'When I Think of Donald Trump, I Do Think of Lincoln and Reagan'

LOL, funny how many "independents" we have here and Hillary voters, are pretty hard to find. Classic projection.

 

Whoever wrote that has a horrible of grasp of American History.

Trump is generally considered the WORST President.

42nd AT BEST.

Fighting with James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson for WORST ever.

Trump ranks somewhere between 42-44.

 

You misspelled "Obama". Everyone knows this, it's indisputable.

 

This thread contains some of those posts that confuse the mind profoundly; does one laugh or cry?
No President ever faced a situation more grave than that Lincoln faced. America exists today because of him. If one regrets that, well, we understand what that means.
Comparing the current occupant of the White House to Lincoln makes a mockery of the word "comparison".
As for Reagan, if one has contempt for the Constitution then one can praise him. Otherwise, he contributed nothing solid to the country; he only elicited a "feel good" surge.
As for worst Presidents, history will show that given the total ramifications and consequences, #43 is the worst (so far, 'God' help us!).

 

Or maybe you could answer the question and stop trying to avoid it.

Who is at fault? The party who violates the agreement and refuses to cease or the party who wants to dissolve the partnership because the other party refuses to cease violating the agreement?

 

Furthermore the war was not fought over slavery. The south had no need to go to war to save slavery. All they needed to do was sign the Corwin amendment.

 

Lincoln was a tyrant who forced subjugation on large swaths of the country by killing their families along with hundreds of thousands of citizens, burned their towns, homes and farms and left the children, women and elderly he didn’t kill to suffer through starvation and destitution. And he did so because he wanted the federal government to have supreme authority over the state.

If you think that makes a great president you would have LOVED Hitler and Stalin and Mao.

 

You are really down after the failed Presidency of your "light" brown figurehead Barrack Hussein Obama and his failed weaponizing of the FBI, aren't you? Well we'll visit this again after November when Creepy Joe is retired to a geriatrics unit.

 

despite trump being a mentally ill lunatic

Hillary was so hated, trump was allowed to cheat his way into the Whitehouse

as trump himself said when asked if he would accept the results of the 2016 election

"only if I win"

trump knew the cheat was on and he would not lose..

the cheat is on again for 2020 but will not be tolerated like it was in 2016

and besides,

at this point, Russia and China have bigger problems than who becomes our next president

trump has screwed himself so many times that NO sane person can support him

any self respecting person that loves this country and want respect restored will NOT vote for trump

only the insane cult member can and will publically support trump

Biden may very well be in a geriatric home after he is elected

BUT..

Biden will be better president than a mentally ill lunatic that has NO sense of reality

that's the fact jack

 

Exactly which policy has trump enacted that you so vehemently disagree with?

 

.

The US was at war by then. The South gave up its power to influence the USG by leaving the Congress in favor of armed rebellion - even firing the first shot. Not smart.
Here is the key quote from the Wiki article:

"At the outbreak of the American Civil War in April 1861, Washington, D.C., was largely undefended, rioters in Baltimore, Maryland threatened to disrupt the reinforcement of the capital by rail, and Congress was not in session. The military situation made it dangerous to call Congress into session.[5] In that same month (April 1861), Abraham Lincoln, the president of the United States, therefore authorized his military commanders to suspend the writ of habeas corpus between Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia (and later up through New York City)." Wiki

 

That doesn’t change the point. What good does having any control of Congress do when you have a president willing to declare martial law, suspend citizens rights and murder hundreds of thousands of people in order to assert the federal government’s authority?

As for the first shot it’s hard to fault Beauregard when he received intel that an army had invaded the south and was headed for his position to reinforce the military force who was refusing to leave southern property.

 

Sending an army into someone else’s country against their wishes is, BY ANY MEASURE an act of war. Lincoln was fully aware what those actions would result in.

 

What happens when the Congress refuses to pass spending bills?

Beauregard started the war, and made the Union victory inevitable when he stopped the advance on Grant's army at Shiloh after Johnston's death. The CSA should have negotiated for a ceasefire and peace immediately.

 

It was not your country. The war proved it. The South knew that secession would be treated as an act of war at least since Andrew Jackson mobilized to pacify SC. Firing on Fort Sumpter was pure folly.

Southern radicals ignored every warning.

"It concerns me deeply, as it does every one here, that these bright anticipations should be realized; and that it should be continued not only the proudest nationality the world has ever produced, but the freest and the most perfect. I have seen it extend from the wilds of Tennessee, then a wilderness, across the Mississippi, achieve the annexation of Texas, scaling the Rocky Mountains in its onward march, sweeping the valleys of California, and laving its pioneer footsteps in the waves of the Pacific. I have seen this mighty progress, and it still remains free and independent. Power, wealth, expansion, victory, have followed in its path, and yet the aegis of the Union has been broad enough to encompass all. Is not this worth perpetuating? Will you exchange this for all the hazards, the anarchy and carnage of civil war? Do you believe that it will be dissevered and no shock felt in society? You are asked to plunge into a revolution; but are you told how to get out of it? Not so; but it is to be a leap in the dark—a leap into an abyss, whose horrors would even fright the mad spirits of disunion who tempt you on."
Sam Houston's Anti-Secession Speech, 9/22/1860.

 

Whatever a dictator wants to happen. That’s what.

Beauregard was certainly not the best I’ve never insinuated he was. But he was fighting for the constitution and not tyranny which I can respect.

 

So your assertion is that the union states and federal government could simply violate the constitution at will and with immunity while ignoring direct orders of unconstitutionality from the scotus and yet the SOUTH was still obligated to follow the constitution and remain in the union? That is the utmost definition of tyranny. You can’t refuse to uphold your obligations under a contract and then demand through threat of violence that the other side continues to uphold theirs. That’s patently absurd.

 

The South decided to give up the Constitutional remedies available to them in the Congres in favor of war.
The results reveal the quality of leadership that prevailed in the South at that time. Houston was right the secessionist radicals were very wrong - and foolish.

"What is there that is free that we have not? Are our rights invaded and no Government ready to protect them? No! Are our institutions wrested from us and others foreign to our taste forced upon us? No! Is the right of free speech, a free press, or free suffrage taken from us? No! Has our property been taken from us and the Government failed to interpose when called upon? No, none of these! The rights of the States and the rights of individuals are still maintained. We have yet the Constitution, we have yet a judiciary, which has never been appealed to in vain—we have yet just laws and officers to administer them; and an army and navy, ready to maintain any and every constitutional right of the citizen. Whence then this clamor about disunion? Whence this cry of protection to property or disunion, when even the very loudest in the cry, declared under their Senatorial oaths, but a few months since, that no protection was necessary? Are we to sell reality for a phantom?"
Sam Houston's Anti-Secession Speech, 9/22/1860.

 

That speech is patently absurd. Whether you or I or ANYONE else likes it or not, the fugitive slave clause was an explicit directive in the constitution. An explicit directive that the northern states violated time and time again. When they were taken to the SCOTUS and ordered to cease, what did they do? They simply ignored them and continued violating the constitution. What other remedy was the south expected to follow? And on what purpose? So that the north could violate the constitution AGAIN?

 

Look we can all agree that slavery was egregious and the fugitive slave clause should have been removed from the constitution.

However the precedent CANNOT be allowed to stand unchallenged that the federal government can simply declare a portion of the constitution to be immoral, they can refuse to uphold that portion of the constitution, they can ignore TWO direct orders of unconstitutionality from the SCOTUS, they can attempt to change the constitution without going through the constitutional process and without the consent of the governed and then violently oppress anyone who opposes them.

That is UNACCEPTABLE and must be met with the utmost and fiercest opposition up to and including warfare. That’s what my ancestors did. They stood up in defense of the constitution, in the face of certain death, against a tyrannical government who was violating that constitution at will and with immunity. They did so against ALL odds; outgunned, outsupplied, with little to no infrastructure and outnumbered nearly three to one. And they did it with much honor, bravery, sacrifice and blood spilled.

Those confederate men and women are the only reason we still have a constitution today as they made violating the constitution far too costly. They should be honored for that sacrifice. Not vilified.

 

Because what happens when they come after slavery and we just concede they can violate the constitution at will without going through the stated constitutional process to amend it? What stops them from using that EXACT same precedence to then declare the right to bear arms or right to free speech or right to assembly or religious freedom as being immoral or detrimental and refusing to uphold it?

 

Secession was not part of the Perpetual Union. The only legal way would have been to change the constitution to allow it. The South chose violence over law and reaped the consequences.

 

That’s simply false.

Let’s assume that we have a swath of states today who say they’re no longer going to uphold civil rights for minorities and homosexuals. Let’s also assume (like in the civil war) they had an executive branch who was sympathetic to their cause and wouldn’t enforce the constitution or Supreme Court decisions against them.

What are the rest of the states supposed to do? Just suck it up and hope that an executive can be elected when the other side has rigged the election to be in their favor (by not allowing minorities to vote)? What remedy do they have when they’ve already taken the other side to court and won and those states just ignored the decision?

 

What is this in reference to?
The southern states that were traitors to the union, went to war over the right to own black people.

It was in most all, and I think actually ALL, the secessionist papers. Some it was the top issue, some it was down the list. But in the top 5.
There is no denying what is written in the secessionist papers.

 

Wrong. See my other post to you.
Heck, just read each states secession papers. The right to own black people was near the top of each states reason's. Some it was even the top of the list.