WORST President (3/3)?

[nate895]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Confederate Army attack first at Fort Sumter? Or was the attack a result of intimidation from the Federal Army?

This is one of the most amazing thrillers from the war. First, Sumter was an uncompleted fort with no garrison when South Carolina seceded. The garrison in the area was located at nearby Fort Moultrie, a few nights later (somewhere around Christmas, give or take a couple days) the officer in charge (Major Anderson of Kentucky) ordered his men under cover of night to take the more strategically strong point at Ft. Sumter. It was a stronger position since Moultrie was vulnerable to land assault, while Sumter would be able to attack any incoming vessel since it was on its own island. This action was against the orders of President Buchanan, who wanted to negotiate a solution. This move by Maj. Anderson enraged South Carolinians, but they lived with it for the time being. Lincoln initially sent down an ambassador who promised President Davis and Governor Pickens of South Carolina that the fort would be given over soon. However, Lincoln was a shrewd politician who knew that the South needed to fire the first shot. He knew the South wouldn't be the aggressor, but he could be the aggressor while they still fired the first shot. Instead of giving over the fort, which was attempting to enforce the tariff in a foreign country, he ordered a resupply of the fort. In early April, the CSA government learned of this through their commissioners in DC. Lincoln said it was only food, but the South suspected it was a trick since food itself would have been a trick since the fort was supposed to be vacated soon. Also, the CSA couldn't stop the ships without firing upon them from shore since their navy was virtually nonexistent. Because of this, Beauregard, under orders from Pickens, against Davis's wishes, gave an ultimatum for Sumter to surrender, and it didn't, so they fired upon the fort and it eventually surrendered to Beauregard, ending the first military action of the war.

 

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

It could be argued that the administrations attempt in April 1861 to resupply and reinforce the garrison at Sumpter, which had stood since SC seceded in Dec. 1860. President James Buchanan had tried to resupply the garrison in January, with The Star of the West, but the ship turned away when the Confederates fired warning shots at her. President Lincoln sent several ships with equipment and men in April. As these ships were assembling off Charleston Bar, to run the Harbor, THATS when the confederates opened fire.

Plenty of blame to spread around.

 

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

Damn, NAte beat me to it, and did a better job of it as well!


I'm a slow typer

 

[Sidestreamer]

You really believe that? Driven through Harlem or Watts at night lately?

Harlem? Three weeks ago. Why?

 

[Sidestreamer]

Yes there is a Constitutional right to secede. The states were independent bodies that created the Constitution, and they were sovereign. Nothing in the Constitution says they lost their sovereignty, and any sovereign body can withdraw from a compact if it wishes. That is what the South did, they rescinded their ratification of the Constitution and then attempted to assert their independence. They were attacked and vilified for doing so.

Eh, hold on there. The south fired the first shot on Fort Sumter when Union forces did not abandon it on demand. That's what started the hostilities of the civil war.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/tl1861.html

While slavery might have been a contributing factor, it was not the end-all, be-all. It probably would have happened with or without slavery in the picture, slavery only served to hasten the coming of those events.

Whether you believe the Civil War was one about slavery and human rights or if it was about economics, the plantation economy of the south ran on slaves, and without slaves, it would have been devastated.

What other threats did the north give to the south's economy other than the slavery issue?

The problems between the north and south are so many (and they still exist to this day, if you look into it) that it takes both sides adhering to the Constitution for them to be satisfied to be in Union. They are like the pairing of England and Scotland, tenuous at best with one side holding all the cards and the other one looking for an excuse out of the game.

Adhere to the Constitution and the north and south will keep together? How, exactly?

I'll agree with one of your points; politically, the north/midwest/Pacific and the South/Heartland/Mountain West are split. Culturally, I think the split's exaggerated.

ETA: the real split is among socioeconomic classes, and to a lesser extent between management levels in the business sector.

 

[nate895]

Eh, hold on there. The south fired the first shot on Fort Sumter when Union forces did not abandon it on demand. That's what started the hostilities of the civil war.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/tl1861.html

Whether you believe the Civil War was one about slavery and human rights or if it was about economics, the plantation economy of the south ran on slaves, and without slaves, it would have been devastated.

What other threats did the north give to the south's economy other than the slavery issue?

Adhere to the Constitution and the north and south will keep together? How, exactly?

I'll agree with one of your points; politically, the north/midwest/Pacific and the South/Heartland/Mountain West are split. Culturally, I think the split's exaggerated.

Look at my time line of the events surrounding Ft. Sumter and you'll find that Lincoln tricked the South.

The South seceded because of the extremely high tariff that Lincoln wanted to impose. The tariff financed the Feds, and it was almost purely Southern cash heading into Northern pork. That was the budget of the Federal Government, it was basically a tariff which affected the South, with little impact on the North, and the money was spent by the Northern dominated Congress on infrastructural projects north of the Mason-Dixon line. The South would have had a thriving agricultural economy with or without slavery. Slaves were merely the workforce, which they did try to free, but freeing 3 million people is hard business that no one could find a solution to.

Adhering to the Constitution helps to preserve the Union because it means the North doesn't use its numerical majority to push through programs the South doesn't like.

The cultural differences between the regions are there, and can be seen if you look. The NE is urban-based culture that likes hip-hop and pop-type music and it values money a lot. The SE is rural culture that likes country, with some Southern Rock mixed into there and they tend to not care so much about money as they do as about having good time on Friday night. The Upper MW is an industrial culture that struggles to get by and just likes to sit back and enjoy a game on Sunday. The MW is a rural culture that is less social because things are a million miles apart and focuses a lot on family life. The west is split between the Mountains and the Pacific. People who live in the Western Mountains (MT, CO, UT, NV, ID, AZ, NM, and parts of CA, OR, and WA) love the free range and strive to breathe fresh and free air. The Pacific Coast is the NE with western influences, basically.

 

[Kludge]

bump

 

[RevolutionSD]

Has to be ol Woody Wilson:

1) Federal Reserve
2) Income Tax
3) World War I
4) CFR

Not necessarily in that order, but Wilson's term was the beginning of the end of America as it was founded.

 

[nate895]

Has to be ol Woody Wilson:

1) Federal Reserve
2) Income Tax
3) World War I
4) CFR

Not necessarily in that order, but Wilson's term was the beginning of the end of America as it was founded.

That was Lincoln.

 

[RevolutionSD]

That was Lincoln.

I agree Lincoln was horrible too and the civil war did touch of a lot of evil stuff, but I think Wilson was the one who killed off the USA with all the damage he did. Let's face it they're all bad, every last one of them, even George Washington.

We'd be better off without presidents altogether. It's totally unnecessary and only causes death and destruction of freedoms.

 

[nate895]

I agree Lincoln was horrible too and the civil war did touch of a lot of evil stuff, but I think Wilson was the one who killed off the USA with all the damage he did. Let's face it they're all bad, every last one of them, even George Washington.

We'd be better off without presidents altogether. It's totally unnecessary and only causes death and destruction of freedoms.

What did TJ do?

 

[LiveFree79]

I agree Lincoln was horrible too and the civil war did touch of a lot of evil stuff, but I think Wilson was the one who killed off the USA with all the damage he did. Let's face it they're all bad, every last one of them, even George Washington.

We'd be better off without presidents altogether. It's totally unnecessary and only causes death and destruction of freedoms.

You're an idiot. It's funny to see all you anarchists claiming to be avid RP/Libertarian supporters.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Free the slave; bind the master.

I agree Lincoln was horrible too and the civil war did touch of a lot of evil stuff, but I think Wilson was the one who killed off the USA with all the damage he did. Let's face it they're all bad, every last one of them, even George Washington.

We'd be better off without presidents altogether. It's totally unnecessary and only causes death and destruction of freedoms.

Would it be better to live in a peaceful society where everyone has to sit at seperate master and slave tables or would it be better to live in a more violent society where everyone is ideally brought together to sit at the same dinner table? These peaceful caste systems were the types that existed in most of the world including Western Africa before the advent of a modern slave trade.
The drawback to living under the rule of a caste system in Africa was that the different tribal chiefs would fight amongst themselves. As slaves from losing tribes were captured and incorporated into the winning one, their values diminished more to the point that they were viewed even less than slaves as outcasts and untouchables.
Our nation has had a long history of class struggle with the dinner table threatened to be split back into this type of a primitive caste system with a slave class ruled over by a master class.

 

[mtmedlin]

I'll take Wilson on this one. Lincoln screwed up under intense pressure and was one of the presidents during our infancy. I give him a little margin because the US wasnt as defined. FDR again made mistakes but I understand a president watching his nation starve to death and making some radical decisions. I dont mind some of his programs IF he had sunset them. At times socialist policy can be useful in order to get through a rare moment, like a deep depression but the continuation of those policies as a countermeasure to its reoccurance was short sighted and will eventually cause more damage then good.

 

[mtmedlin]

What did TJ do?

there is alot of debate on the Lousiana Purchase. He technically sidestepped the intended law and found a way to make the purchase even though he essentially made a new route for presidents to do what they want even though the constitution really didnt intend for him to do it. Overall though, he was one of the best.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

The Latest on Abraham Lincoln... 1809-2009 also covered on C-SPAN's Washington Journal

javascriptlayClip('rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/lincoln/linc_wj021208_holzer.rm')

The Lincoln Bicentennial Commission:

http://www.lincoln200.net/

 

[nate895]

there is alot of debate on the Lousiana Purchase. He technically sidestepped the intended law and found a way to make the purchase even though he essentially made a new route for presidents to do what they want even though the constitution really didnt intend for him to do it. Overall though, he was one of the best.

I am of the opinion that the Louisiana Purchase was Constitutional. It was a treaty, and the Constitution grants a broad power of treaty to the Federal Government. It didn't specify what a treaty must be pursuant to, just that you can make one. The Constitution does imply, however, that it cannot further delegate powers from the Federal Government to a higher body.

 

[Kludge]

Bump. Less then a week left >.>

 

[Godbag]

I dont really consider any of these men as presidents... more like puppets... which puppet do i think was most easily controlled... probably Wilson... although he showed some regret later on for passing the federal reserve act(a c#@* with a concsience)... i think a better question would be which INDIVIDUAL has done the most harm to the USA?.. has to be a banker...

 

[american.swan]

I'll say FDR because I think some of Abe Lincoln's problems are taken out of context. There was a lot of conflict he had to work through and I don't buy all the propaganda. Even in US history books what Abe said is cut short, taken out of context, and distorted.

Abe was personally against slavery. I think he felt his position didn't allow him to single handedly do anything about it.

I could be wrong but that's just want I get from what I read.