Who has been America's worst President?

[exopolitician]

Where is FDR?

Seriously?

[dead0man]

In a list that big? yeah, he should be in it.  Some of us have this crazy notion that he had a large hand in creating the monster we know today as the Federal Govt.

[SPC]

James Buchanan -and this forum seriously needs some historical perspective.  As bad as some think President Bush is, I don't see him precipitating a civil war that took at least 2% of the population once it was finally concluded...   

The civil war was started under the Lincoln administration. He could have just let the South leave in peace.

They had no right to secede, and Lincoln had to preserve the Union.

I suppose you can explain why New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island ratified the Constitution only on the pretext that they could secede at any time? Or that the right to secede is protected by the 10th Amendment? Or that the United States fought a war to protect their right to secede from Great Britain?

[dead0man]

You only have the right to secede if you can make it stick by force of arms.  (or the otherside just lets you)  It might not be right, but it is what it is.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Or that the United States fought a war to protect their right to secede from Great Britain?

No, they fought a tax revolt that got turned into a revolution.  Independence was, except for a few Yankee hotheads, not the intent of the colonists at first.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Where is FDR?

Sorry, he's in the Other category.

James Buchanan -and this forum seriously needs some historical perspective.  As bad as some think President Bush is, I don't see him precipitating a civil war that took at least 2% of the population once it was finally concluded...   

The civil war was started under the Lincoln administration. He could have just let the South leave in peace.

They had no right to secede, and Lincoln had to preserve the Union.

I suppose you can explain why New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island ratified the Constitution only on the pretext that they could secede at any time? Or that the right to secede is protected by the 10th Amendment? Or that the United States fought a war to protect their right to secede from Great Britain?

I don't see the right to secede as being included in the 10th Amendment.

[dead0man]

Where is FDR?

Sorry, he's in the Other category.

With Reagan?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Where is FDR?

Sorry, he's in the Other category.

With Reagan?

No, Reagan has a spot on here.

[dead0man]

Maybe, but he, like FDR has a small group of people that can't stand him.  Reagan's group of haters may be bigger, but only because he's much more recent.  One could make a good argument that both could/should be on both lists.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Maybe, but he, like FDR has a small group of people that can't stand him.  Reagan's group of haters may be bigger, but only because he's much more recent.  One could make a good argument that both could/should be on both lists.

That's true, and it really did come down to my personal bias

[SPC]

I don't see the right to secede as being included in the 10th Amendment.

This is basic logic. If A (Any power not given to Congress is given to the states) and B (The power to secede is not given to Congress in the Constitution), then C (States have the right to secede). if you don't see the right to secede in the 10th Amendment, then you need a new pair of glasses. Plus, New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island explicitely ratified the Constitution under the pretext that they could secede at any time.

Or that the United States fought a war to protect their right to secede from Great Britain?

No, they fought a tax revolt that got turned into a revolution.  Independence was, except for a few Yankee hotheads, not the intent of the colonists at first.

Regardless, the end result of the war was that the colonies seceded from Great Britain.

You only have the right to secede if you can make it stick by force of arms.  (or the otherside just lets you)  It might not be right, but it is what it is.

True, which is why the Founders placed the Second Amendment in the Constitution. Of course, with our ignorant lawmakers, it would be better to enforce it through civil disobedience of corrent gun control laws.

[Хahar 🤔]

Or that the United States fought a war to protect their right to secede from Great Britain?

No, they fought a tax revolt that got turned into a revolution.  Independence was, except for a few Yankee hotheads, not the intent of the colonists at first.

Aye. To me, the protestors always seemed like a bunch of E +9.5 whiners. They were getting a lot more from the mother country than they were giving it. But a few taxes? No, rebellion is necessary.

I hate the one-sided way in which our history textbook presented it (though, of course, that is to be expected).

[SPC]

Or that the United States fought a war to protect their right to secede from Great Britain?

No, they fought a tax revolt that got turned into a revolution.  Independence was, except for a few Yankee hotheads, not the intent of the colonists at first.

Aye. To me, the protestors always seemed like a bunch of E +9.5 whiners. They were getting a lot more from the mother country than they were giving it. But a few taxes? No, rebellion is necessary.

I hate the one-sided way in which our history textbook presented it (though, of course, that is to be expected).

Now you know how I feel when I read War of Southern Independence history from a textbook.

[specific_name]

Or that the United States fought a war to protect their right to secede from Great Britain?

No, they fought a tax revolt that got turned into a revolution.  Independence was, except for a few Yankee hotheads, not the intent of the colonists at first.

Aye. To me, the protestors always seemed like a bunch of E +9.5 whiners. They were getting a lot more from the mother country than they were giving it. But a few taxes? No, rebellion is necessary.

I hate the one-sided way in which our history textbook presented it (though, of course, that is to be expected).

I think you're kidding. But, seriously Britain was trying to make the American colonies pay for the Seven Years War (or at least in a disproportionate manner). Maybe they could have asked their ally Prussia to cover expenses

[Хahar 🤔]

Or that the United States fought a war to protect their right to secede from Great Britain?

No, they fought a tax revolt that got turned into a revolution.  Independence was, except for a few Yankee hotheads, not the intent of the colonists at first.

Aye. To me, the protestors always seemed like a bunch of E +9.5 whiners. They were getting a lot more from the mother country than they were giving it. But a few taxes? No, rebellion is necessary.

I hate the one-sided way in which our history textbook presented it (though, of course, that is to be expected).

I think you're kidding. But, seriously Britain was trying to make the American colonies pay for the Seven Years War (or at least in a disproportionate manner). Maybe they could have asked their ally Prussia to cover expenses

'Twas but a meager fee, and hadst not the mother country protected the colonies through thick and thin for decades upon decades without monetary reward?

Or that the United States fought a war to protect their right to secede from Great Britain?

No, they fought a tax revolt that got turned into a revolution.  Independence was, except for a few Yankee hotheads, not the intent of the colonists at first.

Aye. To me, the protestors always seemed like a bunch of E +9.5 whiners. They were getting a lot more from the mother country than they were giving it. But a few taxes? No, rebellion is necessary.

I hate the one-sided way in which our history textbook presented it (though, of course, that is to be expected).

Now you know how I feel when I read War of Southern Independence history from a textbook.

Civil War history can also be far too one-sided. In fact, history is in general. I've yet to find a balanced book dealing with the Nazis.

[jeron]

Buchanan and Harding ex aequo.