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 ...
Lincoln was an anti-constitution tyrant who was responsible for the lives of over 600,000 brave, mostly freedom-loving men. I spit on Lincoln and his memory.
One could say it’s just a man-crush, but none of the historians will admit to identifying as a man any longer.
I hawk a loogie and piss on Jeff Davis grave. He falsely led those brave Southerners in a lost cause.
Be gone, Soros-paid troll.
I suppose you put Zero above Lincoln? Bucko?
What with the y’all sh!t? My ancestors fought for the north in Maryland, WV, and PA regiments. I was born in the north. Lincoln still turned the USA into the nation we have today where all political entities are slaves of the Federal Government. I’m not some “the south is gonna rise again” guy. I also laugh at all the FReepers who talk of secession, because Lincoln’s Federal Republic of America does not have an exit clause for a mere “state” ( which he turned into a province).
Well, actually yes. These idiots, in their haste to hate on the memory of the man who saved our country, place Øbongo higher than Lincoln. Sad.
Vlad to Bryanw92: ** “ Lincoln presided over a war that left 600,000 dead and 400,000 wounded over a period of 4 years.
He did almost nothing to avoid the conflict or bring it to an early end. “ **
Ah, no.
In early 1861, despite Lincoln’s promise that Confederates could not have war unless they themselves started it, and months before a single Confederate soldier was killed in battle with any Union force, and before any Union Army invaded a single Confederate state, Confederates were very busy provoking war by seizing Federal properties, threatening & firing on Union officials, then starting war at Fort Sumter, formally declaring war (May 6, 1861) and waging war in Union states.
For years Confederates could have ended Civil War at any time, on much better term than the Unconditional Surrender they received in April 1865, but Confederates insisted on fighting on and on until final, total defeat.
So they had only themselves to blame for the results.
Oops, sorry, yet another automatic word completion miscarry.
When I signed up I wanted that username but it was already taken. Later I realized that someone had reserved it but never posted a single comment from it. I’m surprised that it is still active after all thee years.
I understand what you are saying but Lincoln was president and could have and should have sought ways to end the war short of a bloody victory for one side - push for a cease fire, peace talks, compromises on both sides, etc.
His object should have been to end the war with as few casualties as possible, not to seek total victory leading to destruction of the south.
Hell - we treated Japan and Germany better than the federal government treated the defeated south.
After all - the war was fought ostensibly to maintain the Union with only one president.
Consequently his stance was that he was still president of all the people.
But his every move was political and made to appease the north.
If he was acting on principal for the benefit of the entire nation instead of for political advantage he would not have declared only the slaves in the southern states free in his Emancipation Proclamation.
He would have declared all slaves free including those in the northern states and the border states.
But he didn’t.
And we know why - political expeediency
So he pursued the war against the south, killing Americans on both sides by the thousands, because southerners didn’t want to give up slavery. \
While at the same time he preserved the right of the other states to keep slaves for reasons that had nothing to do with morality.
This will ALL change when Judicial Watch get unleashed on Barry’s sealed records and bc!!!
I see that you do not believe in accurate history, nor do you believe the Constitution recognizes the right for states to secede. Prior to Lincoln, it was common knowledge that states had the right to secede. Lincoln usurped that right from the states, which is tyranny. Like I said, he was a tyrant. Good riddance.
Anyone who wishes to get embroiled in this discussion: I am not here to educate you. Get your own primary sources and read the truth for yourself.
Let us not allow ourselves to be used by progressive trolls wishing to divide us with this topic. Our nation’s current condition is far too precarious to permit anyone to agitate, troll, or by any other means, divide. We have a nation to save. Our common ground needs to unite us, not divide us. If you want to play the Jesse Jackson, Black Lives Matter game, you’re in the wrong forum.
Many of our pro-Confederate FRiends even insist Lincoln was driven by New York globalist businessmen, and that's why he started and sustained Civil War.
Of course, that's total rubbish & nonsense.
Lincoln did not start Civil War and could not end it short of victory without destroying the Union he was sworn to preserve, protect and defend.
And had Confederates wanted peace, they could have asked for it on any day before April 1865, on much better terms than the Unconditional Surrender they finally received after fighting to total defeat.
Vlad the Inhaler: "His object should have been to end the war with as few casualties as possible, not to seek total victory leading to destruction of the south.
Hell - we treated Japan and Germany better than the federal government treated the defeated south."
Less than total victory would have lead to destruction of the United States, which Lincoln was sworn to prevent.
Plus, Unconditional Surrender were the terms George Washington offered Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1781.
Unconditional Surrender were the terms Ulysses S Grant offered Lee at Appomattox Court House.
Unconditional Surrender are the terms Franklin Roosevelt offered Germany and Japan in WWII.
The results in each case were a real and satisfactory peace, contrasted to, for example, the First World War when Woodrow Wilson's "Peace without Victory" lead to first twenty years of international strife and then WWII.
So it makes a huge difference long-term when we force our enemies to surrender unconditionally.
Vlad the Inhaler: "But his every move was political and made to appease the north.
If he was acting on principal for the benefit of the entire nation instead of for political advantage he would not have declared only the slaves in the southern states free in his Emancipation Proclamation.
He would have declared all slaves free including those in the northern states and the border states.
But he didn’t. And we know why - political expeediency"
Total rubbish & nonsense.
In 1861 Republicans were the party of abolition, that's why Deep South Fire Eaters declared their secessions.
But amongst Republicans were serious discussions on how best to achieve abolition, with most favoring the gradualist approach of many Northern states in the early 1800s.
Regardless, it was understood by all that abolition could not be forced on loyal Union states short of Constitutional Amendment.
However, constitutionally, states in rebellion could have their slaves seized by the Army as "contraband of war", and thus Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.
At around the same time, Republicans in Congress began work on the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery constitutionally.
Of course, if you are a dedicated pro-Confederate propagandist, none of that matters, right?
I see that you have been victimized by pro-Confederate propaganda & lies. So sad.
Right-wing Librarian: "nor do you believe the Constitution recognizes the right for states to secede. Prior to Lincoln, it was common knowledge that states had the right to secede. "
A right recognized by all Founders & others, including Lincoln, under two (and only two) circumstances:
Also from Madison: "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."
That term, "at pleasure" accurately describes Deep South Fire Eaters' declarations of secession in late 1860 and early 1861.
And yet, those declarations did not start war, neither did their forming a new Confederacy.
Civil War only came after months of Confederates provoking it, starting war, formally declaring war on the United States and waging war against it in Union States.
Right-wing Librarian: "Lincoln usurped that right from the states, which is tyranny.
Like I said, he was a tyrant.
Good riddance."
Sorry, but that's complete rubbish & garbage talk. Not a word of truth in it.
Right-wing Librarian: "Anyone who wishes to get embroiled in this discussion: I am not here to educate you.
Get your own primary sources and read the truth for yourself."
You obviously learned nothing of the truth of history, only your pro-Confederate propaganda lies.
So Sad.
"Let us not allow ourselves to be used by progressive trolls wishing to divide us with this topic. "
Let us not allow ourselves to be used by lunatics who lie professionally in support of a Lost Cause which deserves nothing more than a decent burial.
"If you want to play the Jesse Jackson, Black Lives Matter game, you’re in the wrong forum."
If you come here to defend slavery or slavers, or heap lie upon lie about history, then you need to move along, bub.
Reputable historians don’t make pronouncements on current events. Real historians analyze historical events in the context of historical research and years of study. These historians were obviously previous Nobel foundation members.
But it was okay to force it on the southern states with military power?
Back to my opening comment.
To some, Lincoln walked on water.
To others, not so much.
You are so removed from reality it is pathetic and so sad. There is no point further discussion with people like you. Perhaps one day your veil might be lifted, BroJoeK. I’ll focus elsewhere.
What is that? Your House Divided speech? Kind of ironic don't you think? First you spit on Abe and then you paraphrase him. Weird, man.
"If you want to play the Jesse Jackson, Black Lives Matter game, you’re in the wrong forum.
Sorry, don't know that game. This thread is about ranking Presidents. You still putting Zero above Lincoln?
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.