Rank the US Presidents

#102
#102
landscapingvol said:
Abraham Lincoln wanted to keep the nation together at all costs, even IF that meant maintaining slavery. That doesn’t mean he supported it. The logic behind him being a terrible President is sheer lunacy. He kept the nation together during a time of great turmoil and was a decent human being. By contrast, James Madison was a political genius but just an OK President. The War of 1812 was a huge mistake and residing over the capitol being burned down isn’t a good look for anyone. Very few US Presidents have been great, Jefferson and Washington both had several flaws however they make most modern day Presidents look like bumbling idiots especially everyone post Reagan. Nixon gets overshadowed by Watergate but he was actually a pretty effective President, conversely Kennedy is deified but was very unremarkable other than narrowly avoiding WW3. The hate spewed towards Wilson and FDR from some on the right was unjustified. The notion that the US helped create the atmosphere which made WW2 inevitable is incorrect. The Treaty of Versailles and France’s insistence that Germany be punished created it not Wilson. He did not support punishing the German people and advocated for an international body to prevent future conflicts. Roosevelt steered the US through a very difficult war when many politicians wanted to remain neutral which was impossible. He brilliantly built up US military might. The US military was woefully unprepared for WW2 prior to his buildup.
Click to expand...
Being human means you have flaws, but George Washington is still the greatest POTUS ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and AM64
#103
#103
So for our members who think Lincoln was a great president and was justified in his actions would you support Biden invading Texas or any other state that peacefully seceded?

Would you support Biden suspending habeas corpus and jailing without trial his opponents, threatening to jail justices if they ruled against him?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#109
#109
Eisenhower is waaaay underrated and probably the last true republican President. He worked with Democrats to balance the budget and actually run a surplus for a couple of years.

He barely increased our debt despite his creation of the national interstate highway system.

This was an economic spark we're still benefiting from today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and BowlBrother85
#110
#110
hog88 said:
So for our members who think Lincoln was a great president and was justified in his actions would you support Biden invading Texas or any other state that peacefully seceded?

Would you support Biden suspending habeas corpus and jailing without trial his opponents, threatening to jail justices if they ruled against him?
Click to expand...
The first question "would you support Biden invading Texas?" is fundamentally flawed. By definition, you can't "invade" that which is (legally) a part of your own domain. It was more than Lincoln's right to do what was necessary to preserve the union, it was the oath of his office.

Abraham Lincoln justified the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus through Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, which specifies a suspension of the writ "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it". Those were extraordinary times after all.

Lincoln was a great president. I would place him second only to GW.
 
#111
#111
MurphyVol said:
Eisenhower is waaaay underrated and probably the last true republican President. He worked with Democrats to balance the budget and actually run a surplus for a couple of years.

He barely increased our debt despite his creation of the national interstate highway system.

This was an economic spark we're still benefiting from today.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Ike is definitely top 10.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USAFgolferVol
#113
#113
BowlBrother85 said:
The first question "would you support Biden invading Texas?" is fundamentally flawed. By definition, you can't "invade" that which is (legally) a part of your own domain. It was more than Lincoln's right to do what was necessary to preserve the union, it was the oath of his office.

Abraham Lincoln justified the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus through Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, which specifies a suspension of the writ "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it". Those were extraordinary times after all.

Lincoln was a great president. I would place him second only to GW.
Click to expand...

At the time SC seceded there was no amendment or SCOTUS ruling baring a state from leaving the union. Lincoln refused to use peaceful means to attempt a reunification, he intentionally provoked the FT Sumpter incident so he could justify a war. We are the United States of America not the Owned States of Washington DC or Subservient States of America. States voluntarily joined the union and at the time had every right to leave it. So I take it by your answer you would support the slaughter of Americans to prevent a state from leaving.

Lincolns excuse for suspending habeas corpus was incredibly weak, there was no rebellion in the union states there was dissent and disagreement which Lincoln crushed.

Lincoln was an abomination of a president and mentioning him in the same breath as Washington is an insult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, midnight orange and StarRaider
#114
#114
BowlBrother85 said:
The first question "would you support Biden invading Texas?" is fundamentally flawed. By definition, you can't "invade" that which is (legally) a part of your own domain. It was more than Lincoln's right to do what was necessary to preserve the union, it was the oath of his office.

Abraham Lincoln justified the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus through Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, which specifies a suspension of the writ "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it". Those were extraordinary times after all.

Lincoln was a great president. I would place him second only to GW.
Click to expand...
I’ll ask it a different way. Would you support president Trump decision to go to war if it was deemed it necessary to kill democratic Californians in order to keep them in the Union?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, AM64 and hog88
#117
#117
BowlBrother85 said:
The first question "would you support Biden invading Texas?" is fundamentally flawed. By definition, you can't "invade" that which is (legally) a part of your own domain. It was more than Lincoln's right to do what was necessary to preserve the union, it was the oath of his office.

Abraham Lincoln justified the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus through Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, which specifies a suspension of the writ "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it". Those were extraordinary times after all.

Lincoln was a great president. I would place him second only to GW.
Click to expand...
Legally a part of your domain? Texas joined the Union voluntarily. They are not owned. That's a ridiculous statement. In fact, when Texas seceded with the other southern states in 1861, they had only been a state for 16 years. And you speak as if Lincoln had the right to be a dictator. Aren't you a poster that complained Trump was "too authoritarian", yet here you are defending the authoritarianism of Lincoln. Which is especially ironic since he was a Republican. All that aside, if we're going to reference the Constitution, I would say the Tenth Amendment implies a state's right to secede. The federal government only has those powers implicitly expressed in the Constitution. Since secession is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, that power falls to the individual states. And as the citizens of each state voted to secede, it does not qualify as a "rebellion" which makes your point about Article I, Section 9 moot. The individual governments of each seceding state were in agreement to leave the Union. Not a rebellion.

The Founding Fathers did not plan on the all-powerful federal government we have today. That idea developed later in the country's history. The Constitution itself was written to empower the individual states. We had very little national identity. Identity was tied to your state. Even up to and including the Civil War, military regiments were denoted by the state they were from, not as United States forces.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel, AM64 and hog88
#118
#118
Rickyvol77 said:
I added him. Missed him the first time
Click to expand...

I recently read an article about Harding that made a strong case for him as one of our better presidents. It was surprising to me because he wasn't anywhere notable that I could recall. The article went on to basically say that it was a case of character assassination by school teachers over the years. I couldn't find it earlier; the closest is this ... in WaPo of all places - supporting a republican.

If we weren’t so obsessed with Warren G. Harding’s sex life, we’d realize he was a pretty good president
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#119
#119
Weezer said:
Legally a part of your domain? Texas joined the Union voluntarily. They are not owned. That's a ridiculous statement. In fact, when Texas seceded with the other southern states in 1861, they had only been a state for 16 years. And you speak as if Lincoln had the right to be a dictator. Aren't you a poster that complained Trump was "too authoritarian", yet here you are defending the authoritarianism of Lincoln. Which is especially ironic since he was a Republican. All that aside, if we're going to reference the Constitution, I would say the Tenth Amendment implies a state's right to secede. The federal government only has those powers implicitly expressed in the Constitution. Since secession is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, that power falls to the individual states. And as the citizens of each state voted to secede, it does not qualify as a "rebellion" which makes your point about Article I, Section 9 moot. The individual governments of each seceding state were in agreement to leave the Union. Not a rebellion.

The Founding Fathers did not plan on the all-powerful federal government we have today. That idea developed later in the country's history. The Constitution itself was written to empower the individual states. We had very little national identity. Identity was tied to your state. Even up to and including the Civil War, military regiments were denoted by the state they were from, not as United States forces.
Click to expand...
You are profoundly ignorant.

The current Supreme Court precedent, from the case of Texas v. White in 1869, holds that the states cannot secede from the union by an act of the state. In the Texas v. White (1869) case, the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession to be unconstitutional.

More recently, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede." ... but I guess your opinion carries more weight than that of a recent sitting Supreme Court Justice, doesn't it? LOL.
 
#120
#120
BowlBrother85 said:
You are profoundly ignorant.

The current Supreme Court precedent, from the case of Texas v. White in 1869, holds that the states cannot secede from the union by an act of the state. In the Texas v. White (1869) case, the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession to be unconstitutional.

More recently, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede." ... but I guess your opinion carries more weight than that of a recent sitting Supreme Court Justice, doesn't it? LOL.
Click to expand...

The civil war was over prior to the SCOTUS ruling so at the time SC and the other states seceded there was no precedent against it. So bringing up TX v White is immaterial to this argument.

Not to mention SCOTUS in 1869 was 100% wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and AM64
#121
#121
AM64 said:
I recently read an article about Harding that made a strong case for him as one of our better presidents. It was surprising to me because he wasn't anywhere notable that I could recall. The article went on to basically say that it was a case of character assassination by school teachers over the years. I couldn't find it earlier; the closest is this ... in WaPo of all places - supporting a republican.

If we weren’t so obsessed with Warren G. Harding’s sex life, we’d realize he was a pretty good president
Click to expand...
Gotta love the historical revisionism on here. Warren G. Harding was an ineffectual leader whose cronies in the administration plundered the United States Treasury. Let's put it in his own words though:

"I am not fit for this office and should never have been here." - President Warren G. Harding

Buchanan and Hoover were probably worse, but not much worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#122
#122
hog88 said:
The civil war was over prior to the SCOTUS ruling so at the time SC and the other states seceded there was no precedent against it. So bringing up TX v White is immaterial to this argument.

Not to mention SCOTUS in 1869 was 100% wrong.
Click to expand...
I was speaking to your "What if Biden invaded Texas?" hypothetical nonsense. And like I said to Weezer... I guess you know more than Justice Scalia, huh? LOL.
 
#123
#123
BowlBrother85 said:
You are profoundly ignorant.

The current Supreme Court precedent, from the case of Texas v. White in 1869, holds that the states cannot secede from the union by an act of the state. In the Texas v. White (1869) case, the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession to be unconstitutional.

More recently, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede." ... but I guess your opinion carries more weight than that of a recent sitting Supreme Court Justice, doesn't it? LOL.
Click to expand...
lmao You bring up a Supreme Court decision made in the aftermath of the Civil War, when federalism was running rampant, as proof? A decision that isn't really based on Constitutional law? And you call ME ignorant, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, AM64 and hog88
#124
#124
BowlBrother85 said:
I was speaking to your "What if Biden invaded Texas?" hypothetical nonsense. And like I said to Weezer... I guess you know more than Justice Scalia, huh? LOL.
Click to expand...
What I know is what the vision of the Founding Fathers has been perverted by a federal power grab over the course of our history, and our Supreme Court reflects that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top