Where does Lincoln rank

[rightwinger]

In looking at a President, I look at:

1. What challenges did he face?
2. How did he respond to those challenges?
3. What was the lasting impact of his decisions?

No President faced the challenges that Lincoln did. Lincoln made some mistakes in facing those challenges, but given what others were proposing at the time, Lincoln kept a level head and played the political aspects of the war correctly. His lasting impact was eliminating slavery and preserving the union

He changed a bunch of united states into THE United States

No doubt, he is number one

 

[Anachronism]

His lasting impact was eliminating slavery and preserving the union

He changed a bunch of united states into THE United States

True and that is why I believe he is the Worst President in American History and will likely never be usurped from that spot by any POTUS to come.

 

[rightwinger]

His lasting impact was eliminating slavery and preserving the union

He changed a bunch of united states into THE United States

True and that is why I believe he is the Worst President in American History and will likely never be usurped from that spot by any POTUS to come.

Yea...I guess some are still pissed at not being able to own slaves anymore

 

[Anachronism]

Yea...I guess some are still pissed at not being able to own slaves anymore

You know, I wondered if you were going to come back with some smart-ass response like that; even though I'm certain you know that was not the part of the comment I was refering to.

Buh Bye.

 

[Oddball]

His lasting impact was eliminating slavery and preserving the union

He changed a bunch of united states into THE United States

True and that is why I believe he is the Worst President in American History and will likely never be usurped from that spot by any POTUS to come.

Yea...I guess some are still pissed at not being able to own slaves anymore

Yet others wonder whether the 500,000+ dead young men, millions injured and maimed, uncounted civilians killed/injured/voilated and cities burned to the ground was worth the trouble to end something that mechanization was making obsolete.

But you feel free to continue your brain dead, knee-jerk demagoguery....It's really all you're good at.

 

[rightwinger]

True and that is why I believe he is the Worst President in American History and will likely never be usurped from that spot by any POTUS to come.

Yea...I guess some are still pissed at not being able to own slaves anymore

Yet others wonder whether the 500,000+ dead young men, millions injured and maimed, uncounted civilians killed/injured/voilated and cities burned to the ground was worth the trouble to end something that mechanization was making obsolete.

But you feel free to continue your brain dead, knee-jerk demagoguery....It's really all you're good at.

So in your revisionist world, the South secedes and we just go our merry ways

 

[editec]

In looking at a President, I look at:

1. What challenges did he face?
2. How did he respond to those challenges?
3. What was the lasting impact of his decisions?

No President faced the challenges that Lincoln did. Lincoln made some mistakes in facing those challenges, but given what others were proposing at the time, Lincoln kept a level head and played the political aspects of the war correctly. His lasting impact was eliminating slavery and preserving the union

He changed a bunch of united states into THE United States

No doubt, he is number one

That's a pretty sensible way to evaluate our presidents.

Using that system the big three are Washinton, Lincoln and FDR.

They faced the most threatening problems and kept the nation going.

Perhaps some other former presidents might have done as well or better, but they simply did not have the opportunity to test their metal against anything as bad as those three faced.

 

[Oddball]

Yea...I guess some are still pissed at not being able to own slaves anymore

Yet others wonder whether the 500,000+ dead young men, millions injured and maimed, uncounted civilians killed/injured/voilated and cities burned to the ground was worth the trouble to end something that mechanization was making obsolete.

But you feel free to continue your brain dead, knee-jerk demagoguery....It's really all you're good at.

So in your revisionist world, the South secedes and we just go our merry ways

Petty much...Right here, buddy.

 

[Flopper]

Of 18 polls that rank presidents, 10 rank Lincoln 1st, 6 rank him 2nd, and 2 rank him 3rd.
I think the vast majority of people will agree that he was one of our best presidents.

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Anachronism]

Using that system the big three are Washinton, Lincoln and FDR.

They faced the most threatening problems and kept the nation going.

I would suggest that two of the three failed miserably and rank as the two WORST Presidents in American history so far as I'm concerned.

 

[Oddball]

Using that system the big three are Washinton, Lincoln and FDR.

They faced the most threatening problems and kept the nation going.

I would suggest that two of the three failed miserably and rank as the two WORST Presidents in American history so far as I'm concerned.

Ain't it great how these folx canonize America's greatest warmongering mass murderers?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Lincoln is the best in my books. He faced the most tumultuous times this nation has ever faced-and while the civil war has forever changed our nation-no president has had more impact on our nation (while being president), than Lincoln. In my opinion it was for the better.

I think the best are (in no particular order) Lincoln, Washington, Madison (very underrated as a president), Wilson, Eisenhower, both Roosevelts.

PS-The civil war wasn't about slavery (at least at the start).

 

[elvis]

True and that is why I believe he is the Worst President in American History and will likely never be usurped from that spot by any POTUS to come.

Yea...I guess some are still pissed at not being able to own slaves anymore

Yet others wonder whether the 500,000+ dead young men, millions injured and maimed, uncounted civilians killed/injured/voilated and cities burned to the ground was worth the trouble to end something that mechanization was making obsolete.

But you feel free to continue your brain dead, knee-jerk demagoguery....It's really all you're good at.

were those dead worth preserving the union?

 

[Anachronism]

were those dead worth preserving the union?

No they were not. Especially since really all that was accomplished was to place a band-aid on a wound that still festers to this day and which is probably much more infected and puss-filled now than in was 150 years ago. That's a lot of dead bodies, maimed and wounded comrades and destroyed families for a less than decisive outcome, elvis.

 

[Cuyo]

Dead last? Who's first?

Yes, DEAD Last. First would be a toss-up between George Washington and Andrew Jackson in my mind.

Andrew Jackson? The founder of the modern Democratic party??

Oh, I gotta hear this; although I think I'm on your infantile little ignore list.

 

[Toro]

Without Lincoln, there would be two countries today, no?

 

[elvis]

Without Lincoln, there would be two countries today, no?

possibly. or no country at all....

 

[Toro]

Without Lincoln, there would be two countries today, no?

possibly. or no country at all....

I've often wondered about this. Had the South won, they would have been an agarian, relatively poor and fairly small country, and would have stayed that way for 100 years.

 

[elvis]

Without Lincoln, there would be two countries today, no?

possibly. or no country at all....

I've often wondered about this. Had the South won, they would have been an agarian, relatively poor and fairly small country, and would have stayed that way for 100 years.

would mexico have taken back Texas? think Zimmerman note.

 

[Toro]

possibly. or no country at all....

I've often wondered about this. Had the South won, they would have been an agarian, relatively poor and fairly small country, and would have stayed that way for 100 years.

would mexico have taken back Texas? think Zimmerman note.

I have no idea. I assumed not but maybe I'm wrong.