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.
Greenbacks were Unconstitutional, being unbacked by gold or silver.
This led to a major economic crisis, and the national bank setups.
The Constitution forbids the states to make anything other than gold or silver coin legal tender. It imposes no such prohibition on the Federal government. And the country never went bankrupt.
I suppose keeping the United States from breaking up into 2 (or possibly more) different nations and helping free millions of people from slavery might also be part of the criteria.
And anyway, why focus so much on Lincoln?
Douglas supported him against the secessionists, and even Buchanan attempted to reprovision Ft Sumter. Rejecting secession wasn't a specifically Lincoln policy, but a policy backed by the Union as a whole, which any Republican POTUS would have adopted, and most Democratic ones also. Hence the fact that Congress supported the war from first to last, and that the "Copperhead" wing of the Democrats had to accept a pro-War candidate in 1864.
Given that acquiescence in secession was a non-starter, the only question was how to go about defeating it. Could anyone else have done so more successfully than Lincoln?
I agree with wutititz, Wilson was among the worst.
Still aghast at Lincoln beating out Washington here.
If someone wants to start a 7-worst poll, just like this,
go ahead. My 7 worst would be:
- FDR
- Wilson
- LBJ
- Obama
- George W. Bush
- Truman
- Lincoln
Who would you replace them with?
No Republican was going to win in 1932 or 1964, so taking away FDR and LBJ just replaces them with others of broadly similar views,
Ditto for Wilson, at least as far as domestic affairs are concerned. Most if not all of his reform laws would have gone through under Clark, Marshall or Bryan - the country was in the mood for them - and 1912 was another year when no Republican stood a chance. Agreed that the Democratic alternatives are all better, if keeping out of war is the first priority. Probably also re Black rights, such as those were at the time.
Lincoln - Any Republican POTUS would have followed much the same policies, and there was certain to be one sometime, if not in 1860 then in 1864. The only question is who, if anyone, could have carried these policies out better than Lincoln, and it's far from clear that anyone could.
Truman - seems as good as anyone, though I don't suppose having Dewey (or Ike coming in earlier) would have done any real harm.
Agree about GW Bush - where did they dig him up from? - and Obama's main virtue is that he isn't GWB. Still, at least BO has done a bit better at avoiding war, even though this may be luck as much as judgement.
I personally think too many people rank George Washington as a top President without thinking much either. Washington certainly lead this country in our fight for independence. He also did a pretty good job of starting off as America's "first chief executive". However, there was very little that happened during his presidency that was worrysome. The closest thing I can think of is the "Whiskey Rebellion". This was easily put down by federal troops. Other Presidents dealt with far greater crises in office.
One one hand I agree, on the other I disagree. I'm not sure if anyone but Washington could have executed the office of the Presidency during those first 8 years and provided the necessary stability to craft the early nation and weather the early trials...
Washington created the entire Judiciary branch of the government from the Supreme Court down. He created the cabinet and formalized all of the secretaries and departments. He oversaw the formation of the post office. He chose the specific location along the Potomac for the nations capital. He formed the nucleus of what was to become the US Army when he formed the Legion of the United States. He secured the NW Territory and forced the Indian tribes, in concert with Jay's Treaty, to recognize the US, not Britain, as the supreme power in that area. He navigated the battle between Hamilton and Jefferson to resolve the nations deep financial issues. He created the US Navy to protect American trade interests. He kept the US out of the French Revolutionary Wars. He avoided re-starting a war with Britain. He put down the Whiskey Rebellion and was arguable the only man in America who had the moral authority and support to do so.
There were an immense number of pitfalls in the first 8 years of the nation from the squabbling between Federalists and anti-Federalists to foreign wars threatening to drag the US in to Indian wars threatening the newly won frontier to Britain reneging on its treaty obligations to rampant inflation and war debt.
I would argue that there may not have been a nation for very long if not for Washington's presidency. His "above the fray" executive style and immense, universal popularity were critical to the early nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
You won"t be taken very seriously on this forum until you start citing historical evidence for your largely unorthodox views. The better posters here do it all time.
Oh, he has "sources"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikestone8
The Constitution forbids the states to make anything other than gold or silver coin legal tender. It imposes no such prohibition on the Federal government. And the country never went bankrupt.
While the question of both paper currency and central banking have been settled for a long time now via court decisions, one's personal view on the matter of paper currency basically comes down to one's view on how the constitution works...
During the debates the Consitutional Convention struck out the words "emit bills on the credit of the United States" from Article I Section 8. Leaving the section, in part, to read as follows: "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures".
Among the factions at the Convention there was one block that hated paper money given the nations recent financial issues caused by financing the Revolution with it. Contrary to popular conspiracy opinion, bankers were generally opposed to paper money. The other block, primarily the agricultural sector wanted paper money. A decent number of those against paper money were leery to ban it's use entirely as countless governments used it to provide emergency funding in the past. Ultimately, the section was struck and we are left with a quandary...
If one believes that the Constitution provides for nothing more than purely enumerated powers, then since it doesn't say Congress can issue paper money, then it can't. On the other hand, if one believes that as long as the power was not specifically denied, then it is possible as long as it is made legal and proper via another power.
Ultimately, the second interpretation is the one the courts have followed using the "necessary and proper" clause in addition to the other powers given Congress over the regulation of currency. The Founders did debate it quite extensively and Madison himself summed it up best in that "nothing can be inferred either way from these debates." Basically, the Founders struck the clause, but believed that the ultimate power still existed. Indeed Madison himself issued paper money in 1812.
You are very correct in pointing out that the "gold and silver only" clause only applies to the states.
Douglas supported him against the secessionists, and even Buchanan attempted to reprovision Ft Sumter. Rejecting secession wasn't a specifically Lincoln policy, but a policy backed by the Union as a whole, which any Republican POTUS would have adopted, and most Democratic ones also. Hence the fact that Congress supported the war from first to last, and that the "Copperhead" wing of the Democrats had to accept a pro-War candidate in 1864.
Given that acquiescence in secession was a non-starter, the only question was how to go about defeating it. Could anyone else have done so more successfully than Lincoln?
That's an interesting question and I am sure there are others who could had Lincoln's job and possibly some could have done even better then he did. No way of course to tell.
No Republican was going to win in 1932 or 1964, so taking away FDR and LBJ just replaces them with others of broadly similar views
I agree about 1964. In 1932, any Democrat would have won. But it's not necessarily true that any Democrat would have followed FDR's policies.
Garner or Ritchie would have been very different than FDR. They were both fiscal conservatives and advocates of laissez faire. They both had realistic chances of being nominated.
I'm not even sure if Smith would have built up federal power and expanded government involvement in the economy like Roosevelt did.
Gorbachev had no choice but to bring about radical reforms. In fact he was appointed to do precisely that. The Soviets were falling very far behind the west in terms of technology and their economy was completely stalled. They could not match the innovation of the west and this would very soon, in their eyes, leave them so far behind that they would be neutered as a military power. The entire Soviet system needed to be reformed or it risked falling even further behind or collapsing from within.
Gorbachev's appointment and policies were a reaction to the situation that the Soviet Union found itself in during the mid 1980's. Reagan's role in this was punctuating the rapid technological advancement of the west and applying pressure on the Soviets globally both militarily and economically. Reagan did not singlehandedly create the situation, but he very much took advantage of it to bring things to a head at that time.
Soviet defense spending as a share of GDP went from 22% of the Soviet economy to 27% of the Soviet economy over the course of the 1980's. In order to pay for it during a time of collapsing oil revenues and rising grain prices (also through Reagan machinations) the Soviets froze production of consumer goods at 1980 levels over the entire course of the decade.
Articles citing that the Soviet Union did not spend more on the military are not well informed of how the Soviet system operated. The Soviet budget contained a single line item for "military" this line item was a rather small and consistent amount. However, it only was for the daily operation and maintenance of the military and had nothing to do with investments in new equipment, construction, research and development, missile forces, etc. The real Soviet military budget was more than 10 times the amount stated in the budget with the costs spread throughout the entire government.
Well, the points mentioned above combined with the statements of the Soviets themselves said it was not. The Soviets were worried, so worried and so strained, that they were willing to change the entire core of their system in order to attempt to compete. Of course, that's just what Gorbachev and former Soviet military officers say on the subject.
There is both myth and substance when it comes to Reagan. I will agree that Reagan has been eulogized and elevated into a "conservative hero" and does not deserve credit for some of the things he is being given credit for. At the same time, the real Reagan is very different from the "conservative hero" Reagan in many ways and Reagan would probably be disgusted at some of the things modern Tea Party conservatives say he stood for.
I realize it's hard to separate the modern political demigod that he has been made from the real actions of his presidency, but when you do, you will find a man whose policies and leadership played a pivotal role at a pivotal time of history. He is not perfect, he is not a saint, but he was a pretty good president. Does he really deserve to be in the "top 7", I don't know. If it was top 5 I wouldn't have put him in there, but I do feel he was the best post-WW2 president we had with second place going to either Truman or Eisenhower (probably Truman, IMO). In this poll, I felt there was enough room to cover the "major moment" or "game changing" presidents and Reagan is in that pantheon.
What I will agree with is that the legacy of ending the Cold War is something that Reagan could not do alone. He needed man like Gorbachev. However, Gorbachev could not do it alone either. He needed a man like Reagan. Gorbachev himself has said so. It was the combination of the two that made the events that changed the world possible.
You're long on criticism, short on substance with this one. Where would the "resources" have been better spent? Regardless, no economist denies that Reagan ushered in a major rebound of the US economy during his presidency and saw the setting up of the economy that carried that nation through the 1990's and into the 21st century. Depending on which "school" you are from, he either did it unintentionally via "Keynesian" ideas by initiating deficit spending. If you look at it the other way (and I tend to) by reforming taxes, most critically through changes to capital gains, he spurred what has turned into massive private investment in the US economy.
What is often ignored is that Reagan's policies weren't solely "lowering taxes for the rich". His tax reforms had large, positive, impacts on the middleclass as well. By restructuring the tax brackets, standard deductions and exemptions and then indexing them for inflation, Reagan ended the "inflation creep" that happened during the 1970's where incomes rose sharply, pusing people into higher and higher brackets, despite the fact their real incomes remained the same. It was a massive and positive reform to the US tax code that we still benefit from.
Many also forget that Reagan, while running deficits also saw the long game. He became a big fan of "base broadening" when it came taxes. He closed down tons of loopholes, ended selected tax breaks and stepped up enforcement on evaders. The net result in concert with the heating up economy was that Reagan ended up bringing MORE revenue into the government, despite having slashed the taxes.
On the deficit end, he came into office with a 2.3% deficit, it had hit 6% by 1983 and then dropped every year until it was just under 3% when he left office in 1989. Among all presidents since 1900 he is the third biggest percent increaser of the deficit behind Woodrow Wilson and FDR. In terms of inflation adjusted dollars, he is the fifth highest deficit spender behind Wilson, FDR, W. Bush and Obama.
...and I love how FDR tried to undermine the consitution and stack the Supreme Court. Something I would consider a far more heinous offense then the Iran-Contra scheme.
Every president, even ones that I myslef agree were among the best have blemishes on their record.
Maybe you should read up on what Gorbachev said about Reagan...
Looks like we are not too off in our thinking I agree with many of your points. Here is where I disagree:
I dont think the Soviets considered themselves becoming neutered as a military power. The Soviets enjoyed a huge conventianal weapon superiority of the United States which included twice as many tanks and planes. The Soviets after the Cuban Missile Crisis and the overthrow of Krushev increased their military spending tremendously in the 1960s and 1970s and had a clear advantage over the USA in nukes by the late 1970s.
Soviet spending remained constant according to CIA estimates that were used to shape US policy in the 1980's and actually went slightly down in the second half. The Reagan buildup was a not a plan to bankrupt the Soviets because they began on that path decades earlier when Reagan was still giving speeches on behalf of GM. Instead, according one top Reagan cabinet member Al Haig it was a reaction to the massive Soviet buildup of the 1960s and 70s. The Reagan administration felt in the early 80's it did not have leverage at the negotiation table wth the Soviets.
Lamar University has an interesting chart that shows that American and Soviet spending changed over time and how they do not correlate to each other:
Figure 1 U.S. and Soviet Defense Spending, Fiscal Years 1946-1998 (Millions of Constant FY 1998 $)
To his credit, Reagan admitted he cut taxes to deeply in 1981 and raised taxes multiple times in the 1980's to get to reasonable deficits in later years.
In terms of tax cuts, here my problem. Broad based cuts do not work efficiently. Tax cuts only work if they are spent, hopefuly wisely. So if someone keeps them under the mattress or spends them oversea, it does not work. But they still got the cut and it added to the deficit. There are better multipliers to the economy than tax cuts and military speending. For example, education is one.
............There are better multipliers to the economy than tax cuts and military speending. For example, education is one.
Hasn't worked. Spending per kid was $4,000 in 1970; $12,000 now. Areas that spend the most, like Washington DC, sometimes get the poorest results.
"Increasing spending for education so that our children can....blah, blah" is a politicians game. When they increase the funds the school boards build a bigger football stadium, and larger offices for themselves.
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.
I agree with many of your points. Here is where I disagree:
