Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Hardrightconservative

Favorite Presidents

Who is you favorite President?  

70 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is you favorite President?

    • Abraham Lincoln
      2
    • Bill Clinton
      10
    • George W. Bush
      1
    • Richard Nixon
      0
    • George Washington
      1
    • Ronald Reagan
      18
    • John F. Kennedy
      10
    • Harry Truman
      4
    • Franklin Roosevelt
      16
    • Other
      8


Recommended Posts

well lincoln was great he did hold the country together and it seems idiotic to say he destroyed the country by not letting it split up in two but to be one of the best presidents ever u need atleast 2 terms

SSVegeta123243,

My old debating friend (not fiend!) :D. Good to hear from you. OK I'll go on the record: Yes Lincoln was a GREAT TYRANT. :P

As we have went around in our discussions I think it is safe to say, correctly he DESTROYED our country by squashing (in the minds of most of the populace) the defense we had against GID GOVERNMENT called States' Rights. We still have those in ART. X of the Bill of Rights, but with the propaganda system...I mean the public school system nobody seems to care or concern about it all.

Great Tyrant, Mr. Lincoln (plus yall know he was a bastard - an illegitimate son. He was born in the County where I live - Rutherford County, NC - the son of Abraham Enole born on Puzzle Creek in Bostic - Check out the Genesis of Lincoln!), but No NOT a GREAT President!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've read Sherman's memoirs, he was a master of total war. ... I have never heard that Sherman wanted to rape the South and repopulate it...that's something new and a disgusting allegation.

MattyN,

Allow me to find the quotes for you. Of course he didn't mention it in his memoirs - the autobiographical - you think he's going to show the world his desire when he didn't have to? Nope! Let me get back to you in a jippy.

I tend to use facts, not allegations. Its the only way to go. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

creigl u love saying were looking at it from the northern point of view and were not being taught the truth and all this other nonsense the fact of the matter is the south attacked first, the south was pro slavery, and they chose to leave the union over loosing there slaves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Sherman didn't. ... I have never heard that Sherman wanted to rape the South and repopulate it...that's something new and a disgusting allegation.

Folks here's Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing American Style:

"The statements of Union officers in their official reports reveal attitudes far different from how the war is presented in American school textbooks."

THE WINNERS WRITE HISTORY THE WAY THEY SEE FIT. Gentlemen.

In a September 17, 1863, letter to Henry W. Halleck, the general in chief of the Union armies, Union Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman wrote:

"The United States has the right, and ... the ... power, to penetrate to every part of the national domain…. We will remove and destroy every obstacle - if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper."

Halleck liked Sherman's letter so much that he passed it on to President Lincoln, who declared that it should be published. Sherman, in a follow-up to Halleck on October 10, 1863, declared:

"I have your telegram saying the President had read my letter and thought it should be published…. I profess ... to fight for but one single purpose, viz, to sustain a Government capable of vindicating its just and rightful authority, independent of niggers, cotton, money, or any earthly interest."

PLEASE NOTE THIS IS SHERMAN'S QUOTE! THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS. I Personally am offended by the use of the N-Word.

On June 21, 1864, before his bloody March to the Sea, Sherman wrote to the secretary of war: "There is a class of people [in the South] … men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order."

A few months later, Sherman informed one of his subordinate commanders:

"I am satisfied ... that the problem of this war consists in the awful fact that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright rather than in the conquest of territory, so that hard, bull-dog fighting, and a great deal of it, yet remains to be done…. Therefore, I shall expect you on any and all occasions to make bloody results."

On October 9, 1864, Sherman wrote to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant: "Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources…. I can make the march, and make Georgia howl."

Sherman lived up to his boast - and left a swath of devastation and misery that helped plunge the South into decades of poverty.

Such tactics were typical towards the end of the war. On December 19, 1864, a Union colonel reported that he had followed orders "to desolate the country from the Arkansas River to Fort Scott, and burn every house on the route." In the same month, a major general with the Army of the Potomac noted the success of a Union expedition south of Petersburg, Virginia: "Many houses were deserted … contained only helpless women and children ... almost every house was set on fire."

Many Union officers were horrified at the wanton destruction their armies inflicted on the South. On March 8, 1865, Gen. Cyrus Bussey (USA) reported:

"There are several thousand families within the limits of this command who are related to and dependent on the Arkansas soldiers in our service. These people have nearly all been robbed of everything they had by the troops of this command, and are now left destitute and compelled to leave their homes to avoid starvation.... In most instances everything has been taken and no receipts given, the people turned out to starve, and their effects loaded into trains and sent to Kansas."

The source of the preceding quotes is The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (128 volumes published by the Government Printing Office). Thomas Bland Keys compiled some of the most shocking comments in his excellent 1991 book, Uncivil War: Union Army and Navy Excesses in the Official Records, published by the Beauvoir Press in Biloxi, Mississippi. For a masterful examination of the broad issues surrounding the war, check out Jeffrey Rogers Hummel's Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men (Chicago: Open Court, 1996).

Some Northern leaders claimed to be deeply concerned about the well-being of slaves liberated by the Northern armies. However, Union tactics intentionally devastated the economies of much of the South - leaving people to struggle for years to avert starvation. This destruction made the South's recovery far slower than it otherwise would have been - and greatly increased the misery of both white and black survivors.

The more ruthless the Northern armies acted, the more exalted federal power became. For many, the greatness and sanctity of the federal government was confirmed by the fact that the government possessed the power to burn Southern cities, destroy Southern crops, and starve Southern families.

The more the politicians used government power to destroy, the more government power itself was exalted as the greatest curative. Lord Acton, writing in England in 1862, observed of the American war: "Whether the Northern Government succeeds or fails, its character is altered, and its power permanently and enormously increased." An 1875 article in the American Law Review noted: "The late war left the average American politician with a powerful desire to acquire property from other people without paying for it." The tragic mistakes, blunders, and crimes of politicians led to a war that resulted in a vast expansion of the power of the political class.

Take these quotes and see how Sherman is now? Do I hear Hitler? Anyone??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
creigl u love saying were looking at it from the northern point of view and were not being taught the truth and all this other nonsense the fact of the matter is the south attacked first, the south was pro slavery, and they chose to leave the union over loosing there slaves

SSVegeta123243,

Yall are! The winners write history the way they see fit. How many times do we have to go over this. :rolleyes:

The United States of America preserved, protected and embraced Slavery from the establishment 1775 - 1865 (NOTE that is Not 1860 or any earlier year) So the USA was PRO-SLAVERY until 1865.

The North was predjuiced due to Anti-Dwelling laws. The Crittenden Compromise would have appeased the South IF THE WAR WAS FOUGHT OVER SLAVERY.

The South WAS FORCED to leave DUE TO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. The Southern Planters disgused the process with the freeing the slaves and the dangers of miscengation and the total chaos that would have ensued from an immediate freeing of the slaves due to the collapse of the Southern economy.

We are from 2 sides so we will not view this from the point. But I have given the facts, while I have heard empty platitudes from the Northern side.

Here it all is ladies (if there are any here) and gentlemen. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those're some nasty words from Sherman. They do sound like many a wartime General, though. I'm not as disgusted as I thought I would be from what you initially made them out to be. The term 'nigger,' while rude for white folk to say today, was pretty common then and not necessarily intended to be used as a derogitory term. Negro was the PC term, but Sherman was anything but PC...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MattyN,

I know that and you know that about the "N word" I've read the book "Nigger" by Randall Kennedy (who's black) as he documents the 'troublesome career of that word.'

It is interesting to see the etymology and changing application of many words. In the South, Negro became Negra, then slap our Drawl and stretch it out, drop the a and walla: you get the "infamous word."

While used very commonly at the time, the black community trashes Huck Finn by Mark Twain becauses it uses that word. Yet Twain is seeking to say that ol Jim was more than what everybody called him, he was a person too and had feelings which is what Huck finds out when he says: all right I'll go to Hell."

Well, I for one am very disgusted by Sherman's comments. I don't recall Lee saying something like that. Now Jackson said kill all the soldiers but not the whole population. Boy if that were aimed at Northerners or Blacks boy there'd be such a firestorm it'd burn everything up! If Sherman got his way then all my kinfolk ancestors would be dead and that would've prevented my family from continuing. That's down right unAmerican!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren G.,

Who??? (Naah! Just kidding!) I don't think he's "god." Howdy Warren G. welcome back from the dead! You know your presidency isn't hardly remembered.

:lol:

Anyway, joking aside, welcome "Mr. President"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol well seems like old general sherman was pretty crazy but anyway he didn't "rape the south" or "kill all southerns" or whatever nonsense he might have said. in war time things happen people say crazy things, innocent civilians are killed, and alot of other bad stuff happens because it's war. in every major war i bet u could find one general on each side that said things just as bad as sherman. u also said one of the reasons the south left the union was because freeing slaves would cause "total chaos" and ruin the southern economy and i guess the old southerners felt there economy was more important than basic human rights for millions of people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For once, I think I agree partially with SSVegeta. In war a lot of crazy things are said, and many are ususally off the cuff remarks. Many could've been taken out of context, though I'm not sure what context would make them make any more sense or less derogitory towards Southerners. Sherman went through and did what he needed to do in order to quelch what he felt was a rebellion, destroy the infrastructure of the Confederacy...and he did it very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol well seems like old general sherman was pretty crazy but anyway he didn't "rape the south" or "kill all southerns" or whatever nonsense he might have said. in war time things happen people say crazy things, innocent civilians are killed, and alot of other bad stuff happens because it's war. in every major war i bet u could find one general on each side that said things just as bad as sherman. u also said one of the reasons the south left the union was because freeing slaves would cause "total chaos" and ruin the southern economy and i guess the old southerners felt there economy was more important than basic human rights for millions of people

SSVegeta123243,

You know Sherman almost committed suicide but he stopped short. (BTW, those who are saved and committ suicide do not go to Hell, its a Catholic Myth from the uninspired Apocrypha. For more info. lemme know!) Anyway, we're interjecting 21st century thought into a 19th century way of thinking the vast majority of all Americans (the abolitionists were the minority) viewed slaves as property not humans. This was testified by the US Supreme Court in 1857.

Yes the South would've experienced the collapse of its economic structure if the slaves were freed en masse all at one time.

The North saw slaves were not productive up there and I've already told you from the US Census records about the 1,000+% increase of slaves in the North after the invention of the Cotton gin. while the south's slaves only increased 31%. Then from 1800-1810 the slave population of the North dropped 95.5% while the south's rose 30.1% thats a .9% decrease from 1790-1800 level of 31%!

So what did the North do? Based of figures of the freedmen, deaths, slaves in the South the North did not free but a small handful. With the Slave trade ending in 1808. The slaves in the North decreased by 659,209 slaves, while the freed population rose only 35,270 people. The numbers do not add up with the Southern total so the conclusion is the self-righteous Northern merchantmen greedily sold them in the slave trade. After they had gotten their money back and with the rise of abolitionism then the hypocritical Northerners wagged their finger at the South and said shame! shame!

So the economic vs. humanitarian argument doesn't work. Both sides are equally guilty. Only the North did what the South was never allowed to do: Profit with excess money by the "ending" of slavery. So here's your shoe on the other foot: "So I gues the old [Northerners] felt th[eir] economy was more important than basic human rights for millions of people."

Sherman raped the South! He cut a 60-mile wide swath of rape, pillage, murder against unarmed civilians and defeated Cofnederate forces before him. Then turned north and marched through the Carolinas and detroyed SC because it was the "Birthplace (Actually remember the North tried to secede 1st) of secession."

Yes Sherman 'nipped it in the bud' for the South. I'm glad Hitler's Blitzkrieg and Stalin's "scorched earth policy" was modled after Sherman's doings. It sure looks that way don't it. Or was it had to do what you had to do? Or how about I was only following orders? That didn't hold up too well at Nuremburg. Too bad Sherman kicked the can before he could get there. :)

Good day my friend!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For once, I think I agree partially with SSVegeta. In war a lot of crazy things are said, and many are ususally off the cuff remarks. Many could've been taken out of context, though I'm not sure what context would make them make any more sense or less derogitory towards Southerners. Sherman went through and did what he needed to do in order to quelch what he felt was a rebellion, destroy the infrastructure of the Confederacy...and he did it very well.

But MattyN,

Go back and look at those quotes. I don't call them "off the cuff" I call that systematic. One after another, after another. He did destroy the infastructure for sure, but it violated the universally held argreements in re to warfare. No matter if the communist saying did come true (for the North): the ends justified the means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to try to defend the man, he's a dead man who broke a great many rules of war. How to defeat a nation in battle, destroy their infrastructure. He destroyed a nations infrastructure. As a military tactic, it was a very good one. Was he a good person? I have no idea. I'm not going to defend his character. It's a different vein then I've viewed Sherman in...I'm used to a much more positive view from history, his memoirs, etc. He was a crass man, that I was positive on, but these quotes about wanting to repopulate the South are a bit disturbing. Well, the man's dead so I can't really ask him about why he said it or what was going through his mind :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MattyN,

True we can't talk to him now, but our words speak beyond our grave. I am persuaded that when He and CS General Joseph E. Johnston were friends before the war that after the war that friendship was renewes somewhat based on historical fact. Even though they ahd fought against each other they put their differences to rest after the reunion of the two countries.

Johnston thought enough of his old friend (and enemy) to go to his (Sherman's) funeral and serve as a pallbearer. He was sick and many warned against that because due to the customs, you would not wear a hat, but Joe Johnston went anyway, got even more sick (pneumonia I believe) and died a short time after that.

Sherman was an effective general in wanton destruction and he did bring the South to her knees more quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would square with the surrender of Johnston to Sherman, because Sherman's terms of readmittance were far more leniant than Grant's...if I'm not mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not remembered? Who could forget Warren G.'s establishment of the Bureau of the Budget. That's pretty gnarly in my opinion!!!

(by the way, I don't think Warren G. Harding was a great president. I'm just trying to be a little different)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would square with the surrender of Johnston to Sherman, because Sherman's terms of readmittance were far more leniant than Grant's...if I'm not mistaken.

Well, yes the last set of terms were acceptable after the 1st set of terms were rejected by Officials in Washington D.C.

Let's see what transpired:

On April 12 Johnston went to Greensborough to meet with fugitive Confederate Pres. Jefferson Davis, whom he persuaded to authorize a peace initiative. Sherman was immediately receptive to peace negotiations.

On April 17th, under a flag of truce near Durham Station, met General Johnston for the first time "although we had been interchanging shots constantly since May, 1863."

The 2-day conference at the James Bennett home produced peace terms acceptable to both generals. But since these intruded on matters of civil policy (for example, recognition of the existing Southern state governments), officials in Washington quickly rejected the agreement and criticized Sherman's imprudence.

So what exactly did Sherman propose? That which Lincoln had been desirious of: Leniency (to capture more votes for Republicans) to the South to a certain degree but that would have halted the Hatred of the Northern Radicals so the 1st set of terms were rejected. See the proposed text:

Memorandum, or Basis of Agreement, made this 18th day of April A.D. 1865, near Durham Station, in the State of North Carolina, by and between General Joseph E. Johnston, commanding the Confederate Army, and Major General William T. Sherman, commanding the Army of the United States in North Carolina, both present:

1. The contending armies now in the field to maintain the status quo until notice is given by the commanding general of anyone to its opponent, and reasonable time - say forty-eight hours - allowed.

2. The Confederate armies now in existence to be disbanded and conducted to their several State capitals, there to deposit their arms and public property in the State Arsenal; and each officer and man to execute and file an agreement to cease from acts of war, and to abide by the action of the State and Federal authority. The number of arms and munitions of war to be reported to the Chief of Ordinance at Washington City, subject to the future action of the Congress of the United States, and, in the mean time, to be used solely to maintain peace and order within the borders of the States respectively.

3. The recognition, by the Executive of the United States, of the several State governments, on their officers and legislatures taking the oaths prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, and, where conflicting State governments have resulted from the war, the legitimacy of all shall be submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States.

4. The re-establishment of all Federal Courts in the several States, with powers as defined by the Constitution of the United States and of the States respectively.

5. The people and inhabitants of all the States to be guaranteed, so far as the Executive can, their political rights and franchises, as well as their rights of person and property, as defined by the Constitution of the United States and of the States respectively.

6. The Executive authority of the Government of the United States not to disturb any of the people by reason of the late war, so long as they live in peace and quiet, abstain from acts of armed hostility, and obey the laws in existence at the place of their residence.

7. In general terms - the war to cease; a general amnesty, so far as the Executive of the United States can command, on condition of the disbandment of the Confederate armies, the distribution of the arms, and the resumption of peaceful pursuits by the officers and men hitherto composing said armies.

Not being fully empowered by our respective principals to fulfill these terms, we individually and officially pledge ourselves to promptly obtain the necessary authority, and to carry out the above programme.

W. T. Sherman, Major-General,

Commanding Army of the United States in North Carolina

J. E. Johnston, General,

Commanding Confederate States Army in North Carolina

Disappointed, the Federal leader informed Johnston that unless more widely acceptable terms were reached, a 4-day armistice would end on the 26th. That day, however, the war-weary commanders met again at the Bennett home and thrashed out an agreement confined to military matters. At once Gen-in-Chief Ulysses S. Grant wired his approval, and May 3 Johnston's once-proud army laid down its arms, closing hostilities east of the Mississippi River.

The terms of the next agreement of the 26th as purely military as follows:

Terms of a Military Convention, entered into this 26th day of April, 1865, at Bennitt's House, near Durham Station, North Carolina, between General Joseph E. Johnston, commanding the Confederate Army, and Major-General W.T. Sherman, commanding the United States Army in North Carolina:

1. All acts of war on the part of the troops under General Johnston's command to cease from this date.

2. All arms and public property to be deposited at Greensboro, and delivered to an ordinance-officer of the United States Army.

3. Rolls of all the officers and men to be made in duplicate; one copy to be given to an officer to be designated by General Sherman. Each officer and man to give individual obligation in writing not to take up arms against the Government of the United States, until properly released from this obligation.

4. The side-arms of officers, and their private horses and baggage, to be retained by them.

5. This being done, all the officers and men will be permitted to return to their homes, not to be disturbed by the United States authorities, so long as they observe their obligation and the laws in force where they may reside.

W. T. Sherman, Major-General

Commanding United States Forces in North Carolina

J. E. Johnston, General

Commanding Confederate States Forces in North Carolina

Approved: U. S. Grant, Lieutenant-General

So the actual surrender terms of Gen. Grant to Gen. Lee are:

Head Quarters of the Armies of the United States

Appomattox C.H. Va. Apl 9th 1865

Gen. R. E. Lee

Comd'g C.S.A.

General,

In accordance with the substance of my letter to you of the 8th inst., I propose to receive the surrender of the Army of N. Va. on the following terms to wit;

Rolls of all the officers and men be made in duplicate, one copy to be given to an officer to be designated by me, the other to be retained by such officer or officers as you may designate. The officers to give their individual paroles not to take up arms against the Government of the United States until properly exchanged, and each company or regimental commander to sign a like parole for the men of their commands -

The arms, artillery and public property to be parked and stacked and turned over to the officer appointed by me to receive them. This will not embrace the side arms of the officers nor their private horses or baggage. This done each officer and man will be allowed to return to their homes, not to be disturbed by United States authority as long as they observe their parole and the laws in force where they may reside--

Very Respectfully

U. S. Grant

Lt. Gen

So the 2 terms are exactly the same. Whereas Sherman's 1st set would have allowed the South to breathe politically. Sherman and all the rest by this time had had enough killing and bloodshed. They were all appeased at the surrendering CS armies.

Going to the final conclusion Sherman could have been more generous to the defeated Confederates under Johnston's command if the 1st set had been approved thus negating the essential Reconstruction of such an area.

That would not be so due to the bloodthirsty Radical Republicans who hated Southerners. Johnston had to stop Sherman from overreaching as Truman did MacArthur after Korea.

But in view of the final terms of surrender of Grant to Lee and Sherman to Johnston both are indentical so both were the same in generosity. (If only the more generous terms of Sherman of the 18th were allowed...) So no you were not mistaken. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

come on creigl that wasn't necessary it's good to see u have such a graps on history but a post that long is just pointless. even worst most of us agree with u that sherman went to far

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol:  GREAT JOKE! :lol:  :lol:  Defenders of freedom? :lol:  The day Bushy Tail is a hero is the day flying monkeys invade Southern Mexico! :lol:  Reagan? What did he do? Make a huge deficit for 41 to make bigger snd we had to wait until Clinton for it go away. Now our idiot president brings it back :lol:  :lol: !

Pheh. Clinton? Please! You know for JUST a SECOND I thought that MAYBE just MAYBE you do not like Regan and Bush because they are Republicans but that cannot be...... .............

Yes, you can credit Clinton, bringer NAFTA for fixing the deficeit from the 80's as long as you also credit him for granting motivation to US businesses to send jobs out of the country as well. But chances are you are going to blame Bush for that too so why am I even wasting my breath?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i consider myself a democrat and i admit regan was a great president and maybe the greatest republican president since ike, and i only keep bashing the bushes because of the idiotic things they have already done. also i admit carter was an idiot and if i could vote back in umm was it 80 i would have voted for regan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well i consider myself a democrat and i admit regan was a great president and maybe the greatest republican president since ike, and i only keep bashing the bushes because of the idiotic things they have already done. also i admit carter was an idiot and if i could vote back in umm was it 80 i would have voted for regan

SSVegeta123243,

I could not have said it better myself. :lol: I totally agree. But I'd like to add about the "idiotic" Bushes - they (and many presidents since 1865) are going about doing many UnConstitutional programs. :( Well, said my friend!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×