Who was the worst U.S. president?

[rambone]

Where's Warren G Harding or Herbert Hoover? They sucked too. Andrew Johnson was useless as well.

Do you think those guys were worse than the ones I put in the poll? If so, thats fine, vote 'other' and state your case. It thought for sure I covered the very worst ones.

perhaps instead of deciding which turd smells worse, we should say who was the best president?

We had that conversation a couple weeks ago.

Who was the best president?

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Lincoln.

Lincoln's damned war killed +500,000 citizens when there was only a population of about 31,000,000. He oversaw the destruction of The Republic and he was a traitor.

To be clear, slavery was a terrible sin and it cost us The Republic, but the civil war was not fought to end slavery. The civil war was fought to establish the supremacy of the Federal Government over the States.


Sic Semper Tyrannis!!!

 

[booey50]

I am with everyone else when I say Obama sucks a pole, but I cannot honestly say he is the worst president yet when he is only in hi second year...now, a year and a half from now when this country is in deeper doo doo than it is in now, we can say he is the worst of all time.

 

[downzero]

I'm glad to see that besides the flavor of the month, Lincoln is getting his due.

 

[spencer rifle]

Here we go again. Obama for sure.

For those of you who think the Civil war was not about slavery, how about we ask those who seceeded? Read their thoughts here:

Ordinances of Secession of the 13 Confederate States of America

Sure they were interested in states rights - one in particular: SLAVERY. Don't take my word for it - read it for yourself. Your opinion and Lost Cause rewriting of history notwithstanding.

As was wisely said, the North did not go to war to end slavery, but the South started a war to preserve it.

It was illegal in the CS to regulate slavery in any way (taking away the states right to do so), and it was even illegal to say anything bad about slavery. Read a US and CS constitution comparison here:

Constitution of the Confederate States of America- what was changed?

Some southern states tried to seceed back in the 1830s, and Jackson threatened force to keep them in the Union. But maybe that doesn't count since he was a Democrat. The South was fine in the Union until they lost an election and thought their dream of nationwide slavery (all new territories and able to bring their slaves into free states) end. Then they wanted to take their ball and go home (just like Democrats on Wisconsin and Indiana). If it all wouldn't go their way, then they would go. If any state who felt slighted just left, we wouldn't have the greatest country in the world.

Lincoln did a great job considering the diverse opinions, varied interests and fractious colleagues he had to deal with. And slavery is still wrong.

 

[jsheets1]

Definitely Woodrow Wilson. The Fed reserve is EVIL!!!

 

[rambone]

Abraham Lincoln

• Arrested/executed tens of thousands of his political opponents in the North
• Arrested congressmen, mayors, journalists
• Had a warrant to arrest the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
• Waged war on his political opponents in the South
• Did not obtain congressional approval for war
• Confiscated citizens guns
• Declared Martial Law
• Shut down newspapers, censored the telegraph
• Quartered soldiers in private homes
• His war killed more Americans than both World Wars
• Created the nation's first income tax and originated the IRS

Lincoln did a great job considering the diverse opinions, varied interests and fractious colleagues he had to deal with.

Yeah he just arrested everyone who disagreed with him. All those "fractious colleagues."

 

[spencer rifle]

Yeah he just arrested everyone who disagreed with him. All those "fractious colleagues."

Sure, and how much of your list was done more and better by the Confederate government (incidentally the first governement in America to institute a draft). Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

Executed tens of thousands? Really? I'll be interested in seeing your sources.

And as I recall, it was the CS that waged the war, having fired the first shot. Which means it wasn't his war, but theirs, that killed all those Americans. Put the blame where it belongs.

And Lincoln put more guns in the hands of more people than anyone in our history (possibly).

 

[96firephoenix]

I said FDR mostly because of the SSA, the concentration camps and the New Deal
edit: forgot about his foot-dragging into ww2

 

[Compatriot G]

Sure, and how much of your list was done more and better by the Confederate government (incidentally the first governement in America to institute a draft). Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

Executed tens of thousands? Really? I'll be interested in seeing your sources.

And as I recall, it was the CS that waged the war, having fired the first shot. Which means it wasn't his war, but theirs, that killed all those Americans. Put the blame where it belongs.

And Lincoln put more guns in the hands of more people than anyone in our history (possibly).

The Confederacy did not really fire the first shot. Most people are unaware that Major Anderson moved his troops from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter. What he did was invade sovereign territory belonging to South Carolina. Instead of shooting though, South Carolina attempted to negotiate with the Lincoln Administration. South Carolina even offered to buy Fort Sumter. All of this was rejected by Lincoln. Lincoln then mounted an operation to resupply and add more troops to the fort. This is what caused South Carolina to fire upon Fort Sumter. When somebody invades your territory, they are usually considered the aggressor.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Here we go again. Obama for sure.

For those of you who think the Civil war was not about slavery, how about we ask those who seceeded? Read their thoughts here:

Ordinances of Secession of the 13 Confederate States of America

Sure they were interested in states rights - one in particular: SLAVERY. Don't take my word for it - read it for yourself. Your opinion and Lost Cause rewriting of history notwithstanding.

As was wisely said, the North did not go to war to end slavery, but the South started a war to preserve it.

It was illegal in the CS to regulate slavery in any way (taking away the states right to do so), and it was even illegal to say anything bad about slavery. Read a US and CS constitution comparison here:

Constitution of the Confederate States of America- what was changed?

Some southern states tried to seceed back in the 1830s, and Jackson threatened force to keep them in the Union. But maybe that doesn't count since he was a Democrat. The South was fine in the Union until they lost an election and thought their dream of nationwide slavery (all new territories and able to bring their slaves into free states) end. Then they wanted to take their ball and go home (just like Democrats on Wisconsin and Indiana). If it all wouldn't go their way, then they would go. If any state who felt slighted just left, we wouldn't have the greatest country in the world.

Lincoln did a great job considering the diverse opinions, varied interests and fractious colleagues he had to deal with. And slavery is still wrong.

who cares. even if it was ALL about slavery as your basicly wanting to dream, i wouldnt be willing to see one American die to end it. do it trough the courts. the slaves werent even citizens so in my opinion the plans they had to send them off to a colony BACK to africa was the wisest thing they could have done for then and the future. its the same issue today about all the illegals here and the fools wanting to make them all citizens through amnesty. its a joke and a VERY bad idea! its NOTHING to do with race then or now!

 

[spec4]

Compatriot G; do you have a source on the CSA offering to buy Ft. Sumter? I toured there and never read/heard anything about that.

It seems the election of Lincoln was the last straw for the South. IMO Lincoln should have told them to go ahead and secede. It wouldn't hurt Northern commerce or development. Slavery would have eventually died on its own. What would our world be like today if there was a CSA along with the USA?

Obama is by far the worst. What other presidents had Muslim leanings, and were Marxist socialists?

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I haven't read this yet, but felt this too important too wait. Without hesitation or even seeing the choices, hands down, only guy even on the ballot for this one.......Stinkin' Lincoln. I know a lot of us are fixated on the troubles we face now but remember, Barry is just finishing what Abe started.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

[ame]http://youtu.be/7NMJKeg4qBQ[/ame]

 

[Pocketman]

Regardless of who was best or worse, at the time they all won the "peoples choice" award. (Granted there may be some wiggle room considering the Electoral College.)

 

[Kutnupe14]

who cares. even if it was ALL about slavery as your basicly wanting to dream, i wouldnt be willing to see one American die to end it. do it trough the courts. the slaves werent even citizens so in my opinion the plans they had to send them off to a colony BACK to africa was the wisest thing they could have done for then and the future. its the same issue today about all the illegals here and the fools wanting to make them all citizens through amnesty. its a joke and a VERY bad idea! its NOTHING to do with race then or now!

The South would have never agreed to send freed slaves back to Africa. That would have taken away a huge portion of their population, destroyed their economy, and completely left them at the mercy of northern political ideals.

Further, the North would not have agreed to send freed slaves back to Africa, because of the massive expenses that would be generated in forcibly displacing millions of people across an ocean, for no financial benefit.

Also there is no comparison to illegals, as slaves were basically kidnapped and brought to the US versus illegals voluntarily coming here. States don't count illegals in terms of political representation, vs slaves being counted then, as 3/5 of a person for political purposes.

Your theory isn't sound, because it was an impossibility.

 

[spencer rifle]

The Confederacy did not really fire the first shot. Most people are unaware that Major Anderson moved his troops from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter. What he did was invade sovereign territory belonging to South Carolina. Instead of shooting though, South Carolina attempted to negotiate with the Lincoln Administration. South Carolina even offered to buy Fort Sumter. All of this was rejected by Lincoln. Lincoln then mounted an operation to resupply and add more troops to the fort. This is what caused South Carolina to fire upon Fort Sumter. When somebody invades your territory, they are usually considered the aggressor.

More revisionism. Moving troops from one Federal installation to another is not an act of war, not can it be construed as a "shot" at anything or an "invasion." The Federal government cannot invade its own property. South Carolina did not own Fort Sumter any more than Indiana owns Crane NWS. It was built with Maine granite foundations by the Federal government - I was not aware that Maine was part of South Caroina. South Carolina paid no more for its construction than any other state. The Federal government always had the right to resupply and reinforce its own troops at its own installations. The South siezed Federal installations and armories in many states (Fort Barrancas in Florida in January of 1861, for example) without offering to pay anything or negotiate, taking property and arms they did not own and did not pay for.

The fact remains that the South fired the first shot at least twice - January 9, 1861 at the Star of the West attempting to resupply a Federal installation and again at Fort Sumter in April of 1861.

 

[E5RANGER375]

The South would have never agreed to send freed slaves back to Africa. That would have taken away a huge portion of their population, destroyed their economy, and completely left them at the mercy of northern political ideals.

Further, the North would not have agreed to send freed slaves back to Africa, because of the massive expenses that would be generated in forcibly displacing millions of people across an ocean, for no financial benefit.

Also there is no comparison to illegals, as slaves were basically kidnapped and brought to the US versus illegals voluntarily coming here. States don't count illegals in terms of political representation, vs slaves being counted then, as 3/5 of a person for political purposes.

Your theory isn't sound, because it was an impossibility.

hmm, so i guess your not aware of the slave colonies purchased by the U.S. then? there were a couple presidents that supported it. even lincoln if i remember right.

 

[squirrelhntr]

Bill Clinton hands down. End a story. Now we gotta deal with his lord and master thunder thighs for a few more months, jeeees. Like Micheal Savage once said "you can't trust a women whos shaped like a pear".

 

[spencer rifle]

hmm, so i guess your not aware of the slave colonies purchased by the U.S. then? there were a couple presidents that supported it. even lincoln if i remember right.

Lincoln and some other politicians offered to pay the South for their slaves - more than they were worth, but less that the war ended up costing. They refused. Certainly Lincoln and others favored returning former slaves to Africa, but the South would have none of it, because then their slaves would be "former slaves." That was unacceptable to them.

And it was all about race. If you read articles written at the time (not later revisionist Lost Cause junk) you will see that the opinion was "the Negro race is hoplessly backward and heathen and uncivilized, and bringing them here will allow their civilization and the saving of their souls." Basically they were made slaves "for their own good." How about applying the Golden Rule here - would you like to be enslaved against your will "for you own good?"

Read Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech." He was the VP of the Confederacy, and stated that the cornerstone of the Confederacy was that the Negro is inferior to the white man. Sounds like race to me.