America's Greatest Presidents

The American Thinker ^ | February 20th, 2006 | Steven M. Warshawsky

[Non-Sequitur]

According to who? The government of the united States? The mother of all imminent domain issues which you obviously fully support.

According to the legislature of South Carolina, which deeded the property Sumter sits on free and clear to the United States government. According to the Constitution of the United States which says that only Congress can dispose of federal property.

OK?

[linda_22003]

"I voted for Kennedy, by the time three years had passed I moved 180 degrees to the right. When I heard he was assassinated, I my first thought was 'good'."

I can certainly understand changing your mind about a president; you feel that assassination is appropriate for those with whom you disagree?

[Clemenza]

First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen. There is no equal.

Runners up in my book include Ronald Reagan (for turning the tide in this country against the forces of despair domestically and tyranny overseas) and Theodore Roosevelt (for, one and for all, settling the question of who was in charge in the Americas).

Most overrated is FDR, a man who succeeded tremendously in appointing a war cabinet that defeated two major world powers, but was a total failure in terms of domestic policy (higher unemployment prior to WWII than when he took office, court packing, etc.).

[Pharmboy]

I see The General in relation to our presidents in the same way I see Bach in relation to other composers: It was The General alone, then we can quibble about who came next and third and so forth. Same for JS Bach...

[Clemenza]

The Southrons started the fight.

Besides, Abe Lincoln is at least a better man than I am. I would have hanged Lee and Davis, and sent the rest into exile with Benjamin.

[Clemenza]

Actually, the South declared it's independence, and requested the North to vacate their forts in the South. When they refused, they were fired on.

Gee Beave. You know, I've decided that I've had enough of the Socialist tyranny in the Seattle area and am declaring my block and all property in a 30 mile radius to be the Free State of Fredonia. I demand that the U.S. Navy therefore surrender Bremerton and Naval Station Everett to me. If they fail to do so, I will be forced to get on the ferry and throw projectiles at the submarines in Bremerton harbor.

Just because a bunch of yokels decide that they are "independent" doesn't make it so. Would you support it if the Chicanos in California declared the independent Republic of Aztlan and demanded that we surrender San Diego and Camp Pendleton?

[pandemoniumreigns]

I have always thought of the Toon as our first female president. <;o)

[oh8eleven]

Ben Franklin disagrees with you
No, no, no. Think a little longer about my statement that only one of the listed Presidents waged war.

[Fiji Hill]

I always refer to the holiday as Washington's Birthday. I also refer to November 11 as Armistice Day.

[jecIIny]

There is a complicated theory by which confederate apologists have attempted to render legal the treason of their ancestors. It is based on the belief that the United States was not really a country, but rather a confederation or alliance of separate and sovereign countries. Under that theory (called the compact theory) the Constitution was really a treaty between sovereign nations (the states) by which they agreed to set up a system for cooperation and gaining certain "mutual benefits."

I reject that theory as nonsense. However, setting it aside the one thing which all the unreconstructed confederates can not get around is the underlying cause of their secession. Even if it were legal (a position I again reject) it was immoral beyond words. The cause impelling secession was what the southern aristocracy rightly perceived as the death knell of slavery sounded by the election of the "Black Republican." They realized that his election meant that no new slave states would be added to the union. And that it was thus only a matter of time before there would be enough free states to amend the Constitution and outlaw the south's peculiar institution. If I were 100% convinced of the legality of secession I would still be 300% in favor of invading the south and crushing them under the iron heel of liberty. The existence of human slavery anywhere in North America is intolerable and by itself cause for the most aggressive war. Slavery was the cause for which the war was fought. They can try and deny it until the cows come home, but its true. There was no other reason for secession. It all boiled down to human slavery.

[stainlessbanner]

Wlat would be so proud.

[stubernx98]

Of course, it was an emotional response, rationally, I agree, good chance he wouldn't have been re elected anyway.

[KevinDavis]

My favorite Presidents:
1. George Washington
2. Abe Lincoln
3. Ronald Reagan
4. Calvin Coolidge
5. Teddy Roosevelt
and soon on be on the list George W. Bush...

As for Kennedy, the more I read about him, the more I think he was an empty suit.

[Minus_The_Bear]

Agreed. Washington hands down.

[brainstem223]

Since South Carolina was a then a member of the Confederate States, it was not bound by the US Constitution, but by the Confederate Constitution. The clause you suggest had no applicability to property residing in another nation.

[brainstem223]

It was far more legal for the Confederate states to leave the union than it was for the colonies to fight the war for Independence. No treason was committed since bills of seccession were passed in the state legislatures of the several states of the Confederacy.

There was no clause in the founding documents that forbade secession, and that omission was intentional by the founding fathers in light of the tyranny of the British government should be revisited upon the states. Furthermore the institution of slavery was written into the very Constitution you are holding up as a cause for the conduct of the northern invasion. Now the federal govt taxes all of our labour for 4 months out of the year, THAT is slavery and nobody bats an eye over it. Your rejection of these principles is on purely emotional grounds and is as worthless as an argument of the legalities intrinsic to the issue.

[WalterSkinner]

Washington, Lincoln, TR, and Reagan

[Bender2]

I would rate Nixon up with the best... No, make him the best!

Why Nixon, #2?

I'll tell you why! The little F*er likes to store his vodka in my jar! And he knows damned well I'm a scotch man!

Nixon does better than Barbara Streisand. Fry stores his urine in her jar!

Don't I know it... But it does keep my skin soft and I have such a glow! Like buddaaaa...

[jecIIny]

"It was far more legal for the Confederate states to leave the union than it was for the colonies to fight the war for Independence"

Our revolt against Britain was treasonous of course. There is a very famous axiom to the effect that the one justification for treason, is successful treason. I don't think I agree with that morally, but it does have a certain historical truth to it.

"No treason was committed since bills of secession were passed in the state legislatures of the several states of the Confederacy."

If California passed a bill announcing it was withdrawing from the Union over our war in Iraq and ordered the US to vacate its military bases on the west coast the cry of treason from the deep south would be heard in China.

"There was no clause in the founding documents that forbade secession, and that omission was intentional by the founding fathers in light of the tyranny of the British government should be revisited upon the states."

Art III Sec 3 subsection 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Sounds like that would cover the so called Confederacy. Hostility to slavery is now tyranny? It was to southerners in 1860. I see things haven't changed all that much.

"Furthermore the institution of slavery was written into the very Constitution you are holding up as a cause for the conduct of the northern invasion."

There is an important difference which you are conveniently ignoring. The North had repudiated and abandoned slavery. The south was clinging to it. The election of Lincoln was a dagger plunged into the heart of the system. It meant that slavery would be abolished by constitutional amendment probably within 10-20 years. Thats why the South seceded.

"Now the federal govt taxes all of our labour for 4 months out of the year, THAT is slavery and nobody bats an eye over it."

When was the last time you were sold apart from your family, or your children were sold? When was the last time you were whipped or branded? Your attempts to equate taxation with slavery is assanine. No one likes taxes. But its not slavery. If you don't like it you can move to another country. Slaves don't have that option. Get a grip.

"Your rejection of these principles is on purely emotional grounds and is as worthless as an argument of the legalities intrinsic to the issue."

My visceral hatred of slavery is indeed a deeply emotional matter for me. And the legalities are indeed important. At the end of the war most southerners applied for and received pardons. (Lee applied for one and out of an unfortunate vindictiveness was refused. Jefferson Davis refused to ask for a pardon to his dying day.) It is a well established principal of law that you can not be pardoned for something you did not do. In accepting a pardon you admit the guilt of the crime.

But I will reiterate my statement from my previous post. Even if I were convinced of the legality of secession (which I am not) I would still have called for war on the south. Slavery is in itself a causus belli, at least in North America. If Canada or Mexico attempted to institute slavery tomorrow I would demand they stop under threat of war.

[brainstem223]

In the end, if you tally all the dead and maimed, all the ruined families on both sides, of the untold human misery that was expended by the most horrific bloodletting we have ever witnessed on this continent to put down the intuition of slavery by force of arms, against the possibility that the war wasn't fought and and slavery faded away decades later; it is no contest. That war produced more far more cumulative suffering on the human race and was therefore the greater tragedy.