Which US PResidents were Horrid?: Part II

[MrFun]

No, there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly stated that a president has those powers, you mentioned, Ramo.

But if we want to see the Constitution as something static, rather than a dynamic document, then in that viewpoint, Lincoln could not have reasonably practiced the dire emergency powers he used.

But since the Constitution is a dynamic document . . . . . .

[David Floyd]

But if we want to see the Constitution as something static, rather than a dynamic document, then in that viewpoint, Lincoln could not have reasonably practiced the dire emergency powers he used.

That's entirely the point - he couldn't do what he did without an Amendment.

[MrFun]

Have you ever heard of a national emergency??

Secession, then the creation of the Confederacy, and then the War of Southern Stupidity threatened the existence of the United States.

[David Floyd]

Have you ever heard of a national emergency??

I don't recall the Constitution being subject to arbitrarily declared (or even legitimate) national emergencies.

[MrFun]

How many times does the argument over Lincoln's presidency comes up here on Apolyton anway??

Every other week??

I need to get to bed -- I'm not sure what biological clocks you Rebels have.

[Ramo]

No, there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly stated that a president has those powers, you mentioned, Ramo.

More to the point, there's nothing in the Constitution that explictly or implicitly states that Congress (which is responsible for making laws, not the President) had any of the powers I mentioned.

But if we want to see the Constitution as something static, rather than a dynamic document,

Static, my arse. Ever hear of these things called Amendments?

What do you think is the purpose of the Constitution? If the President or Congress can make arbitrary changes to the Constitution simply by calling it "dynamic," it no longer means anything.

That's not to say that usurping the Constitution is necessarily unjustified (although it was unjustifed every time Lincoln did so), but it always is, by definition, unconstitutional.

[orange]

poor Millard Filmore Bad President, but you can't help but feel sorry for him all things considered.

I'm surprised Wilson has so many votes. Just because the man was a racist doesn't mean that he was a bad president. I don't believe he did anything to enflame race relations, or do anything against blacks.

[MrFun]

a double-post

[MrFun]

Originally posted by orange
poor Millard Filmore Bad President, but you can't help but feel sorry for him all things considered.

I'm surprised Wilson has so many votes. Just because the man was a racist doesn't mean that he was a bad president. I don't believe he did anything to enflame race relations, or do anything against blacks.

At the convention of the League of Nations after World War I, Wilson was one of the people who refused to discuss the treatment of race minorities in countries such as United States. Africans, and African-Americans had to set up a separate convention in Paris for that purpose.

He also refused to consider passing a federal anti-lynching law in the United States, and set up segregation in the public facilities of Washington DC.

He also implied that he supported the Ku Klux Klan by praising the movie, "Birth of a Nation" as something that was all too true.

[orange]

Does that make him a bad president though?

[Ramo]

Does that make him a bad president though?

If that doesn't, the Espionage Act, WWI, the draft, his imperialism in Haiti, the Domincan Republic, Nicaragua, and Mexico certainly do.

[loinburger]

I'm surprised to see Nixon and Harding absent from the poll.

[loinburger]

Regarding Lincoln, I'm going to throw my hat in the same ring as Floyd and Ramo--Lincoln violated the Constitution, hands down, no questions asked.

MrFun, you might have an inkling of a chance in arguing that Lincoln was justified in violating the constitution (although in nearly all instances I believe that he was not), but there is no possible way that you could reasonably argue that Lincoln did not violate the Constition.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Add another voice that Lincoln violated the constitution. And yes, some say he was justified in doing so... though I believe suspending habeus corpus can never really be justified.

[MrFun]

You know what?? Yes, Lincoln did violate the Constitution, but he was definitely justified in doing so.

What president would not have a compelling interest in preserving their own country??

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
What president would not have a compelling interest in preserving their own country??

If a nation, particularly a republic, does not have the best interests of its citizens as its top priority, then that nation's existence can no longer be justified. Of course Lincoln would like to keep his power, but that doesn't necessarily justify his actions.

[MrFun]

Explain to African-Americans today, how it would have been better and the right thing to do, to let the Confederacy exist.

While you're at it, explain to the Jews today, how it would have been better and the right thing to do, to let Nazi Germany exist.

The majority have spoken in the United States by electing Lincoln as president -- Southern politicians could not accept the functioning of a legitimate majoritarian government.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Explain to African-Americans today, how it would have been better and the right thing to do, to let the Confederacy exist.

The war wasn't fought to free the slaves, so you can get off of your high horse now. Freeing the slaves was an unexpected (not even a particularly welcome) side effect of the war.

While you're at it, explain to the Jews today, how it would have been better and the right thing to do, to let Nazi Germany exist.

You can put your strawman away while you're at it.

The majority have spoken in the United States by electing Lincoln as president -- Southern politicians could not accept the functioning of a legitimate majoritarian government.

Lincoln didn't even have a majority of the popular vote.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by loinburger

The war wasn't fought to free the slaves, so you can get off of your high horse now. Freeing the slaves was an unexpected (not even a particularly welcome) side effect of the war.

You can put your strawman away while you're at it.

Lincoln didn't even have a majority of the popular vote.

What I'm saying with slavery, is that had we let the Confederacy exist, who knows how much longer slavery would have existed. The Confederacy was based on white supremacy ideology to a more extreme than the Union was before the Civil War.

How can you say that Lincoln did not receive the majority of the popular vote??

By the way -- slavery was a central issue to westward expansion before the Civil War, and was the central issue during the Civil War.

[Ramo]

Explain to African-Americans today, how it would have been better and the right thing to do, to let the Confederacy exist.

Due to internal economic pressures, namely the lack of labor fluidity and recent foreign competition (India and Egypt) against the South's primary cash crop, cotton, the South would've eventually passed some form of abolition. Furthermore, without Yankee tariffs (in particular, the McKinley Tariff of 1890), the South wouldn't have been thrust into a depression in the 1890's, and blacks wouldn't have suffered under Jim Crow laws. Also, due to the lack of Yankee tariffs, poor black farmers would've been in much better economic conditions.

Yes, Lincoln did violate the Constitution, but he was definitely justified in doing so.

I'd be interested in hearing your justifications.

How can you say that Lincoln did not receive the majority of the popular vote??

He probably is more educated in the subject than you are.
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/vshadow.../election.html

By the way -- slavery was a central issue to westward expansion before the Civil War, and was the central issue during the Civil War.

Tariffs were the central issue to the Civil War, not slavery. Tariffs, not abolition, were what Lincoln was campaigning on. Much higher tariff duties, not abolition, were in danger of passing Congress. Tariffs, not abolition, was what the federal gov't had authority to pass.

[mactbone]

Due to internal economic pressures, namely the lack of labor fluidity and recent foreign competition (India and Egypt) against the South's primary cash crop, cotton, the South would've eventually passed some form of abolition. Furthermore, without Yankee tariffs (in particular, the McKinley Tariff of 1890), the South wouldn't have been thrust into a depression in the 1890's, and blacks wouldn't have suffered under Jim Crow laws. Also, due to the lack of Yankee tariffs, poor black farmers would've been in much better economic conditions.

Well, if the cash crops weren't making enough money for slavery to be profitable, what makes you say that they would be better off?

Without the industrial capacity the South would've been piss poor. Then there's the CSA which most probably would've started taxing like crazy to keep the government afloat, because that's what usually happens when a power base starts to disappear. Instead of a temporary depression, it would've lasted a lot longer, especially if the Northern businesses didn't try to establish a presence in the South.

Remeber, speculation can lead to a lot of places...

[Ramo]

Well, if the cash crops weren't making enough money for slavery to be profitable, what makes you say that they would be better off?

There wouldn't be any slavery.

Without the industrial capacity the South would've been piss poor.

It didn't have any significant industrial capacity until relatively recently. What's your point?

Without Yankee tariffs, the South would've been a hell of a lot richer than it was in our timeline.

Then there's the CSA which most probably would've started taxing like crazy to keep the government afloat,

What would it have to keep afloat? The central gov't was a Confederacy.

because that's what usually happens when a power base starts to disappear.

Power base starts to disappear? What?

Instead of a temporary depression,

Why would there be a "temporary depression?"

it would've lasted a lot longer, especially if the Northern businesses didn't try to establish a presence in the South.

What are you talking about?

[mactbone]

Did you not just say at the very end that a black farmer would be better off without the war, and specifically said "poor", implying that the economic situation would be better off under the CSA?

Look, there was a government, which had beuracrats, which desire money, it was called the CSA and even had a President. They would see the depression (caused by no slavery, etc.), and try to halt the collapse of their government by gaining more power, i.e. money, taxes.

The South would not have recieved any aid from the North and I would think that businesses in the North would shy away from building factorys etc. in the South, thereby causing their industrialization process to last even longer.

You said that there was a depression in the 1890s, one that did end. I sat it would not have ended, and eventually it would have driven the CSA into the ground.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Look, there was a government, which had beuracrats, which desire money, it was called the CSA and even had a President. They would see the depression (caused by no slavery, etc.), and try to halt the collapse of their government by gaining more power, i.e. money, taxes.

The parallel between the USA and CSA doesn't work. The CSA was a confederacy; the central government had very little power, and the State governments would have done everything within their power (which was considerable) to keep it that way. The structure of the CSA would not have allowed for a Lincolnesque dictator to take over and tax the hell out of the populace.

The South would not have recieved any aid from the North and I would think that businesses in the North would shy away from building factorys etc. in the South, thereby causing their industrialization process to last even longer.

It's amazing how close this hypothetical situation is to the reality of what really happened.

[mactbone]

What do you call reconstruction? Or that the Southern states got just as much federal funding as northern?

If the South was not part of the Union, where exactly are they going to get the money? Crops? Ramo seems to think, and I agree, that the South would not be making very much money off of that. So, where exactly does the money come from?

[Ramo]

Did you not just say at the very end that a black farmer would be better off without the war, and specifically said "poor",

And rich as well (except that there were not enough rich black farmers in the South to be statistically signficant). It wasn't an extraneous word. Ignore it.

implying that the economic situation would be better off under the CSA?

Yes...

Look, there was a government, which had beuracrats, which desire money, it was called the CSA and even had a President.

Again, it was a Confederacy. The central gov't was much, much smaller than the Union's.

They would see the depression (caused by no slavery, etc.)

Why? Slavery was economcally hurtful. Why would the lack of it cause a depression?

and try to halt the collapse of their government by gaining more power, i.e. money, taxes.

Don't you think that would piss the people off even more and accelerate the collapse?

The South would not have recieved any aid from the North

When did the South recieve aid from the North? It was actually the South subsidizing the rich Northern industrialists in actual history.

and I would think that businesses in the North would shy away from building factorys etc. in the South, thereby causing their industrialization process to last even longer.

When did the North build lots of factories in the South?

You said that there was a depression in the 1890s, one that did end. I sat it would not have ended, and eventually it would have driven the CSA into the ground.

I'm saying that the depression wouldn't have happened in the first place!

BTW, why didn't the Southern state gov'ts all collapse due to the depression in our history?

[Ramo]

If the South was not part of the Union, where exactly are they going to get the money? Crops?

Yep. That's where it got money in actual history.

Ramo seems to think, and I agree, that the South would not be making very much money off of that.

The Southern people would be making more money than if they were under Yankee rule.

So, where exactly does the money come from?

Money for what? Are you referring to the gov't or the people? If the former, from taxes, same place they did so in our history. If the latter, crops, also the same place they did so in our history.

[Ramo]

What do you call reconstruction? Or that the Southern states got just as much federal funding as northern?

Reconstruction wouldn't have been needed in the first place had the South been able to peacably leave.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Besides Coolidge, who was OK? No.
.

"And Coolidge created the great Depression" along with hoover and harding, I don't deny that. but his irresponsible economics caused it. And kept the US out of the league of nations (although I think you'd support that)

[MrFun]

Slavery would not have been abolished under the Confederacy.

Before the Civil War, the Southern states wanted to aggressively expand the institution of slavery in the western territories, Nicragua, Cuba, and Mexico.

This is the reason why slavery was the central issue, rather than tariffs. Southern politicians were confusing Republicans with the ideology of extreme abolitionists, and decided that secession would be the best way to preserve slavery.

The Confederacy was created with the purpose of preserving slavery, which was the basis of the South's agricultural economy.