Out of all the Presidents who were reelected, which one least deserved it?

[cpeeks]

Lincoln

[cpeeks]

Lincoln

Lincoln won the Civil War and abolsihed slavery. He deserved to get relected for that. It's a huge tragedy he was assainted, though. Our country would have been much better off right now if it wasn't for that.

Lincoln didnt abolish slavery the 13th amendment did. Lincoln destroyed the constitution and would not allow the south to legally succeed from the union, which it had every right to do.

[cpeeks]

Lincoln

Lincoln won the Civil War and abolsihed slavery. He deserved to get relected for that. It's a huge tragedy he was assainted, though. Our country would have been much better off right now if it wasn't for that.

Lincoln didnt abolish slavery the 13th amendment did. Lincoln destroyed the constitution and would not allow the south to legally succeed from the union, which it had every right to do.

That's true. You never learn the other side of the civil war because democrats don't want it in our text books. Just like they don't want you to know about the black founding fathers. Instead you're taught about America's racist history that is a figment of the left's imagination.

lol

No its not true. Lincoln saved the Constitution. As I already over in the Civil War thread. Secession was not legal or legitimate as there is no basis based on intepretations of the Constitution either now or back then that make it legal. The South was destroying the Constitution because it lost a political fight. Lincoln and the Republican party fought to preserve the Constitution and make sure that it applied to everyone regardless of who had 51% of the vote as it clearly evidenced in the Lincoln-Douglas debates where Douglas claims that a majority in any area, town, county, and state can deny the protections of the Constitution from the minority. Which is one of the reason's the party took the name Republican, was because it opposed majoritarian dictatorship. The south still had everyone of its constitutional protections in place in 1861, it lost a political debate and an election. This was not justification for secession and certainly not arising to the standards laid out by Jefferson in the Declaration for overthrowing the gov't once it no longer protects those constitutional rights.

The other statement about racisim is just ridiculous. You should read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the US". Though I disagree with the overall anti-US bias, it none-the-less illustrates where we went wrong and thus know how to avoid those mistakes.


The answer is Jackson without a doubt. The guy was a corrupt, egotistical, dictatorial, and irresponsible crook.   

I guess it just depends on which side of the arguement you believe. There have been countless constitutional scholars who have stated that succession was just as legal then as it is today. If you voluntarily join something, your have the right to voluntarily leave it. The south was right!!!!!!

[cpeeks]

Just because you disagree with the scholars on succession being legal no more makes you correct than the people who say it wasnt legal. I for the life of me cant understand why people do not believe that you cannot vountarily leave something that you voluntarily join. As far as the succession vote in the south being close, If I am not mistaken there were states where the ratification of the Constitution was close. Tell me where in the constitution it says that you cannot leave the Union? And this thread is about which U.S. president least deserved re-election not on Jefferson Davis administration. If you would like to create a thread on that I will be glad to discuss it with you. LOL and btw you have several yes men on the civil war thread.

[cpeeks]

Just because you disagree with the scholars on succession being legal no more makes you correct than the people who say it wasnt legal. I for the life of me cant understand why people do not believe that you cannot vountarily leave something that you voluntarily join. As far as the succession vote in the south being close, If I am not mistaken there were states where the ratification of the Constitution was close. Tell me where in the constitution it says that you cannot leave the Union? And this thread is about which U.S. president least deserved re-election not on Jefferson Davis administration. If you would like to create a thread on that I will be glad to discuss it with you. LOL and btw you have several yes men on the civil war thread.

Along with multiple in depth discussion posts. Nice try, lol.

Its not that simple as voluntarily join, and voluntarily leave. Its a legal interpretation. Who joined?, Who Left? What method? What were the reasons? Are all critical to not only discussing the legality of the said act but the justification for it.

The point is that you can't criticize Lincoln and not also mention the same things that occured down south. And then it becomes a question of was it a needed action in a crisis, in which there is no only justification but also potential legality to violating certain provisions of the Consitution. A war counts as a crisis and the Consitution gives the President "emergency powers" in such a crisis on American soil. The only reason I mentioned Davis was that it points out this very important circumstance existed when such actions were taken. I didn't realize I had to spell it out in detail. Again, nice try with the irrelevancy defense.

As I said, my goal was to argue that Lincoln was not the most undeserving of reelection, especially with Jackson as a choice. All the points I made, completely relevant to refuting claims about Lincoln.

Again I respectfully disagree with your opinion. The emergency powers act does not give a president dictatorial powers. And why is it not that simple, the south had a legal right to leave the union. And nice try again with your arguement of just because you say its true, its true. Again this forum is not about Jefferson Davis, and I believe the tyrannical Lincoln least deserved re-election.

[cpeeks]

I dont like Jackson for defying supreme court orders, and for threatening to send troops for passing the null and void, which was legal.

[cpeeks]

I dont like Jackson for defying supreme court orders, and for threatening to send troops for passing the null and void, which was legal.

Secession is not legal and never was. And cpeeks, do you honestly think Lincoln was worse than Bush Jr.?

Succession was legal and still is. Numerous constitutional scholars have said that. And for me what Lincoln did by not letting the south  go cost 600,000 lives and to this day has kept the south  down. So in that aspect the destruction he caused was far worse than Bush Jr.

[cpeeks]

Where did I ever mention anything about slavery? And no Lincoln did not do anything to pass the 13th amendment, he had been dead 8 months after it was passed

[cpeeks]

My bad your correct it was ratified after he died.

[cpeeks]

Definitely George W. Bush -had it not been for 9/11, he would have been another one-term president, like his father. 

Whatever as bad as I hate him Dubya would have cruised to re-election without  9/11. 9/11 led to Iraq which almost brought him down.

[cpeeks]

Going by the times that the presidents were reelected I don't think it's fair to place Bush as the least deserving of it. He was still somewhat popular at the time. I would have to go with Wilson, Truman, or Johnson.

Ya real popular. He was the only president in U.S. history who was re-elected when his popularity was below 50%.

[cpeeks]

Going by the times that the presidents were reelected I don't think it's fair to place Bush as the least deserving of it. He was still somewhat popular at the time. I would have to go with Wilson, Truman, or Johnson.

Ya real popular. He was the only president in U.S. history who was re-elected when his popularity was below 50%.

Just because a President was popular doesn't mean he should have deserved being reelected if his most of his policies/actions were bad. Truman wasn't reelected--he was elected once in 1948 (when his approvals were about the same as Bush Jr.'s in 2004). LBJ wasn't reelected either--he was elected once in 1964, when he had very high approval ratings. There were no polls when Wilson was President, and thus it's impossible to know exactly what his approvals were. However, judging by his margin of victory in 1916, Wilson's approval ratings were probably about the same as Bush Jr.'s were in 2004. And Bush Jr.'s disapproval ratings were higher than any other President's were.

I agree with that statement.

[cpeeks]

His approval ratings election night was in the mid 40's, and ironically I believe I seen that on fox news that no president had ever been re-elected with approval ratings below 50%. I mean if his approval ratings were 53% the race wouldnt have been as close as it was, against one of the worst candidates in history. And as far Truman goes he was never "re-elected", only elected in 1948, his re-election would have taken place in 1952.

[cpeeks]

FDR was not a socialist. He preserved a free-market economy.

While FDR was no socialist, he certainly wasn't pro free-market either.  Judging by the NRA and the AAA of the New Deal, I'd call him a corporatist.

How on earth could you say he wasnt a socialist, the social security act, tva, ccc, was nothing but socialism.

[cpeeks]

Nope not really, not at all splitting hairs Truman was only elected, its pretty cut and dried, what i wrote was HE WAS THE ONLY PRESIDENT RE-ELECTED WHOSE POPULARITY WAS BELOW 50%, Truman was not re-elected, only elected, but I am sure if he was a repub you would be yelling the opposite as you always do.

[cpeeks]

Dude I have tried several times to explain that to him.