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

[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!!!!!!

[Derek]

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!!!!!!

They were right. To say that it's illegal to secede is pointless because once you've done it and set your own rules, then it's no longer legal. Whose side is right at that point? It's too bad we're not taught that in school anymore.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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!!!!!!

They were right. To say that it's illegal to secede is pointless because once you've done it and set your own rules, then it's no longer legal. Whose side is right at that point? It's too bad we're not taught that in school anymore.

You say that so often, it only gets more ridiculous the more you say it. Its also insulting and patronizing to those who disagree with you.

If cpeeks is right, and if the so called "scholars" he mentions are right, and yes I acknowledge they exist but I disagree with them and most are Lost Cause mongers, or CSA justifiers of varying degrees, then this union and the states themselves, and the counties within them would have fell apart and separated. The founders intent was to create a republic that wouldn't collapse like the Roman Republic and all previous republics. With this intent in mind to a create a long lasting republic, it would seem contradictory to let the country fly apart over a partisan political issue. That combined with the lack of direction mention of a secession, and the ability to amend the consitution lead me to beleive that there intent was not to give the individual parts of the whole the ability to break that whole by majoritarian fiat in that state (The secession vote was close in even the deep south, they don't teach that in school either. ).

However there is the right to rebel against the gov't, provided that gov't failed to protect or recognize the consitutional rights of a minority (in this case the South). Yet you can't produce a single violation in the lead up to the War that deprived the South of its rights. Indeed the only people denying the protections of the Constitution to a minority, were the very people claiming the right to secede, the secessionists (a thin majority in all but a few Southern states where the margin was larger).

Hence it ties back to the defence of Lincoln. Even if there were a right to secession, the justification would have to arise to a violation of the South's consitutional rights, no such violation occured. A President, in this case Lincoln, was elected without any Southern votes (a few were cast in some southern states but not many as the GOP wasn't even on the ballot in most states) on a platform to halt the expansion of slavery into the territories. This is an election and a political issue, losing neither of which threatened the constitutional rights of the South, yet the south still claimed the right to secede. If such power were granted in the Constitution, I highly doubt the founders would have intended for it to occur over such trivial grounds with such thin majorities in most cases. In the course of the war both Lincoln and Davis exceeded their authority. The South even foresaw this and because of that, they didn't even establish a Supreme Court, essentially leaving Davis with dictatorial powers, who was to stop him from doing anything. Atleast, Lincoln used the Jackson precedent, "They have made their rulling, now let them enforce it". The South didn't even bother. I find it amusing that neo-Confederates berate Lincoln for trampling on the rights of South and the Constitution yet they never fault Davis and the CSA gov't which was a far more dangerous challenge to constitutionalism then Lincoln was. 

Derek, I would like for you to use some depth to refute these arguements, preferably in the Civil War thread so as to avoid giving Ernest the pain of having to move posts around, because so far all I see is you being a Yes man to cpeeks and then repeating that ridiculous line "They don't teach that in school any more". 

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[President Mitt]

Andrew Jackson, duh.

[Хahar 🤔]

Wilson [...] extremley-socialist economic polices

[President Mitt]

Wilson [...] extremley-socialist economic polices

It's especially odd, considering Conservapedia of all places wrote a mainly positive article about him.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Woodrow_Wilson

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Wilson [...] extremley-socialist economic polices

It's especially odd, considering Conservapedia of all places wrote a mainly positive article about him.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Woodrow_Wilson

Not so odd when you consider that George W. Bush was in most ways indistinguishable from a reincarnated Woodrow Wilson.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I'll just go with Dubya to be safe.  Jackson follows as a strong second though.

I wish Harrison didn't die.

[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.

[Ameriplan]

WTF is up with all the Jackson hating? My personal favorite president. I voted for FDR.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

WTF is up with all the Jackson hating? My personal favorite president. I voted for FDR.

Some people don't like Jackson for being emblematic of a lot of the less savory features of the American body politic of the era.  Others don't like him because he opposed South Carolina's effort to destroy the Federal Government via nullification.  Others don't like him because he engaged in a senseless feud with the Second Bank of the United States, which was a major contributing cause of the Panic of 1837, the first major financial reverse suffered in the United States that was not due to some external cause.  Still others don't like him because he founded the Democratic Party.  Jackson is a complex man with much to admire and despise and I doubt that there are few serious scholars of American history who do not hold a strong opinion, either good or bad about him.

[Derek]

WTF is up with all the Jackson hating? My personal favorite president. I voted for FDR.

Some people don't like Jackson for being emblematic of a lot of the less savory features of the American body politic of the era.  Others don't like him because he opposed South Carolina's effort to destroy the Federal Government via nullification.  Others don't like him because he engaged in a senseless feud with the Second Bank of the United States, which was a major contributing cause of the Panic of 1837, the first major financial reverse suffered in the United States that was not due to some external cause.  Still others don't like him because he founded the Democratic Party.  Jackson is a complex man with much to admire and despise and I doubt that there are few serious scholars of American history who do not hold a strong opinion, either good or bad about him.

Many people like him for those reasons too. The democrats he founded aren't the democrats of today.

[Ameriplan]

Wilson [...] extremley-socialist economic polices

It's especially odd, considering Conservapedia of all places wrote a mainly positive article about him.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Woodrow_Wilson

Not so odd when you consider that George W. Bush was in most ways indistinguishable from a reincarnated Woodrow Wilson.

Conservapedia is about as neocon as it gets and GWB and WW were about the epitome of neoconservatism.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Wilson [...] extremley-socialist economic polices

It's especially odd, considering Conservapedia of all places wrote a mainly positive article about him.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Woodrow_Wilson

I like how they attribute all criticism of him to the 'New Left' when it was the 'Old Right' that was actually fighting against Wilson and his policies in his time.

[Ameriplan]

From Conservapedia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL LOL.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

W. of course.

[memphis]

Old man Reagan for sure. Plenty of others were incompetant, but only Ronnie sold weapons to our enemies.

[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.

[Bo]

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.?

[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.

[Bo]

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.

lol if you think that the South right now is worse off than it was when slavery was still legal.

Lincoln helped pass the 13th Amendment, which ended slavery. If slavery was still around, the South would be much worse off right now.

[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

[Bo]

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

He helped push it thought Congress, which passed it while Lincoln was still alive.