This is What a President Looks Like

Townhall.com ^ | February 21, 2012 | John Ransom

[Syncro]

This is what a President doesn't look like:

[AuH2ORepublican]

Out of curiosity, were you confusing Frémont with some other 19th century politician (or military leader)? If so, with whom?

[Hostage]

Those that study American history know that it was not nepotism in statehouse politics in the appointment of US Senators that caused the movement for the 17th Amendment. Rather it was the gridlock in statehouses that left some states without US Senators. And that is fine by me, because if a state is reflecting the indecisiveness of its voters, then it is best that they sit it out until they decide which way to go. But voters around 1913 were duped into thinking that a more ‘democratic’ means of elections would be best.

1913 was all about the 16th Amendment (federal tax without pesky state politics aligned for apportionment), the 17th Amendment (make sure statehouses were taken out of the equation for federal tax policies) and the 18th Amendment (a red herring to take attention away from the import of the 16th and 17th by concentrating voter angst on a social issue). This was all engineered to create more centralized federal power and to diminish that of the states.

The fact is that now US Senators are bought and paid for by money interests inside and outside a state. The voters usually have no clue as to who it is they are voting for and will most often vote party line. The exception is the Tea Party who research and characterize Senate candidates especially RINOs. But even in that they fail (e.g., Scott Brown).

Democracy (mob rule; two wolves and a chicken deciding what’s for dinner) is not a good form of government. A republic (rule of law versus rule of mob) is historically much more preferable.

Here in Washington State as in California, large urban populations elect US Senators. These populations are heavily union-influenced and vote democrat party line. If the state legislature were involved, then at least the state senate which is more representative of rural areas would allow those rural voters to have a voice as to who represents the state at the federal level. As it is now, the large liberal progressive union-controlled urban voters decide who shall be the state’s US Senator.

Most voters today don’t usually know well the candidates for state attorney general, and even less about judges that run for election. The bizarre idea that a relative is going to be appointed to the US Senate without the approval of the state legislature is unrealistic. It might happen but it would be easier to do using the 17th Amendment today where the voting public votes party line without really knowing the character or background of the candidate.

So your specious argument notwithstanding, your creation of a bogeyman of some state speaker appointing some idiot relative to the US Senate, does not address that there is nothing preventing said speaker from supporting such idiot relative in a general election and having an easier time albeit more expensive for getting them in the US Senate.

The issue is not about how bad characters get into the US Senate whether via statehouse or general public, it is about who the Senator answers to, an urban public controlled by progressives or a statehouse that better represents conservatives.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I was assuming this meant he took a very young bride or something of that ilk — a matter that was not considered as grave at the time as it is now.

[rockrr]

I call it “gargoyle” - for obvious reasons ;-)

[itsahoot]

So don't blame Lincoln for everything wrong, and don't let Southerners get away with washing their hands of all responsibility for today's conditions.

Thanks for the great stats, but I don't think I dissed at all. Just are an observation on the two amendments which I doubt were really ratified.

There were many legitimate criticism but it was not my intention to give a positive spin to them. There is not profit in wishing for what might have been.⚐

[mojitojoe]

Send over 600,000 Americans to their deaths and save the “union”, or destroy the Constitution and Republic... why choose? I can do BOTH! Lincoln did not abolish slavery and had no desire to do so. He had no Constitutional jurisdiction with which to prevent the lawful secession of eleven U.S. States. He was a puppet of “big rail,” the prevailing corporate interests of his day.

This is the guy that gets credit for being the great emancipator? Give me a break. The winners write the history.

Abraham Lincoln Quote
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
by:
Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President

Source:
Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)

[mojitojoe]

Lincoln never winning would be a very good thing. 600K less dead Americans and slavery was on it’s way out anyway. Don’t forget he slept with men, but the libs love that stuff so that would have been a plus.

[mojitojoe]

[mojitojoe]

same ole same ole...yawn.

[Ditto]

"... but Lincoln being less than totally altruistic didn’t free the Northern slaves together with the Southern ones but waited. It is a checkered history."

Lincoln had no Constitutional power to free slaves in states that were not in Rebellion. If he had tried that, the Courts would have promptly overruled his order.

As CiC of the armed forces, however, he did have the power to seize enemy property and dispose of that property as he saw fit (i.e. free the slaves) in rebellious areas that came under control of the Union Army.

And if you check the history, he did end slavery in the District of Columbia (Federal Territory) and he repeatably implored the Union states that allowed slavery, (KY, MD, DE, & MO) to end slavery on those states. Missouri and Maryland did before the end of the war. The 13th Amendment, which Lincoln pushed through congress, ended it everywhere else.

[GOPsterinMA]

“And it really would be swell for Massachusetts Republicans to know in advance that they have zero chance to elect a Senator. Instead of that dastardly RINO Brown they’d have gotten a nice democrat shill, probably a member of the “royal” Kennedy clan to keep “Teddy’s seat” where it belongs.”

No question about that!!!

[SevenofNine]

I wish a movie on Reagan being Vampire hunter that be cool

I could imagine Ronnie could kill bill on those Vampires ROFL

[Fledermaus]

“Slept with men” was common place when a bed was as big an investment then as a car is today.

[rockrr]

If it’s a scurrilous or slimy slander then nohitojoe is down with it.

[ALPAPilot]

He had no Constitutional jurisdiction with which to prevent the lawful secession of eleven U.S. States

Which law would that be exactly?

[liberty or death]

You're going way past what I said and have landed in the Twilight Zone. My comment never advocated that the Confederacy win. My comment advocated that a near country destroying war should never have started and that it did because Lincoln wanted it to. And because the Union won States Rights died. States Rights were key to the unlimited success of the greatest nation God ever allowed to exist.

[Ditto]

And because the Union won States Rights died.

It had nothing to do with. What killed states rights was done 50 years after the Civil War ended.

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You lost me.

The Southern states left the Union before Lincoln took office. He ran on a platform of preventing the spread of slavery.

The War started when the South attacked Fort Sumter. I don’t see that any of this is Lincoln’s fault.

Since it was the Southern States that were trying to force Northern States to police their slaves, I don’t see that the Southern States cared about States Rights at all.

If Lincoln didn’t force the Southern States back into the Union, none of us would be here to talk about it.