On C-SPAN, Historians Rate W the 7th Worst President Ever (Clinton Ranking Advances)

[Hissyspit]

Source: ABC News

On C-SPAN, Historians Rate W the 7th Worst President Ever

February 15, 2009 9:41 AM

This morning we learn that C-SPAN has surveyed historians to again come up with a President's Day ranking of commanders-in-chief. Fittingly, for this Abe-a-licious year, the 16th president comes in at #1, with Honest Abe Lincoln retaining his top slot.

He's followed by George Washington, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, and Harry S Truman in the top five slots. JFK, Thomas Jefferson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Woodrow Wilson, and Ronald Reagan finish out the Top Ten.

The worst president, as judged by the panel of historians, is James Buchanan. Second worst -- Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson. Third worst - Franklin Pierce. Fourth worst - William Henry Harrison. Fifth worst - Warren G. Harding. Sixth worst - Millard Fillmore. And there he is, George W. Bush, ranked as 7th worst. (8th worst is John Tyler.)

Reagan, Clinton and George H.W. Bush have all advanced in rankings since the last time C-SPAN did this survey, in 2000. Bill Clinton back then was ranked 21st; he's now 15th. Reagan went from 11 to 10. Bush Sr. went from 20 to 18.

Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/on-c-span-histo.html

[ProfessorGAC]

1. Then They've Overrated Him

How could WH Harrison be that low? He was president for 15 minutes. He died before he could do anything wrong.

And Fillmore was not a worse president than the silverspoon. Andrew Johnson is debatable because he inherited such a national nightmare. To me, that would move 43 into the bottom 5.
GAC

[Art_from_Ark]

44. For all his faults, Buchanan kept the Union intact

His Vice President, John C. Breckenridge, would in all likelihood have done the same if he had been elected President instead of Lincoln. It was the election of Buchanan's successor on the first unabashedly abolitionist platform that set off the final sparks that led to the Civil War and the destruction of much of the South. Lincoln's rejoicing at the burning of Georgia from Atlanta to the sea inflamed an already deep resentment against the Union in general and Lincoln in particular. To aggravate already hard feelings, Johnson's successor, US Grant, oversaw the destruction of the Southern economy (laughingly referred to as "Reconstruction"), and the ensuing 90+ years were a period of Southern bitterness, even hostility, toward the North.

[DUlover2909]

2. Why is Wooodrow Wilson listed so high?

Andrew Jackson or JImmy Carter should be above him, at least. Woodrow Wilson was a racist, sexist piece of shit. Am I wrong?

[HereSince1628]

7. In our jingoistic nation, gotta wonder if he was credited with winning WWI

Popular history seems to take a lot of notice of wars. I suspect historians do, too.

[mediaman007]

8. Thanks for drawing my attention to Mr. Wilson.

I had assumed that he was a progressive. Based on his work with the League of Nations and the turmoil in Europe. I had no idea that he brought Jim Crow Laws to Washington, D.C.

You are absolutely right! Wilson should not be celebrated. His tenure as president of Princeton University and the United States was a racial low point.

[DUlover2909]

38. Tweety just called Woodrow Wilson a progressive liberal on Hardball.

[Mr Generic Other]

39. wilson also signed the Federal Reserve Act

and condemned us to perpetual debt. so was both racist and elitist. we have been told over and over that he was a smart president because the uber-class wants him remembered that way. much like the praise one sees for alexander hamilton in jingoistic US history texts for public school children, those who serve the status-quo are remembered fondly and those who are critical are marginalized.

[rosesaylavee]

36. Wilson was a pig who allowed lynching to continue unabated.

He belongs right down there with Shrubbie.

[happyslug]

43. No Anti-Lynching law ever crossed his desk

And without such a law, making lynching a Federal Crime, unless the crime occurred on Federal Property (i.e. Washington DC, an Indian Reservation or a Military post or ship) there was nothing he could do. The Federal Government only started to use the Post Civil war Civil Rights acts in the 1950s, and then only when it became clear the Supreme Court would uphold them (The Supreme Court had struck down the 1875 Civil Rights Act as unconstitutional for it exceeded the power given to Congress under the post Civil War Amendments, it was repealed under Cleveland removing most of the statutes that could be used to stop segregation).

Now the Anti-KKK act of 1871 was still in force, but it requires the color of law to be effective i.e. people who lynched a person did not violate it UNLESS they claim they had the right to do so as a member of Law Enforcement (and this extended to people who claimed as a matter of law of the right to lynch any black even if they were NOT law enforcement agents). Notice the Color of Law is the restriction, it is broader then just law Enforcement agents but it does NOT cover murder by someone who does NOT claim any legal right to commit the Murder.

This was a problem, recognized even in the 1870s, but Congress was NOT willing to pass an Anti-lynching law till the late 1940s, thus Wilson had no way to prevent such lynching UNLESS Congress passed such a Anti-lynching law, and Congress never did till the 1940s. You can blame Wilson for a lot of things (He completed and took to its most extreme level the Segregation first started under Taft) but NOT stopping Lynching is not one of them.

[rosesaylavee]

47. Birth of a Nation - which included a lynching -

was produced or directed by a friend of his in college. And he did see that movie as there he had a private showing of it in the White House. He could have come out forcefully against that movie but he did not. He could have come out forcefully against lynching in general, but he did not.

I am sure if Obama saw that hundreds young white men were being hustled up and brutally lynched across the North, he would sit back and say - gee, I wish there was something I could do but I am only a lowly President.

[happyslug]

42. Wilson and Racism is complex.

In the Movie "The Birth of a Nation" Wilson is quoted as saying what was written in the book was true. There is NO evidence that Wilson ever said this AND he opposed much of what we would call the Southern racist movement of that time period (i.e. Segregation and Racial Superiority). When given a private showing of the movie he is started to have got up in disgust (But the book cited below says otherwise).

On the other hand, he did segregate the Civil Service and the US Navy (The Army had been segregated since the Civil War, the Navy had been overwhelmingly black after the Civil war, but started to recruit more whites in the 1890s but treated both blacks and whites enlistees as equal till Wilson's administration when a bigger divide was created), through this may have just been an action to keep Southern While Congressmen happy. Remember any Democrat who wanted to be elected at that time period needed the support of the South. The South demanded protection of Segregation. Even FDR who opposed racism and segregation did NOTHING to stop segregation while he was President do to his need for Southern Support. People forget how Democratic Southern Whites were and HOW Republican was the Black population as a whole during this time period (Eisenhower still received 1/3 of the Black vote in 1952).

Truman was viewed as the first President that took the problems of Blacks seriously (and he is know to have made racist statements in the 1920s and 1930s). His support for an Federal Anti-lynching law and support for Black rights caused the first revolt of Southern Democrats from the Democratic Party (The Dixiecrats, lead by Storm Thurman, who was asked why he opposed Truman after Backing FDR, when both Presidents had a Civil Rights platform when their ran for the Presidency told a reporter "But Truman actually means it" paraphrased only, it is believe Truman won over 90% of the Black vote in 1948, setting the norm for blacks voting Democratic to this day).

My point is till the 1930s, it was impossible for a Democrat to win the Presidency without the South, so every candidate had to walk a tight rope, stating they were for "Civil Rights" but also saying such "Civil Rights" was best left up to the States to decide (i.e. "I do NOT support Segregation but if the South wants it, it should be the right of the South to be segregated as long as it is "separate but equal", paraphrase of what the Democratic Candidates from the 1880s till the 1940s position was when it came to Civil Rights).

More on Wilson and Race:
http://books.google.com/books?id=EtBV9_LRsWcC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=Racism+and+Woodrow+Wilson&source=web&ots=M4jewMtz_N&sig=Au1vMquN0ZWT6bMy9IEy7F4xT_8&hl=en&ei=ClOaSZjUFYG4tweDlpGdCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/war.crimes/US/Wilson.htm#WILSONS%20RACISM

Another, less damning view of Wilson and Race (Wilson starts about page 361):
http://books.google.com/books?id=b0OQi4wQApMC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=Racism+and+Woodrow+Wilson&source=web&ots=GpB8tCNPEe&sig=KVVj30KB4eQfzoPTmF4cn6WEvm8&hl=en&ei=Q1eaSf_vFY_ftgeHoKi4Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA361,M1

Please note this book emphasis that whatever Wilson did, it was no worse then what happen under McKinley, Roosevelt or Taft (His three Republican predecessors) and in fact federal segregation started under Taft (Wilson just took it further). On the other hand, the Democrats controlled Congress so no Anti-lynching law was passed, but so was no law making it illegal to marry someone not of your own race (And these when propose more often and had more support in Congress then any of the Anti-lynching laws). That fact that such laws never were passed shows that the country had peaked in its drive for racism and was starting to reverse itself (and that Wilson's position was more progressive then the country was as a whole).

[zeemike]

3. I think as times goes on he will be at the bottom

Historians still don't know the extent of the damage he has done to this country.

[Uben]

4. All things being fair.....

....For the next eight years we get to blame everything on Bush. "Bush did it" will replace the "Clinton did it" meme. So, with all the doom and gloom on the horizon.....I'd say he's fucked!

[Optical.Catalyst]

5. There must be some kind of mistake here

Bush 43 is rated much to high.

[rpannier]

6. Please explain how a man who died less than a month after his inaguration makes the Top 10

These historians are idiots

[Greenheron]

9. Barbara Bush

Wow, So two people related to Barbara Pierce Bush have been lousy presidents.Keep abortion legal!

[webDude]

10. Give it time.

[ComtesseDeSpair]

11. Reagan should be down there with Dubya

And Dubya should be last.

[rateyes]

12. In the immortal words of Dubya, himself, I think they

"misunderestimated" Dubya. He is clearly number 44 on that list.

[PaulRevere08]

13. Historians will a field day writing about W

and so they are throwing him a little bone. There will be libraries full of books on the damages wrought by his 8 years. Every year, long into the future, there will be new revelations about how corrupt and mismanaged his administration was. Also considering his age, he's sure to do a few more stupid things before they drag his ass to hell.

Most Americans probably have no idea who these Pierce, Harding and Fillmore guys are anyway.

[grytpype]

14. I don't see how Harding is worse than Bush.

At least Harding was honest enough to admit he wasn't fit to be president.

[bluestateguy]

19. There is a book arguing that Harding was at least a competent president

I forget the name of it, but this author argues that Harding was at least a mediocre president, and not one of the worst, as is commonly assumed.

[mwb970]

15. The capacity for damage of modern presidents is much greater than in the past.

No 19th-century or early 20th-century president could conceivably have caused the kind of damage that bush inflicted on the country, the world, and the planet itself. The infrastructure for it just wasn't there.

For me, bush will always, always be dead last in the "good president" results. He. Was. Awful.

[Joe Bacon]

16. W-WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER!

It will take a generation to undo the damage that asshole did.

W is so f'n incompetent, he makes James Buchanan look like Superman!

[pmorlan1]

17. With More Info W's # Will Drop

Once we find out all the information about the lawless Bush administration I bet W will move even further down the list.

[road2000]

21. That's a sensible take on it.

But presidential historians should already have that information. We do!

[goclark]

30. George W.orst

DU has know from the first second that he was and would be the worst.

His name should be George W.orst Bush from now on.

[bluestateguy]

18. Clinton will have to live down his repealing the Glass-Steagall law

That is proving to have been a very grave error.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

20. Andrew Johnson supported the Constitution

and stood against Radical Republicans. For those two reasons alone, he should rank a lot higher than W.

[happyslug]

45. But other then veto acts to help the blacks in the South he did nothing.

As his main opponent in the form of the Radical Republicans kept telling Johnson that you have to do more then just free the slaves, they MUST have support or they will return to something like the status they had while slaves. Johnson never saw this and opposed what we now call Civil Rights, Congress passed it over his veto (and then passed the 13th amendment to make sure it was constitutional, thus the 1866 Civil Right Act can never be declared unconstitutional, it was questioned at that time if Congress could pass it, so Congress passed the 13th amendment which was ratified by the states, to make sure the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was constitutional).

For why Reconstruction was needed: Speeches by Thaddus Stevens on why what Johnson was doing was doom to failure:
http://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/11biographieskeyindividuals/ThaddeusStevens.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaddeus_Stevens

http://www.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1851-1875/reconstruction/steven.htm
http://au.encarta.msn.com/sidebar_781541579/Thaddeus_Stevens%27s_Speech_on_Radical_Reconstruction.html

I have a weakness for Stevens, in 1835 he made a Speech in the Pennsylvania General Assembly which caused the Assembly to keep what was then called "Common Schools" (Now Public Schools) including the right to raise taxes to pay for such schools.

http://www.thaddeusstevens.info/speeches_1a.html

Sorry, what occurred under Johnson (i.e. the post Civil War Amendments to the Constitution and the 1866 Civil Rights act) was done over his veto or independent of him. Johnson should be honored for protecting the power of the Presidency, but he wanted to do so so that the freemen (lets use the term of the period) would get no support from the Federal Government. These Freemen, while free, where as a whole NOT educated and had been isolated from the rest of Society by their owners while they were slaves. Just to free them, would be like kicking out the family dog and telling him he was free. Could he survive? As to your family dog, the answer is NO, and the same for the Freemen, they needed support and only the federal Government could give them that support and Johnson refused to see that fact and preferred to see the Southern States re-join the union with such freemen, unorganized and without power but technically free. Johnson's opponents realized the stupidity of this and kept passing bills to help such freemen, overruling Johnson's Vetoes constantly.

I use to buy into the argument that Johnson was a great president for he was able to defeat the efforts to remove him by impeachment, but except for that act his administration is noted for nothing EXCEPT what Congress did over his veto (and the purchase of Alaska from Russia, but even Congress agreed with that and had been agreed to during the Civil War, but the final treaty to do the transfer was NOT ready till 1867, thus it occurred under Johnson but had been approved under Lincoln and approved and paid for by Congress).

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Another Poll: 61% Of Historians Say Bush Worst Ever

The nonprofit History News Network is reporting that in an informal survey of 109 historians, 98.2 percent considered President George W. Bush’s presidency to be a failure, while 1.8 percent called it a success.

On the question of whether he is the worst president in history, there was greater difference of opinion: 61 percent said he was, while others disagreed or are withholding their opinions. (The survey also made clear that James Buchanan has some work to do rehabilitating his whole catapulted-the-nation-into-Civil-War reputation.)

http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/the-bush-presidency-the-historians-start-to-weigh-in/

[Lasher]

46. I was going to look that one up.

Thanks for saving me the trouble. :)

[McCamy Taylor]

23. Reagan will go down as people forget his slick performance. Wilson looked

good in comparison to what came after. JFK does not need to be there. Is this a glamor poll? LBJ did more good than JFK. And what is with Truman? Do you get points for dropping atomic bombs on Asians?

This list is as messed up as the list of top 100 novels of the 20th century.

[iamjoy]

33. Reagan Should Go Down

Reagan should be in the bottom ten of our Presidents (worst) and not the Top Ten (best). Much of this current financial crisis has its roots in Reaganomics.

I really thought Historians were more thoughtful than that. Of course, if they are evaluating the President in part on how he inspired people, Reagan does deserve to be up high. That man was so slick he could sell cow dung to cattlemen. He sure sold the country a truckload of crap.

[No Elephants]

48. For this economic mess, much of "credit" goes to Reaganomics and de-regulation, with a nod to

Clinton for signing Glass Steagall and to Dummya for spending like a drunken sailor (no offense to drunken sailors).

[LeftishBrit]

24. And I think one or two of those are 'worst' just in the sense of 'ineffective'

E.g. poor old William Henry Harrison who never accomplished very much because he died almost immediately after being inaugurated.

Reagan the tenth best president? - come on! Ugh!

[VaYallaDawg]

26. How right you are, Brit cousin!

I wonder if we'll ever hear the end of the hymns of praise to St. Ronald Reagan in this country. I'm proud to this day that I voted against that nut in every election. His "L-word" speeches were the most inane, warped and childish uses of marketing that I ever experienced. When he finally conked off, Nancy Raygun turned it into a week-long mawkish festival of sentimental, nationalistic revision of history.

[LeftishBrit]

34. He was the best pal of our lovely Maggie Thatcher

Apart from all the immediate damage they did between them, they set quite a lot of the groundwork for the current almighty economic fuck-up!

[Jazzgirl]

25. If I am reading this correctly the lower the number (1, 2, 4, etc..)

the worse the rating. If someone has a number rating of say, 28 then his rating is actually better than someone rated 7. 7 would be really, really b ad. Am I correct?

[VaYallaDawg]

27. I think it's just the opposite -

Looks like they're ranking Abe Lincoln as #1 - best, followed by G. Washington #2 (2nd best), etc. It is written in a slightly confusing way because they mix in info on the "worst" ratings (Buchanan, W Bush, etc.) very early in the article.

[Javaman]

28. I was wondering what that popping sound was this morning...

it was freepers heads exploding.

[man4allcats]

29. Dubya is 7th worst?

These guys are too kind. I put that little bastard at the very bottom of the heap.

[No Elephants]

31. BS. Bush is the worst ever, or, AT BEST, tied with Buchanan for worst.

[aquart]

32. Reagan should not be in the top of anything.

Not even close.

[funkybutt]

35. Ronald Reagan at #10??! REALLY? n/t

[EndElectoral]

37. jefferson should be higher than Truman. GW should be dead last

Jefferson acquired 1/2 the country for 3 million bucks with the Lousiana Purchase.

Truman was OK but really his accomplishments are modest.

Placing William Henry Harrison so long is ridiculous since he barely served a month. GW's disastrous destruction of the country should be way lower. Reagan is also way, way too high. The man began this huge process of burgeoning deficits and supply side economics that has been a disaster.

But this is like all things like this, subjective, and inaccurate.

[ProudDad]

40. Ray-gun in the top 10!!???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

God Damn. :puke:

[RushIsRot]

41. Historians are welcome to their opinion. I think "W" sucked

Swamp Water!