. Bravo."
BroJoeK responding to post #247: "the 'lust for power and money' began with Deep-South slave-holding secessionists, who first declared their disunion, then immediately started and finally formally declared war on the United States."
_Ditto_ responding to post #285/6: "The Confederates would have disagreed with you.
They said that only certain people had the right to life and liberty, not all people."
FRiends, I've revisited these previous posts because of a certain "broken record" quality to Neoliberalnot's words which makes me suspect something unspoken.
My question is, Neoliberalnot: do you oppose all wars, or only those under Republican presidents?
If you oppose all wars, are you a pacifist?
Do you have a family history of conscientious objection to wars?
I do. Some of my ancestors served in every major American war, but other branches were conscientious objectors to those same wars.
My dad served in WWII, while a distant cousin (recently deceased) did C.O. alternate service in a mental hospital.
So conscientious objectors have been recognized and respected from the beginning of the Republic.
It's nothing to be ashamed of.
If you are a conscientious objector, Neoliberalnot, then I say, God bless you, and go in peace.
I might point out that even conscientious objectors recognize law enforcement as a necessity, which may on occasion require use of deadly force.
But they draw a personal line on participating in such operations.
Nor as jurors will they impose a death penalty on criminals who might normally qualify for it.
Therefore, if pacifism is the real debate with our FRiend, Neoliberal, then it seems somewhat pointless to bring out historical facts about the Civil War.
So, Neoliberalnot, is it?
Lincoln was a RINO of the worst kind. Any leader incapable of stopping a war with brother killing brother is either incompetent or pure evil. The Kenyan maggot is cut from the same mold and the current level of divisiveness proves it. I mentioned already, my two relatives killed at Vicksburg fought for the northern invaders. The value I place on killing an innocent citizen brother simply supersedes some rule written by a lawyer in DC. You are simply another statist.
Interesting observation. By his/her response it appears to be the former, not the latter. Neoliberalnot prefers to stay willfully ignorant.
So, have we established that you are not against all American wars, only against some of those wars?
Can you tell us which wars you approved, and why, and which you oppose, and why?
Neoliberalnot: "Lincoln was a RINO of the worst kind."
As the first Republican President, Lincoln largely defined what the word "Republican" meant, in his day, and to some degree, what it means today.
So, if you claim to be Republican, but can't accept Lincoln, then it's you, FRiend, who are the RINO.
Neoliberalnot: "Any leader incapable of stopping a war with brother killing brother is either incompetent or pure evil."
Doubtless you mean Confederate President Jefferson Davis, right?
Davis provoked war, started war, formally declared war and sent Confederated forces into every Union state and territory near the Confederacy.
And for years Davis refused to surrender -- and stop the war -- even after his war was obviously lost.
So, I'm glad you recognize Jefferson Davis as "incompetent or pure evil.".
Neoliberalnot: "The value I place on killing an innocent citizen brother simply supersedes some rule written by a lawyer in DC."
The historical record shows that very few innocent civilians were killed by military forces of either side, and nearly all of those by accident -- a stray bullet strikes a house near a battlefield and kills an innocent woman inside, that sort of thing.
Of actual civilian massacres, the worst, in August 1863, was lead by Confederate Captain William Clarke Quantrill into Lawrence, Kansas, burning and looting the town, killing about 200 civilian men and boys.
No similar scale raid was ever launched by a Union force.
But if, possibly, you meant to refer to soldiers as "innocent citizens", well then perhaps you can remember that for any military battle, there must be two sides on the battlefield, and both sides are there on orders from their government.
And it's government on each side which carries responsibility for their soldiers' actions.
In the Civil War, the "government" most responsible for provoking, starting, declaring, fighting and not surrendering was that of secessionist slave-holders.
Neoliberalnot: "You are simply another statist."
If you'll look up the word "statist" in a dictionary, you'll find that it has nothing to do with either President Lincoln or BroJoeK.
So your use in this context is void of meaning, except as an insult.
Indeed, I can even argue: if I am a "statist" then so was, for example, George Washington, who demanded "unconditional surrender" from the Brits at Yorktown, lead the Constitutional Conventional to increase the power of Federal Government, served as President, and lead an army to defeat the Whiskey Rebellion.
So, if Washington had been truly a "statist", then so would I.
But any serious definition of "statist" cannot refer to George Washington's very limited Federal Government (2% of GDP), but rather to the bloated monstrosity we see today in Washington DC, now nearly 25% of GDP and ever growing...
That long sad story of ever-growing Federal Government does not begin with Lincoln, but rather with Democrat Progressives like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, all solidly supported by the Solid Democrat South.
It IS logical to call the British not intolerable. They were hardly the level of, say Ivan the Terrible, much less Moslem kingdoms or Atilla the Hun. Let’s not forget many, many colonials were not interested in that rebellion, so in their view the Brits were not intolerable.
Saying so and pointing out the poor logic is not hating my country, or the Founders. I thank God we came from the Brits, and not even screwballs like the French much less something worse.
Finally, I would think FReepers would give a little benefit of doubt to other FReepers regarding devotion to country and Constitution, instead of making libelous accusations. Most of us are of the same basic stripe attested by simply posting here. Any doubts can be allayed by observing home pages and posting history. Only occasional people here do I seriously doubt for conservative credentials, based on seeing them in action many times, even though FR still allows them. But most people here I assume are of similar mind.
You fail the logic test. Secession is neither legal or illegal. The Federal government was created by the sovereign states and was meant to be the servant of the states. Lincoln either did not understand that or he did not give a hoot. States were never meant to have to answer to the federal government except in those areas enumerated within the Constitution. Secession is neither expressly denied or granted the states, but is rather to be assumed under the nature of the agreement, and the necessity of the states to ratify this Federation before it would become legitimate.
Your contention that a state should be forced to petition that government which it has in part created for its right of separation is illogical. The parent does not ask the child’s permission.
No it wasn't. do you understand the concept of dual sovereignty? Go back and reread the US Constitution to see which is defined dominant and which is subordinate.
Secession is neither expressly denied or granted the states, but is rather to be assumed under the nature of the agreement, and the necessity of the states to ratify this Federation before it would become legitimate.
What an incongruous and contradictory statement. Secession may have been assumed (in the case of the WBTS) but there wasn't mutuality of agreement between the parties involved. So the slavers chose unilateral secession and open rebellion - not a good choice.
So you're claiming that the abuses of the colonists didn't rise to sufficient level for rebellion but the southron slavers were justified? Really?!
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.