The 44th US President has done a better job than the 17th President

Historians have long speculated that both Lyndon Johnson in the 1960's and Abraham Lincoln in the 1860's were racist, at least by our standard today. That may sadly be true. That would also mean these two Presidents saw, in spite of themselves, the need for equality in their day. And they acted and embraced the consequences of forcing egalitarianism through the law. And it means they did so despite themselves; by being better than themselves, whatever degree of personal bigotry. In 1858, then congressman Abraham Lincoln gave his famous, "half slave and half free," speech in Springfield Illinois, where twenty years earlier he had contended that, "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be the author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must either live through all time, or die by suicide." On April 14th 1965 Abraham Lincoln, reelected President of the United States after serendipitous turns in the Civil War, faced the great challenge of reincorporating the South, and unifying an array of factions. That night he was assassinated. The next day Vice President Andrew Johnson, a war Democrat and formally the Union's military governor of Tennessee, ascended to the Presidency. In 1864 he had joined Abraham Lincoln's long-shot bid, providing a southern Union Democrat on the "National Union" ticket. He was the first Vice President to ever ascend from an assassination, and the only ever during a civil war. He would never rise to the example Lincoln had set. In fact he would contravene his President's policy and seek to further entrench racism. In a twist of irony Andrew Johnson would bring a newly and at long last restored nation to a new and unexpected threshold of infighting, discord, vitriol and nearly to legal collapse all just in under four years, and for reasons no history could ever vindicate. In the interest of fairness I've presented a few sort of, "Who's in Grant's Tomb," examples, to provide a robust source on the events and chronology of the Johnson Government. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... This is all very lengthy, but suffice to say Andrew Johnson fought against egalitarianism and had no concept of what we take for granted norms and civil liberties today. What's even worse, his divisive bureaucratic attempts to destroy and reduce the power of Freedmen lead him into bitter and entirely political struggles. "This is a nation for white men, and by God, as long as I am President it will be a government for white men." He famously said. He resisted the 14th amendment, supported antebellum government and finally was impeached in reasonable suspicion for violation of the Tenure of Office Act. He narrowly escaped conviction by one vote. Ever since then, the evidence has compounded that he bought votes to avoid it, politically and with cash. Andrew Johnson epitomized the worst of his times politics, the lowest threshold of American Egalitarianism, and a lust for doomed political confrontation to advance his own political career. He did so when our nation has never been weaker. Our elected President had died, and he spun the situation to try and entrench racism and nearly destroyed our restored government. And big part was because he was racist. Others had and since have set better examples, despite themselves, perhaps, like some say of Lincoln in the 1860's, and Lyndon Johnson in 1960's Suffice to say despite any weakens Barack Obama has been accused of, that list can't outstrip the violation and vitriol of Andrew Johnson. In comparison with our current President, my esteemed opponent, (I said it at least once), has complained of the Affordable Care Act and the slogan from the 2008 campaign. One is a national healthcare bill, to which my opponent never offered an actual objection. The other is a slogan that is not inherently negative. It bears mentioning my opponent merely complained of the slogan being annoying. This is all outweighed by the harm of advancing and entrenching racism, and threatening our government during reconstruction with the south right after Abraham Lincoln had been assassinated in 1866 and at the end of the Civil War. If my opponent would like to offer unique advantages or disadvantages of the Obama era for comparison with unique advantages or disadvantages from the Johnson era of the 1860's for a kind of "which is better/worse" comparison I will certainly respond. To be fair, such a comparison would be pretty brutal for the negative (con). IN considering this it bears mentioning that one of the reasons for offering the topic was to provide perspective on a frequented claim that is humbug, regarding Obama's overall place in history by any meaningful measure. The hard right has become so extreme, some elements cannot see reason when it's in ink, let alone your calendar. Recalcitrance has come to epitomize the far right, and my opponent has thus far played to that fiddle: the most incendiary scream about our culture and the economy without the basic wherewithal to evaluated our currents President's impact on either, especially within the lens of history. We would offer to educated them, but would probably be turned down. Abraham Lincoln is oft cited seeking to be on the side of right whatever his predilections might be, and claiming the virtues of freedom and equality should carry any argument. After Lincoln's death and with the nation still wounded, Andrew Johnson tried to compare himself to Jesus Christ in a campaign to advocate and entrench what was at the time already rejected institutional racism. Barack Obama worked with a gridlocked congress to pass a healthcare bill that some Americans find dissatisfactory, and he had a campaign slogan. There is simply no comparison. I leave it to my opponent to pick up the more serious tone I have tried to offer. Who knows, perhaps they will have something to offer to the current day, or historical analysis of this topic. Thanks for reading, and for your vote; Vote Aff!