Who is the most overrated president in US history?

[Benzoate]

I thought it would be interesting to start a thread on who do you think is the most overrated president in the history of the United states . I'd put my money on Abraham Lincoln. He makes george w bush look like mother theresa, before George Bush tried to act like a saint. (i.e, giving money to africa) He is a George Wallace, Benito Mussulino and Saddam Huessein rolled into one package. The man was an absolute tyrant. He placed people in prison who spoke out against his policies, and he order troops to burned and pillage southern towns. The only good thing he ever did was free slaves; After he freed the slaves he wanted to deport blacks because he believe blacks would not assimilate to western culture. In to think that we used to celebrate this tyrant's birthday. What an awful human being he was
Well, that's my opinion. What's yours?

Isn't Lincoln like the only president we have a statue of? I could be wrong Notice in a lot of communist/totalitarian countries, they always have a statue of their leader?

 

[Poop-Loops]

There's a statue of Washington in my college. Of course, I go to the University of Washington, so that might be it.

Anyway, I'd say Reagan. He wasn't that great. He was probably the biggest traitor this country has seen until W came to office. And yet people want to fellate him like he was Jesus or something.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Even though this is GD, given the statements made about Lincoln I think some sources are in order. We don't want a thread dedicated to unproven or crackpot claims.

 

[Benzoate]

Even though this is GD, given the statements made about Lincoln I think some sources are in order. We don't want a thread dedicated to unproven or crackpot claims.

They are not crackpot claims. The general public has just been misled about ' Honest Abe' . Adolf hitler said if you tell a lie long enough and wide enough , people will believe it. Anyway here are some sources I've looked at

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Hardcover)
by Thomas Dilorenzo (Author)

Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln by Sam Dickson of journal of historical review

Abraham Lincoln: The Man Behind the Myths by historian Stephen B. Oates

Sorry , I probably should have posted this thread in the Political section of PF

 

[russ_watters]

Even though this is GD, given the statements made about Lincoln I think some sources are in order. We don't want a thread dedicated to unproven or crackpot claims.

Yikes, Ivan - you didn't take high school history?? This is basic stuff. Maybe they used to gloss-over it when teaching Lincoln. Anyway, here's one (and it's a biggie) - the writ of habeas corpus: http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm

Lincoln is a lot of peoples' favorite Presidents, but he did an awful lot of things that were far beyond what people accuse Bush of.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The hegemonistic capitalist roaders who have infected our dialog with sexist, racist, and bourgois codewords must now face the reality of a growing dissatisfaction among the intelligentsia. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past by relying on the literal meaning of the written word in our struggle against a reactionary view of the record. The collectivist view can be applied in this case, as in all other cases, to reunredeconstruct the subjective past. A conceptual disconnect arises to erode the boundary between conventional and over-simplified developmental critique on the one hand, and the robust analysis that derives from a consistent view of postmodern theory on the other. This two-fisted approach will annihilate the misconceptions that arise in the objective view of history.

 

[D H]

The hegemonistic capitalist roaders who have infected our dialog with sexist, racist, and bourgois codewords must now face the reality of a growing dissatisfaction among the intelligentsia. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past by relying on the literal meaning of the written word in our struggle against a reactionary view of the record. The collectivist view can be applied in this case, as in all other cases, to reunredeconstruct the subjective past. A conceptual disconnect arises to erode the boundary between conventional and over-simplified developmental critique on the one hand, and the robust analysis that derives from a consistent view of postmodern theory on the other. This two-fisted approach will annihilate the misconceptions that arise in the objective view of history.

Yet another example that postmodernism writing (or at least bad parodies of it) should be banned here at PF. Seriously, we ban any and all discussions on religion; how is postmodernism not a religion?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Yet another example that postmodernism writing (or at least bad parodies of it) should be banned here at PF. Seriously, we ban any and all discussions on religion; how is postmodernism not a religion?

Do you mean to ban the bad parodies of the nonsense, but allow the actual nonsense?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Anyway here are some sources I've looked at

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Hardcover)
by Thomas Dilorenzo (Author)

From the Wikipedia article Thomas Dilorenzo:

“He is … an affiliated scholar of the League of the South Institute, the research arm of the League of the South…”​

From the Wikipedia article League of the South:

“The League of the South is a Southern nationalist organization whose ultimate goal is ‘a free and independent Southern republic.’”​

Hmm… now let me think, whyever would someone like that be critical of Abraham Lincoln?

Benzoate, I've got this really nice bridge I could sell you at a premium price… maybe you and Russ could go in on it halfsies…

⚛​

 

[D H]

Do you mean to ban the bad parodies of the nonsense, but allow the actual nonsense?

The postmodernism nonsense is religion. Ban it. However, it looks like this particular collection of tripe is not postmodernist tripe. It is rather southern tripe by someone who thinks the north cheated. See post #9 by Captain Quasar.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The postmodernism nonsense is religion. Ban it. However, it looks like this particular collection of tripe is not postmodernist tripe. It is rather southern tripe by someone who thinks the north cheated. See post #9 by Captain Quasar.

Actually, I was referring to what you wrote, not what they wrote.

 

[D H]

What you wrote is either postmodern writing which you take to be truth or a bad parody of postmodern writing. I assumed the latter to be the case. Now I'm not so sure ...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yikes, Ivan - you didn't take high school history??

This is basic stuff. Maybe they used to gloss-over it when teaching Lincoln. Anyway, here's one (and it's a biggie) - the writ of habeas corpus: http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm

Lincoln is a lot of peoples' favorite Presidents, but he did an awful lot of things that were far beyond what people accuse Bush of.

There was also a declared war. The Constitution gives broad Presidential powers in a time of war.

He is a George Wallace, Benito Mussulino and Saddam Huessein rolled into one package.

Is this what you're defending? Okay, got it. I will be quoting you on that one.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This is what you wrote:

Yet another example that postmodernism writing (or at least bad parodies of it) should be banned here at PF. Seriously, we ban any and all discussions on religion; how is postmodernism not a religion?

The way I read this, you are saying that you would be willing to ban the parody, without banning the postmodernism.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They are not crackpot claims.

I didn't say they were, but you make highly inflammatory statements with no references. And in fact I just had to delete a post that took your lead right into the gutter.

The general public has just been misled about ' Honest Abe' . Adolf hitler said if you tell a lie long enough and wide enough , people will believe it. Anyway here are some sources I've looked at

We need sources that we can all look at here. The issue is one of context. I think your take on this is ludicrous and indefensible. For example, I was not aware of Lincoln torturing athletes who didn't perform well enough. Nor was I aware of him using Southern soldiers for monsterous medical experiments. Nor am I aware of gas chambers or otherwise being used for mass executions based on race.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Anyone who can't tell the difference between Hitler and Lincoln should go back to high school.

Also, to whom it may concern, trashing Lincoln in an effort to defend the Bush is a new low.

 

[Astronuc]

Adolf hitler said if you tell a lie long enough and wide enough , people will believe it.

Um, wasn't that Joeseph Goebbels, Hitler's main PR man? The phrase is apparently frequently attributed to Hitler.

Reagan and GWBush are certainly over-rated. Saddam Hussein was Reagan's then Bush Sr's boy and proxy against Iran, but he had a falling out with Bush.

Birds of a feather - http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

 

[DeadWolfe]

Well, comparing Lincoln to Hitler is preposterous, but I'd certainly say he's overrated. Maybe not as much so as FDR though.

 

[hypatia]

I believe the economic, and psychological impact of the scorched Earth policy was thought by Generals Sherman and Grant to be the only way to win the war. It wasen't Lincoln who thought of this, although he agreed with it.

 

[turbo]

Lincoln inherited an untenable situation, in which his predecessor had ignored the conditions leading to the almost inevitable dissolution of the country. He was very troubled by the death and suffering on both sides of the Civil War. He was not perfect - none of us are, but you only have to read the Gettysburg address to understand how heavily the war fell on him.

If Lincoln had a major fault, it was in failing to replace his generals when they delayed and dithered at a time when the Union Army had numerical superiority, better supplies and weapons, etc. They failed to press their early advantage, leading to a disastrous war that lasted years instead of (possibly) months.

Here is a (very!) condensed time-line. http://www.abrahamlincolnassociation.org/Documents/Lincoln%20and%20His%20Generals.doc

 

[turbo]

I believe the economic, and psychological impact of the scorched Earth policy was thought by Generals Sherman and Grant to be the only way to win the war. It wasen't Lincoln who thought of this, although he agreed with it.

The North had some supply problems, but nothing like those of the Confederacy. It's likely that burning cities was seen as the most effective means to deny the Confederate army shelter, supply, and other benefits, while throwing the region into disarray so that civilian support of that army would be hampered. Also, taking and holding a city (the other logical way of denying the Confederate Army access to it) would have required far more troops than the Union had available.

 

[Benzoate]

Anyone who can't tell the difference between Hitler and Lincoln should go back to high school.

Also, to whom it may concern, trashing Lincoln in an effort to defend the Bush is a new low.

I wasn't comparing hitler to lincoln. Lincoln was not like hitler. But Lincoln was no saint. I was actually comparing Lincoln to Saddam and Mussolini. I am only referring to Hitler's quote, Because Many people in generally believe what they hear and what they see and do not bother to research into these people .

 

[OmCheeto]

There's a statue of Washington in my college. Of course, I go to the University of Washington, so that might be it.

Anyway, I'd say Reagan. He wasn't that great. He was probably the biggest traitor this country has seen until W came to office. And yet people want to fellate him like he was Jesus or something.

I agree. I stopped following politics after Reagan was elected. If American's could elect that idiot, they could elect another. And they did. And I'm not talking about GHWB or Bill.

Reagan is the classic example of why I don't think the ability to be a good public speaker should get someone into the white house. Unfortunately, little quips like; "There you go again", seem to impress people more than substance or the truth.

I wouldn't go as far as calling Ronny or George traitors. Hypocrites maybe.
National debt was pretty much level at 2 trillion dollars from 1950 until Reagan showed up. When he left it was it was at 4 trillion. When Bush Sr. left it was about 5 trillion. When Bill left it was around 6 trillion, but was going down for the first time since Reagan took over. Now with Bush on the way out, it's over 9 trillion.

With all their rhetoric about democrats being the "tax and spend" party, Ronny and George did really good jobs of sticking their heads in the sand and spending.

But this thread is about who's the most "over-rated". hmmmm... I would never accuse GW of being over-rated, so he's out. I never expected anything out of Reagan and was not disappointed, so he's out. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is a silly premise for a thread and will only yield slanderous and opinionated nonsense. But if I had to make a choice it would have to be Ronny.:tongue2:

 

[Benzoate]

Ivan, you do not believe that Lincoln was a George Wallace of the 1800's ; Well here are some racist quotes from him

"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other 2 races. Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. you are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoys. It is better for us both to be separated."-Abraham Lincoln, during a meeting with free Negro leaders, at the White House, August, 1862

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the 2 races living together on terms of social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion that I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position that the Negro should be denied everything."

And there is plenty of more quotes from library trivialibrary .com

 

[turbo]

But if I had to make a choice it would have to be Ronny.:tongue2:

Me, too. If you asked people what they would do to a person who stole weapons from our military and secretly sold them to an avowed enemy of our country, they would probably say "shoot the treasonous creep". Instead Reagan got an airport named after him.

 

[turbo]

Benzoate, you can also find quotes from politicians of all stripes in the 19th century on the necessary subservience of women, their weakness and inferiority to men, and their incapability of assuming the right to vote. Lincoln was only a generation removed from the time when only white male land-owners were given the right to vote. If you were a white male with no property holdings, you couldn't vote, and that was accepted at the time, too.

The words of these people have to be seen in historical/societal context. The truth is that 19th C US society discriminated openly against people based on their race, gender, and social status, and those things do not change easily or quickly.

 

[Benzoate]

Benzoate, you can also find quotes from politicians of all stripes in the 19th century on the necessary subservience of women, their weakness and inferiority to men, and their incapability of assuming the right to vote. Lincoln was only a generation removed from the time when only white male land-owners were given the right to vote. If you were a white male with no property holdings, you couldn't vote, and that was accepted at the time, too.

The words of these people have to be seen in historical/societal context. The truth is that 19th C US society discriminated openly against people based on their race, gender, and social status, and those things do not change easily or quickly.

Yes , then what do we admire this man for? Why is he any better than andrew jackson or Woodrow wilson? Why does this guy get his face on a penny and a five dollar bill. Why does he get his own statue. Why is he consider more important than any of the other presidents. This man order his troops to slaughter innocent civilians who were not armed with any weapons and burned towns. He arrested thousands of people who spoke out against his policies. The South did not attack the North ; Even though Slavery was wrong, I don't think the civil war was primarily about slavery because only 10% of the southern population on slavery. The Constitution allows states to secede from the United States if they wish.

 

[turbo]

This man order his troops to slaughter innocent civilians who were not armed with any weapons and burned towns.

I hope that you have some citations to back this up. I am quite interested in the history of the Civil War, and I don't recall Lincoln issuing orders th the army to "slaughter" innocent civilians.

 

[Benzoate]

Benzoate, you can also find quotes from politicians of all stripes in the 19th century on the necessary subservience of women, their weakness and inferiority to men, and their incapability of assuming the right to vote. Lincoln was only a generation removed from the time when only white male land-owners were given the right to vote. If you were a white male with no property holdings, you couldn't vote, and that was accepted at the time, too.

The words of these people have to be seen in historical/societal context. The truth is that 19th C US society discriminated openly against people based on their race, gender, and social status, and those things do not change easily or quickly.

Not true. There were many abolitionists in his time who supported ended slavery and called for giving blacks the same rights as their white counter parts. There were many real revolutionaries who called for a swift change in the treatment of minorities and those people did not just want to end slavery and deport blacks to Liberia like Lincoln did. They wanted those slaves to become full citizens of their country.

 

[Benzoate]

I hope that you have some citations to back this up. I am quite interested in the history of the Civil War, and I don't recall Lincoln issuing orders th the army to "slaughter" innocent civilians.

Stephen B Oates is a well respected historian at the university of massachusetts at Amherst and in his book , Abraham Lincoln: The man behind the myths, he mentions that lincoln order his general to burn towns and pillage villages. No offense , but did you take an American history class in high school? I didn't even have to read stephen B oates biography of Lincoln and I knew that southern towns were burned and pillage by the northern army. Why do you think they had Reconstruction.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Stephen B Oates is a well respected historian at the university of massachusetts at Amherst and in his book , Abraham Lincoln: The man behind the myths, he mentions that lincoln order his general to burn towns and pillage villages.

You're shamelessly changing your story there. Burning towns and pillaging villages is not the same thing as “slaughter[ing] innocent civilians”. And I would be quite interested to know whether he actually used the word “pillaging”, or whether that's some more spin on your part, unless Oates is another Southern Nationalist apologist like the Dilorenzo guy you tried to slip in as an authority earlier.

Combining misdirection like this with sneeringly patronizing remarks like “did you take an American history class in high school?” just makes you look boorish and foolish.

⚛​

 

[turbo]

Stephen B Oates is a well respected historian at the university of massachusetts at Amherst and in his book , Abraham Lincoln: The man behind the myths, he mentions that lincoln order his general to burn towns and pillage villages. No offense , but did you take an American history class in high school? I didn't even have to read stephen B oates biography of Lincoln and I knew that southern towns were burned and pillage by the northern army. Why do you think they had Reconstruction.

Pillaging towns for supplies and burning the buildings is not quite the same as "slaughtering innocent civilians." If you studied the Civil War, you will know that soldiers on both sides raided towns for supplies. They called it "foraging" and they generally engaged in it when they were moving fast and out-pacing any supplies that might be headed to them or when they were in enemy territory where they had yet to establish reliable re-supply. Neither army made it a practice to kill civilians indiscriminately, as you imagine.

Note: edited to remove a retort that was immature.

 

[Benzoate]

You're shamelessly changing your story there. Burning towns and pillaging villages is not the same thing as “slaughter[ing] innocent civilians”. And I would be quite interested to know whether he actually used the word “pillaging”, or whether that's some more spin on your part, unless Oates is another Southern Nationalist apologist like the Dilorenzo guy you tried to slip in as an authority earlier.

Combining misdirection like this with sneeringly patronizing remarks like “did you take an American history class in high school?” just makes you look boorish and foolish.

⚛​

Do not twist my words around. I think it is impossible for violence not to occur between civilians and armies where soldiers shoot and rape un-armed civilians if those civilians are going to defend there property and land from the union soldiers . You think the civilians are just going sit back and let the union soldiers burned their town.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Benzoate,

You sound like you got your talking points from Alex Jones.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Do not twist my words around.

I didn't. You're the one who is switching back and forth between talking about damaging Southern infrastructure and mass homicide. You don't need my help to twist your words.

I think it is impossible for violence not to occur between civilians and armies where soldiers shoot and rape un-armed civilians if those civilians are going to defend there property and land from the union soldiers . You think the civilians are just going sit back and let the union soldiers burned their town.

I think you don't know much about the Civil War if you think there was excessive rapine and civilian casualties compared to any contemporary or past war. Those things were considerably less prevalent in the U.S. Civil War than they were in almost any large-scale war in human history. And that includes both Southern incursions into Northern territory and Northern incursions into the South.

Your contrived arguments are faulting Lincoln for orders he gave. You can't just swap in events you think happened in the course of the war in place of orders he actually gave and make claims like “Lincoln ordered the slaughter of innocent civilians.”

Especially when you're going to try to avoid acknowledging that you either tried to pull the wool over our eyes or at least made a clumsy ignorant mistake by putting forward that Southern nationalist book as an authority.

⚛​