Best and Worst U.S. Presidents?

[familydog]

All the Lincoln bashing. You know what, who the hell gives a damn about about all their great constitutional RIGHTS. Ask the black people in the south how they liked their rights? I prefer individual rights to states rights any day. How many of the admendments of the constitution are violated by slavery? Huh. Every single thing about slavery violated the whole concept of the declaration of indepenence and the bill of rights. Why didn't you ask the five million slaves whether they were enjoying "we hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal."
A lot of you are all for YOUR contitutional rights as long as you are white. This is why the grass roots destroyed the RP campaign. Constitutional racist hypocrites.
For the record I am no big admirer of Lincoln and think the civil war did great harm to our country and could have been solved peacefully and I greatly admire Robert E Lee because he freed his slaves before Grant and was a great leader.

Yawn. Get over yourself. No one in this thread has expressed racist sentiments. No one in this thread has said institutionalized slavery, or any kind of slavery should exist. I'm sure, as Dr. Paul supporters, would all agree we have the same rights no matter skin, ethnicity, religion, etc.

I'm not sure who or what your raging against.

 

[klamath]

Yawn. Get over yourself. No one in this thread has expressed racist sentiments. No one in this thread has said institutionalized slavery, or any kind of slavery should exist. I'm sure, as Dr. Paul supporters, would all agree we have the same rights no matter skin, ethnicity, religion, etc.

I'm not sure who or what your raging against.

I get tired of hearing how lincoln violated the constitution and not once do I hear about how slavery violated the constitution. Which was worse? If there are any black people left on here ask them how they feel about lincoln's constitutional violations

 

[familydog]

I get tired of hearing how lincoln violated the constitution and not once do I hear about how slavery violated the constitution. Which was worse? If there are any black people left on here ask them how they feel about lincoln's constitutional violations

Slavery violated the Constitution.

So did Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus.

Don't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad bahavior.

 

[sophocles07]

John Adams? Alien and Sedition Acts? Huh?

I agree completely here. I have to say my admiration of Adams is more of an idealistic thing—his writings in particular are of great interest. I take Jefferson’s side on all of the Adams-Jefferson controversies. Van Buren, too, was a somewhat unimportant president, though not his fault really. His Autobiography should be required reading.

 

[weslinder]

I've always said that Jackson is the most overrated President (maybe not by historians, that'd be Lincoln) and this thread is confirming it. Jackson did elimate the National Bank and deserves credit for it. But he was horrible on property rights and very corrupt. He used trumped up charges to take farms and Indian land for his buddies. He helped protect Jean Lafitte from prosecution by Louisiana.

Andrew Jackson - Great General, generally bad President with one great accomplishment.

 

[klamath]

Slavery violated the Constitution.

So did Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus.

Don't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad bahavior.

It is all a matter of scale, Does suspending Habeus Corpus violate more tenants of the constitution than slavery? Did Blacks have the right of habeus Corpus. Did the blacks have the right to own and bear arms? Did blacks have the right to a fair and speedy trial with a jury of their peers? Did Blacks have the right to vote? Did Blacks have the right to freely speak their mind? Etc. Etc.
And yes there are racists on here. I remember the day the MLK money bomb was suggested and suddenly there are scores of links to StormFront proving MLK was a communist. A little too quick to be a random find on google. Me thinks it was in their favorites menu.

 

[[email protected]]

Best: Jefferson & Andrew Jackson...

HELLOO --- they killed the FED.

Worst: Wilson, for Federal Reserve act.
Bush..

They've all played their part. Nixon - watergate. Reagan - Iran Contra etc....

+1

 

[familydog]

It is all a matter of scale, Does suspending Habeus Corpus violate more tenants of the constitution than slavery? Did Blacks have the right of habeus Corpus. Did the blacks have the right to own and bear arms? Did blacks have the right to a fair and speedy trial with a jury of their peers? Did Blacks have the right to vote? Did Blacks have the right to freely speak their mind? Etc. Etc.
And yes there are racists on here. I remember the day the MLK money bomb was suggested and suddenly there are scores of links to StormFront proving MLK was a communist. A little too quick to be a random find on google. Me thinks it was in their favorites menu.

I never suggested there were no racists on the forum, I was strictly speaking to this thread, which was the context of your post.

We can't be in the business of "well, this action is violating the constitution...but it's ok because it's not as bad as THAT action that violates the consitution." If that is our rationale, we are doomed as a country. That is not what a constitutional republic is all about, that is not what Ron Paul is all about, that is not what this movement is all about, and that is not what the rule of law is all about. I can't blame institutionalized slavery on Lincoln, otherwise I'd bash him about that too. If certain people within this movement think otherwise, that's on them and it doesn't reflect the majority.

Seems like you in the business to pick a fight by accusing people in this thread of being racist, when they have demonstrated no such thing. Get off your high horse please before you fall. You will save much on your hospital bill.

 

[nf7mate]

Best: Jefferson, Washington
Worst: Lincoln, Wilson

 

[nate895]

I understand that. But, what about the blacks and their freedom? How would they go about gaining their individual rights?

The South would have freed their slaves soon enough, and they would have had their citizenship as per Southern jurisprudence at the time. Did you know free blacks in the South could vote and many owned slaves?

 

[mtmedlin]

All presidents have faults, even our beloved Jefferson violated his oath (see Louisiana Purchase) It would be hard for me to select the best but worst I owuld give to George W Bush.
I put him way above FDR and others. FDR I have pitty on because his motivations were pure. The man watched as his country starved to death and acted to stop it. His biggest mistake was to not sunset his social policies so that they would not have a long term negative effect. Bush on the other hand....what defense can I give him?

 

[nate895]

All presidents have faults, even our beloved Jefferson violated his oath (see Louisiana Purchase) It would be hard for me to select the best but worst I owuld give to George W Bush.
I put him way above FDR and others. FDR I have pitty on because his motivations were pure. The man watched as his country starved to death and acted to stop it. His biggest mistake was to not sunset his social policies so that they would not have a long term negative effect. Bush on the other hand....what defense can I give him?

I still don't get what was wrong with the Louisiana purchase. It was a treaty, and the Executive signed the treaty, and the Senate ratified it as per the Constitution. Done and done. If a state didn't like it, they could have seceded, as Massachusetts threatened to do. It in way is a violation of the Constitution, as land treaties are normal treaties, I assume the Convention would have noted that the treaty clause didn't include transfer of land, but they didn't. That is like saying that because the Constitution doesn't say we can have an Air Force, we can't have one.

 

[mtmedlin]

I still don't get what was wrong with the Louisiana purchase. It was a treaty, and the Executive signed the treaty, and the Senate ratified it as per the Constitution. Done and done. If a state didn't like it, they could have seceded, as Massachusetts threatened to do. It in way is a violation of the Constitution, as land treaties are normal treaties, I assume the Convention would have noted that the treaty clause didn't include transfer of land, but they didn't. That is like saying that because the Constitution doesn't say we can have an Air Force, we can't have one.

More so, Jefferson expanded the power of the president. He had no right to purchase land. Nowhere in the constitution does it give that power and should have been reserved to the state. He could have passed a constitutional amendment, which would have been the proper course, but he chose to sidestep this issue and use a treaty even though it was and still is considered to have been a loophole and not a strict interpretation of the Constitution. I am not saying that he is a horrible president but it is the most minor steps that lead to tyranny. We didnt get into this situation in one giant step. It was ignoring strict constitutional interpretation that allowed others to do the same.

 

[nate895]

More so, Jefferson expanded the power of the president. He had no right to purchase land. Nowhere in the constitution does it give that power and should have been reserved to the state. He could have passed a constitutional amendment, which would have been the proper course, but he chose to sidestep this issue and use a treaty even though it was and still is considered to have been a loophole and not a strict interpretation of the Constitution. I am not saying that he is a horrible president but it is the most minor steps that lead to tyranny. We didnt get into this situation in one giant step. It was ignoring strict constitutional interpretation that allowed others to do the same.

The Senate could have said "no." They didn't. Treaties are ultimately acts of the Senate, not of the President.

 

[coyote_sprit]

More so, Jefferson expanded the power of the president. He had no right to purchase land. Nowhere in the constitution does it give that power and should have been reserved to the state. He could have passed a constitutional amendment, which would have been the proper course, but he chose to sidestep this issue and use a treaty even though it was and still is considered to have been a loophole and not a strict interpretation of the Constitution. I am not saying that he is a horrible president but it is the most minor steps that lead to tyranny. We didnt get into this situation in one giant step. It was ignoring strict constitutional interpretation that allowed others to do the same.

So would you prefer not to have the Louisiana territory?

 

[nate895]

So would you prefer not to have the Louisiana territory?

You and I personally affected by that, I think.

 

[sophocles07]

The South would have freed their slaves soon enough, and they would have had their citizenship as per Southern jurisprudence at the time.

You seem really sure of this. Why?

 

[Mesogen]

Ummm Lincoln was a big government statist. He favored a central bank and corporate welfare.

Lincoln fought the central bankers tooth and nail.

 

[jason43]

Semi - related - Does anyone know what the mob reaction was to the govt during the great depression? Did it elevate FDR or take him out?

It uh, got him elected 4 times. It took Hoover out.

 

[acptulsa]

So would you prefer not to have the Louisiana territory?

Jefferson had no time for an amendment and a populace that was all too ready to go to war with our Revolutionary ally over that land. Politics, in the end, must deal with realities. Napoleon made it abundantly clear that was a very limited time offer. What else could be done?

Likewise, some of John Adam's actions when the populace was trying to pressure him into war with France, and some of Lincoln's actions during the Civil War and some of FDR's during the Great Depression can be excused as politically necessary due to crisis. A crisis is a crisis, and a politician who doesn't step up and deal with it is no friend of the people.

In the case of the two Bushes, there are many reasons to believe they manufactured wars. They could even have done it for the purpose of creating a crisis that would enable them to infringe on our rights. Unfortunately, we can't prove this, but there's reason enough to suspect it. That, to the best of my knowledge, is a first and a new low.