Posted on 02/13/2013 7:59:52 AM PST by Kaslin
As President Obama prepares his State of the Union Address and the nation looks forward to a Presidents Day holiday, Americans should consider the warning examples of our worst chief executives.
While few of Washington and Lincoln's successors could hope to replicate their epic achievements, every president can — and must — focus on avoiding the appalling ineptitude of John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan and their feckless fellow travelers on the road to presidential perdition. The common elements that link our least successful leaders teach historical lessons at least as important as the shared traits of the Rushmore Four: Broken promises and gloomy temperaments lead inevitably to an alienated public.
All the chief executives unmistakably identified as failures displayed a self-destructive tendency to violate the core promises of their campaigns. Take Tyler, the unbending Virginia aristocrat who won election to the vice presidency in 1840 and assumed the highest office when his predecessor died just a month after inauguration. The new chief executive, dubbed "His Accidency" by critics, used 10 unpopular vetoes to block implementation of his own party's longstanding ledges. Most of his Cabinet resigned in protest, and eventually they all quit while the hostile Senate voted down four new Cabinet appointments — a record that stands to this day.
Between 1853 and 1861, Pierce and Buchanan completed back-to-back disastrous terms in which personal weakness and pro-Southern sympathies shattered confident promises of unifying leadership. Buchanan pledged to stop "agitation of the slavery question" and to "destroy sectional parties." By the end of his term, seven Southern states seceded from the union and the nation lunged toward the Civil War.
After that war and Lincoln's assassination, Andrew Johnson (Lincoln's vice president) defied members of the martyred president's Cabinet and congressional leaders, ignoring commitments to lead former slaves to dignity and full civil rights.
In the 20th century, Herbert Hoover's slogan promised "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage," but he presided over the beginning of the Great Depression. Similarly, Jimmy Carter's 1976 platform pledged to reduce unemployment to 3%, but Carter ran for re-election with more than twice that rate.
No wonder that Hoover and Carter, like other unsuccessful presidents, came across as gloomy, self-righteous sufferers. Hoover's secretary of State said that a meeting with him was "like sitting in a bath of ink." Carter staked his presidency on a notoriously sour televised address that became known as "The Malaise Speech," warning the appalled public of a "crisis of the American spirit."
None of our least successful presidents displayed the self-deprecatory humor of Lincoln or the sunny dispositions that powered the Roosevelts (Theodore and Franklin) and Ronald Reagan. A visitor described the Pierce White House as a "cold and cheerless place," noting the isolation of the invalid first lady, in deep mourning for three dead sons.
When Buchanan welcomed successor Lincoln, he plaintively declared: "My dear, sir, if you are as happy on entering the White House as I on leaving, you are a very happy man indeed."
The result of the depressing and erratic leadership of our six most conspicuous presidential failures is that all managed to estrange a once-admiring electorate within the space of a single term. Tyler,Pierce, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan all earned rejection by their own party, failed to win their own party's nominations, entering retirement as discredited figures. Hoover and Carter appeared on national tickets and campaigned vigorously but got wiped out in historic landslides, with each incumbent carrying a mere six states.
Democrats, who denounce George W. Bush as the worst president ever, along with Republicans who apply the same ugly title to Barack Obama, can't explain away the inconvenient fact that both of our most recent incumbents won re-election with 51% of the vote. Regardless of controversies blighting Bush's second term, or setbacks that might afflict Obama's, their legislative and electoral successes place them in a different category from the White House worst.
This baleful history should warn the current occupant and all successors against visibly disregarding commitments while encouraging voters to steer clear of presidential candidates with dour, inflexible temperaments. By selecting aspirants with clear, consistent agendas and cheerful, persuasive personalities, we'll face fewer shattered presidencies that leave reviled incumbents and a disillusioned electorate.
Mary Virginia Wade, better known as Jennie Wade, was the only civilian killed during the American Civil War Battle of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on July 3, 1863 while baking bread for Union soldiers in the now famous tourist destination, the Jennie Wade House. She was struck by a single bullet that traveled through two wooden doors killing her instantly. Jennie Wade was 20 years old. The house looks very much the same as it did over 140 years ago. The house was actually the residence of Jennie's sister, Georgia McClella
The terms of the Treaty of Versailles were far harsher than the promises made at the time of the Armistices. There was a breakdown in civil order in Germany after the Armistice and the suspension of submarine warfare and arming of the United States tipped the balance of power towards the Allies. The Treaty was imposed on Germany at gunpoint. In civil law, a contract entered into under duress or extortion is not valid. Morally, the same applies to Versailles.
Besides, by your logic, the French were bound by the second Versailles Treaty and were obliged to fight to for Hitler.
Lee could have marched into DC but didn’t since he had no desire to take over the North. The James brothers simply responded to jay hawkers entering Mo to hang innocent men in front of their families, many of which never owned slaves. After the Feds attacked and killed his little brother the torch of vengeance was lit. Too much blood on every side, but we must preserve union power over the underlings.
BTW, Maryland was a Southern state. Did you forget?
One which did not pretend to seccession, did you forget?
And so the French did fight for Hitler against the US/British landings in North Africa.
After Hitler invaded the free zone of Vichy France in 1942 (just as he had invaded his former Polish ally in 1939, his former Soviet Ally in 1941 and his former Hungarian ally in 1944) of course the French soldiers with any brains were against him.
A group known as border ruffians had been hanging people in Kansas before the Jayhawkers went to work.
Of course by law, Kansas was to be free, per Missouri compromise. Slave power changed their mind on that one also.
As an example of a memorial to big killers, see Stone Mountain.
We know the examples. You don’t get the point donmaker.
I get your point. Your point is false. Mine is true.
So is it your assertion that controversy between the states, or between the states and the federal government is not required by the constitution to be resolved by law at the supreme court?
Kentucky and Missouri were other states invaded by the slave power and its deluded soldiers.
Worst Presidents - Ten + 1 extra for good measure...
1. OBummer
2. The Peanut Farmer
3. The Hope Arkansas Intern Dabbler
4. Mr Lady Bird
5. The Man from Kennebunkport
6. The Delano Guy - Winston’s Cousin
7. The Edward Mandell House Puppet
8. The ‘I am not a crook’ guy
9. Leslie Lynch King, Jr
10.Useless
11.Pierced on his own petard (Ostend Manifesto)
“So is it your assertion that controversy between the states, or between the states and the federal government is not required by the constitution to be resolved by law at the supreme court?”
Donny, I think you’ve described Lincoln’s gift to the nation. Why take your opponents to the Supreme Court when you can simply send an army to burn them out and kill them?
Directly from your post, so there is no mistake.
To anyone in the newly seceded states this would be a provocation.
To the CSA this would say that the new president of the USA intends to maintain Fort Sumter at the entrance to Charleston Harbor in South Carolina and Fort Pickens at the entrance to Pensacola Bay in Florida for the purposes of collecting duties and imposts.
What independent nation could tolerate a foreign power maintaining armed fortifications within its territorial waters? What independent nation would pay duties and impost to a foreign power?
Basically what Lincoln was saying was fine you can call yourself an independent nation but you will still pay your taxes regardless.
You waited three days to post that? Seriously?!
I bet he wanted to when timely, but found FR was frozen and dead. So had to continue when it finally woke up again.
My point was that Germany had no more moral compunction to observe the first Treaty of Versailles than France had to observe the second one.
Except that would free any nation to break any agreement.
All agreements are made under some expectation of reward and punishment.
For example, Iran agreed, in exchange for the US providing nuclear expertise and materials for power plants, to give up any right to pursue nuclear weapons.
Violation of that or any agreement invokes penalties. If there is no expectation that an agreement will be kept, then there is no reason to give an agreement.
Consider the parole agreements generously given to Southern soldiers after the surrender of their armies in North Carolina, Virginia and Mississippi. Certainly such an agreement is given under threat of punishment. Without the expectation that it would be kept, the soldiers would be detained, with the usual high loss of life from disease associated with that.
“In doing this there need be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none, unless it is forced upon the national authority.”
I don’t know why that would be seen by anyone in the southern states as a provocation.
Just as an intellectual exercise, take the words “no” “unless” and replace “none” with “some” out to see what the opposite would be.
“In doing this there need be bloodshed or violence, and there shall be some, it is forced upon the national authority.”
That could be a provocation. As given by Lincoln, it gives no provocation, rather is the opposite of provocation.
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.