Wouldn't constitutionalists recognize that slavery was a violation of the Bill of Rights, and in spite of how decentralized they wanted the government all states had to abide to the bill of rights?
The only knock on Harrison is that he didn't reduce the power of government.
The federal government in the 1800s was so small that increasing or decreasing it by minute amounts is largely irrelevant. Most people in the 1800s had absolutely no contact whatsoever with the federal government.
Small relative to now. But there has always been a time when something could have been improved, whether that was repealing the Fugitive Slave Act or reducing tariffs.
Abraham Lincoln got rid of the Fugitive Slave Act.
William Henry Harrison was President in 1841...
He meant that William Henry Harrison could've done it sooner.
Group Project: Let's Rank The Presidents and Summarize Their Presidencies
Replies: 188
Views: 3,041
19 pages
It is NOT Third Party talk or Plan B talk, rather, THIS sort of Mental Masturbation that could and should wait until after November.
I'm sorry there is not a pleasing-to-the-Board way to articulate that TRUTH.
I mean, of ALL the "group projects" that this non-collective might undertake...
This is very subjective as different aspects of liberty are more important to certain people. I think the best solution is grouping, since there are so many different factors and controversial issues. Maybe anything from 3 presidents per group to 5 total groups?
What would Ron Paul have done if he was President during that time? In your opinion
Baloney. The South still had Jim Crow laws 100 years later, and they had to end those kicking and screaming.
The Constitution has since been trampled on, and for the past 150 years there has been no recourse, and that's why we now have a Federal Reserve printing trillions and giving it to the rich, why we have endless wars, why people are killed in their own homes over a plant, why we're told what we can eat, what we can drink, on, and on, and on...
His war may have incidentally freed the slaves, but in doing so he enslaved America. The slaves in the South would have been freed eventually, either migration to the North, or by other socioeconomic factors.
His war was not worth it. Not at all.
Totally wrong. There were no changes in the Constitution when Lincoln was president.
This is what I consider to be an extremely flawed argument. In essence, Lincoln created the Jim Crow laws because of the forced end to slavery. If it had been ended peacefully like in Great Britain and countless other countries, there would have been far less resentment from the white southerner to the newly freed black. There wouldn't have been punitive measures to counteract the forced freedom that would've never happened.
Yes, because of Lincoln there is still a great deal of resentment today from all the punitive measures. Ask about people's feelings on Affirmative Action. I certainly don't like it.
Surely you jest. If Lincoln HAD made changes to the Constitution, THEN he wouldn't have violated it. That's because since it would've been changed to be a total piece of crap, all his previous violations would have been then acceptable. I don't even know what else to say. You seriously think the Constitution has to be changed to be violated? They're called amendments; to amend something changes it. Change is an integral part of the Constitution.
Now: If you're arguing Lincoln can't be to blame for things such as the Federal Reserve (which you might've been doing), that's wrong as well. Lincoln played an integral role in violating the Constitution and setting the precedent for future presidents to have such massive usurpation of power.
Lincoln: One of the worst presidents, if not THE worst.
Slavery is worse then Jim Crow laws.
The Constitution was not amended while Lincoln was president. That's why Wilson was worse than Lincoln.
And Lincoln wasn't against slavery.