Opinion of Franklin Pierce

[TDAS04]

HP.  One of the worst presidents ever.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

At least the 2nd-worst.

[Rooney]

An excellent president.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

An excellent president.

He supported the Confederacy.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Well intentioned, though utterly incompetent.  One of our five worst Presidents, easily.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Definitely not as bad as his successor, and I recall actually reading some things I liked (think railroads) in my APUSH book.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

An excellent president.

He supported the Confederacy.

Libertarians aren't real people. Just walk on by.

[TDAS04]

An excellent president.

He supported the Confederacy.

Exactly.  Pierce was truly a rebel-appeasing Yankee, if not worse, if you take a look at his policies.

[SPC]

The Ostend Manifesto, Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Gadsden Purchase lower my opinion of him, although by modern standards he was fairly decent.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The Ostend Manifesto, Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Gadsden Purchase lower my opinion of him, although by modern standards he was fairly decent.

See my above post. Modern standards indeed.

[TDAS04]

An excellent president.

He supported the Confederacy.

Exactly.  Pierce was truly a rebel-appeasing Yankee, if not worse, if you take a look at his policies.

"Rebel-appeasing Yankee" was quite a gentle understatement on my part.  By actually supporting the Confederacy, Franklin Pierce was nothing less than a traitor.

[Rooney]

President Pierce delivered one of the most eloquent veto addresses in the history of the American Presidency. He vetoed the Land-Grant Bill For Indigent Insane Persons on May 3, 1854, by stating that even though a piece of legislation may be popular that does not make it Constitutional. "I have been compelled to resist the deep sympathies of my own heart in favor of the humane purpose sought to be accomplished," Pierce wrote as he argued that the bill violated section eight of Article I of the United States Constitution. The very idea that a president would veto a popular bill because it was unconstitutional makes me have a high opinion of President Pierce.

He also vetoed such unconstitutional waste as a bill that would benefit only the Des Moines River Valley, the St. Clair Flats and the port of Baltimore. In vetoing popular legislation Pierce upheld classically liberal traditions of local support but alienated his own Democratic base leading to his defeat at the hands of good old boy James Buchanan who would usher in four years of utter corruption and waste in the federal government. Pierce was an excellent president.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

President Pierce delivered one of the most eloquent veto addresses in the history of the American Presidency. He vetoed the Land-Grant Bill For Indigent Insane Persons on May 3, 1854, by stating that even though a piece of legislation may be popular that does not make it Constitutional. "I have been compelled to resist the deep sympathies of my own heart in favor of the humane purpose sought to be accomplished," Pierce wrote as he argued that the bill violated section eight of Article I of the United States Constitution. The very idea that a president would veto a popular bill because it was unconstitutional makes me have a high opinion of President Pierce.

He also vetoed such unconstitutional waste as a bill that would benefit only the Des Moines River Valley, the St. Clair Flats and the port of Baltimore. In vetoing popular legislation Pierce upheld classically liberal traditions of local support but alienated his own Democratic base leading to his defeat at the hands of good old boy James Buchanan who would usher in four years of utter corruption and waste in the federal government. Pierce was an excellent president.

He supported the Confederacy. It's impossible to be even an average president if you actively support people who are rebelling against the government because they want to have the right to own other people. Do you disagree with this?

[TNF]

President Pierce delivered one of the most eloquent veto addresses in the history of the American Presidency. He vetoed the Land-Grant Bill For Indigent Insane Persons on May 3, 1854, by stating that even though a piece of legislation may be popular that does not make it Constitutional. "I have been compelled to resist the deep sympathies of my own heart in favor of the humane purpose sought to be accomplished," Pierce wrote as he argued that the bill violated section eight of Article I of the United States Constitution. The very idea that a president would veto a popular bill because it was unconstitutional makes me have a high opinion of President Pierce.

He also vetoed such unconstitutional waste as a bill that would benefit only the Des Moines River Valley, the St. Clair Flats and the port of Baltimore. In vetoing popular legislation Pierce upheld classically liberal traditions of local support but alienated his own Democratic base leading to his defeat at the hands of good old boy James Buchanan who would usher in four years of utter corruption and waste in the federal government. Pierce was an excellent president.

He supported the Confederacy. It's impossible to be even an average president if you actively support people who are rebelling against the government because they want to have the right to own other people. Do you disagree with this?

Al, don't waste your breath. Rooney is a libertarian. This is an ideology that finds supporting the Confederacy quite alright because as we all know, Abraham Lincoln was a Marxist dictator, or something.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

An excellent president.

He supported the Confederacy.

Libertarians aren't real people. Just walk on by.

No need for such generalization. There are libertarians, without throwing names, who agrees Franklin Pierce was a failtard.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

President Pierce delivered one of the most eloquent veto addresses in the history of the American Presidency. He vetoed the Land-Grant Bill For Indigent Insane Persons on May 3, 1854, by stating that even though a piece of legislation may be popular that does not make it Constitutional. "I have been compelled to resist the deep sympathies of my own heart in favor of the humane purpose sought to be accomplished," Pierce wrote as he argued that the bill violated section eight of Article I of the United States Constitution. The very idea that a president would veto a popular bill because it was unconstitutional makes me have a high opinion of President Pierce.

He also vetoed such unconstitutional waste as a bill that would benefit only the Des Moines River Valley, the St. Clair Flats and the port of Baltimore. In vetoing popular legislation Pierce upheld classically liberal traditions of local support but alienated his own Democratic base leading to his defeat at the hands of good old boy James Buchanan who would usher in four years of utter corruption and waste in the federal government. Pierce was an excellent president.

He supported the Confederacy. It's impossible to be even an average president if you actively support people who are rebelling against the government because they want to have the right to own other people. Do you disagree with this?

Al, don't waste your breath. Rooney is a libertarian. This is an ideology that finds supporting the Confederacy quite alright because as we all know, Abraham Lincoln was a Marxist dictator, or something.

No need for such generalization. I can show you Libertarians on this very site that called Pierce a failtard.

[SPC]

It's impossible to be even an average president if you actively support people who are rebelling against the government because they want to have the right to own other people. Do you disagree with this?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

It's impossible to be even an average president if you actively support people who are rebelling against the government because they want to have the right to own other people. Do you disagree with this?

Their rebellion wasn't fought purely on the basis of owning people.

[SPC]

It's impossible to be even an average president if you actively support people who are rebelling against the government because they want to have the right to own other people. Do you disagree with this?

Their rebellion wasn't fought purely on the basis of owning people.

Neither was the Confederacy's.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

It's impossible to be even an average president if you actively support people who are rebelling against the government because they want to have the right to own other people. Do you disagree with this?

Their rebellion wasn't fought purely on the basis of owning people.

Neither was the Confederacy's.

Uh, yeah it was. And don't give me that states' rights crap. The "states' rights" in question were the rights of the states to legalize owning people.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's impossible to be even an average president if you actively support people who are rebelling against the government because they want to have the right to own other people. Do you disagree with this?

Their rebellion wasn't fought purely on the basis of owning people.

Neither was the Confederacy's.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

It's impossible to be even an average president if you actively support people who are rebelling against the government because they want to have the right to own other people. Do you disagree with this?

Their rebellion wasn't fought purely on the basis of owning people.

Neither was the Confederacy's.

Uh, yeah it was. And don't give me that states' rights crap. The "states' rights" in question were the rights of the states to legalize owning people.

It was; but you also forget tarriffs, the Northern state's attempt to completely take over the Southern cotton trade with other nations, and the fact that 99% of the farmers in the South did not own slaves. Please learn some history and stop attempting to tie the Libertarian movement into slavery, something Libertarians obviously oppose. The South is not completely synonymous with slavery, and it is only thanks to the upper 1% in the South that slavery even continued.

[SPC]

It's impossible to be even an average president if you actively support people who are rebelling against the government because they want to have the right to own other people. Do you disagree with this?

Their rebellion wasn't fought purely on the basis of owning people.

Neither was the Confederacy's.

Uh, yeah it was. And don't give me that states' rights crap. The "states' rights" in question were the rights of the states to legalize owning people.

Key here is your use of "purely." I wouldn't deny that it was a contributing factor, but considering that 4 of the 11 states seceded after Lincoln promised not to interfere with Southern slavery, simplistically saying that slavery was the sole reason for secession is intellectually dishonest.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That 99% figure is bullsh*t. It was more like 70% or so. Also, as should be obvious to anyone, even non-slaveowners had indirect interests (as well as emotional attachment, so to speak) in slavery.

Also yeah, sure, 11 States decided to secede because they were pissed off at tariffs.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

That 99% figure is bullsh*t. It was more like 70% or so. Also, as should be obvious to anyone, even non-slaveowners had indirect interests (as well as emotional attachment, so to speak) in slavery.

Also yeah, sure, 11 States decided to secede because they were pissed off at tariffs.

30% of the populace had the money to own a slave? Maybe 99% is bullsh**t, but it can't be any lower then 95% at least. And yes, tarriffs happened to be a major political issue back then. Did John Calhoun almost break up the union in the 1830's over slavery? Or was it tarriffs? A 6th grade level history textbook will have the answer.