Lincoln ranked best president by historians

Lincoln ranked best president by historians

www.msnbc.msn.com

WASHINGTON - Just days after Americans honored the 200th anniversary of his birth, 65 historians ranked Abraham Lincoln as the best U.S. president.

Former President George W. Bush, who left office last month, was ranked 36th out of the 42 men who had been chief executive by the end of 2008, according to a survey conducted by the cable channel C-SPAN.

(visit the link for the full news article)

American historians are a bunch of ignorant individuals who form their opinion by mindlessly staring at the Lincoln Memorial instead of looking at the facts: Lincoln was responsible for the death of over a half million of Americans by suppressing the free choice of the Southern States to leave the Union. Lincoln was a criminal -- a president that an honest nation of people should be ashamed of.



www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I always liked Andrew Jackson.

Second line, No, not just cause he's on the $20 bill.

Perhaps the really disturbing part is that the skipped a president. W was number 43. So with that in mind, does that make him 35th?

reply to post by Ahabstar


Ahab, C-SPAN counted one Prez twice....hang on, looking it up....EDIT, Grover Cleveland served two terms, not consecutive, so HE counts as one

[edit on 2/17/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yep shortly after posting I realized that Cleveland is counted twice because of his non-consecutive terms which is why 42 have served and W is the 43rd president. I just figured I would leave it to see if anyone would catch the trivia of it.

reply to post by stander


Without any flaming, stander....you're certainly entitled to your opinion...but can you honestly believe that the secession of eleven 'Southern' States, one of those being Virginia....JUST across the river from Washington, could be tolerated????

What's more, coming as we did less than a century from the War of Independence.....and Knowing that the whole thing was about economics, not so-called 'southern indepence'....

I mean....I'm slightly astonished at your reasoning, here.

Please remember your history. Abraham Lincoln was a member of the Republican Party. The decision of the eleven States to secede came BEFORE his Inauguration, but, of course, after his election.

No internet then, of course....just lies, manipulation, and power plays.

I wonder....in an alternate World, had the 'North' simply said 'OK', go your own way....how long it'd have been before Mexico decided to annex some of their former territories.....would make for an interesting science fiction story.

EDIT: formatting

[edit on 2/17/0909 by weedwhacker]

I'm honestly surprised they didn't go ahead and include Obama somewhere on that list.

I figured they would have him in the top 5 or something before I looked at it.

you cant place obama until he has his 4 years service to the country. I don't think he would make top 5 at this moment in time though.

I realize that.

But I don't think a lot of the media does.

Imagine if this were a ranking of the Presidents according to Chris Matthews!



We'd all be getting tingly feelings going up our legs right now.

reply to post by stander


I'm with the others. The issues at the time were about states' rights moreso than anything else. South Carolina particularly was having serious issues as the North kept passing national laws that basically attacked every facet of Southern life. However, I don't agree with the concept that Lincoln caused a million deaths. It was an issue that had to be resolved if this country was going to survive. What if he had allowed the country to split in half and done nothing? What if New York and Pennsylvania got into a fight next and New York decided they'd had enough?

Lincoln gave the states chances to resolve the issue diplomatically and when they refused, declared war. So, the assumption he just invaded the South immediately is wrong. The South, once war was declared, invaded the North. The Gettysburg Address was not made in the South, it was made in PENNSYLVANIA.

In addition, once war was declared, several Indian tribes jumped into the fray which meant the Union troops were fighting battles in MINNESOTA.

And, of course, the whole thing basically got started over a conflict in MISSOURI.

It was only after the Union troops got their stuff together and put down the uprisings in the northern states were they able to take it to the Confederacy in the break-away states in the South.

So, to assume this a choice Lincoln even had to make is horribly flawed and shows the ignorance and bias of whoever came to the conclusion the war was unnecessary and Lincoln's fault.

It was unnecessary, but it was the fault of the intolerant senators and congressmen from the northern states who were passing laws that were destroying the South economically without any regard for the South.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

Of course, labeling Lincoln "criminal" is a very subjective opinion designed to put an imperative after this incredible choice to elevate Lincoln into #1 rank in the poll. As it turned out, the Americans made unknowingly an incredible sacrifice in the view of what was in store: The WWII could have had a different ending with the USA divided on two separate nations that might have not reacted to the global hostilities in unison.

I know the history pretty well, and as the president I would try to avoid a civil war at all cost baring the very survival of the new, separate state. Lincoln chose politics over the life of his fellow citizens -- he can't possibly rank #1. Lincoln's spirit surely didn't govern over the reorganization of the former Soviet Union. Hopefully the era of Lincolns and Stalins is over for good.




[edit on 2/18/2009 by stander]

reply to post by stander


OK....this is BTS, so let's imagine it is 1860.

You live on a plantation, and have slaves. AND, someone tells you that slavery is wrong.....what are you to do?????

Come on!!!!! This is ludicrous....to believe that the South was attempting to secede for any other reason than Slavery is to ignore History.

I said, before, that it was economic.....but, that was a phrase that included 'slavery'...my bad.

Slavery is a terible, horrendous part of the USA history....it is shameful.

ANY attempt to ridicule or dimish the actual shame, diminshes you.

EDIT because I am white....and, I want the words and the grammar to be correct.

'nuf said!!!

[edit on 2/18/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by stander

 

OK....this is BTS, so let's imagine it is 1860.

You live on a plantation, and have slaves. AND, someone tells you that slavery is wrong.....what are you to do?????

Come on!!!!! This is ludicrous....to believe that the South was attempting to secede for any other reason than Slavery is to ignore History.

And whom this scream is exactly directed to? To me? I never mentioned the word "slavery."

I see that the American historians contributed to the junior high history text books vith unusual fervor to moralize the heads of the pupils silly.

Too bad that the Illuminating Light of Justice didn't flash its beam also on the other part of the work force, so Lincoln missed it.
www.dli.state.pa.us...