Historians rank Barack Obama 12th best President: survey

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,

BroJoeK , you wrote, “Of course they succeeded “at pleasure” because there were no “abuses and usurpations”, and, “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.”

How do you interpret this from the Georgia declaration?

“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of HIGH DUTIES to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.”

It certainly appears the south had a legitimate beef.

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.

Actually Prigg v. Pennsylvania said the opposite. While states could not interfere with federal authorities in the enforcing of federal laws like the Fugitive Slave Laws, the states could not be compelled to enforce those laws for them.

Scott v. Sandford was just a bad decision resulting from Taney's long standing personal opinion on blacks and citizenship.

The Union troops that occupied Fort Sumter, rather than vacate Southern territory, provoked the war.

When did it magically change from federal property to Southern property?

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.

In the grand traditions of "alternate facts"...

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.

No need to resort to name calling, FRiend.

I am not a "pro-Confederate Lost Causer" just someone who formed a different opinion than yours based on my own reading, research and evaluations over many years.

For years I held the same youthful view of Lincoln that was inculcated in students throughout school.
Lincoln was on a pedistal; highly revered and never criticized.

Then when I visited the newly built Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall the magnitude of the civil war dead really sunk in:
60 thousand dead in Vietnam versus 600,000 dead in the civil war.

Imagine a memorial wall 10 times as large!

Or worse - to match the percent of the population killed in the civil war (almost 2%) a modern War Memorial Wall would be 100 times as large!

Imagine a memorial wall with the names of more than 6 million dead!

How could a nation of only 31 million people engage in an internecine war so bitter that it resulted in 10 times the number of dead as the Vietnam war?

How could our leaders let this happen? Or make it happen?
That's when I moved away from schoolbook teachings and consensus thinking to do my own research and form my own opinions.

One thing I did learn, is that the north grew to hate the south beyond all reason (not that the south didn't come to hate the north) But the depth of the hate is exemplified by Sherman's March to the Sea.
As I commented earlier, the US treated Japan and Germany much better than it's own brothers and sisters.

And now we see history beginning to repeat itself in the unbridled hate democrats and the left have for anyone who doesn't think they way they do.

They don't just want to win elections and implement their agenda, They want to wipe out their adversaries - to annihilate the other side.

And they are doing their best to do it in various ways.

There is a lot to be learned from the history of the civil war regardless of personal opinions about Lincoln, but few today seem to see the connection.

It is a reasonably established fact that the several tariffs greatly favored the Industrial north and heavily burdened the agricultural South. The 1828 so-called “Tariff of Abominations” produced roughly an 80/20 percent South/North revenue stream into the treasury. Lincoln promised to triple the rate; and, in his inaugural address, to enforce collections with the force of arms. Obviously, the import-dependent south was none too pleased.

Frank Taussig’s, “Tariff History of the United States, 1892, goes into great detail. That book can be downloaded in several formats at archive.org.

HandyDandy “Man”, you wrote, “Big man you are to spit on him. He’d have knocked your teeth out the back of your skull.”

No doubt Lincoln was a thug and a tyrant, and I wouldn’t put it past him to have beaten up a few women in his life.

For the record, I am a retired old lady who was born and raised in the north, and served as a librarian in northern public schools until retirement. So please refrain from playing the, “I’m a big man because I support Lincoln and he would knock your teeth out”, B. S.

Our primary political differences is that I oppose all forms of tyranny. You don’t seem to recognize tyranny when it “smacks you upside the head”. Ever hear of a man named Henry Charles Carey, one of Lincoln’s economic “geniuses”? He is mentioned in this 15 year-old FR post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/687182/posts

You asked, “When did it magically change from federal property to Southern property?”

It is more appropriate to first ask when did South Carolina property magically become federal property? Answer: after a compact was signed between the several states, and the federal government lawfully annexed the property for a constitutionally authorized facility.

When did the federal government lose the right to South Carolina property? Answer: when the federal government broke the compact by favoring one part of the economy over another, resulting in the secession of South Carolina (and other states). The only way that land could remain federal property was to force South Carolina to remain a state.

It seems you are also unable to see that Lincoln, of the so-called “Republican” Party, set in motion the destruction of federalism by usurping power from the republican governments of states. These days, usurpation is as “American” as apple pie; and it was all set in motion by Lincoln (though John Marshall may have had a bit of prior input).

It is a reasonably established fact that the several tariffs greatly favored the Industrial north and heavily burdened the agricultural South.

Established by who?

The 1828 so-called “Tariff of Abominations” produced roughly an 80/20 percent South/North revenue stream into the treasury.

Why did the South consume 80% of all imports. What were they importing in such large amounts? In his speech to the Georgia legislature, Alexander Stephens said the north accounted for three-quarters of all business abroad. And that may have been high.

Lincoln promised to triple the rate; and, in his inaugural address, to enforce collections with the force of arms.

He also said he would deliver the mail and make appointments, though in none of them did he threaten to do it through force of arms. Not even tariff collection.

Frank Taussig’s, “Tariff History of the United States, 1892, goes into great detail. That book can be downloaded in several formats at archive.org.

He goes into great deal on tariffs, post rebellion. In neither of his two chapter on pre-rebellion tariff does he make the claim that the South footed four-fifths of the tariff bill.

No. It was after the ownership of the property was granted to the federal government by act of the South Carolina legislature, December 31, 1836 Link

Madison once noted that since the states are equal partners to the compact, no one state has the power to declare the compact is broken since the other state can say that it is intact. So the compact was not broken just because South Carolina said it was.

And even had South Carolina's action been legal, having deeded the property to the federal government then it could only be returned to South Carolina through an act of Congress. Such act never occurred.

It seems you are also unable to see that Lincoln, of the so-called “Republican” Party, set in motion the destruction of federalism by usurping power from the republican governments of states.

No, I can't. But then again I don't have your view on things.

Well, well, well. It turns out you are a little old lady. Never in my wildest dreams have I imagined a little old lady "spitting" (let alone, on Lincoln and his memory). I'm reminded that Abe once blamed the war on a "little old lady". Pardon my mysoginistic mistake (I thought it odd that a guy would be a librarian.)

Anyway, I checked out your FR link to the old thread because I had not heard of Henry Charles Carey. I should have smelled it coming from a mile off. Guess who I found at your link. The one and only, great aggregator of never before heard, yet so excoriating facts about Abe Lincoln; the one man show Thomas DiLorenzo! So sad. So sad. You show very poor discrimination in what you will read. Just because you can read DiLorenzo doesn't mean you should. To me, now, you are just another fake history sucker.

Time for you to re-read Alexander Stephens "Cornerstone Speech". Try to focus more on what people like Fredrick Douglas and General Robert E. Lee had to say about Lincoln. Ya know, other great men who were his contemporaries. If the gypsys show up at your door trying to sell you a repaving job, call the police.

It seems Lincoln's "economic guru", Henry Carey, felt that the economic division in the USA was caused by the British:

“The Executive [Lincoln] is frequently compelled to affix his signature to bills of the highest importance, much of which he regards as wholly at war with the national interests. “To British free trade it is, as I have shown, that we stand indebted for the present Civil War. Had our legislation been of the kind which was needed for giving effect to the Declaration of Independence, that great hill region of the South, one of the richest, if not absolutely the richest in the world, would long since have been filled with furnaces and factories, the laborers in which would have been free men, women, and children, white and black, and the several portions of the Union would have been linked together by hooks of steel that would have set at defiance every effort of the ‘wealthy capitalists’ of England for bringing about a separation. Such, however, and most unhappily, was not our course of operation. Rebellion, therefore, came, bringing with it an almost entire stoppage of the societary movement, with ruin to a large proportion of those of the men...”

"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."

Every Memorial Day, for as long as I have been aware, the following is spoken by a local high school student, who has memorized it, at the local cemetery commemoration. Let me know what words of Obama you would like to replace them with:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Abraham Lincoln,

 November 19, 1863

Now you cast the aspersions on Lincoln of abusing women. Are you sure you aren't really DiLorenzo pretending to be a little old lady? Ya know, your buddy Jeff Davis (the one who died pro-Union) tried to escape Justice at the end of the War disguised as a little old lady, wearing his wife's dress.

Just the other day, the President of The United Sates (who was recently sworn into office with his hand on The Lincoln Bible) alluded favorably to Lincoln in his very well reveived speech on national television. Obviously you hold Trump in the same contemptuous category as you do me.

DoodleDawg, you asked, “Why did the South consume 80% of all imports. What were they importing in such large amounts? In his speech to the Georgia legislature, Alexander Stephens said the north accounted for three-quarters of all business abroad. And that may have been high.”

Are you kidding? You are pretending ignorance, right?

DoodleDawg, you asked, “He also said he would deliver the mail and make appointments, though in none of them did he threaten to do it through force of arms. Not even tariff collection.”

Sorry I asked.

DoodleDawg, you asked, “He goes into great deal on tariffs, post rebellion. In neither of his two chapter on pre-rebellion tariff does he make the claim that the South footed four-fifths of the tariff bill.”

Give it up, DoodleDawg.

DoodleDawg, you wrote, "No. It was after the ownership of the property was granted to the federal government by act of the South Carolina legislature, December 31, 1836"

Apparently the good people of the state of South Carolina in the 1860's disagreed with your interpretation.

DoodleDawg, you wrote, "Madison once noted that since the states are equal partners to the compact, no one state has the power to declare the compact is broken since the other state can say that it is intact. So the compact was not broken just because South Carolina said it was."

Baloney. If any party violates the terms of a compact, the compact is void. Otherwise, in this situation, those states with the most to gain by remaining in the compact would always overrule the offended states wishing to get out. By your interpretations, all such compacts would be permanent unless every single party agreed to dissolve it.

DoodleDawg, you wrote, "I don't have your view on things.

Apparently not; but few in the days of Lincoln (maybe no one) believed he was abiding by the constitution. The time of war and crises are the most important times to enforce the constitution; otherwise tyrants, like Lincoln, will keep government in a constant state of crises.

Have you ever read the 1792 Editorial in the National Gazette titled "Rules for changing a limited republican government into an unlimited hereditary one"? You should. Someone posted in on FR a good while back. It is hard reading, but well worth the trouble.

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.