Rank the US Presidents

#156
#156
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...

If keeping Texas was for the greater good of the country as a whole, then yes I would. If invading Texas was only done out of spite and vengeance, as you are portraying it, then no I wouldn’t. You can argue that he was a tyrant but his predecessors did little to answer the question of slavery and state’s rights until it became a powder keg under his watch. Once that happened he had two choices, let Union dissolve into two competing nations or fight to keep it together. History proves he was correct. As far as your argument that he overstepped his authority by imprisoning people unjustly, I won’t argue against it but he was far from the last only one to do so as President. Your miss placed vendetta against him is amusing. He was a very honorable man during a time when honor was in short supply. Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis were also very honorable men but history has forgotten that about Davis
 
#157
#157
landscapingvol said:
If keeping Texas was for the greater good of the country as a whole, then yes I would. If invading Texas was only done out of spite and vengeance, as you are portraying it, then no I wouldn’t. You can argue that he was a tyrant but his predecessors did little to answer the question of slavery and state’s rights until it became a powder keg under his watch. Once that happened he had two choices, let Union dissolve into two competing nations or fight to keep it together. History proves he was correct. As far as your argument that he overstepped his authority by imprisoning people unjustly, I won’t argue against it but he was far from the last only one to do so as President. Your miss placed vendetta against him is amusing. He was a very honorable man during a time when honor was in short supply. Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis were also very honorable men but history has forgotten that about Davis
Click to expand...

Lincoln did start the civil war out of spite and vengeance, he refused any suggestions of a peaceful path to reunification. When Lincoln decided to reinforce and resupply Ft Sumter only 7 states had seceded, none of the border states had. He had ample opportunity to reduce tensions and work towards a peaceful resolution. But he wanted war, he wanted the states to capitulate to his authority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#158
#158
hog88 said:
Lincoln did start the civil war out of spite and vengeance, he refused any suggestions of a peaceful path to reunification. When Lincoln decided to reinforce and resupply Ft Sumter only 7 states had seceded, none of the border states had. He had ample opportunity to reduce tensions and work towards a peaceful resolution. But he wanted war, he wanted the states to capitulate to his authority.
Click to expand...

Was there really a lasting peaceful resolution in the eyes of many both sections of the Union? You could argue war was inevitable. The way at which the war was fought especially the last year and a half was unnecessary but I don’t know how much of the actions of Sherman and Grant you can blame on Lincoln. Lincoln could have fired Grant but he risked his own political future and he would have been replaced with a much more radical President. The Confederate states had no say in the election of 1864. The war was for all intents and purposes over after Gettysburg but Lee refused to surrender gambling that the South could still somehow manage a form of victory
 
#159
#159
landscapingvol said:
Was there really a lasting peaceful resolution in the eyes of many both sections of the Union? You could argue war was inevitable. The way at which the war was fought especially the last year and a half was unnecessary but I don’t know how much of the actions of Sherman and Grant you can blame on Lincoln. Lincoln could have fired Grant but he risked his own political future and he would have been replaced with a much more radical President. The Confederate states had no say in the election of 1864. The war was for all intents and purposes over after Gettysburg but Lee refused to surrender gambling that the South could still somehow manage a form of victory
Click to expand...

Was there? Who knows for sure but I think there was, Lincoln never tried and that’s because he wanted an authoritarian central government. The war was a means to his end.

As for the prosecution of the war I can’t fault Grant, Sherman and Lincoln for doing what they needed to do to win. I’m a firm believer in once a nation is committed to war give your military a goal and turn them loose. But there is no excusing how Lincoln treated the people within the Union that dissented against his rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Godfatha
#162
#162
hog88 said:
Was there? Who knows for sure but I think there was, Lincoln never tried and that’s because he wanted an authoritarian central government. The war was a means to his end.

As for the prosecution of the war I can’t fault Grant, Sherman and Lincoln for doing what they needed to do to win. I’m a firm believer in once a nation is committed to war give your military a goal and turn them loose. But there is no excusing how Lincoln treated the people within the Union that dissented against his rule.
Click to expand...


Grant was a pretty good President up until the recession.

When Custer told the NY Times he found gold Grant prstty much made a horrible decision and avoided the peace treaty with the Indians.
 
#165
#165
Tastylicks said:
he died defending our nation against an attack

you want to have a day honoring a murderer who killed one of America's most beloved presidents.
Click to expand...

No he died later of a stroke. It’s true look it up.

Lincoln is beloved only due to brainwashing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO and AM64
#167
#167
landscapingvol said:
If keeping Texas was for the greater good of the country as a whole, then yes I would. If invading Texas was only done out of spite and vengeance, as you are portraying it, then no I wouldn’t. You can argue that he was a tyrant but his predecessors did little to answer the question of slavery and state’s rights until it became a powder keg under his watch. Once that happened he had two choices, let Union dissolve into two competing nations or fight to keep it together. History proves he was correct. As far as your argument that he overstepped his authority by imprisoning people unjustly, I won’t argue against it but he was far from the last only one to do so as President. Your miss placed vendetta against him is amusing. He was a very honorable man during a time when honor was in short supply. Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis were also very honorable men but history has forgotten that about Davis
Click to expand...
Has history really proven him correct? Not sure how we prove that since history is really just what what actually happened. We have no way of knowing how history unfolds if he lets the secession happen peacefully. Hundreds of thousands would not have died as the result of a bloody Civil War is the only thing we know for certain. Other than that, who knows how history unfolds if things were different?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#172
#172
Tastylicks said:
I have. Hoover is the worst of the group, no doubt. But none of them sucked nearly as badly as Trump, not even close
Click to expand...
iu
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO and AM64
#173
#173
USAFgolferVol said:
Liberal refers to an ideology. It's not a political party.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it does, but "lib" and "dem" are merging rapidly. Old fashioned dems are eventually have to take a stand - stay and fight or leave. Otherwise you lose all credibility and self esteem. I've seen far more conservative anti-Trump talk here than I have democratic anti-liberal pronouncements.
 
#174
#174
hog88 said:
You haven’t been able to refute anything, try bringing facts instead of girlish emotion.

Face it you have been brainwashed.
Click to expand...

That's the problem when "education" is controlled by people with an agenda, and the basis for an earlier comment I made. History is far too important to ignore in education, and it's far too important to trust to revisionists and people with an agenda. That leads to the quandary about whether to include history as a subject or exclude it because it can be false history. STEM concepts aren't as easily corrupted as those that require "political interpretation". It's actually hard to tell if English as taught in school can compete and win with cellphone language. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if education continues and possibly why in most cases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#175
#175
AM64 said:
That's the problem when "education" is controlled by people with an agenda, and the basis for an earlier comment I made. History is far too important to ignore in education, and it's far too important to trust to revisionists and people with an agenda. That leads to the quandary about whether to include history as a subject or exclude it because it can be false history. STEM concepts aren't as easily corrupted as those that require "political interpretation". It's actually hard to tell if English as taught in school can compete and win with cellphone language. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if education continues and possibly why in most cases.
Click to expand...
We're not taught history anymore. We're taught how to perceive history. Those are two very different things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO, Credo, VolStrom and 2 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top