Posted on 02/28/2017 1:34:51 PM PST by SeekAndFind
It’s only been a few weeks since former President Barack Obama left the White House, but presidential historians have already placed him on the right side of history.
AC-SPAN survey of 91 historians and presidential experts ranked the Democrat the 12th best leader in United States presidential history — just ahead of James Monroe and right behind Woodrow Wilson.
Another Illinois politician, former President Abraham Lincoln, claimed the survey’s top spot. He’s followed closely by George Washington, with Franklin D. Roosevelt rounding out the top three.
Experts who participated in the survey were asked to grade the presidents on 10 different facets of their terms in office, like “Crisis Leadership” and “International Relations.”
Obama earned high marks for his pursuit of “Equal Justice for All,” ranking third in the category behind Lincoln and former President Lyndon B. Johnson. He also cracked the top 10 for his “Moral Authority” and “Economic Management,” ranking seventh and eighth, respectively.
The 44th president’s lowest mark is for his relationship with Congress. Historians ranked him 39th, ahead of only a few others including former presidents Franklin Pierce and Andrew Johnson, who was ranked last.
Experts said the passing of time will likely effect Obama’s rankings in the future and remained mixed on whether the former President’s marks were higher or lower than expected,
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
rockrr, you wrote, “So you are, in fact, every bit as dimwitted as I originally imagined. That’s a real pity.”
When can we expect to see your scholarly gifts?
HandyDandy “Man”, you asked, “So you believe the lies that the left tells about Lincoln.”
No, I do not believe your lies about Lincoln.
HandyDandy “Man”, you wrote, “You are what has weakened this country.”
Progressives weakened the country, Mr. Progressive. With progressive “patriots” like you, American is doomed.
HandyDandy “Man”, you wrote, “I’ll ask you for the third time: Do you rank Obama ahead of Lincoln? “
I rank them tied for last, Mr. Progressive.
"I do have a question, Mr. Progressive. Why do you have such intense hatred for American Military War Veterans?
You are pushing a false narrative. Way out on a limb.
You are in way over your head.
Again, why do you have such intense hatred for American Military War Veterans?
Firstly, point out to me where I demonstrated this “such intense hatred” of which you speak.
While you’re working on that allow me to use this interlude to make it perfectly clear to you that your allegation of my “intense hatred for American Military War Veterans?” is extremely insulting for many reasons that are none of your business. Please apologize.
What?
You're saying Rebels forced slavery on the north?
BroJoeK, I almost missed this. You wrote,
“It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure.”
Are you not taking that completely out of context? I don’t recall any of the Southern states seceding “at pleasure”, but rather after a long train of abuses and usurpations. This is Madison:
“Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.” — James Madison to Nicholas P. Trist, Feb 15, 1830
Was not a purpose of the constitution to guarantee the states a republican form of government, and to protect them against invasion? Madison, again:
“A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. The history, both of ancient and modern confederacies, proves that the weaker members of the union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article.”
And is this not the object of a society? Madison, again:
“The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature’s God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed.” — FP #43
Now, suppose that vindictive and powerful neighbor is the superior or controlling political institution, and roughly half the states decide the safety and happiness of their societies are no longer the objects of the controlling political institution, is it not the controlling institution that needs to be sacrificed, rather than the societies themselves?
HandyDandy “Man”, you wrote, “While you’re working on that allow me to use this interlude to make it perfectly clear to you that your allegation of my “intense hatred for American Military War Veterans?” is extremely insulting for many reasons that are none of your business. Please apologize.”
Apologize for what? By honoring the tyrant Lincoln, you dishonor the hundreds of thousands of American War Veterans who were casualties for both the South and the North. It was Lincoln’s war, not America’s War.
If Lincoln was truly concerned about keeping the Union together — that would be assuming he did not have a stake in the game — he would have done something to alleviate the fears of the Southern states regarding the new, oppressive tariff. Rather he strongly supported the tariff, and specifically threatened, in his inaugural address, to use military force to ensure the tariff was collected. Not unsurprisingly, the South carried as much as 80% of the tariff burden.
So, in a nutshell, Lincoln promised to make tax slaves out of the South, and to invade if they resisted. They resisted, and he invaded. You probably thought it had something to do with Fort Sumter, right? Actually, it did. Fort Sumter was a tariff collection site.
Of course, Lincoln probably would not have won the election without his support of the tariff. Slavery was not an issue.
So you get near top 25% for doubling the national debt, getting too early out of a country, leaving it for terrorist, putting more people on welfare and lying about a new healthcare law and keeping your doctor (if you are black)?
Sure -- states which first provoked war (December 1861 to April 1861), then started war (at Fort Sumter), formally declared war (May 6, 1861) on the United States and waged war against us in Union states -- by the rules of war: militarily valuable enemy assets could be declared "contraband of war" and seized by armies.
Confederates conducted numerous raids into Union states for the purpose of seizing Union "contraband", including freed slaves for return & sale in the Confederacy.
The Union also seized "contraband" in Confederate states, including slaves who were then freed and often hired & paid to work for the Union, frequently as colored troops.
Vlad the Inhaler: "To some, Lincoln walked on water.
To others, not so much."
Nobody here claims Lincoln "walked on water", but we do defend him against an unrelenting stream of propaganda lies from pro-Confederate Lost Causers.
Water walker or not, Lincoln deserves the truth be told.
There, fixed it for you.
Sure, I "get" that you are sad & confused, having bought into mountains of pro-Confederate propaganda lies, you just can't rationally discuss the real facts.
So sad.
Of course they succeeded "at pleasure" because there were no "abuses and usurpations" -- none, zero, nada.
The reason why is because Southerners effectively ruled Washington, DC from its founding until the election of November 1860.
So any "abuses and usurpations" were only such as they imposed on themselves!
Secession in December 1860 was totally "at pleasure" because at the time Southerners still ruled in Washington, DC.
So they declared secession "at pleasure", in anticipation of what might happen, in the future, once "Ape" Lincoln's Black Republicans took charge.
Bottom line, secession in December 1860 was just Democrats doing what Democrats still do whenever they lose elections -- "not my President" is today's rallying cry.
Right-wing Librarian: "Now, suppose that vindictive and powerful neighbor is the superior or controlling political institution, and roughly half the states decide the safety and happiness of their societies are no longer the objects of the controlling political institution, is it not the controlling institution that needs to be sacrificed, rather than the societies themselves?"
But nothing like that actually happened in 1860.
Instead there was only the election of our first Republican president, a man pledged to both preserve slavery in states where it was already legal, and to prevent slavery's expansion into western territories which didn't want it.
As abolitionists go, Republicans in 1860 were very limited in their goals, but that was enough to drive Deep South Fire Eaters to declare their secessions "at pleasure".
Finally, the key point which every pro-Confederate Lost Causer studiously ignores is that the Deep South did secede peacefully, and did form their new Confederacy peacefully.
Civil War only came on them after the Confederacy provoked it, started it, formally declared it and began waging war against the Union in Union states.
Further Confederates refused to ask for peace, even on much better terms, until they were totally defeated and forced to Unconditionally Surrender.
So they had nobody to blame but themselves for their fates.
Total rubbish. Of course it was "America's War", strongly supported by average citizens North and South.
And by "South" I mean the Unionist South in states like Delaware, Maryland, Western Virginia, Eastern Tennessee, Northern Arkansas, Kentucky and Missouri.
Those states provided hundreds of thousands of volunteers to the Union cause.
None of that would have happened if the Deep South Slave Power had been seen nationwide as the "champions of liberty" you Lost Causers now fantasize them to be.
Right-wing Librarian to HandyDandy: "If Lincoln was truly concerned about keeping the Union together — that would be assuming he did not have a stake in the game — he would have done something to alleviate the fears of the Southern states regarding the new, oppressive tariff.
Rather he strongly supported the tariff... "
None of the first "Reasons for Secession" documents produced by Deep South states even mentioned the Morrill Tariff as a reason for their declarations, because it wasn't.
Their real reasons were totally, clearly stated & obvious to all: they believed "Ape" Lincoln's "Black Republicans" represented a potential future threat to slavery, and so they declared their secessions "at pleasure".
Congratulations for posting the dumbest, most anti-American post I’ve ever seen at FReerepublic. You really need to be somewhere else.
How do you figure?
Actually yes - the south forced the north to not only accept the south’s preoccupation with owning other human beings, but they made northerners complicit in that ownership.
Starting with the Fugitive Slave Act wherein southern interests could invade northern states ostensibly to retrieve their human chattel, southern state spent 70 plus years devising strategies and tactics to bolster their powers.
Northern states that sought to limit or eliminate the Peculiar Institution and dictate what sort of culture they wished to cultivate found that the southern states held an executive veto of sorts. Northern states were allowed the illusion of abolition, but if a southerner decided to move to a northern state and bring his chattel with him, he could continue his slave ownership regardless of local law or tradition.
The one-two legalistic punches of Prigg v. Pennsylvania and Dred Scott v. Sandford undermined the fundamental principles of self-determinism. They sought the power of the federal government to intercede upon the slaver’s behalf. They compelled abolitionist states to be complicit in the hunting and prosecution of blacks suspected of being runaways. In Taney’s disastrous Dred Scott v. Sandford he created out of whole cloth the notion that negroes weren’t even quite human and hence not suitable for citizenship.
Yea, I’d say that the south forced slavery onto the north.
Vlad. you wrote, “states which first provoked war (December 1861 to April 1861), then started war (at Fort Sumter)”
I believe that is revisionist history. The Union troops that occupied Fort Sumter, rather than vacate Southern territory, provoked the war.
Vlad. you wrote, “Confederates conducted numerous raids into Union states for the purpose of seizing Union “contraband”, including freed slaves for return & sale in the Confederacy.”
When did those “raids” take place? Did they occur before or after Lincoln’s invasion of the South?
Vlad, you wrote, “To some, Lincoln walked on water. To others, not so much.”
LOL! So true.
Vlad, you wrote, “Nobody here claims Lincoln “walked on water”, but we do defend him against an unrelenting stream of propaganda lies from pro-Confederate Lost Causers. Water walker or not, Lincoln deserves the truth be told. “
Everyone deserves to hear the truth. The truth is, Lincoln destroyed, or at least severely weakened, the republic by setting in motion the consolidation of all power in Washington. He was greedy tyrant, and a thug, who destroyed the lives and livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
:)
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.