Replies

You’re awfully fatalistic about the Civil War and the aftermath where we allowed Colonel Sanders types to keep treating Blacks like slaves for an additional century, which had lead to problems we still deal with.

The way I see it, the way stuff went down, terrible war, followed by decades of 2nd class citizenship for Blacks, was pretty crappy and could have turned out differently if leadership back then was up to it.

Everyone knew a civil war was a looming possibly, so I don’t give Buchanan or the useless drunk Franklin Piece a pass for doing so little to forestall it. I wish the South had tried in under Jackson, I wish.

I think we call all agree Polk and Cleveland were ok (not to say they were preferable to their opponents). Jackson is fascinating figure I have mixed feeling about. Van Buren wasn’t too bad I don’t think.

The rest of them? Garbage, Tyler (counts as a dem as far as I’m concerned), Pierce, Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson may be Saints compared to the likes of Obama but they were crap.

Back to the subject of the worst, Obama may be the most contemptible swine, the others at least had a drop of America in their blood, but did he really damage the country the most? It depends on your criteria, I think a strong case can be made for America’s Lenin, FDR., JBJ or the hapless douche Carter. Carter is really helped by being the least contemptible personally and not having had a Supreme Court pick. After the Clinton years a lot of people were calling him the worst, in hindsight as bad as was he doesn’t measure up to the “greats”.

You know how I feel about Truman, the love he’s gotten from some on the right cheeses me off, the man was born to sell hats and should have stuck to that. Would have been a good time for a real leader, that’s for sure.

"You’re awfully fatalistic about the Civil War and the aftermath where we allowed Colonel Sanders types to keep treating Blacks like slaves for an additional century, which had lead to problems we still deal with. The way I see it, the way stuff went down, terrible war, followed by decades of 2nd class citizenship for Blacks, was pretty crappy and could have turned out differently if leadership back then was up to it."

What was to be done ? Outside of a few elites, very few people were going to accept equality. You'd have had to fight another civil war to maintain those rights for Blacks, and the North had grown tired of this business and would never have agreed to do so. Northern folk didn't want Black people coming up to their pretty White towns. They were fine to impose the notion of "equality" on Southerners, while quietly passing laws to keep Black folks out of the North (look at Oregon).

If the Republicans had pushed for war to enforce equality, the Democrats would've won epic landslides north and south as a "peace" party and wouldn't have won a majority again for decades. The Dems, of course, would've wiped out Black rights regardless. White folks wanted unity by the last quarter of the 19th century. They were content for your "Colonel Sanders" stereotypes to rule the roost below the Mason-Dixon Line. You might have some saying it was wrong, but what were they gonna do about it ? It's not like those folks wanted them as neighbors up north. If you thought busing a century later caused problems, just imagine how Northerners would've reacted in the 1870s to millions of Blacks coming up to take advantage of the "equality" that was nothing but talk.

I feel badly for Black folks of that era, they were screwed just about any way. Their so-called supporters fine with them, so long as they stayed far, far away.

"Everyone knew a civil war was a looming possibly, so I don’t give Buchanan or the useless drunk Franklin Piece a pass for doing so little to forestall it. I wish the South had tried in under Jackson, I wish."

Again, what would Pierce or Buchanan to have done ? I at least have some sympathy personally for Pierce. He got to watch along with his wife (who opposed his running for President because she knew something awful was going to happen) their little boy crushed to death in a railcar accident. Both of them were likely suffering from PTSD symptoms for the entirety of his 4 years. She was probably driven insane. He likely had to keep himself inebriated just to be able to get through the day. If it had been in the modern era, someone in such a state would've been eased out of office with the solid sympathy of the country. Pierce didn't have someone to "turn the country over to", his VP (Buchanan's boyfriend) King died just after taking the oath of office in Cuba. Next in line would've been the Senate President Pro Tempore, of which there were 3 in the early going. David Rice Atchison of Missouri was a Southern sympathizer and became a Confederate General during the Civil War. Another was Jesse Bright of Indiana, who was perhaps even more strongly a Southern sympathizer, and openly so during the Civil War, and was expelled from the body. The other was Lewis Cass of Michigan, himself a Presidential nominee against Gen. Taylor in 1848. He was the least objectionable, but he was also in his 70s (ancient in those days) and he supported a status quo on slavery that alienated the anti-slave folks. He'd have been another Buchanan (Buchanan made him Sec of State), although he took a harder line that led to his resignation before the end of his term.

Simply put, there was no magic figure at the time who could've done something that would've accomplished anything beyond maintaining a status quo. Even if Jackson had done what he threatened to do with secessionists (hang their leaders), you'd still have had utter bedlam as a result, and he'd have put himself at risk for assassination and sparking a civil war anyhow. Lincoln was canonized because he picked an ideal time to perish (OK, he didn't pick it). He won the war, freed the slaves, but died before he had to deal with the most difficult part: reconciliation. Had he lived to 1869, his stature may have greatly diminished in trying to be an accomodationist. That mess was left to Andrew Johnson, who wasn't up for the task. Then Gen. Grant, whom also wasn't really up for it, either. Then lastly Hayes, who allowed the whole thing to be taken out of his hands and formally "ended" so he could get the Presidency. That's real leadership for you. One probably could've called Hayes the first RINO President. He had to sign off on the Tilden & Democrat agenda without Tilden needing to serve. But, as I said earlier, there were few Republicans that had the belly to go balls to the walls for Black Civil Rights by 1877. Certainly not if it was going to continue to foment bad feelings between the North and South. Republicans, too, wanted to be able to get the votes of White Southerners, especially as Blacks were seeing their voting abilities curtailed.

"I think we call all agree Polk and Cleveland were ok (not to say they were preferable to their opponents). Jackson is fascinating figure I have mixed feeling about. Van Buren wasn’t too bad I don’t think."

My state of TN voted for Henry Clay over homeboy Gov. Polk, but we were a Whig state in those days. How Clay would've been as President is a matter of debate. Probably another status-quo'er.

"The rest of them? Garbage, Tyler (counts as a dem as far as I’m concerned), Pierce, Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson may be Saints compared to the likes of Obama but they were crap.

Back to the subject of the worst, Obama may be the most contemptible swine, the others at least had a drop of America in their blood, but did he really damage the country the most? It depends on your criteria, I think a strong case can be made for America’s Lenin, FDR., LBJ or the hapless douche Carter. Carter is really helped by being the least contemptible personally and not having had a Supreme Court pick. After the Clinton years a lot of people were calling him the worst, in hindsight as bad as was he doesn’t measure up to the “greats”."

With respect to Carter, I think he may be one of the biggest frauds and phonies to ever achieve the Presidency. He played for whatever side was needed to advance his career and would just as quickly stab said person in the back. In a lot of ways, he was really trying to copy George Wallace and succeed where he failed (he was really a stand-in for Wallace after it was apparent Wallace couldn't get the Dem nomination after being shot). He ran a race-baiting campaign for Governor in 1970 like he was the supercharged Lester Maddox (the outgoing Guv) and then turned around and pretended like he was Mr. Civil Rights. To see Black leaders embrace him so quickly when he had zero credibility demonstrated how quickly they attached themselves back to the Democrat plantation for power. Sadly, on the 50th anniversary of MLK's assassination tomorrow, you just know he'd have been up on stage with Jimmuh urging his people to vote for him had he been there in 1976. The funny thing is that Bubba followed a lot of the same playbook (and his big mentor was J. William Fulbright, who was not pro-civil rights).

Of course, it was either gonna be him or the execrable Wild Bill Douglas to succeed FDR. Why is it so often than not that the turds rise to the top while we never get to experience truly great leadership who adhere to the highest of our Constitutional principles ?