DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: MasterShakezula on October 07, 2011, 02:00:39 AM
-
The thread title pretty much sums up the topic right there.
Also, explain why.
I won't contribute, as I haven't become politically knowledgeable yet. I started this thread because I want to see your views.
-
Why don't you turn that into "Who do YOU think were the worst presidents of the US?" before this gets aggressive for no reason :P
-
Done. Hopefully, that'll make the atmosphere of this thread less aggressive and such.
-
I can really only speak for the presidents in my lifetime since I don't know enough about the actions of specific bad presidents in the past. I would have to go with either Reagan (budget deficits went way up, deregulation, etc) or Bush Jr (do I really need to say why?). But there are probably several worse presidents throughout history.
-
Woodrow Wilson and FDR are the first that jump to my mind.
-
James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Ronald Reagan
-
Nixon for classifying marijuana as a stage 1 narcotic. I havent smoked in quite a while, but it still irritates me. How could someone that makes that kind of decision be trusted to look after the well being of a country.
-
Nixon for cutting the world reserve currency's last link to gold, the drug war and wage and price control.'
Also, Woodrow Wilson for being the first neocon.
-
Nixon + The Gipper + Dubya =
(https://www.kirksnosehair.com/pics/truckoffail.jpg)
Honorable mention to George H.W. "Read My Lips" Bush
Are we seeing a pattern here? :lol
Nixon because he was a criminal and basically a low-life racist antisemitic doosh.
The other three because of what can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
-
FDR
Excuse my possible ignorance but isn't he considered one of the greatest presidents of all time?
-
FDR
Excuse my possible ignorance but isn't he considered one of the greatest presidents of all time?
(https://i52.tinypic.com/14wptgn.jpg)
Sorry couldn't help it. But yeah, FDR is awesome.
-
In college, I would have been all over a topic like this. Now, I've learned enough to know that it's so complicated that I don't even want to try. :lol They've mostly all had their issues and problems. It's just a matter of deciding which problems mean the most and had the biggest impact on the nation.
Nixon + The Gipper + Dubya
...
Honorable mention to George H.W. "Read My Lips" Bush
Are we seeing a pattern here? :lol
Nixon because he was a criminal and basically a low-life racist antisemitic doosh.
The other three because of what can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
Not that you aren't entitled to make your arguments, but that one seems off to me. If your biggest political issue is the national debt, the praise or blame should not really fall on the executive branch, IMO. Remember, it's the legislature that is responsible for coming up with the budget and for enacting the legislation that impacts where the spending goes. Not that the Exec. doesn't have some impact on the budget, but not nearly as big as the Leg. does.
FDR
Excuse my possible ignorance but isn't he considered one of the greatest presidents of all time?
Most popular does not necessarily equate to "greatest." I dunno. I wouldn't put him near the bottom, but he did create a lot of problems that most people don't know or don't care to know that he created. A good many of them were meant to pull the country out of the hole it was in, and some partially succeeded (along with the incredibly good timing, as far as the countries economy is concerned, of WWII). But they created probably-unforeseen problems. I'd probably put him somewhere in the middle.
-
In college, I would have been all over a topic like this. Now, I've learned enough to know that it's so complicated that I don't even want to try. :lol They've mostly all had their issues and problems. It's just a matter of deciding which problems mean the most and had the biggest impact on the nation.
Pretty much. I started typing out an explanation earlier for why this was a no-go, but decided that even that was more trouble than it was worth. Simply put, you can't compare presidents until they have some history to judge them by, and none of the presidents we're particularly familiar with do. That's complicated by the fact that they all had their own unique sets of problems exclusive to the era in which they lived. You all know my position on Dumbass, but I don't know how you could possibly compare him to, say, Warren G. Harding. They're apples and oranges.
-
Andrew Jackson & George W Bush are the only ones that immediately spring to mind.
-
In college, I would have been all over a topic like this. Now, I've learned enough to know that it's so complicated that I don't even want to try. :lol They've mostly all had their issues and problems. It's just a matter of deciding which problems mean the most and had the biggest impact on the nation.
Nixon + The Gipper + Dubya
...
Honorable mention to George H.W. "Read My Lips" Bush
Are we seeing a pattern here? :lol
Nixon because he was a criminal and basically a low-life racist antisemitic doosh.
The other three because of what can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms)
Not that you aren't entitled to make your arguments, but that one seems off to me. If your biggest political issue is the national debt, the praise or blame should not really fall on the executive branch, IMO. Remember, it's the legislature that is responsible for coming up with the budget and for enacting the legislation that impacts where the spending goes. Not that the Exec. doesn't have some impact on the budget, but not nearly as big as the Leg. does.
FDR
Excuse my possible ignorance but isn't he considered one of the greatest presidents of all time?
Most popular does not necessarily equate to "greatest." I dunno. I wouldn't put him near the bottom, but he did create a lot of problems that most people don't know or don't care to know that he created. A good many of them were meant to pull the country out of the hole it was in, and some partially succeeded (along with the incredibly good timing, as far as the countries economy is concerned, of WWII). But they created probably-unforeseen problems. I'd probably put him somewhere in the middle.
The debt is just one part of it. I agree with you on the technicalities of it, the legislature is largely responsible for fiscal policy. I guess I should amend my statement to say "the other three IN PART because of what can be found [there].
The Gipper - mythologized by conservatives, but it's pretty well known that he had one of the most corrupt administrations in history
H.W. - actually, I kind of liked the guy. I even voted for him, but only because I thought Dukakis was a moron.
Dubya - Belongs in prison, imho.
-
Harding was corrupt as could be and was in office when Prohibition was announced.
Hoover was inneffective in cleaning up the mess (The Great Depression) from the previous administrations.
Reagan increased the deficit by large portions from which we still haven't recovered from and are being continually crushed by, illegally sold arms (Iran-Contra), essentially started Al-Quada by supplying arms to Bin Laden and Afghanistan, and illegally interfered in the affairs of another country and had ordered its paramilitary to attack soft targets such as farms and civilians.
Bush 1 was set up to fail by enduring Reagan's policies, and while I didn't like Bush 2, its still too early to lay final judgement on him but I don't think he'll be worse than Harding and Reagan in retrospect.
Nixon gets a lot of shit, but he wasn't the unmitigated disaster people like to make him out to be and doesn't get enough credit.
-
Chris Ballew
Jason Finn
Dave Dederer
-
Teddy Roosevelt bothers the bejeebers out of me. :lol Exceptionally effective as President, but I think he really helped drive the future of US politics in Latin America, which isn't pretty stuff. It's not fair to judge his Presidency by it, but he was also one of the strong voices for imperialism. He just seems cocky, too. If he were President today I think I would be scared for the world. Doesn't make him worst, but I hate seeing him lined up as one of the best so often.
@0's: FDR is controversial, many think he set the US back decades or more but was loved for it.
Bosk1 said the best answer, avoid the question. It's easy to find problems with almost any of them, and many of them get crap they don't deserve. The worst ones might even be the ones nobody mentions, corruption has been rampant in many administrations. Look at the ineptitude leading up to the Civil War, look at Manifest Destiny and all the expansionist wars we were in, stuff we glorify from hundreds of years ago would be seen as disgusting in today's Presidents.
-
and while I didn't like Bush 2, its still too early to lay final judgement on him
He ordered torture in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions and invaded a country on bullshit manufactured "evidence" resulting in the needless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, many of whom were women and children.
Too early to lay final judgement on him?
What else do you need to know?
He's a war criminal who belongs in prison.
-
kirksnosehair: I see you have a very negative view of Chimpy, one that I do largely share.
I would like to ask you (or anyone else here) out of curiosity:
In the long run, do you think Bush's presidency will have had as negative an effect on the US as say, the pre-Lincoln presidents' failure to effectively alleviate rampant sectionalism between N and S?
I really dislike Bush, and wouldn't rank him too highly, but I don't know if I'm going to jump to the conclusion that he's at the very bottom of the barrel just a couple years after his leaving office.
-
Harding
-
Harrison. Man, that guy didn't get anything done.
-
:facepalm:
-
You know, since he essentially did nothing in his month or so of presidency, one could say that he was the best president.
-
Nixon for cutting the world reserve currency's last link to gold, the drug war and wage and price control.'
Also, Woodrow Wilson for being the first neocon.
Yeah. Every president they teach you to adore deserves a spot on this list.
-
Nixon for cutting the world reserve currency's last link to gold, the drug war and wage and price control.'
Also, Woodrow Wilson for being the first neocon.
Yeah. Every president they teach you to adore deserves a spot on this list.
Would that even include Washington, Jefferson, and Madison? I can't imagine any of those 3 being considered our worst presidents.
-
Trinity of best presidents = Lincoln, Jackson, and Polk
-
Trinity of best presidents = Lincoln, Jackson, and Polk
Hmm...Polk & Jackson?
You mean the guy who basically ignited the streak of illegal US imperialist land-grabs with the biggest illegal imperialist land-grab?
Or "His Majesty" Jackson, who *relocated* countless of Native Americans wherever he decided they wouldn't be an "annoyance"? Gee, at least he eliminated the national debt during his reig - i mean presidency.
*in other words: :flame:
As you can see, I'd disagree...
-
Without Polk, I don't know if we'd be a coast-to-coast nation.
As for Jackson, while he might have been morally wrong in some of his views and actions, that has nothing to do with how great of a president he was. (same for Polk)
Usually the best presidents are terrible people. Nothing wrong with that. We don't evaluate presidents based on how much we like their moral values.
-
Without Polk, I don't know if we'd be a coast-to-coast nation.
As for Jackson, while he might have been morally wrong in some of his views and actions, that has nothing to do with how great of a president he was. (same for Polk)
Usually the best presidents are terrible people. Nothing wrong with that. We don't evaluate presidents based on how much we like their moral values.
Unfortunately, you are right; we do not evaluate a president's performance upon the morality of his actions while in power - we decide whether they did a good job or not depending if our wallets have gotten thicker and our backyards larger...
-
Omega, if you have something constructive to add to the discussion, do so. But you are just baiting now, so knock it off.
-
Omega, if you have something constructive to add to the discussion, do so. But you are just baiting now, so knock it off.
Not sure if serious... :|
I was agreeing with him. I was not baiting him.
-
Without Polk, I don't know if we'd be a coast-to-coast nation.
That doesn't make him a good President. He was an effective President, but that can be trouble. Manifest Destiny in hindsight can be considered pretty despicable. It wasn't open land, we were opening many wars and taking what we wanted.
-
I don't think it makes sense to judge past presidents on today's moral values. Otherwise, Washington, Jefferson, and all the other Presidents who owned other human beings would rank at the bottom.
-
I don't think it makes sense to judge past presidents on today's moral values. Otherwise, Washington, Jefferson, and all the other Presidents who owned other human beings would rank at the bottom.
Yeah exactly.
The fairest way to determine a president's greatness is to measure overall change. Delta, basically. Where were we before compared to where we are now? The hows and whys and collateral details don't really matter.
-
FDR, Carter, 0bama.
-
Interesting to see FDR, who is so often lauded as a president, being listed as one of your worst.
I'd like to see your say on him, in terms of what things he did made you consider him a poor president.
-
kirksnosehair: I see you have a very negative view of Chimpy, one that I do largely share.
I would like to ask you (or anyone else here) out of curiosity:
In the long run, do you think Bush's presidency will have had as negative an effect on the US as say, the pre-Lincoln presidents' failure to effectively alleviate rampant sectionalism between N and S?
I really dislike Bush, and wouldn't rank him too highly, but I don't know if I'm going to jump to the conclusion that he's at the very bottom of the barrel just a couple years after his leaving office.
Well, why wouldn't you put him at the bottom of the barrel? All of the objective data supports it. Biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the country (Iraq) which, if it wasn't a blunder, then it was the biggest criminal act by any administration ever. There's really no way to spin Iraq into something good, because nothing really good came of it and it was spawned by lies and the manipulation of data. Then there's the torture issue. Torture is wrong. Period. End of discussion. We wagged our fingers at regimes all over the world for decades for engaging in it, then, we engaged in it. All of these things happened under Bush, and let's not forget the squandered budget surplus. With full respect to Bosk1 and the fact that the executive branch does not necessarily MAKE financial policy, it was most certainly Bush's idea to cut taxes for the rich twice (without paying for it) give seniors a prescription drug benefit (without paying for it) and essentially spend like a drunk sailor while borrowing all of the money for said spending from China. COMMUNIST China.
Nope, Bush wins this one hands down.
Am I a super-biased ultra liberal, life-long card carrying member of the Democratic party? Youbetcha :lol
So my opinions on this matter should be taken with an ocean of salt.
-
Wilson, FDR, Reagan
-
I don't think it makes sense to judge past presidents on today's moral values. Otherwise, Washington, Jefferson, and all the other Presidents who owned other human beings would rank at the bottom.
Doesn't it? I think we should view history through our own moral standards.
You're right that it isn't fair. However, by giving them the a pass for living in a different time we often start to glorify things we don't at all support. This can be a bad thing, and leave's many young US citizens with terrible perspective on the history of our country. I'm not trying ti vilify people for the time period they were in. I just think we should be careful about propping them up as great especially without examining their flaws closely. We should be critical first, then move to perspective and progress made.
Owning slaves doesn't make a bad President, that's something questionable on their personal history. Look at the founders of our country, we laud them for the declarations of freedom and equality for all but forget to mention they meant all male, white, protestant, land owning, rich people are equal above the rest. It was very forward thinking then, but now we all but teach about them as though the end of slavery, women s' suffrage, and the civil rights movement were never supposed to have to happen.
-
I don't think it makes sense to judge past presidents on today's moral values. Otherwise, Washington, Jefferson, and all the other Presidents who owned other human beings would rank at the bottom.
Doesn't it? I think we should view history through our own moral standards.
You're right that it isn't fair. However, by giving them the a pass for living in a different time we often start to glorify things we don't at all support. This can be a bad thing, and leave's many young US citizens with terrible perspective on the history of our country. I'm not trying ti vilify people for the time period they were in. I just think we should be careful about propping them up as great especially without examining their flaws closely. We should be critical first, then move to perspective and progress made.
Owning slaves doesn't make a bad President, that's something questionable on their personal history. Look at the founders of our country, we laud them for the declarations of freedom and equality for all but forget to mention they meant all male, white, protestant, land owning, rich people are equal above the rest. It was very forward thinking then, but now we all but teach about them as though the end of slavery, women s' suffrage, and the civil rights movement were never supposed to have to happen.
During my junior year of highschool in American history, we pointed out how flawed our founders were. I think the youth get a pretty good handle on history, through all of my history classes through out highschool we always talked about that sort of stuff.
-
kirksnosehair: I see you have a very negative view of Chimpy, one that I do largely share.
I would like to ask you (or anyone else here) out of curiosity:
In the long run, do you think Bush's presidency will have had as negative an effect on the US as say, the pre-Lincoln presidents' failure to effectively alleviate rampant sectionalism between N and S?
This is really an interesting question. Unfortunately, I'm not real familiar with the 10-12 years before the civil war, so it's hard to draw a comparison. Something that does come to mind is that the civil war was brewing for quite some time before 1860. Buchanan takes the brunt of the blame for it, but mostly for indecisive action related to the succession; he certainly didn't cause the thing. I'm not sure where you start to assess blame for it. Don't Pierce and Filmore bare some of the responsibility? Add to that, I'm not sure if the civil war was preventable or not. It seems to me like it might have been one of the necessary learning steps in the growth of the nation. As I understand it, that's kind of how Lincoln viewed the process. I also seem to recall that Lincoln was miserable over the fact that he was unable to prevent it from happening.
Bush, on the other hand, stumbled into a pretty nice situation. I think he should be saddled with the responsibility for 9/11, and he's certainly on the hook for screwing everything up so badly afterward. I think there's a very real possibility that he goes down as the man who sank the ship. Unquestionably, Obama is contributing, and whoever follows him will contribute as well, but unlike Filmore, Pierce and Buchanan, who were just the last three in a long process of deterioration, Chimpy was undoubtedly the beginning of the end. It's pretty easy to figure out where to start the blame on that one.
-
FDR
Excuse my possible ignorance but isn't he considered one of the greatest presidents of all time?
Ignorance excused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937 <---tons of great books on this. Article pretty much sums it up accurately. Also, FDR was compared to Hitler (before we really knew about the Holocaust) because of this.
Also, the first New Deal was a total bust. In all, the New Deals really didn't do much to the economy as much as the war did. But, it did make people feel like they were helping, similar to Reagan making Americans feel "proud to be" Americans again in the 1980's.
-
As if FDR wasn't bad enough for not liquidating debt...
-
The worst thing I know him for was the internment camps.
I mean, I know, wartime, but still, it was morally despicable.
-
Some presidential statistic I found:
Of the first 18 presidents, only 6 did not own slaves at some point or another.
Adams, Quincy Adams, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, and Lincoln.
Buchanan is a bit of a fuzzy case, as he did have some indented servants, and that was similar to slavery.
Also, yes, Ulysses S. Grant did, in fact own some slaves at some point, though it was (obviously) before the war and it was through marriage. Probably doesn't get brought up much, what with him being the Union General and such.
Here's a list of how many slaves each slaveowning president probably had:
- GEORGE WASHINGTON (between 250-350 slaves)
- THOMAS JEFFERSON (about 200)
- JAMES MADISON (more than 100)
- JAMES MONROE (about 75)
- ANDREW JACKSON (fewer than 200)
- Martin Van Buren (one)
- William Henry Harrison (eleven)
- JOHN TYLER (about 70)
- JAMES POLK (about 25)
- ZACHARY TAYLOR (fewer than 150)
- Andrew Johnson (probably eight)
- Ulysses S. Grant (probably five)
-
I don't think it makes sense to judge past presidents on today's moral values. Otherwise, Washington, Jefferson, and all the other Presidents who owned other human beings would rank at the bottom.
Not sure why Jefferson deserves to be near the top, honestly. Most of what he's famous for is stuff that he did before becoming a raging hypocrite upon entering office.
I've gotta say though, FDR near the bottom really makes no sense to me, either. Controversial? Sure. But he got the nation through a number of its biggest trials, and held things together for, what, 13 years? And when he finally did step down, the US had come out of all it as the dominant player on the world stage. I get the argument that his domestic policies set us up for failure later, but that's partially to blame for the fact that we've never really done a good job being responsible about following them up, just like we have not always necessarily been responsible with our position as a super-power.
-
Am I a super-biased ultra liberal, life-long card carrying member of the Democratic party? Youbetcha :lol
(https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y280/bosk1/Cameron.jpg)
-
Reagen
Dubya
-
Interesting to see FDR, who is so often lauded as a president, being listed as one of your worst.
I'd like to see your say on him, in terms of what things he did made you consider him a poor president.
He started us on the path to socialism, and really didn't fix the economy at all. He prolonged the great depression and somehow was able to spin it as a failure of the free market. Really, it was quite the opposite.
-
Interesting to see FDR, who is so often lauded as a president, being listed as one of your worst.
I'd like to see your say on him, in terms of what things he did made you consider him a poor president.
He started us on the path to socialism, and really didn't fix the economy at all. He prolonged the great depression and somehow was able to spin it as a failure of the free market. Really, it was quite the opposite.
The Great Depression was a success of the free market?
-
It was a failure of government. Good explination, refrences the work by Shwartz and Friedman:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200403022/default.htm
-
Buchanan. He did basically fuck all to prevent the country from literally splitting up, and in some ways exacerbated the situation.
-
I don't know about the worst, but the best president was unquestionably Millard Fillmore.
-
If you are president while the economy is prospering you are considered a good president. If you are president while the economy is sucking ass, you're are considered a shitty president.
That's pretty much the reality of it for the most part.
If the economy sucks while a president is in office he can try to do something dramatic like end a war, kill some big time terrorists, free some slaves, or go to the moon. (tongue and cheek, relax)
-
If the economy sucks while a president is in office he can try to do something dramatic like end a war, kill some big time terrorists, free some slaves, or go to the moon. (tongue and cheek, relax)
You meant start a war, right?
Bush Jr has to be toward the bottom of the list, but on the list of worst cabinet and advisors, he is #1 with a bullet.
-
Am I a super-biased ultra liberal, life-long card carrying member of the Democratic party? Youbetcha :lol
(https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y280/bosk1/Cameron.jpg)
If I explain more does her shirt go lower? :P
-
Andrew Jackson: Trail of Tears, nearly destroying the American economy... it's a wonder he's liked at all.
Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan: exacerbated North/South tensions and pretty much allowed the Civil War to take place.
Hoover: Lacked leadership to bring the US out of the Great Depression
Nixon: continuance of the Vietnam War, Watergate, etc, etc
Reagan: absolutely AWFUL economic policies. Why on earth does the GOP revere him so much?
Anyone who's saying that Obama is already one of the worst presidents really needs to step back and consider something:
HIS PRESIDENCY ISN'T OVER YET DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
-
Andrew Jackson: Trail of Tears, nearly destroying the American economy... it's a wonder he's liked at all.
He fought duels, beat his would-be assassin with a wooden cane, and lamented being unable to hang his vice president. What's not to like?
-
Reagan: absolutely AWFUL economic policies. Why on earth does the GOP revere him so much?
It's something that has baffled a lot of people over the years. The Republican mythology about Reagan doesn't really match up with the reality (https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html) of today's so-called "constitutional conservative values." For example, Reagan gave amnesty to 3.5 million illegal aliens, which was and is a huge contributing factor to today's immigration problem. I think part of the mythology surrounding Reagan is a sort of denial of objective historical facts in favor of selective memory that serves to reinforce the inherent bias that conservatives have towards one of their own. That's not to say that liberals don't do the same thing (we do!) but the fact is, the most recent historical liberal president, while having many personal failings, presided over the largest economic expansion in US history and is the only modern president to have achieved a balanced budget.
-
Let's keep in mind that when St. Reagan was in office, the Republicans and conservatives were very much in line with his policies. Over the last 10 years they've moved the base well outside of Reagan's ideology. Reagan and Obama are pretty much ideological equals, it's just that the scale has shifted far to the right so that a modern democrat (you know, the socialists) are equal to the old school republicans of Reagan's era.
-
The two worst presidents sandwiched one of the best.....Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. It really is frightening to think what would have become of this country if a man like Lincoln wasn't in between the two of them.
Keep in mind also, folks, that as much as you hate a guy in the heat of the moment, it takes a good 20 - 25 years before a President's term can be fairly assessed. One only needs to look at Obama, who chose to keep many of the policies of the 'horrible' Dubya when he got in office and found out the things that ONLY a President knows....
-
I'm confused. FDR took a failing economy, put some shit in gear, the economy boomed, and helped America win WWII...and he's the worst president ever. I don't get it.
-
The two worst presidents sandwiched one of the best.....Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. It really is frightening to think what would have become of this country if a man like Lincoln wasn't in between the two of them.
Keep in mind also, folks, that as much as you hate a guy in the heat of the moment, it takes a good 20 - 25 years before a President's term can be fairly assessed. One only needs to look at Obama, who chose to keep many of the policies of the 'horrible' Dubya when he got in office and found out the things that ONLY a President knows....
This is why I didn't include him in my list.... yet. And I forgot about Johnson. Reconstruction was a fucking mess under him.
I'm confused. FDR took a failing economy, put some shit in gear, the economy boomed, and helped America win WWII...and he's the worst president ever. I don't get it.
Because his New Deal policies were vaguely socialist, and socialism is wrong, for reasons which escape me
-
That's what I was thinking. :lol
Damn socialists and there sense!
-
Reagan: absolutely AWFUL economic policies. Why on earth does the GOP revere him so much?
Awful economic policies? Ask your parents what the stagflation was like during Carter vs when Regan took over.
No president had more conviction and character than Regan. He intentionally made an extremely bad political move by getting supply siders to contract the money supply in order for long term gain. He had great economic policies.
-
I'm confused. FDR took a failing economy, put some shit in gear, the economy boomed, and helped America win WWII...and he's the worst president ever. I don't get it.
There's many great cases made that say that his policies actually lengthened and worsened the Great Depression. And just 'cause we won WWII doesn't mean it was some glorious, infallible necessity. Plenty of this stuff is still debated to this day, despite conventional stuff you might hear in a high school history class.
It's all debatable of course and there's a wealth of information to read out there. But as with everything, it's just not so cut and dry.
-
Let's keep in mind that when St. Reagan was in office, the Republicans and conservatives were very much in line with his policies. Over the last 10 years they've moved the base well outside of Reagan's ideology. Reagan and Obama are pretty much ideological equals, it's just that the scale has shifted far to the right so that a modern democrat (you know, the socialists) are equal to the old school republicans of Reagan's era.
This. I mean, here in Canada we have one of the most conservative, right wing governments we've ever had right now, but in the current US political climate, our Prime Minister would be seen as a communist hippie. The US is absurdly far to the right compared to the rest of the developed world.
-
I think it's time to pack up and move to America's hat.
-
Andrew Jackson: Trail of Tears, nearly destroying the American economy... it's a wonder he's liked at all.
He fought duels, beat his would-be assassin with a wooden cane, and lamented being unable to hang his vice president. What's not to like?
:hefdaddy
-
Reagan: absolutely AWFUL economic policies. Why on earth does the GOP revere him so much?
Awful economic policies? Ask your parents what the stagflation was like during Carter vs when Regan took over.
No president had more conviction and character than Regan. He intentionally made an extremely bad political move by getting supply siders to contract the money supply in order for long term gain. He had great economic policies.
Yes, awful. One of the worst in history. His administration, like most modern Republicans (with the possible exception of George H.W. Bush, who was a pretty honorable guy) was rife with corruption and graft as well. Please educate yourself with actual facts about Reagan's economy (https://mises.org/daily/1544), <--that was written DURING the Reagan years, by a libertarian. Read it, you might be surprised at what you learn.
I get that you're a conservative, but you're defending stuff that you clearly don't really know much about. You can pretty much draw a straight line from the gigantic hole we're in now to Reagan convincing congressional Republicans - for the first time in the Post War era - to vote to raise the debt ceiling.
-
Reagan: absolutely AWFUL economic policies. Why on earth does the GOP revere him so much?
Awful economic policies? Ask your parents what the stagflation was like during Carter vs when Regan took over.
No president had more conviction and character than Regan. He intentionally made an extremely bad political move by getting supply siders to contract the money supply in order for long term gain. He had great economic policies.
Yes, awful. One of the worst in history. His administration, like most modern Republicans (with the possible exception of George H.W. Bush, who was a pretty honorable guy) was rife with corruption and graft as well. Please educate yourself with actual facts about Reagan's economy (https://mises.org/daily/1544), <--that was written DURING the Reagan years, by a libertarian. Read it, you might be surprised at what you learn.
I get that you're a conservative, but you're defending stuff that you clearly don't really know much about. You can pretty much draw a straight line from the gigantic hole we're in now to Reagan convincing congressional Republicans - for the first time in the Post War era - to vote to raise the debt ceiling.
Huh. Some good, some bad assessments. I agree that Reagan sucked, and there was plenty of crookedness going on in his administration, but I think he was a very honorable guy. Bad president, good person, much like his predecessor. GHW was just as crooked, IMO. Their dealings in the Middle East were pretty damned shady. Personally, I see it as having been more about making him and his cronies filthy stinking rich than benefiting America. Furthermore, the man appears to have no soul. When he cried because people were calling his idiot son stupid was the first time he ever appeared remotely human. Not a good guy at all.
-
Fair enough, El Barto, I think we agree more than we disagree.
But on Reagan, we definitely disagree.
I think he knew EVERYTHING about Iran Contra and in my book that makes him a felon.
-
I agree with you, kirk, on Reagan being rather shady in that respect.
There's also his arming Afghan freedom fighters against the Soviets, these freedom fighters later becoming our adversaries.
Also, this is more of a personal thought, but I don't feel that his active efforts against the USSR were completely necessary. I mean, they probably resulted in it falling more quickly, but odds are, I bet they would have run themselves into the ground quite effectively, considering their financial predicaments in the 80s, which were actually hindered even more so for some time by Gorbachev's well-meaning attempts to implement a more capitalistic system.
Well, that's what I gather of it from high school.
-
Fair enough, El Barto, I think we agree more than we disagree.
But on Reagan, we definitely disagree.
I think he knew EVERYTHING about Iran Contra and in my book that makes him a felon.
Oh, I agree, but I don't think being a felon necessarily has any bearing on one's character. Hell, I'll probably commit more felony crimes during this calender month of October than Ronnie did in his entire life, and I like to think I'm a pretty honorable guy. :rollin
-
Fair enough, El Barto, I think we agree more than we disagree.
But on Reagan, we definitely disagree.
I think he knew EVERYTHING about Iran Contra and in my book that makes him a felon.
Oh, I agree, but I don't think being a felon necessarily has any bearing on one's character. Hell, I'll probably commit more felony crimes during this calender month of October than Ronnie did in his entire life, and I like to think I'm a pretty honorable guy. :rollin
Being a felon may not say anything about one's character, but using Prisoners of War as a political tool, and arming a hostile faction in the process, sure does.
Because I'm going to guess that some of those felonies you're talking about are rather bullshit drug laws to begin with, and not, say, raping and killing people, or something truly harmful to other people.
-
I guess where I'm drawing a distinction is that I think Reagan's transgressions were done with what he perceived to be noble intentions. I suspect that he really thought he was doing the right thing for America. As opposed to, say, selling us all out to the House of Saud for personal gain.
-
I guess where I'm drawing a distinction is that I think Reagan's transgressions were done with what he perceived to be noble intentions. I suspect that he really thought he was doing the right thing for America. As opposed to, say, selling us all out to the House of Saud for personal gain.
I guess this is what we call "Pragmatic" then - well done :hat
-
Reagan: absolutely AWFUL economic policies. Why on earth does the GOP revere him so much?
Awful economic policies? Ask your parents what the stagflation was like during Carter vs when Regan took over.
No president had more conviction and character than Regan. He intentionally made an extremely bad political move by getting supply siders to contract the money supply in order for long term gain. He had great economic policies.
Yes, awful. One of the worst in history. His administration, like most modern Republicans (with the possible exception of George H.W. Bush, who was a pretty honorable guy) was rife with corruption and graft as well. Please educate yourself with actual facts about Reagan's economy (https://mises.org/daily/1544), <--that was written DURING the Reagan years, by a libertarian. Read it, you might be surprised at what you learn.
I get that you're a conservative, but you're defending stuff that you clearly don't really know much about. You can pretty much draw a straight line from the gigantic hole we're in now to Reagan convincing congressional Republicans - for the first time in the Post War era - to vote to raise the debt ceiling.
This is an internet forum post. Are you kidding? Anyways, I'm not conservative at all. I dont want to keep virtually anythign the way it is now.
Firstly, are you disagreeing with his monetary policy? Do you disagree that the contraction of the money supply did not get us out of the record inflation? Moreover, the debt as a % of GDP didn't rise that much, and his non mandatory spending was focused on military, which one could argue is a justified use of money. He accellerated the end of the cold war, helped free tens of millions of people from communist rule. I dont know about how the tax cuts etc.. effected the economy, and neither do you. Its far to chaotic and nonlinear to be able to model the cause and effect of it. However, although its not scientific, if you look at generally at the condition of the people when the that joke of a president carter left, versus how the country was when Regan left, you will find a huge improvement. I don't really want to get into a reganomics debate as I'll probibaly get banned for going off topic meanwhile the mods will overlook your personal insults to me, but needless to say Regan pretty much solitified the theories of the supply side economists and monetarists (friedman, etc...). Corruption was not rife during Reagan, you are being very dramatic.
-
I agree with you, kirk, on Reagan being rather shady in that respect.
There's also his arming Afghan freedom fighters against the Soviets, these freedom fighters later becoming our adversaries.
Also, this is more of a personal thought, but I don't feel that his active efforts against the USSR were completely necessary. I mean, they probably resulted in it falling more quickly, but odds are, I bet they would have run themselves into the ground quite effectively, considering their financial predicaments in the 80s, which were actually hindered even more so for some time by Gorbachev's well-meaning attempts to implement a more capitalistic system.
Well, that's what I gather of it from high school.
IT wasn't so much the idea that communism would have succeeded if not for Reagan, but I think a lot of people share my view in that his efforts affected how it failed, and that it occured in a peaceful manner.
-
By the way mods, is this allowed?
"I get that you're a conservative, but you're defending stuff that you clearly don't really know much about. "
This seems to be harsher than those things I had said, but its being overlooked by the mods? Please understand, I don't care what this kid says- most of its a joke, intellectually. But you should have consistent philosophy concerning the banhammer.
-
not any worse than saying that their posts are a joke intellectually. in the future, please use the report button. this helps me to know who posted it and when. thank you
in any case, for all involved, please refrain from personal insults. It doesn't help the discussion and only causes most posters here to lose respect.
-
By the way mods, is this allowed?
"I get that you're a conservative, but you're defending stuff that you clearly don't really know much about. "
This seems to be harsher than those things I had said, but its being overlooked by the mods? Please understand, I don't care what this kid says- most of its a joke, intellectually. But you should have consistent philosophy concerning the banhammer.
So, let me see if I understand you correctly, because maybe I'm confused here.
Me telling you that I don't think you know a whole lot about what you're defending: BAD
You tell me that what I have posted here is "A joke, intellectually" : Perfectly fine.
Also, I think that at 47 years old, I've moved on from being "a kid" but I appreciate the fact that you think I'm young :lol
-
By the way mods, is this allowed?
"I get that you're a conservative, but you're defending stuff that you clearly don't really know much about. "
This seems to be harsher than those things I had said, but its being overlooked by the mods? Please understand, I don't care what this kid says- most of its a joke, intellectually. But you should have consistent philosophy concerning the banhammer.
So, let me see if I understand you correctly, because maybe I'm confused here.
Me telling you that I don't think you know a whole lot about what you're defending: BAD
You tell me that what I have posted here is "A joke, intellectually" : Perfectly fine.
Also, I think that at 47 years old, I've moved on from being "a kid" but I appreciate the fact that you think I'm young :lol
already noted in post above you...time to move on
-
The worst presidents would be:
The Tyrants:
1. Woodrow Wilson: WW1, Federal Reserve Act, Started Income Tax, Prohibition, League of Nations.
2. Lincoln: Authoritarian; Mercantilist and major expansion of federal government. Only country in the world to use civil war to end slavery killing more Americans than any war in history.
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: New Deal, Extended Great Depression for over a decade. President for life (Dictator).
The Failures (in no particular order):
Teddy Roosevelt
Harry Truman
Lindon B Johnson
Richard Nixon
Jimmy Carter
George W Bush
Barrack Obama
-
Lincoln is the US's best president. Without him, there would BE no United States. I don't know of any other president I could say that about. Even Washington was passive, just Hamilton and Jefferson's puppet.
-
The worst presidents would be:
The Tyrants:
1. Woodrow Wilson: WW1, Federal Reserve Act, Started Income Tax, Prohibition, League of Nations.
2. Lincoln: Authoritarian; Mercantilist and major expansion of federal government. Only country in the world to use civil war to end slavery killing more Americans than any war in history.
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: New Deal, Extended Great Depression for over a decade. President for life (Dictator).
I'm sorry, but I would blame the Confederacy for this... seeing as they, you know, invoked an armed rebellion to maintain the right to own human beings. Before Lincoln took office.
-
I find it hard to separate the president's potential from the hand they were dealt. Lincoln had a simple yes-or-no question handed to him in the end. GWB had a carte blanche, with Clinton's surplus at his hands and 9/11 in his back. Obama was handed a really bad hand.
rumborak
-
I find it hard to separate the president's potential from the hand they were dealt. Lincoln had a simple yes-or-no question handed to him in the end. GWB had a carte blanche, with Clinton's surplus at his hands and 9/11 in his back. Obama was handed a really bad hand.
rumborak
True. But I think there's a bit more than simple yes-or-no questions handed to a given president. There are many choices they can have.
It's also very hard to judge a president based on their long term effects. Clinton, by the end of his presidency, would be what I call a "good" president (in other words, we were better off after his presidency than when he began; delta, basically). But Clinton cut our fighting power, so GWB had to focus more of the budget on building up what Clinton broke down. One could view it as ultimately Clinton's fault, but it goes on GWB's record.
My point: if you asked me in 2001 if he was a good president, I'd say yes. But if you asked me again in the middle of GWB's presidency, I'd say no. If you open that can of worms, judging a president based on long term effects, you are going to have an extremely complicated picture. Presidents like Reagan and FDR could potentially move from being two of the best presidents to two of the worst (which posters here have claimed, as you can see). That's how drastic that "long term" perspective can be.
-
Of course, much of Obama's 'bad hand' was dealt him by Democratic policies that predecessor Dubya had nothing to do with...funny how Dems overlook that.
-
Of course you're welcome to post specifics (although a little less condescension would make you a bit more credible), but people are going to point out that Chimpy had a GOP House and Senate for his first 6 years, where the overwhelming amount of that bad hand came from. Democrats only managed to take back congress in '06 because Bush and his Congress had fucked things up so royally.
-
I find it hard to separate the president's potential from the hand they were dealt. Lincoln had a simple yes-or-no question handed to him in the end. GWB had a carte blanche, with Clinton's surplus at his hands and 9/11 in his back. Obama was handed a really bad hand.
rumborak
True. But I think there's a bit more than simple yes-or-no questions handed to a given president. There are many choices they can have.
It's also very hard to judge a president based on their long term effects. Clinton, by the end of his presidency, would be what I call a "good" president (in other words, we were better off after his presidency than when he began; delta, basically). But Clinton cut our fighting power, so GWB had to focus more of the budget on building up what Clinton broke down. One could view it as ultimately Clinton's fault, but it goes on GWB's record.
How would our conventional fighting power have done anything to prevent 9/11? How has increasing conventional fighting power done anything to address terrorism post 9/11? They're completely separate issues. Meanwhile, Clinton had persistent meetings regarding Osama, Al Quaeda, and what they were up to... Bush dropped these meetings, fired the expert (Richard Clarke), figured it wasn't an issue, and then lo-and-behold, we get attacked.
-
We can debate about that specific example I used, but I really don't know enough about the situation to be able to. Doesn't matter though, because my broader point still stands.
-
The worst presidents would be:
The Tyrants:
1. Woodrow Wilson: WW1, Federal Reserve Act, Started Income Tax, Prohibition, League of Nations.
2. Lincoln: Authoritarian; Mercantilist and major expansion of federal government. Only country in the world to use civil war to end slavery killing more Americans than any war in history.
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: New Deal, Extended Great Depression for over a decade. President for life (Dictator).
The Failures (in no particular order):
Teddy Roosevelt
Harry Truman
Lindon B Johnson
Richard Nixon
Jimmy Carter
George W Bush
Barrack Obama
Dude, Obama's term isn't even FUCKING OVER YET. How is it a failure?
-
I mean...
-
lol out of that whole list you get upset over Obama being on it?
-
The worst presidents would be:
The Tyrants:
1. Woodrow Wilson: WW1, Federal Reserve Act, Started Income Tax, Prohibition, League of Nations.
2. Lincoln: Authoritarian; Mercantilist and major expansion of federal government. Only country in the world to use civil war to end slavery killing more Americans than any war in history.
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: New Deal, Extended Great Depression for over a decade. President for life (Dictator).
The Failures (in no particular order):
Teddy Roosevelt
Harry Truman
Lindon B Johnson
Richard Nixon
Jimmy Carter
George W Bush
Barrack Obama (Provisional)
Dude, Obama's term isn't even FUCKING OVER YET. How is it a failure?
Fair enough, he's got another year to turn things around. I'm not holding my breath.
I'm sorry, but I would blame the Confederacy for this... seeing as they, you know, invoked an armed rebellion to maintain the right to own human beings. Before Lincoln took office.
The whole situation is much more complex than either you or I have laid out, but in a nutshell. Lincoln was the first Mercantilist (Crony Capitalist) who pushed for special interests with the railroads and other big business at the time. If you read his personal writings, he had no interest in freeing the slaves, but they were a useful cause to push his agenda of federal government expansion.
Secession happens to be the only meaningful tool that a State has to limit the power and scale of the federal government. With the South threatening secession, Lincoln made sure to crush it and the notion of a "Union" with it. With his presidency we were no longer a Union, but a singular country. Freeing the slaves was a secondary notion. All other countries in the world freed the slave by purchasing them and setting them free. No bloodshed involved.
-
Orthogonal, your list is weird. TR, Truman, and LBJ in the nation's worst presidents? You can't be serious.
And Lincoln's motives don't matter. It's just what he did. In our history, most presidents were either atheist or pretentious Christians, but you don't see me saying that made them bad presidents.
And while freeing the slaves was certainly a step forward in terms of civil rights, the reason most historians rank him at or near the top is because he saved the country itself. Abolition was just a collateral issue.
-
The whole situation is much more complex than either you or I have laid out, but in a nutshell. Lincoln was the first Mercantilist (Crony Capitalist) who pushed for special interests with the railroads and other big business at the time. If you read his personal writings, he had no interest in freeing the slaves, but they were a useful cause to push his agenda of federal government expansion.
Secession happens to be the only meaningful tool that a State has to limit the power and scale of the federal government. With the South threatening secession, Lincoln made sure to crush it and the notion of a "Union" with it. With his presidency we were no longer a Union, but a singular country. Freeing the slaves was a secondary notion. All other countries in the world freed the slave by purchasing them and setting them free. No bloodshed involved.
Uh... the first Confederate states seceded before Lincoln even took office.
-
Orthogonal, your list is weird. TR, Truman, and LBJ in the nation's worst presidents? You can't be serious.
And Lincoln's motives don't matter. It's just what he did. In our history, most presidents were either atheist or pretentious Christians, but you don't see me saying that made them bad presidents.
And while freeing the slaves was certainly a step forward in terms of civil rights, the reason most historians rank him at or near the top is because he saved the country itself. Abolition was just a collateral issue.
TR: Major push for progressive policies, further advanced Federal Reserve powers.
Truman: Authorized use of Atomic Bomb against civilians (twice)
LBJ: The disatarous Great Society and Vietnam War
Regarding Lincoln; You think presiding over a war that cost the lives of over half a million American's qualifies someone as a good president? Really?
-
Uh... the first Confederate states seceded before Lincoln even took office.
And he crushed it, State sovereignty meant nothing to him. The expansion of the Federal government as a sovereign was his goal.
-
Regarding Lincoln; You think presiding over a war that cost the lives of over half a million American's qualifies someone as a good president? Really?
:lol What exactly would you have done in his situation then?
-
TR: Major push for progressive policies, further advanced Federal Reserve powers.
These are bad things? Trust-busting? Corporate regulation?
Truman: Authorized use of Atomic Bomb against civilians (twice)
And that is why he's one of the best. Ended WWII. Saved potentially 1,000,000+ lives.
LBJ: The disatarous Great Society and Vietnam War
He's not the greatest, but certainly not one of the worst. Medicare? Medicaid? The civil rights movement, of which he was an active participant?
Regarding Lincoln; You think presiding over a war that cost the lives of over half a million American's qualifies someone as a good president? Really?
Never said that. The lives lost were a collateral issue to the big picture. You give a little, you get a little. A lot, in his case. War sucks, but look at the big picture.
-
I think LBJ is the most underrated president. Although Vietnam is a black mark, pretty much everyone at the time thought it was a good idea, and he wouldn't have gotten support for his other policies if not for deepening the U.S.'s involvement.
Besides Washington and Lincoln (and maybe FDR), no other American president has been more influential. The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, the war on poverty... he was arguably the most successful president in passing legislation, and he pushed some big things through.
-
Regarding Lincoln; You think presiding over a war that cost the lives of over half a million American's qualifies someone as a good president? Really?
:lol What exactly would you have done in his situation then?
You let them secede, that's what you let them do. Perhaps you forgot, most people have, but the US was founded on the principle of secession, complete with a revolutionary war to escape a central power. The colonists were paranoid of a central authority and placed strict limitations on a federal government with the Constitution, but secession was still an acceptable principle. Membership in the Union has many benefits and a lot of risks for leaving, but it is the "get out of dodge" card from tyranny and oppression from a central authority and was a tool to keep the size and scope of the federal government in check. Without secession, what recourse do you have in the face of egregious violations? The Union was always meant to be a voluntary membership. Regardless of the motivations of the South for seceding from the Union, Lincoln had no right to stop them. By invading the South, he effectively abolished secession and set the foundation for a monumental increase in the size of the Federal government.
In a strange twist of irony, the Federal government today is far more oppressive than King George III in 1776.
-
When I think of oppression, I think of people owning and busing others, rather than the government preventing people from owning and abusing others.
-
When I think of oppression, I think of people owning and busing others, rather than the government preventing people from owning and abusing others.
I'm not talking about Slavery, the South was certainly in the wrong with regards to that. The point is that Lincoln abolished secession and set the stage for massive government.
-
When I think of oppression, I think of people owning and busing others, rather than the government preventing people from owning and abusing others.
I'm not talking about Slavery, the South was certainly in the wrong with regards to that. The point is that Lincoln abolished secession and set the stage for massive government.
Yes. Yes he did.
-
I don't see how abolishing secession is "setting the stage for massing government."
Especially when the "secession" was all about the Confederacy being butthurt they weren't going to be allowed to enslave other human beings anymore.
-
Regarding Lincoln; You think presiding over a war that cost the lives of over half a million American's qualifies someone as a good president? Really?
:lol What exactly would you have done in his situation then?
You let them secede, that's what you let them do. Perhaps you forgot, most people have, but the US was founded on the principle of secession, complete with a revolutionary war to escape a central power. The colonists were paranoid of a central authority and placed strict limitations on a federal government with the Constitution, but secession was still an acceptable principle. Membership in the Union has many benefits and a lot of risks for leaving, but it is the "get out of dodge" card from tyranny and oppression from a central authority and was a tool to keep the size and scope of the federal government in check. Without secession, what recourse do you have in the face of egregious violations? The Union was always meant to be a voluntary membership. Regardless of the motivations of the South for seceding from the Union, Lincoln had no right to stop them. By invading the South, he effectively abolished secession and set the foundation for a monumental increase in the size of the Federal government.
In a strange twist of irony, the Federal government today is far more oppressive than King George III in 1776.
I've been trying to devote a few brain cells to pondering this scenario. It's actually an interesting thing to consider. What would America be like if Lincoln had done the opposite and legitimized a state's right to secede. For one thing, you'd have had zero stability. Slavery wasn't the only contentious issue back then. I bet you'd see lots of back and forth with states, the Union, and probably new unions.
"I tell you, I won't live in a town that robs men of the right to marry their cousins."
Eventually, things would probably start to coalesce. Like minded people would congregate in near by states. States would produce generations of like minded people. All of this would probably boil down to 2 or 3 separate unions. It wouldn't surprise me if we wound up with two nations, split along what are our currently defined ideological lines. In some ways this might be considered a great improvement. In other ways it would be anything but (New Canada North and New Canada South). I suspect a unified USA is far more powerful than the sum of it's parts.
The biggest issue is that what we got was one big civil war to determine how things would play going forward. I suspect under the separatist union we'd have gotten many smaller wars, and possibly a big one anyway.
All of this is just idle conjecture, but it does seem safe to say that despite the ugliness of the American civil war, the result was a nation that was much stronger as a result of it.
-
I also wonder if the South would really have expanded. Something tells me that most emigrants were from the North? I don't remember.
-
I've been trying to devote a few brain cells to pondering this scenario. It's actually an interesting thing to consider. What would America be like if Lincoln had done the opposite and legitimized a state's right to secede. For one thing, you'd have had zero stability. Slavery wasn't the only contentious issue back then. I bet you'd see lots of back and forth with states, the Union, and probably new unions.
"I tell you, I won't live in a town that robs men of the right to marry their cousins."
Eventually, things would probably start to coalesce. Like minded people would congregate in near by states. States would produce generations of like minded people. All of this would probably boil down to 2 or 3 separate unions. It wouldn't surprise me if we wound up with two nations, split along what are our currently defined ideological lines. In some ways this might be considered a great improvement. In other ways it would be anything but (New Canada North and New Canada South). I suspect a unified USA is far more powerful than the sum of it's parts.
The biggest issue is that what we got was one big civil war to determine how things would play going forward. I suspect under the separatist union we'd have gotten many smaller wars, and possibly a big one anyway.
All of this is just idle conjecture, but it does seem safe to say that despite the ugliness of the American civil war, the result was a nation that was much stronger as a result of it.
It's hard to say whether the country was better or worse since we cannot predict everything that would have transpired over the last 200 years, but we can judge the actions of those at the time. Lincoln was wrong, and the South was wrong (for slavery) imho.
The North may have stopped using slavery, but it wasn't because they evolved a superior moral code of ethics. It was because the North was more wealthy and didn't need Slavery any more. Slavery is more expensive than you think and the industrial revolution was the catalyst to put Slavery out of business throughout the world. It was only a matter of time for it to end in the South just like the rest of the world. Without the Civil war, Slavery would probably have ended in the next decade or two.
-
The North may have stopped using slavery, but it wasn't because they evolved a superior moral code of ethics. It was because the North was more wealthy and didn't need Slavery any more. Slavery is more expensive than you think and the industrial revolution was the catalyst to put Slavery out of business throughout the world. It was only a matter of time for it to end in the South just like the rest of the world. Without the Civil war, Slavery would probably have ended in the next decade or two.
It's just false to downplay the moral presence in northern abolition. Massachusetts got rid of slavery in the 1783 through a judicial decision, because of what was written in the Constitution.
That said, I think economics did have a huge impact on the issue, but it isn't about wealth. The South was very wealthy, slavery just fit the agricultural/plantation economy much more than it did in the North. Area's where it stuck around in the North were usually limited to dockyards/shipyards and such.