New video: History's Worst President

[Midway ®]

http://www.youtube.com/v/ls3ktg6oQBo&hl=en

Washington Post editorials debate if Bush is worst president ever

Ron Brynaert
Published: Sunday December 3, 2006

Five editorials in Sunday's edition of The Washington Post argue whether or not George W. Bush is the worst president ever.

As Editor & Publisher notes, "The Washington Post editorial page has been a strong backer of the Iraq war from the beginning," and the five editorials "may set off an intriguing debate, pro and con."

In one editorial, Michael Lind, a Whitehead senior fellow at the New America Foundation, argues that it's "unfair" to call Bush the worst, since the policies of presidents James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison "were even more disastrous."

"By contrast, George W. Bush has inadvertently destroyed only Baghdad, not Washington, and the costs of the Iraq war in blood and treasure are far less than those of Korea and Vietnam," Lind writes.

Rutgers University professor David Greenberg agrees that Bush ranks ahead of Nixon, but adds that "it's conceivable that the consequences of the invasion of Iraq may prove more destructive than those of Nixon's stubborn continuation of the Vietnam War."

"Should those things happen, Bush will be able to lay a claim to the mantle of U.S. history's worst president," Greenberg writes. "For now, though, I'm sticking with Dick."

On the other hand, University of Massachusetts professor Vincent J. Cannato, believes that it's too early to tell, and slams the "left-leaning historical profession" for rushing to judgement.

"Much of Bush's legacy will rest on the future trajectory of the fight against terrorism, the nation's continued security and the evolving direction of the Middle East," Cannato writes. "Things may look grim today, but that doesn't ensure a grim future."

Cannato admits that he "worked briefly as a speechwriter in 2001" for the Bush Administration.

The last two contributors both rank Bush at the bottom.

Columbia University professor Eric Foner notes that although it's "impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050...somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors."

"I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history," Foner writes.

But historian and author Douglas Brinkley isn't ready to commit to Bush being the absolute worst, though he believes that he "has joined Hoover as a case study on how not to be president."

"Though Bush may be viewed as a laughingstock, he won't have the zero-integrity factors that have kept Nixon and Harding at the bottom in the presidential sweepstakes," Brinkley writes.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Washington_Post_editorials_debate_if_Bush_1203.html

[Ocklawaha]

Well Stephendare, it had to happen sooner or later, an opportunity for me to get labeled as a complete whack job... But as some of you know, (or suspect) my formal education is as a historian, as such I have a very strong, perhaps rabid opinion of who the worst president was. In fact, I have quite a few history professors and entire departments that see it my way too. But it NEVER fails to get me in all sorts of trouble, including being called unamerican-!

Using the Washington paper's criteria here are my thoughts:

In one editorial, Michael Lind, a Whitehead senior fellow at the New America Foundation, argues that it's "unfair" to call Bush the worst, since the policies of presidents James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison "were even more disastrous."

Buchanan signed a peace treaty with the Southern Confederacy, The USA would not re-enforce it's military outposts on Southern Soil, and in turn, the South would allow the free flow of mail, food, medicine and supplies.

As soon as Lincoln was elected, he violated that peace, and outfitted a huge invasion force and Naval flotilla to take the Southern ports by force.

Johnson, was railroaded by a congress bent on revenge, otherwise his "worse" failures were that he continued the policy's of Lincoln which got him in huge trouble. So based on these three items, who was the worst? Without a doubt, LINCOLN!

"By contrast, George W. Bush has inadvertently destroyed only Baghdad, not Washington, and the costs of the Iraq war in blood and treasure are far less than those of Korea and Vietnam," Lind writes.

While Mr. Lincolns war was illegal according to the supreme court, and not unlike Vietnam, it was never declared but was a police action against "certain combinations of persons too strong to defeat through ordinary means." To have gone before congress to declare war would have vindicated the South. As our nation was founded around republics, dominions and sovereign governments, which voted of their own free will to band together or join the union, making the states themselves the principals. The federal government was a creation of said states and thus the agent of those principals. For Lincoln to make war on a group of States was to say the Principals had rebelled against their agent, which is a logical impossibility. Though the United States buries the truth in a smokescreen of confusion, the truth is, the "REBELS" wore blue!

Rutgers University professor David Greenberg agrees that Bush ranks ahead of Nixon, but adds that "it's conceivable that the consequences of the invasion of Iraq may prove more destructive than those of Nixon's stubborn continuation of the Vietnam War."

Mr. Greenberg should recall that in the end, it WAS Nixon who pulled us out of Vietnam. On the other hand every wise leader in the North and South made some attempt at ending Lincolns madness and calling for an end to the war. Lincoln responded by illegally suspending all rights, declaring martial law, and arresting or executing anyone who stood in his way. He boasted that his generals would "make the South howl," and "a crow flying over the South would have to carry his own lunch". The intention of targeting civilians with rape, starvation and fire was quite clear. In the end, it was the most destructive war in our history.
 

"Should those things happen, Bush will be able to lay a claim to the mantle of U.S. history's worst president," Greenberg writes. "For now, though, I'm sticking with Dick."

Sorry Greenberg, I'll stick with ABE, who by the way, was anything but honest.

On the other hand, University of Massachusetts professor Vincent J. Cannato, believes that it's too early to tell, and slams the "left-leaning historical profession" for rushing to judgment.

Massachusetts accusing us of being "left leaning?" Oh Golly, I'm feeling sick. So if Bush is bad, we are on the left... If Lincoln is bad, we are "right wing extremists fascist Nazi racist pigs?" See where this is going?
"Much of Bush's legacy will rest on the future trajectory of the fight against terrorism, the nation's continued security and the evolving direction of the Middle East," Cannato writes. "Things may look grim today, but that doesn't ensure a grim future."

True, as Lincoln's legacy is "He Saved the Union" and "He freed the slaves"... However a close examination of either subject calls Abe on the carpet. Before the war, the UNION was a union of choice and states rights, after Lincolns war it has been a union of force and Washington DC dictatorial nationalism. Anyone that thinks Lincoln went to war to free slaves is deluded and needs to revisit history 101. Lincoln served as a prewar war attorney, representing plantation owners to force their slaves back on the property when they had traveled into a free state...(he won the case too). As the war started, he made a speech in which he said if he could keep the union together by extending slavery into every state and territory, HE WOLD DO THAT! or, if he could keep it together by ending it in every state and territory, HE WOULD DO THAT! In the end, he was losing the war and the bid for re-election, so the idea to draft the black man into segregated units of the army, mostly as cooks and teamsters was in response to disparate manpower shortages and not some sudden humanitarian impulse. Put bluntly, Lincoln needed cannon fodder that no one cared about, or he was going to have his war taken away from him.

Cannato admits that he "worked briefly as a speechwriter in 2001" for the Bush Administration.

I never worked for Lincoln... though I might be old enough, my family voted for Jeff-by-God-Davis!
The last two contributors both rank Bush at the bottom.

Columbia University professor Eric Foner notes that although it's "impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050...somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors."

If Lincoln is any example, we will put Bushes picture on the money and make him a saint. God help us if anything happens to him while in office, because we'll elevate him near godhood. Can't you see all the mosque's in the country with their meeting rooms? On the wall is a big photo of Bush in a beaver hat... You remember Bush don't you? The president that went to war to free the Iraqi's and save Islam.

"I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history," Foner writes.

Foner is just wrong, (allowing the zeal of the moment to cloud the historical record), add in the republican spin, the freedom myth, mix well with the Lincoln lies and imagine what they will make of Bush by 2050. Hell, they'll be asking little Sunday school children if "Bush" has come into their hearts. They already ask that down at the local A.M.E. church about Lincoln, and his photo is on every Sunday School wall right next to Jesus!

But historian and author Douglas Brinkley isn't ready to commit to Bush being the absolute worst, though he believes that he "has joined Hoover as a case study on how not to be president."
"Though Bush may be viewed as a laughingstock, he won't have the zero-integrity factors that have kept Nixon and Harding at the bottom in the presidential sweepstakes," Brinkley writes.

Depending on how the spin is put to the record, even this bumbling Texan will probably come out near perfect. Lincoln fought to keep folks in slavery = Lincoln fought to free the slaves. Lincoln ignored the plea's of the Southern Government and his own men at Andersonville Prison to send food = Lincoln is remembered as the "Great heart" of America. Lincoln compared African Americans with monkeys = Lincolns photo is in just about every African American home or church in the country.Lincoln flaunted US, and International law nearly causing a world war with the UK, France, Canada and Mexico = Lincoln was our greatest statesman president. Lincoln ordered the extermination of Native Americans and brutal treatment of those (majority) who supported the South, also Hispanic Americans and Mexican nationals were painted as border hopping animals as they too supported the South = Today, Lincolns name is next to "Equality" in our national language (and we still hate Hispanics) Lincoln denied there was a God, and debated as a free-thinker, using prayer as a political tool = Lincoln is known as our great Christian President.

Don't worry, Bush will come out like a rose!

Ocklawaha
DEO VINDICE!

[Midway ®]

Thats an interesting post.  But do you think that with a 24/7 news cycle and indefinite archiving of speeches etc., that history will be revised as you foresee in 2050?

You are probably right, though, maybe the title should be "Worst president in the last 100 years", or Worst president in contemporary times"?

However, I do believe that Bush is worse than Nixon, because Nixon's problems arose from mental problems related to feelings of being persecuted, which led to Watergate, which led to his demise, while Bush is just in it as a puppet and shill for  corporate interests. i.e. just for the money.

[Driven1]

The 5 Most Badass Presidents of All-Time...

http://www.cracked.com/article_15895_5-most-badass-presidents-all-time.html

ps - number 5 is the namesake of our most glorious city

[RiversideGator]

Some thoughts:
1) 

Published: Sunday December 3, 2006

This is not exactly a timely article.  Perhaps some of the contributors would have changed their minds had they seen the remainder of the Bush Presidency and its place in history (which can only be viewed in hindsight).  They probably would not change their views however because
2)  The contributors are left-wing historians.  Eric Foner, in particular, is basically a Marxist.  His father was even allegedly a member of the Communist party.  So, it is no wonder that he dislikes the center-right Bush.
3)  The truth is that the worst Presidents since 1900 have been, beginning with the worst:  (a)  Jimmy Carter, (b)  Lyndon Johnson and (c)  Franklin Roosevelt.

[RiversideGator]

Ock, I think you are wrong.

1.  Lincoln was not out of character for his times.

Actually, many people disagreed with Lincoln's decision to precipitate a war that resulted in the deaths of 600,000 Americans.

2.  Bush has done more than crash the American economy, but probably the global economy as well.

What exactly has Bush done to "crash the American economy"?

3.  Stirring up Moslem extremists didnt turn out so well for Christendom in the middle ages.   Bush has poked a nuclear hornets nest.

So Bush caused Muslim extremists to dislike the US?  So why were they attacking us long before Bush took office going back to the 1970s?  Why did bin Laden bomb the US embassies when Clinton was President (about which of course Clinton did nothing)?

4.  Lincoln, unlike Bush, was the president of a country whose international importance occupied the same position of modern day australia.  He was not the leader of the free world and as such could not really lead by example.

Just because you are the leader of a less significant nation does not give you the authority to behave in a reckless manner.

[Midway ®]

Typical RG post.

Blah.....Blah.....Blah.....leftist...Blah.....Blah.....communist....Blah.....Blah.....I'm more educated than you....Blah.....Blah.....Blah.....the Democrats caused everything....Blah.....Blah.....Blah.....

Not a timely article?  Who cares.

Not a truthful article? Then somebody might care.

OK Mr. 527.

[fightingosprey07]

1) 

Published: Sunday December 3, 2006

This is not exactly a timely article.  Perhaps some of the contributors would have changed their minds had they seen the remainder of the Bush Presidency and its place in history (which can only be viewed in hindsight).  They probably would not change their views however because

What has Bush done in the last 16 months that would have changed anyone's opinion about him? He has continued to deny that he has made any mistakes, and has only escalated the war since then.

[RiversideGator]

Typical RG post.

Blah.....Blah.....Blah.....leftist...Blah.....Blah.....communist....Blah.....Blah.....I'm more educated than you....Blah.....Blah.....Blah.....the Democrats caused everything....Blah.....Blah.....Blah.....

Not a timely article?  Who cares.

Not a truthful article? Then somebody might care.

OK Mr. 527.

Uhh, in case you didnt know, Lincoln was the first Republican President.

[Midway ®]

Typical RG post.

Blah.....Blah.....Blah.....leftist...Blah.....Blah.....communist....Blah.....Blah.....I'm more educated than you....Blah.....Blah.....Blah.....the Democrats caused everything....Blah.....Blah.....Blah.....

Not a timely article?  Who cares.

Not a truthful article? Then somebody might care.

OK Mr. 527.

Uhh, in case you didnt know, Lincoln was the first Republican President.

Thanks for that bit of trivia..

I suppose that these were also:

)  The truth is that the worst Presidents since 1900 have been, beginning with the worst:  (a)  Jimmy Carter, (b)  Lyndon Johnson and (c)  Franklin Roosevelt.

[vicupstate]

Well Stephendare, it had to happen sooner or later, an opportunity for me to get labeled as a complete whack job... But as some of you know, (or suspect) my formal education is as a historian, as such I have a very strong, perhaps rabid opinion of who the worst president was. In fact, I have quite a few history professors and entire departments that see it my way too. But it NEVER fails to get me in all sorts of trouble, including being called unamerican-!

Using the Washington paper's criteria here are my thoughts:

In one editorial, Michael Lind, a Whitehead senior fellow at the New America Foundation, argues that it's "unfair" to call Bush the worst, since the policies of presidents James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison "were even more disastrous."

Buchanan signed a peace treaty with the Southern Confederacy, The USA would not re-enforce it's military outposts on Southern Soil, and in turn, the South would allow the free flow of mail, food, medicine and supplies.

As soon as Lincoln was elected, he violated that peace, and outfitted a huge invasion force and Naval flotilla to take the Southern ports by force.

Johnson, was railroaded by a congress bent on revenge, otherwise his "worse" failures were that he continued the policy's of Lincoln which got him in huge trouble. So based on these three items, who was the worst? Without a doubt, LINCOLN!

"By contrast, George W. Bush has inadvertently destroyed only Baghdad, not Washington, and the costs of the Iraq war in blood and treasure are far less than those of Korea and Vietnam," Lind writes.

While Mr. Lincolns war was illegal according to the supreme court, and not unlike Vietnam, it was never declared but was a police action against "certain combinations of persons too strong to defeat through ordinary means." To have gone before congress to declare war would have vindicated the South. As our nation was founded around republics, dominions and sovereign governments, which voted of their own free will to band together or join the union, making the states themselves the principals. The federal government was a creation of said states and thus the agent of those principals. For Lincoln to make war on a group of States was to say the Principals had rebelled against their agent, which is a logical impossibility. Though the United States buries the truth in a smokescreen of confusion, the truth is, the "REBELS" wore blue!

Rutgers University professor David Greenberg agrees that Bush ranks ahead of Nixon, but adds that "it's conceivable that the consequences of the invasion of Iraq may prove more destructive than those of Nixon's stubborn continuation of the Vietnam War."

Mr. Greenberg should recall that in the end, it WAS Nixon who pulled us out of Vietnam. On the other hand every wise leader in the North and South made some attempt at ending Lincolns madness and calling for an end to the war. Lincoln responded by illegally suspending all rights, declaring martial law, and arresting or executing anyone who stood in his way. He boasted that his generals would "make the South howl," and "a crow flying over the South would have to carry his own lunch". The intention of targeting civilians with rape, starvation and fire was quite clear. In the end, it was the most destructive war in our history.
 

"Should those things happen, Bush will be able to lay a claim to the mantle of U.S. history's worst president," Greenberg writes. "For now, though, I'm sticking with Dick."

Sorry Greenberg, I'll stick with ABE, who by the way, was anything but honest.

On the other hand, University of Massachusetts professor Vincent J. Cannato, believes that it's too early to tell, and slams the "left-leaning historical profession" for rushing to judgment.

Massachusetts accusing us of being "left leaning?" Oh Golly, I'm feeling sick. So if Bush is bad, we are on the left... If Lincoln is bad, we are "right wing extremists fascist Nazi racist pigs?" See where this is going?
"Much of Bush's legacy will rest on the future trajectory of the fight against terrorism, the nation's continued security and the evolving direction of the Middle East," Cannato writes. "Things may look grim today, but that doesn't ensure a grim future."

True, as Lincoln's legacy is "He Saved the Union" and "He freed the slaves"... However a close examination of either subject calls Abe on the carpet. Before the war, the UNION was a union of choice and states rights, after Lincolns war it has been a union of force and Washington DC dictatorial nationalism. Anyone that thinks Lincoln went to war to free slaves is deluded and needs to revisit history 101. Lincoln served as a prewar war attorney, representing plantation owners to force their slaves back on the property when they had traveled into a free state...(he won the case too). As the war started, he made a speech in which he said if he could keep the union together by extending slavery into every state and territory, HE WOLD DO THAT! or, if he could keep it together by ending it in every state and territory, HE WOULD DO THAT! In the end, he was losing the war and the bid for re-election, so the idea to draft the black man into segregated units of the army, mostly as cooks and teamsters was in response to disparate manpower shortages and not some sudden humanitarian impulse. Put bluntly, Lincoln needed cannon fodder that no one cared about, or he was going to have his war taken away from him.

Cannato admits that he "worked briefly as a speechwriter in 2001" for the Bush Administration.

I never worked for Lincoln... though I might be old enough, my family voted for Jeff-by-God-Davis!
The last two contributors both rank Bush at the bottom.

Columbia University professor Eric Foner notes that although it's "impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050...somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors."

If Lincoln is any example, we will put Bushes picture on the money and make him a saint. God help us if anything happens to him while in office, because we'll elevate him near godhood. Can't you see all the mosque's in the country with their meeting rooms? On the wall is a big photo of Bush in a beaver hat... You remember Bush don't you? The president that went to war to free the Iraqi's and save Islam.

"I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history," Foner writes.

Foner is just wrong, (allowing the zeal of the moment to cloud the historical record), add in the republican spin, the freedom myth, mix well with the Lincoln lies and imagine what they will make of Bush by 2050. Hell, they'll be asking little Sunday school children if "Bush" has come into their hearts. They already ask that down at the local A.M.E. church about Lincoln, and his photo is on every Sunday School wall right next to Jesus!

But historian and author Douglas Brinkley isn't ready to commit to Bush being the absolute worst, though he believes that he "has joined Hoover as a case study on how not to be president."
"Though Bush may be viewed as a laughingstock, he won't have the zero-integrity factors that have kept Nixon and Harding at the bottom in the presidential sweepstakes," Brinkley writes.

Depending on how the spin is put to the record, even this bumbling Texan will probably come out near perfect. Lincoln fought to keep folks in slavery = Lincoln fought to free the slaves. Lincoln ignored the plea's of the Southern Government and his own men at Andersonville Prison to send food = Lincoln is remembered as the "Great heart" of America. Lincoln compared African Americans with monkeys = Lincolns photo is in just about every African American home or church in the country.Lincoln flaunted US, and International law nearly causing a world war with the UK, France, Canada and Mexico = Lincoln was our greatest statesman president. Lincoln ordered the extermination of Native Americans and brutal treatment of those (majority) who supported the South, also Hispanic Americans and Mexican nationals were painted as border hopping animals as they too supported the South = Today, Lincolns name is next to "Equality" in our national language (and we still hate Hispanics) Lincoln denied there was a God, and debated as a free-thinker, using prayer as a political tool = Lincoln is known as our great Christian President.

Don't worry, Bush will come out like a rose!

Ocklawaha
DEO VINDICE!

Ocklawaha, I must say I am surprised at your Confederate apologist post. Please explain to me how firing on supply ships to  Fort Sumter was 'necessary'.  Also explain how the leaders of all the Confederate states all voted for succession, if all the leaders were against going to war.       

By definition, a Civil War is on an entirely different plain than a war against a foreign nation, whether declared or not.  Lincoln's motivation was to save the union, and he morphed the abolition of slavery into the cause.  Doing so did not help his cause in the North, in fact it did the opposite. 

By doing so, a noble result was produced from a gigantic bloodbath that could have merely ended with the union intact but with slaves still enslaved. 

Had Pierce and Buchanan handled things differently, a war might have been averted.  Therefore, they are still our worst Presidents.     

Johnson was somewhat railroaded by the Congress, but he also failed completely to see the moral issues around slavery, thus diluting to some degree the greatest favorable result of the Civil War. 

History has already judged Lincoln, and has put him in his rightful place, as our greatest president.  Bush will be on the opposite end, the only question is the exact position.  One notch above the aforementioned Pierce and Buchanan is quite likely, IMO.   
   

   

[RiversideGator]

I would name Washington our best President.

[vicupstate]

Some thoughts:
3)  The truth is that the worst Presidents since 1900 have been, beginning with the worst:  (a)  Jimmy Carter, (b)  Lyndon Johnson and (c)  Franklin Roosevelt.

I guess by that list, I assume Hoover was near the top of 'greatest Presidents since 1900' then ...??



The worst since 1900 beginning with the worst 1) Bush#43 2) Hoover 3) Nixon 4) Carter  


The greatest since 1900 beginning with the best: 1) Franklin Roosevelt (saved the nation (Depression) and saved the World (WW2).  2) Theodore Roosevelt (Trust busting, Panama Canal, Conservation) 3) Truman (Victory in Japan, Civil Rights, Marshall Plan)  4) Reagan (won the Cold War).  

[Ocklawaha]

Ocklawaha, I must say I am surprised at your Confederate apologist post. Please explain to me how firing on supply ships to  Fort Sumter was 'necessary'.  Also explain how the leaders of all the Confederate states all voted for succession, if all the leaders were against going to war. 

Of course this could just go on and on, some have been fighting this war forever .

Moving troops from Fort Moultree to Sumpter would be considered an act of war. Can you imagine us moving our garrison in Cuba into downtown Havana? If they didn't fire on us, I bet they'd be on edge! Firing on the "Star of the West" was not the act of firing on a defensless supply ship. She carried war material and the South knew it. Further their were another 30 ships ready to sail for Ft. Sumpter, Taylor and Pickens at any time, we can't be sure the Southern gunner knew if this was a single ship or the vangard of a fleet invasion. The shots were not lethal and were warnings, the ship backed off and war (for the moment) was averted.

Voting for succession was NOT a vote for war, any more then voting for the United States in 1776 was a vote for war with the UK. Succession was a move to reclaim the right to self government (whatever the reasons behind it). It's easy to see how things spun out of control. Slavery, or abortion rights, gay marriage or rights, whatever the cause, the states decided to take matters back and make their own decisions. For the United States to deny that right was wrong. It has only "become right" through  the fog of might of arms and history written by the victors.   

By definition, a Civil War is on an entirely different plain than a war against a foreign nation, whether declared or not.  Lincoln's motivation was to save the union, and he morphed the abolition of slavery into the cause.  Doing so did not help his cause in the North, in fact it did the opposite.

Yes Sadam never invaded Washington, though the terrorists sure did. He DID however move his troops into Kurd providences and slaughter his own citizens. But in an odd twist, Lincoln did the same thing!

This is true, most of the Northern States threatened to withdraw their troops from the effort if Lincoln issued guns and uniforms to black men. For a reward, the great liberator wanted to round up all "men of color" and ship them back to Africa. (just another reason not to like our "greatest president").

By doing so, a noble result was produced from a gigantic bloodbath that could have merely ended with the union intact but with slaves still enslaved. 

Northern States did not free their own slaves until 1875, so to claim Lincoln fought to "free the slaves" is pure BS.

Had Pierce and Buchanan handled things differently, a war might have been averted.  Therefore, they are still our worst Presidents. 

Had Buchanan's peace been extended under Lincoln by campaign promise, the war would never have happened. 

Johnson was somewhat railroaded by the Congress, but he also failed completely to see the moral issues around slavery, thus diluting to some degree the greatest favorable result of the Civil War. 

History has already judged Lincoln, and has put him in his rightful place, as our greatest president.

You misunderstand my argument, it is not that freedom and ending slavery was good or bad, it is that we have made a god of Lincoln, that when exposed, was anything but... I'd say one of our worst leaders ever.

Bush will be on the opposite end, the only question is the exact position.  One notch above the aforementioned Pierce and Buchanan is quite likely, IMO.

At least Lincoln will have good company in hell.

Ocklawaha
DEO VINDICE!

[Midway ®]

Voting for succession was NOT a vote for war, any more then voting for the United States in 1776 was a vote for war with the UK. Succession was a move to reclaim the right to self government (whatever the reasons behind it). It's easy to see how things spun out of control. Slavery, or abortion rights, gay marriage or rights, whatever the cause, the states decided to take matters back and make their own decisions. For the United States to deny that right was wrong. It has only "become right" through  the fog of might of arms and history written by the victors.   

I'm not a Civil War scholar, but don't you mean secession?

Don't mean to nitpick, sorry.

I love it when y' all are still fighting the war of northern aggression.