Skip to comments.On Presidents’ Day: Lincoln is King (Among freshman Republican congressmen, exluding Reagan)
Posted on 02/21/2011 1:00:39 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
On Presidents Day, Americans take a day to recognize the office of the presidency and to reflect upon the countrys best.
FrumForum asked freshman Republican members which president they admired the most, but excluded President Reagan from contention to give the other presidents a fair chance. The fourteen Republican members who responded gave a range of answers, but President Abraham Lincoln came out on top.
Interestingly, these freshman congressmen have something in common with President Obama, who has identified Lincoln as his favorite president. Independent voters also agreed a new Gallup poll shows that Lincoln was their favorite president.
President Lincolns ability to guide our country through our most difficult period in history stands as a testament to both his leadership, character and patriotism, Congressman Lou Barletta (PA-11) told FrumForum.
[H]e served as president during one of the most dangerous and trying times our nation has ever faced and he was able to keep our country from falling apart. Lincoln saved our democracy and is the reason our nation is still thriving today, concurred Rep. Steve Chabot (OH-1).
That same Gallup poll predictably showed Reagan with a 24 point lead over the second place finisher, George Washington.
The congressmen who favored Theodore Roosevelt, the president who finished second in the FrumForum polling, cited his love for the environment and his respect for states rights. Teddy Roosevelt is one of my favorites because of his can-do spirit, his respect for states rights, and his exemplary foresight to ensure that the beauty of our nation was left for future generations, said Congressman Paul Gosar (AZ-01).
Teddy Roosevelt believed in and promoted American exceptionalism. In addition, he was instrumental in introducing the U.S. as a world power, agreed Rep. Bill Flores (TX-17).
Thomas Jefferson was the non-Reagan favorite of Rep. Rick Crawford (AR-1): Thomas Jefferson was a Renaissance Man. Not only did he write the Declaration of Independence, but he was an author, inventor, farmer, diplomat, and public servant, only to name a few. A true man of the people.
Congressman Michael Grimm (NY-13) told FrumForum that he had served under George H.W. Bush and that he was his choice for favorite non-Reagan president. President George H. W. Bush was my Commander in Chief when I served as a Marine during Operation Desert Storm. He has the best experience any president can have from his service in the military, to his leadership as an ambassador, his time as a U.S. congressman, his role as the Director of the CIA, and his two terms as Vice President. President George H. W. Bush is the greatest and most dignified American I have ever had the privilege and honor to meet, he said.
Rep. Chip Cravaack (MN-8) pointed to the economic accomplishments of the Coolidge administration to explain his choice: During the Coolidge administration the federal budget shrank, the national debt was cut in half, unemployment stood at 3.6%, consumer prices rose just 0.4% and Americans personal wealth increased 17.5%, he said.
Congressman Kevin Yoder (KA-3), on the other hand, proudly noted that President Eisenhower was from his home state. He is a proud son of Kansas and a true American hero. Eisenhower worked his way to the highest level of service in the military and public office yet maintained his strong Kansas principles of humility and hard work When he left office, he left our country with greater prosperity and through his service he made a lasting impression for future generations, he said.
According to Gallup, 19% of all Americans view Reagan as the nations best president, with Lincoln, Clinton, Kennedy and George Washington trailing behind.
With files from Nicole Glass and Shawn Summers.
Tables included at linked article.
I consider Lincoln to be a very bad president. He used force to impose the power of government on people who did not wish to be subject to that power. Not what this country was created for.
I say, “No thanks.” In my opinion, we’d all be better off had there been another option, other than Lincoln. Would that he’d have stayed a grocery clerk, rather than initiating the bloodiest war in American History, and doing more to destroy the sovereignty of states, and man, than perhaps any other man in our history, with maybe the exception of Wilson, or Obama (Both are debatable). But Lincoln did his piece, for sure.
I’m glad I am not the only one to feel that way.
You are incorrect.
Then again, maybe not...
My current list of “worst presidents”:
1 Obama - Because he has actually tried to destroy the foundations of this country.
2 Lincoln - Because he should have understood that this country is about states choosing to form a union, not a centralized government imposing itself on the several states.
3 Wilson - He tried to turn this country in a bad direction (fascism)
4 FDR - He tried to turn this country in a bad direction (fascism)
5 LBJ - He tried to turn this country in a bad direction (fascism)
6 Carter - Incompetent
7 Clinton - Incompetent
8 Buchanan - Incompetent
9 Harding - Incompetent
10 Teddy Roosevelt - He tried to turn this country in a bad direction (but I actually think he meant well).
Lol at democrats putting Clinton first and not even having Washington in the top 5.
Ah, you beat me to it while I was typing. I was taqsked to read “Lincoln on Leadership.” After reading that book about that man, I think you give him far too much credit.
“I think that Lincoln misunderstood this and used the tyrannical power of the federal government to create one centralized body which would be ruled from Washington.”
I think that’s like saying that Obama is misunderstanding the Constitution. The face is, Lincoln said he would (I’m paraphrasing, I’d have to go look it up) essentially destroy the Constitution to preserve the Union. It wasn’t about slavery, it wasn’t about what was right, it was about power, pure and simple.
“He used force to impose the power of government on people who did not wish to be subject to that power. Not what this country was created for.”
Exactly. And he would ask his Generals to use their best judgement, and then overstep and micromanage them, and passive agressively berate them. Not to mention forcing his way into people’s homes when they disagreed with him, and badgering them until they did what he wanted. He was, in every sense of the word, a tyrant.
Sooner or later the contingent of FR neo-Confederates will show up dissing Honest Abe....Ten...Nine...Eight...
But what about the institution of slavery imposing the power of government on people who did not wish to be subject to that power?
And what about the many thousands of Unionist Southerners who were compelled by Confederate governmental force to be subject to Confederate power?
The secessionists should have left well enough alone. The desire to facilitate the spread of slavery was not a sufficient cause (Declaration of Independence) to destroy the long established government of Washington and the Founders.
“I believe the country was created to be a voluntary union of the several sovereign states.”
Exactly. People have just forgotten that the states were sovereign at one time. So if I have to explain to the public educated, I always phrase it is: “What if France or Germany wanted to leave the European Union, and the EU said ‘No, and we’re going to keep a base in _____.’ Would France/Germany be traitors for wanting them to leave?”
Then they understand better. But sadly, people forget we still ARE sovereign states, in a voluntary union, and we’ll not have freedom until that is a remembered truth.
However, the Constitution was ratified, the laws were established, and the sovereign states determined that slavery was a permissible economic system. Once so established, it becomes very problematic for an outside to say "Thou shalt change." Slaves were not citizens. They had no say. I don't defend it, but as a matter of law and government, there it is.
Lincoln freed the slaves by using the military power of a central government to impose his will on free citizens who wanted to be left alone. As a Conservative, I cannot defend such a use of government.
Also, as a Conservative, I cannot defend slavery as an institution. But I can defend the Constitution and the laws, and the power of citizens to enact legislative changes. Many states which allowed slavery in the 18th century elected to abolish slavery in the first half of the 19th century. A good system of laws allowed that peaceful outcome. Lincoln sought another way.
I consider Lincoln to be a very bad president. He used force to impose the power of government on people who did not wish to be subject to that power. Not what this country was created for.
Spot on, spot on! Lincoln was a tyrant, pure and simple. Mandatory membership in the Union is antithetical to the founding principles of our nation and the Framers.
I wonder when they think the government bequeathed to us by Jefferson and Madison disappeared, if they think at all.
I've encountered too many folks who bash Lincoln and seem to think slaves were 'other' as if they were in orbit or something, instead of being human beings owned by other human beings in our country.
It's interesting to see how folks who bash Lincoln seem more infuriated by the high regard for him than they are by the idea of slavery (these are some of the same folks, oddly, who rightly get angry about the killing of human by abortion). They bring up his human flaws, as if by proving he wasn't perfect (no one I know thinks he was) that will somehow dissipate the good he did.
All of this conveniently ignores the sins of those he opposed.
Good to see the freshmen have some historical perspective. That kind of thinking tells me they also won't be bullied by the short-term history that tells them to 'just get over' the whole 'abortion thing'--being conscious of Lincoln's great act might inspire them to save millions from something worse than slavery: destruction in an abortion mill in the name of another kind of sin hidden under lies about "independence".
“Lincoln freed the slaves by using the military power of a central government to impose his will on free citizens who wanted to be left alone.”
Lincoln didn’t start a war to end slavery, nor did he free the slaves. Lincoln started a war to assert HIS whim over the states, and said he didn’t care about slavery, he fought only to “preserve the union.” The Lincoln’s war on slavery is B.S. that people have been taught in retrospect because our education system has it’s part in the guilt America and preach democracy, not Republicanism.
Many people of the time did not consider blacks to be human, in retrospect we can feel bad for it, but that’s enthocentrism. Yep, it was wrong, but not according to the standards of the time, and not understood to everyone at the time. The blacks had made slaves of one another for time immemorial, and still do (in Africa). Slavery is wrong, but all we’ve done is change slavery of blacks to slavery of all to the Federal government.
Thanks, in large part, to Lincoln.
Don't forget that Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. At his command, but with absolutely no legal authority, he suspended 300 newspapers from production, censored all telegraphic communications, rigged elections in the North, oversaw the intimidation of Democratic voters (in New York City hundreds of protesters against conscription were shot,) he unconstitutionally carved West Virginia out of Virginia, and he deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio. Duly-elected members of the Maryland legislature were goaled, so was the mayor and a Maryland Congressman. Lincoln disarmed citizens of the Border States, in complete disregard of the 2nd Amendment, and he seized private property.
What a champ!
The civil war was not fighting “over the slaves” anymore than the demonstrations in Wisconsin now are “for the children.”
Some of the same people I’ve known who despise Lincoln for keeping the country together despise people who won’t say the Pledge of Allegiance, are alarmed by the rise in illegal immigration and the idea that Mexico might try to take back some of the southwest, and consider Obama and the liberals “un-American.”
Oh, the irony...
Saying the civil war wasn't over slavery but over states' rights (the right TO OWN SLAVES) is exactly the same as saying it's not about abortion, but "a woman's right to choose."
Thank my luck stars, that someone knows their history. And thank you for bringing up many relevent facts to Lincoln to the thread. Sadly, I find that the Lincoln lovers have only a remedial public education, understanding of who Lincoln was. It took many years after getting out of school, and learning actually history to understand the man more. He was no “do gooder,” and it’s funny, because many of the books praising him, refer to all the “good he did” despite the “adverse background.” It’s so miraculous, because it’s fabricated. Our history has been white washed by the same likes of public educators who purchase textbooks from Iran claiming there was no Holocaust.
The reason I’m participating in this thread (and glad you have), is because I learned much more and had a better starting point to learn from, after hearing people make claims about Lincoln that I didn’t believe. I had previously known that he did not fight the war for slaves, for example, because my mother is a history buff. However, I didn’t learn of his dictatorial tyranny until many years later, and starting to read books about the man and who he was. A warped man from a broken home, who wanted supreme power, much like our current occupier, who married an eventual (if not before) devil worship practicioner. At least now they just worship environmentalism, not like the olden days.
You have TR on the list of worst presidents? Where’s Bush? At least TR would not have tolerated illegal immigration or any immigration from people who didn’t want to assimilate. You should read his quotes on the matter.
You are missed now, more then ever.
Oh. Sorry to disappoint you. I’m not a Bush hater.
“”My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also so that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”—Abraham Lincoln.
You see, some of us know these things called “facts.” And some don’t. The war that Lincoln instigated about slaves wasn’t about freedom or slaves, it was about power. I’m sorry your education and your current critical thinking, have failed you.
If you wanted to make a proper analogy, you’d probably do better if you knew what you were talking about. Slavery was NOT the issue the war was fought over, it was the issue that the war was deemed to be about once it had started. Just like people commending Arizona for standing up for it’s sovereignty. It’s not about illegal immigrants, it’s about Federal Nanny state-ism. The media is just telling everyone it’s about the mean Arizonans hating immigrants. Maybe they do, and maybe they don’t, but Arizona is asserting it’s authority in more than one issue, just like other states are. The attitude is not about hating foreigners, anymore than the civil war was about slaves.
I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you of your own ignorance on the subject. I’ve agreed with you on a number of topics in the past.
“Saying the civil war wasn’t over slavery but over states’ rights (the right TO OWN SLAVES) is exactly the same as saying it’s not about abortion, but “a woman’s right to choose.”
Emotional arguments belong to the left, and a condescending false analogy only reflects poorly on your ability to form a logical, reasoned argument based on facts.
You’re too late. I love how they say that Lincoln “started” the Civil War. Same way Bush started the GWOT and FDR started WWII.
What about the Fugitive Slave laws that forces citizens of non-slave states have to participate in enslaving another human being? Not much states rights there.
If it is a voluntary union of the several sovereign states then why is permission needed for a new state to join? That sounds like an organization that controls who it lets in.
What, do you get a daily e-mail filled with the propaganda from Confederate-era newspapers?
I must be missing something. The military is currently an all-volunteer force — but they don’t have to take everyone who applies. They control who they let in. But it is still a voluntary force.
Can one of you please help me with one of the facts that was listed? I'm looking for a list of those 300 newspapers that Lincoln personally shut down. Can one of you point me to it?
Thank you for your praise and I am glad that you have educated yourself beyond the fairy tales people have spread since the Reconstruction.
I’m glad that you brought up the fact that Lincoln did not go to war for slaves. That point is much-argued and I have been “virtually” slapped even on this board for suggesting such a thing. I will further add that he freed the slaves not as a measure of “do-goodery,” but in order to foment an insurrection in the Confederate states, forcing them to fight on two fronts.
And also control when they get out.
The Constitution does not have such rules. Does that mean you cannot ever get out? Wouldn't that seem like tyranny? Look at the 10th Amendment. The states have rights which are not enumerated. Is the right of secession discussed? No. It is an unenumerated right. Which means, according to the 10th Amendment, that this is a right which is reserved to the states.
Getting into the union is a joint decision by both parties. But getting out ought to be something a state can choose to do by itself.
If only all present “Americans really” understood the so-called civil war....
Well, I’m not the original poster, and think you should be able to be use a search engine, but I’m willing to help you, but not hold your hand through the process known as “Research.”
Here’s a thoroughly referenced article, naming a few:
“Lincoln, on the other hand, shut down many newspapers. Chief Justice William Rehnquist discusses some of these cases of suppression”
Lincoln not only shut down newspapers he viewed as unpatriotic, he also ordered the arrest and imprisonment of some of their editors and publishers, without due process of law. Lincoln issued the following order to General John Dix:
You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce . . . and prohibit any further publication thereof . . . You are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison . . . The editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforementioned newspapers. (Order of Abraham Lincoln to General John Dix, May 18, 1864)
From the Encyclopedia Britannica Website, but you’ll have to get a subscription to read the entire article:
“Fall 2009 11 During the Civil War the federal government was responsible for the greatest amount of newspaper suppression in the nations history. More than 300 newspapers were shut down, most of them Democratic papers that were sympathetic to the Confederacy. Some historians have criticized President Abraham Lincoln for allowing such widespread constraints on the press. This article reconsiders the nature of Lincolns view of press freedom. Based on a letter the president sent to a Union general, it concludes that Lincoln changed his thinking about midway through the ...”
Here’s an entire booklet about one incidence:
Press Freedom & War Restraints
How he suppressed the Los Angeles Star
Feel free to knock yourself out, and I hope you learn something in the process. That took about 3 min of search engine searching, but I didn’t find a list. I’m not using Google anymore, and will have to get used to searching for things on my new engine.
“... in order to foment an insurrection in the Confederate states, forcing them to fight on two fronts.”
Especially since he didn’t find it in his mythical big fluffy heart to free the Northern States’ slaves, but merely the Confederate States’ slaves with the emancipation proclamation, and unconstitutional executive order.
You cannot just up and decide you no longer want to be in the military and then just leave. You leave when the military decides you can leave. Even at the end of your enlistment the military can force you to remain. Or once you are out the military can force you back in. It's commonly referred to as stop-loss.
Maybe you would like to try another analogy?
But you applauded ronnyquest on his facts so I just assumed that you had established what he said to be true. And you two are so positive on that number. 300 newspapers shut down. Not approximately 300. Not an estimated 300. 300. Surely somewhere along the way you came across a list?
Careful, some Freepers only like the 10th ammendment when it suits them. The fact is that you were presented with a false dilemma, a logical fallacy, stemming from a false analogy. The military is not the same as a Voluntary Confederation of states.
Not only did the Founding Fathers write about what powers, not rights, the Federal Government had, they also gave the very foundation of when a Government was ripe to be thrown out. The same people who will argue that states should challenge the Federal Government now, are aghast at the idea that there was a time when their forefathers did so too.
Slavery was bad, and abolished through a Constitutional amendment. Not the Civil war. The war was not, and will never have been, no matter how many people proclaim it to have been, about slaves. It’s was about Fedzilla, before we knew it to be Fedzilla. It was just the start of baby Fedzilla. It started with the illegal occupation of one sovereign nation by another, over economic (power) issues.
In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
Or the South Carolina Declaration of Secession?
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
Or the Texas Declaration of Secession?
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
Here we go...
Actually more than 300.
Ah, so you’re purposely ignorant. In that case, I won’t waste my time. Every man is accountable for his own actions. I’m not responsible for your ignorance, nor do I feel bad. I’ve provided you with the information you need to begin a quest for knowledge, should you choose it. But your juvenile banter is best reserved for those who are at that level of development.
The problem of providing information to people who don’t want it is that once you waste and wear yourself out giving them what they claim to want, they either still refuse to believe it, or they say, “Well, I’m not changing my opinion anyway.” I’m familiar with that line of tantruming, here we call it liberalism. If you wanted to know the truth, you’d look for it. Obviously you like being ignorant, and it’s your right to do so. But not everyone else is, and for mature people, life, reason, and intelligent debate will go on, with or without your whit and novelty. Have a good day.
You’ve just posted portions of why three States’ governments indicated they had seceded, not why there was a war. If you’d like to make an argument that the North went to war in order to subvert the State’s sovereign governments, overtake them and then free the slaves, that would be relevant, and make a very important point.
However, even that’s not true, because the U.S. president said that’s NOT why he went to war. In Fact he EMPHATICALLY said that’s not what the war was about. Try again.
‘Slavery was bad, and abolished through a Constitutional amendment’
Passed and ratified during the Civil War and Reconstruction period, without confederate states allowed to vote.
Then you should have no problem providing a list then, will you?
In that case, I wont waste my time.
Nor will I. You've shown your colors.
‘However, even thats not true, because the U.S. president said thats NOT why he went to war. In Fact he EMPHATICALLY said thats not what the war was about. Try again.’
Haven’t read the Gettysburg Address or Second Inaugural Address, I take it? Lincoln’s position was that it was unconstitutional to free the slaves without a Constitutional Amendment, except as part of his power as commander in chief to put down an insurrection.
The conservative picks.
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.