Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would have to say the current one. 2 unpopular wars, a financial crisis, 9/11, Katrina, as well as other natural disasters. Poor guy never had a chance.
I totally agree. Whether someone voted for him or not, he has had a rough set of circumstances overshadow his presidency. Instead of people realizing this, they took each situation and used it as a political tool to criticize instead being the least bit supportive and understanding.
While thnik this president has tough times;especailly the political atmoshere and also beleieve that FDR had much worse times and so did Lincoln. Those were tough times for everybdoy basically that we can't even compare to now. I also think that whoever is the next president will have tough times because the nation is divided politcally. The other half is going to be just as tough on him.
Texdav I disagree. If it is Obama, he has a force field around him.. you criticize him he pulls the race card. Cant be because he has no clue.. no it must be because were all raciest. I do agree this country is divided and its only getting worse. We need to get a handle on that soon or it will tear the country apart.
Abraham Lincoln.
The country was in the throws of a violent civil war with horrid loss of life and the destruction of huge swaths of the country. Logistical base and manufacturing in the South (what little there was of it) GONE.
A totally antagonistic....cabinet......congress....press (media) and bunches of generals that (at first) would not fight.
A public totally divided at home, particularly on the draft. Riots and civil war. Lincoln had it the hardest!
I agree, hands down Lincoln was President during the most trying times in this country's history.
I would agree on the incompetence of the generals but not the antagonism of the cabinet...
Check out Doris Kearns Goodwins book "Team of Rivals" a truly excellent account of the genius of Lincoln in choosing a cabinet that represented the "best and the brightest" of the times, irregardless of party ties and loyalties.
All so unnecessary, was Lincoln trying to free the slaves or was he after the south's cotton money ? He should of been making peace and building firm but positive relations with the south. His first step should of been pulling out of Fort Sumter and giving it to the South. Would the North like it if the south manned a vital and strategic base off New York ?
Im not saying Lincoln should of been a complete pushover for the south. He could of banned cotton imports from the south, and built alliances that would eventually force the south to free the slaves. It probably would of taken 20 years, but it would of saved hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the war. Im sure the population of the north and south today would each have 10 million or more citizens than they do today.
The south would of had resources, as I mentioned, to build up it's industry and railroads without paying the inflated rates the north owned railroads were charging the south. The north could of used its massive steel production to bargain with and pressure the south, to free the slaves and give them jobs.
Don't even know where to start with this.....
Lincoln never set out to free the slaves though he abhorred the practice...he tried to re assure southern leaders that slavery would not be outlawed where it ALREADY existed. The war would not have happened if Southern leaders had not been determined to not only protect the practice but to ensure that it was allowed to expand into new territories....
Lincoln tried heroically to avoid a war between the states but the southern states had made up their minds that a war needed to happen.
Was Fort Sumter not in the United States of America? Why should Lincoln give up a vital defensive base protecting the country he was elected to defend?
All of the would've, could've, should'ves that revisionists try to pass off is just so much hot air...there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that anything you have suggested would have come to pass.
Despite our current economic crisis, the United States has been a true superpower for longer than anyone still alive can remember. There is no reason to believe this would have been the case if the nation had been allowed to divide.
Was Fort Sumter not in the United States of America? Why should Lincoln give up a vital defensive base protecting the country he was elected to defend?
No, Fort Sumter was not in the United States of America, when it was attacked. It was in South Carolina, a CSA state, with foreign invaders in occupation of the base. Lincoln should of gave it up, because when a state(s) succeeds from the union, all foreign held property falls under the ownership of the new government, should it wish to nationalize it.
Why did Meyer Lansky have to give up his casino in Havana when Castro came to power?
Lincoln tried heroically to avoid a war between the states but the southern states had made up their minds that a war needed to happen.
No, Lincoln started the war by not withdrawing from Fort Sumter when it became CSA property. Face it, Lincoln thought of the south as union property to be reconquered.
If Lincoln had "heroically tried to avoid war"(thats a laugh) than he would of made peace instead. Would it have been that hard to make peace with the CSA? Perhaps recognizing their new government? Maybe pulling your troops from their soil would of been a nice gesture? Lincoln should of let the new territories decide for themselves what country they wanted to belong to.
As for your comments about it being better to be a leading superpower, I prefer two regional superpowers that have measured world influence instead. Better to have stronger allies to deal with an international crisis or war. Its saves having to stick your nose in where it doesn't belong, and it costs alot less too. Better not to be be the world police force, just a portion of it. The "world leader" has to spread it's influence around the world like fertilizer, which causes friction. Alot of countries don't like "the leader", just because they are the leader. Being the leading world superpower has it's drawbacks. However, when you have to get other countries on your side first, before you can proceed, has it merrits.
The answer will vary depending upon the writer's choice in how to define "hardest." If the choice is gravest challenge,then the discussion is reduced to Lincoln and FDR. The Civil War was the worst, but FDR counters that with the twin challenges of the Depression and WW II.
If you define hardest as "most embattled", then as others have already identified, Andrew Johnson and Nixon come to mind. I would add to that mix, John Tyler who holds the distinction of being the only president to be expelled from his own political party while holding the top job. Other candidates for this title would include Truman who seemed to love to mix it up with his foes, and LBJ who was haunted by the love turned to hatred which arose from Vietnam. Finally, let us not neglect the Adams family, both of whom had extremely embittered presidencies marked by severe political rancor. They also had in common, reelection failures with both losing to their most feared political rivals.
No, Lincoln started the war by not withdrawing from Fort Sumter when it became CSA property. Face it, Lincoln thought of the south as union property to be reconquered.
If Lincoln had "heroically tried to avoid war"(thats a laugh) than he would of made peace instead. Would it have been that hard to make peace with the CSA? Perhaps recognizing their new government? Maybe pulling your troops from their soil would of been a nice gesture? Lincoln should of let the new territories decide for themselves what country they wanted to belong to.
As for your comments about it being better to be a leading superpower, I prefer two regional superpowers that have measured world influence instead. Better to have stronger allies to deal with an international crisis or war. Its saves having to stick your nose in where it doesn't belong, and it costs alot less too. Better not to be be the world police force, just a portion of it. The "world leader" has to spread it's influence around the world like fertilizer, which causes friction. Alot of countries don't like "the leader", just because they are the leader. Being the leading world superpower has it's drawbacks. However, when you have to get other countries on your side first, before you can proceed, has it merrits.
Obama '08
Re read your first line....
The CSA started the war by pretending it was a sovereign nation....it wasn't...
I never said Lincoln tried to make peace with the CSA, that is a laugh. He tried to make peace with southern leaders BEFORE they chose to secede and plunge the country into war...the south wanted a fight plain and simple
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
