Best and Worst Presidents?

[Radio Frequency X]

Worst: Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush I.

Best: Washington, J.Q. Adams, Hayes, Polk, Coolidge, JFK, Reagan.

 

[c0da]

Worst: Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush I.

Interesting that you say FDR, not many people I have spoke to would rank him anywhere near one of the worst presidents. How come you think he is one of the worst?

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Worst: Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush I.

Interesting...why put Lincoln as one of the worst?

 

[Purple Thyme]

The best for me would be Lincoln. The worst I don't know yet.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

FDR I put as one of the worst because he drasticly increased the role of government. Lincoln I put down as one of the worst because of the civil war and the drafting of immigrants.

 

[Polaris]

FDR I put as one of the worst because he drasticly increased the role of government. Lincoln I put down as one of the worst because of the civil war and the drafting of immigrants.

Actually it was Lincoln's handling of the Civil War that saved the United States. Why was the drafting of immigrants a bad thing?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Actually it was Lincoln's handling of the Civil War that saved the United States. Why was the drafting of immigrants a bad thing?

The States could have easily solved their problems slowly, without war and without thousands of dead Americans. I also find the drafting of immigrants practically right off the boat to fight and die for Lincoln's war to be repugnant. They had nothing to do with it and they were forced to die. Personally, I think Lincoln was insane, but he has been immortalized in American Legend, or er, history. What Lincoln did was just as bad as what Jackson did when he slaughtered thousands of native americans.

 

[Polaris]

The States could have easily solved their problems slowly, without war and without thousands of dead Americans. I also find the drafting of immigrants practically right off the boat to fight and die for Lincoln's war to be repugnant. They had nothing to do with it and they were forced to die. Personally, I think Lincoln was insane, but he has been immortalized in American Legend, or er, history. What Lincoln did was just as bad as what Jackson did when he slaughtered thousands of native americans.

You think Lincoln wanted to go to war? The South had seceeded and was absolutely determined to preserve their slavery. By the time Lincoln came into power the situation was already beyond an "easy" peaceful solution. The Confederacy initiated the attacks and by that point it was clear war was inevitable. Sure Lincoln made mistakes, but hind-sight is 20/20. He did remarkably well given the cards he was dealt. The US wouldn't be what it is today without his strong leadership.

Immigrants were included in the draft because a) they were needed, b) they were to become US citizens and enjoy all the priveledges and responsibilites that come with that, and c) (like it or not) they most definitely has a vested interest in the war.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

You think Lincoln wanted to go to war? The South had seceeded and was absolutely determined to preserve their slavery. By the time Lincoln came into power the situation was already beyond an "easy" peaceful solution. The Confederacy initiated the attacks and by that point it was clear war was inevitable. Sure Lincoln made mistakes, but hind-sight is 20/20. He did remarkably well given the cards he was dealt. The US wouldn't be what it is today without his strong leadership.

Not really the way I'd describe it. The South depended on Slavery for their economy. There was no way they could just end it without destroying themselves. Lincoln wasn't going to wait for them to end slavery one step at a time while they built their own economic infrastructure. It really wasn't just Lincoln. It was most of the people in the North. They depended on trade and manufacturing, so they didn't need slaves. What did they care if they destroyed the livelihoods of the people in the southern states? Many, if not most, of the people in the South were willing to end slavery while they build and alternative, but they never got a say in the debate.

Immigrants were included in the draft because a) they were needed, b) they were to become US citizens and enjoy all the priveledges and responsibilites that come with that, and c) (like it or not) they most definitely has a vested interest in the war.

None of those are good reasons to send innocent people just off a boat to go die in a war that didn't need to be fought in the first place. That kind of a draft is just plain wrong... not to mention immoral.

 

[Polaris]

Not really the way I'd describe it. The South depended on Slavery for their economy. There was no way they could just end it without destroying themselves. Lincoln wasn't going to wait for them to end slavery one step at a time while they built their own economic infrastructure. It really wasn't just Lincoln. It was most of the people in the North. They depended on trade and manufacturing, so they didn't need slaves. What did they care if they destroyed the livelihoods of the people in the southern states? Many, if not most, of the people in the South were willing to end slavery while they build and alternative, but they never got a say in the debate.

I agree. Early on if things had been handled appropriately the Civil War may have been completely avoided. But you can't pin the Civil War on Lincoln, war was virtually inevitable just by his election. If you want to point fingers at a president, Buchanan is much more to blame. Lincoln performed admirably given the conditions in which he inherited the presidency. He won the war, saved the union, and freed the slaves.

None of those are good reasons to send innocent people just off a boat to go die in a war that didn't need to be fought in the first place. That kind of a draft is just plain wrong... not to mention immoral.

I'm sure in your view there is no good reason to send people to war. The reality is that war is sometimes necessary. Someone has to fight for the good causes, and that's always going to include innocent people. Unfortunately that's just a fact of life. The immigrants, and all drafted Americans, were needed to fight for that good cause -- to preserve the union of our nation. Many faught proudly for that cause.

 

[DeepShadow]

I don't agree with everything Radio's said, but I hate to see him defending his position alone. I'll just say that I've heard many historians say that the South would have given up slavery without a war if they'd been left to themselves for another twenty years or so. For Lincoln, it was never about slavery, but about whether or not the South had the right to secede. He believed they didn't, and were therefore in rebellion.

I don't know if that makes him the worst president or not, even if all that's true. Moreover, the draft issue is really only an issue if the war was unjust/unnecessary, so you don't have two arguments against him there, but only one.

My apologies for not submitting my own votes yet; I have a hard time evaluating them on a single scale. For example, Jackson may have created the Trail of Tears, but Harrison would have exterminated the Native Americans if given half a chance. He tried to do so at Tippycanoe. The fact that he didn't do anything terribly during the thirty days he was in office is hardly fair, since he spent a good deal of that sick in bed. Doesn't his past before becoming president count for anything?

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Hmm...well, no, Lincoln didn't go to war over slavery, he went to war over the seccession and all that, but that largely happened because of slavery.

But Lincoln was willing to leave slavery alone, you know. He was opposed to it morally (since it was, basis for an economy or not, pretty nasty), but believed it was protected under the Constitution. He was willing to wait for them to get rid of it, going into the presidency. Lincoln was opposed more strongly to the spread of slavery. He was fairly moderate for the time (I doubt they could have gotten a more radical elected). He was, for some time, in favor of plans that involved gradual emancipation, compensation, etc. And prior to the Civil War and the events leading right up to it, most of the North wasn't particularly abolitionist.

Hmm. We might want to start a new thread just arguing about Lincoln...

 

[CaptainXeroid]

In the interest of keeping this thread more focused on which Presidents are best and worst, I moved my post about Abraham Lincoln to a thread dedicated to him.

 

[Smoke]

Hmm. We might want to start a new thread just arguing about Lincoln...

Good idea. I've been listening to people argue about Lincoln all my life, and it can go on and on. There's a lot -- both good and bad -- to be said about Lincoln.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

I'm sure in your view there is no good reason to send people to war. The reality is that war is sometimes necessary. Someone has to fight for the good causes, and that's always going to include innocent people. Unfortunately that's just a fact of life. The immigrants, and all drafted Americans, were needed to fight for that good cause -- to preserve the union of our nation. Many faught proudly for that cause.

Actually, I think there are many good reasons to go to war. I do not think the Civil War was a just war, nor do I think drafting new arrivals was a good idea. If the North really wanted to fight the South (you know, in order to have them to sell their products to and increase their wealth) they should have sent their own sons to fight, instead of giving the rich one's a way to get out of the draft and sending immigrants off to die for a cause not of their own. They came here looking for freedom, not death and war.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

In chronological order...

Best:
Washington. Excelled at the art of not assuming too much political power, when he easily could have.
Lincoln. (Reasons given in this thread.)
FDR. Led the nation through two of its toughest challenges ever, the Depression and WW II.

Worst:
Jackson. Trail of Tears, and our nation's first true bureacratic president.
Nixon. Watergate and a host of other crap.
George W. Bush. 'Nuff said.

Noteables:
Teddy Roosevelt. Had one of the best domestic policies ever and one of the worst foreign policies ever.
Clinton. Referred by some as America's "First Black President."

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

I'm not sure about the best, but Andrew Jackson was certainly the worst. He kicked the Cherokee (as well as many other Indian nations) off their land, and moved them to reservations in the West. He did this against many of our nation's treaties, and even after the Supreme Court ruled that the Indians should be allowed to stay. Descending from Cherokees, I feel very strongly that Andrew Jackson was an evil man and horrible president.

Lincoln is up there with the worst, as well. He ignored that fact that Sherman harmed civilians on his March to the Sea, and allowed (perhaps even encouraged) the Union soldiers to steal from Southern civilians. Jefferson Davis was a great man, but he wouldn't be considered an American president, so I can't include his here.

And then Bill Clinton was a horrible president as well, lying and adultery being among the reasons I dislike him so much.

I just can't decide on the best, though.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The reality is that war is sometimes necessary.

War is only necessary as a defense to aggression.

There was no way they could just end it without destroying themselves.

End it they did, and they did not seem to be destroyed by the economic loss of the slaves NEAR AS MUCH as the drain the war put on them. They seceded out of a misplaced fear and there is no nobility in that.

 

[ChrisP]

Martin Sheen and Michael Douglas!

 

[Radio Frequency X]

End it they did, and they did not seem to be destroyed by the economic loss of the slaves NEAR AS MUCH as the drain the war put on them. They seceded out of a misplaced fear and there is no nobility in that.

Partly True. I am not arguing for the nobility of the South or of any innocence on the part of slave-owners. What I am arguing is that they did not want to break away from the union out of a "misplaced fear". Their fear was valid and the North didn't offer any room to compromise. There is so much history surrounding the Civil War that is hard, even for people that spend a life studying it, to come to a truly objective conclusion. However, there are objective facts that support both sides. On my side of the court is Lincoln's total lack of respect for civil rights (he'd imprison people that disagreed with his administration: how would you feel if Bush did that?), he drafted immigrants right off the boats (how would you feel if Bush started drafting illegal immigrants and sending them to Iraq?), and he allowed his generals to spread terror throughout the Southern countryside (how would you feel if Bush started slaughtering tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens? well, how do you feel about that? )

In my mind, Lincoln is in most ways, very much like George W. Bush. Both were relative failures in life until they won the White House. They both took us to war and managed the war badly. Only, George W. Bush actually has MORE respect for civil rights and for American citizens than Lincoln.