Metro Jacksonville

Here's my top 4:
George Washington
Calvin Coolidge
Grover Cleveland
Thomas Jefferson

Al Sharpton  ;D

OCKLAWAHA

Abraham Lincoln, cause he only cared about keeping the Union together.
William Henry Harrison, Indian fighter.
Andrew Jackson, whom we have to thank for our named city.
US Grant, who despite losing his family's wealth before FDIC when an partner stole 3 million from his firm, he had the conviction to write his memoirs and refill the family coffers shortly before his death.
Harding, because he knew what it was like to live through a depression.
Slick Willie, cause I could trust him with a job, just not your daughter.

None, because they were all imperialist hotheads with one thing in mind: American expansion and domination. All of them said one thing, and did another. There are a few "lesser of all evils" I guess, if forced, I'd say were my favorite...Lincoln, probably.

Oh, and, for a more detailed reason why I have little good to say about any President, check out Howard Zinn's book on American history, from 1492 to Present. It's actually a quick read.

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-P-S/dp/0061965588/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329765958&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-P-S/dp/0061965588/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329765958&sr=8-1)

On another note...

The Ten Richest U.S. Presidents: http://247wallst.com/2012/02/17/the-ten-richest-u-s-presidents/2/ (http://247wallst.com/2012/02/17/the-ten-richest-u-s-presidents/2/)

The Ten Poorest U.S. Presidents: http://247wallst.com/2010/05/25/americas-poorest-presidents-bankruptcy-insolvency-and-extreme-financial-hardship/ (http://247wallst.com/2010/05/25/americas-poorest-presidents-bankruptcy-insolvency-and-extreme-financial-hardship/)

None.

Thomas Jefferson.

Lincoln, because he was our greatest president by any measure.

Teddy Roosevelt, because I find him entertaining to read about.

Grover Cleveland, because few people pick Grover Cleveland, but he's really very interesting.

Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon...If not for these guys & the vietnam war I probably wouldnt be here or id be someone else.

I'm impressed with my childhood understanding of Washington. In that, he started a tradition for presidents to step down after two terms. I'm sure there is a sad story out there that Washington wanted to stay in power but because of his love for young animals he was forced to retire or face public humiliation...

Howard Zinn said  "...to think that history-writing must aim simply to recapitulate the failures that dominate the past is to make historians collaborators in an endless cycle of defeat. If history is to be creative, to anticipate a possible future without denying the past, it should, I believe, emphasize new possibilities by disclosing those hidden episodes of the past when, even if in brief flashes, people showed their best ability to resist, to join together, occasionally to win. I am supposing, or perhaps only hoping that our future may be found in the past's fugitive moments of compassion rather than its solid centuries of warfare."

Lincoln


Ben, William Henry Harrison was sick in bed his entire term, how much harm could HE have done?

BTW, PBS debuts it's American Experience biography of Bill Clinton tonight at 9:00.  May air at different times, in some areas.

Quote from: vicupstate on February 20, 2012, 07:15:15 PM
Lincoln


Ben, William Henry Harrison was sick in bed his entire term, how much harm could HE have done?

BTW, PBS debuts it's American Experience biography of Bill Clinton tonight at 9:00.  May air at different times, in some areas.

Guess PBS is about to air their first 'adults only' segment?

Eisenhower.

Washington

I'm always amazed at the number of people that immediately think of Lincoln. Lincoln is probably the most 'mythical' or 'fabricated,' leader any country has ever had. Our history of Lincoln is mostly created from legend, not the facts. Anyone who has read 'Lincoln's Little War, or 'The Real Lincoln, or ''The South Was Right,' or skimmed through the massive, 'Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, would have radically different view. In other words there is the Lincoln of legend and grade school history, and there is a real Lincoln, a much darker figure.

Here's one reason to not like Lincoln if you like individual liberty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States)

QuotePresidential suspension of habeas corpus

On April 27, 1861, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln in Maryland during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincoln chose to suspend the writ over a proposal to bombard Baltimore, favored by his General-in-Chief Winfield Scott.[9] Lincoln was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads," or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. Congress was not yet in session to consider a suspension of the writs.

His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman.[10] Lincoln ignored Taney's order.

When Congress convened in July 1861, a joint resolution was introduced into the Senate approving of the president's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, but filibustering by Senate Democrats and opposition to its imprecise wording by Sen. Lyman Trumbull prevented a vote on the resolution before the end of the first session, and the resolution was not taken up again.[11] Sen. Trumbull himself introduced a bill to suspend habeas corpus, but could not get a vote before the end of the first session.[12]

On February 14, 1862, Lincoln ordered most prisoners released,[13] putting an end to court challenges for the time being. He again suspended habeas corpus on his own authority in September that same year, however, in response to resistance to his calling up of the militia

Here's Lincoln's executive order to arrest and imprison journalists:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=70018#axzz1n1xqGx5N (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=70018#axzz1n1xqGx5N)

^All popular figures from history are "mythicized" to an extent, and many people overlook their flaws. As one example, Lincoln had a pretty lackluster Indian policy throughout his term.

What impresses me about Lincoln is what he was up against. Despite failings on race, for really the first time in our history we had someone in the White House who was a dedicated foe of slavery, though he clearly preferred to kill it more slowly by restricting its expansion into the territories. But when it came to war, he never lost sight of preserving the union, which is a lot of the reason we still have one today.

Some people (white Southerners, by and large) criticize Lincoln for his suspension of habeas corpus and use of military courts, but that overlooks the the Confederacy, in addition to being founded explicitly to preserve slavery for black Southerners, imposed restrictions on even white Southerners that were as bad or worse than the restrictions imposed in the Union.

cf. Mark Neely's excellent The Fate of Liberty and Southern Rights, and Eric Foner's indispensable The Story of American Freedom.

 :D

While waiting for Ock... grabs a beer and popcorn... 8)

Where in the Constitution does it grant the President the power to wage war to prevent states from seceding?  Yes slavery is an abomination and needed to be ended.  Could that have happened without sacrificing so much of the power of states to govern themselves?  Are war protests acts of treason?

Newt Gingrich

Quote from: David on February 21, 2012, 12:26:00 PM
Newt Gingrich

Nah I still say Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson  ;D

Quote from: urbanlibertarian on February 21, 2012, 11:54:45 AM
Where in the Constitution does it grant the President the power to wage war to prevent states from seceding?  Yes slavery is an abomination and needed to be ended.  Could that have happened without sacrificing so much of the power of states to govern themselves?  Are war protests acts of treason?

Well, the argument was that the secession was not legitimate, but was rather a rebellion within the United States. By this argument, the adoption of the US Constitution meant the formation of a new country, not a league or confederation of sovereign states... while the states had rights within the federal government, they did not have the right to separate from the government or seize federal property, nor was the CSA ever recognized by any country. Under Article 2 of the constitution the president does have the authority to head the military - as well as all the state militias.

For what it's worth, Lincoln and many others did in fact advocate getting rid of slavery without war or reducing states' rights. They felt that if slavery was prevented from expanding to the territories, eventually free states would outnumber slave states, and the system would be ultimately choked out legally. In fact, Lincoln initially had no intention of using the war itself to end slavery directly. That development only occurred later in the war when it became expedient.

QuoteFor what it's worth, Lincoln and many others did in fact advocate getting rid of slavery without war or reducing states' rights. They felt that if slavery was prevented from expanding to the territories, eventually free states would outnumber slave states, and the system would be ultimately choked out legally.

Yep... and the southern states saw it coming... and opened fire on Fort Sumter...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 21, 2012, 01:08:37 PM

QuoteFor what it's worth, Lincoln and many others did in fact advocate getting rid of slavery without war or reducing states' rights. They felt that if slavery was prevented from expanding to the territories, eventually free states would outnumber slave states, and the system would be ultimately choked out legally.

Yep... and the southern states saw it coming... and opened fire on Fort Sumter...

The slave states saw that they would become a minority and have abolition imposed on them.  The question is did they have the right to secede from the union to avoid that and continue to govern themselves or is statehood irrevocable no matter what the majority of states decides to impose on every state.

In regards to succession, the Constitution is silent, and therefore provides no guidance whatsoever.  Obviously if any state can ignore any federal law that it doesn't like, a mere Confederation exists.  That didn't work in the 1780's and didn't work in the 1860's either.

Obviously firing upon a Fort that is merely being sent supplies such that the soldiers do not starve to death, is certainly an act of war, not unlike Pearl Harbor.   

The myths surrounding Lincoln are no more a diversion from the truth, than the ones surrounding the Confederacy.   

Quote from: urbanlibertarian on February 21, 2012, 02:33:55 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 21, 2012, 01:08:37 PM

QuoteFor what it's worth, Lincoln and many others did in fact advocate getting rid of slavery without war or reducing states' rights. They felt that if slavery was prevented from expanding to the territories, eventually free states would outnumber slave states, and the system would be ultimately choked out legally.

Yep... and the southern states saw it coming... and opened fire on Fort Sumter...

The slave states saw that they would become a minority and have abolition imposed on them.  The question is did they have the right to secede from the union to avoid that and continue to govern themselves or is statehood irrevocable no matter what the majority of states decides to impose on every state.

That is the question. The secessionist argument was that the Constitution was only a compact between sovereign states. The slave states had only signed it to begin with as it protected slavery; so if slavery were threatened, the whole compact was considered void, and secessionists felt within their rights to leave the Union to protect their interests. The Unionist argument was that the Constitution created a new nation, and upon adopting it, the states had no sovereignty to act against the "more perfect Union". FWIW the Supreme Court did later rule that secession was unconstitutional in Texas v. White.

Quote from: vicupstate on February 21, 2012, 02:47:04 PM
In regards to succession, the Constitution is silent, and therefore provides no guidance whatsoever.  Obviously if any state can ignore any federal law that it doesn't like, a mere Confederation exists.  That didn't work in the 1780's and didn't work in the 1860's either.

Obviously firing upon a Fort that is merely being sent supplies such that the soldiers do not starve to death, is certainly an act of war, not unlike Pearl Harbor.   

The myths surrounding Lincoln are no more a diversion from the truth, than the ones surrounding the Confederacy.   

+1