5 best and worst presidents?

[Rocknrule]

My list:

Best:
1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3. Jefferson
4. JFK
5. Clinton

Worst:
1. Bush Jr.
2. Nixon
3. Bush Sr.
4. Reagan
5. Harding

[Democrat 4 Ever]

1. I can live with your five best picks but respectfully disagree

with your worst. I think all five slots should be occupied by Chucklenuts - he is just that bad.

[merbex]

34. I think you are on target with B* owning the 5 slots

he has raised the bar for worst President ever so high that I don't want to be around to see who would try to top him - let his record stand

I hope he owns that record forever because this country can't take another guy like him

[WCGreen]

2. I'd nock of JFK and Clinton and put FDR and Truman......

I'd knock off Bush Sr. and put Buchannan and also I'd put Nixon a little lower(higher) and put Willard Filmore in there.....

[BOSSHOG]

3. Okay, I'll play

Best

- Jefferson
- Washington
- FDR
- Truman
- JFK

Honorable Mention: Clinton, Eisenhower, Monroe

Worst

- Bush Jr
- Reagan
- Bush Sr
- Harding
- Nixon (the longer bush jr stays in office, the better nixon looks)

[IsItJustMe]

8. FDR and Truman are musts. Hoover has to be on worst list.

And I can even be somewhat bi-partisan and add IKE to the best list.

[WI_DEM]

10. I disagree about Hoover

He actually did a great deal--more than any president up to that time--to try and combat a depression. Usually presidents considered depressions out of their realm of responsibility of the federal government. Hoover didn't--but he also didn't go far enough and was so bland as to be uninspiring--and we needed a leader who could inspire which FDR did. Bottom line the country really didn't get out of the depression until WW II though things certainly improved.

[Zynx]

12. That's absolutely right.

What he did was downright radical for the time.

[Yupster]

56. I'll join the mini-bandwagon here

I think Hoover is # 1 on the most under-rated presidents list.

He gets a really bad rap in history, and in my opinion, very undeserved.

[IsItJustMe]

14. We just seriously differ. From my interpretation of history, he was one

of the causes of the great depression. Why do you think FDR took Hoover's name off of the Damn.

[WI_DEM]

19. In what way was he the cause of the depression?

which came so early in his term. If anything it was the policies of the presidents before him--Coolidge and Harding. And the reason that FDR took Hoover's name off the dam was politics--pure and simple. It should be recalled that the Hoover Dam project was a huge public works program which created thousands of jobs during the depression. That is why Truman put Hoover's name back on the dam.

[Zynx]

29. Exactly. He came in March of 1929 and the economy began to teeter

in August of '29. There were signs of trouble in real estate and banking even before the 1928 election.

Yes, Hoover did sign the Smoot-Hawley Tariff and that was disasterous, but to blame the depression on him is a little harsh.

[Yupster]

57. I'll seriously disagree with you too

about Hoover causing the depression.

The depression in agriculture and other parts of the economy were already well under way when he took office.

He gets the blame because the stock market crash came seven monthsinto his term. Unfairly in my opinion.

Hoover may also have been the best human being to ever become president.

[0007]

106. No way for Eisenhower being on the best list. He signed some

of the most devastating bills that hurt middle America and helped big corporations. Ike was a puppet that spent more time playing golf than he spent in the White House.

[Strawman]

108. Hoover is interesting

He was on my worst list, but I debated it based upon the reasons stated here. Up to a point, he was willing to tinker with the economy to try and stop the depression in a way that really nobody before him (with the possible exception of Wilson) did.

But in the end he drew a line he would not cross amidst enormous economic suffering and I think he deserves blame for that. He couldn't go beyond "voluntarism" and into Keynesianism and people in this country suffered horribly under his watch, humanitarian or not.

[IsItJustMe]

113. From my reading, Hoover was one of the originators of what has become the

modern day version of 'The tricle down theory'. Big business vs. the working class.

[Yupster]

118. couldn't go beyond volunteerism?

I think you're falling victim to the capsule version of history.

Hoover's Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) went much further than any president before him in involving the government in the economy as did massive jobs programs like Hoover Dam.

There's no doubt that FDR went even much further, but it's not right to say Hoover refused to go that direction when he went further than anyone ever did before him.

[saltpoint]

4. Good question for us to think about under Bush 2.

Best: Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Gore, Kerry.

Worst: Dubya (though he is disqualified for never having been elected)
Harding, Buchanan, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr.

Special Category: Franklin Pierce, a pretty horrible president politically but wildlyl trusted and loved by other people. A political failure but a human triumph.

[KansDem]

20. "Worst: Dubya (though he is disqualified for never having been elected)"

A couple of years ago, my daughter, then in 6th grade, had a test at school one day on American history. One of the questions was: "Who is currently president of the United States?" She answered "Al Gore" and was consequently marked incorrect. Her teacher explained that the president was the person "who took the oath of office," conveniently sidestepping the whole Florida2000 debacle. The test was to be returned to the teacher signed by a parent. I signed and wrote a note suggesting the teacher should cut my daughter some slack considering the outcome of the election (Gore won Florida), and that if anything, by marking the question wrong, my daughter at least learned that she will have to make sacrifices throughout her life in order to maintain the power of her convictions.

[Zynx]

33. Even though how we got there was illegitimate, the process that was

followed under the Constitution was correct in that a majority of the electoral college voted for a candidate and that person was sworn in under the correct procedure. Now there is the small fact that Bush should not have gotten Florida's electoral votes at all in the first place, but that's a whole different story altogether.

[saltpoint]

126. Hi to you, KansDem. Well, I see the teacher's point, but I agree with

your daughter.

Gore won. Bush cheated. Your daughter was smart enough to know that.

Sounds like some excellent parenting going on at your house.

[Zynx]

5. You cannot have a worst list without Buchanan and Pierce.

In fact, you cannot have a worst list without Buchanan and Pierce ranked close to the worst.

Here's mine:

Best

1. Washington
2. FDR
3. Lincoln
4. Jefferson
5. Truman

Worst(from worst to less worse)

1. Buchanan
2. Pierce
3. Harding
4. Tyler
5. Coolidge/Andrew Johnson/Shrub's current trajectory(I can't decide)

[Virginia Dare]

17. Isn't shrub spawned from the same gene pool as Pierce? n/t

[Zynx]

24. Yep and it shows.

He's a distant cousin thanks to his mother's blood.

[Virginia Dare]

39. I thought I heard somewhere that he was related to Eugene Schmitz..

Mayor of San Francisco in 1906...but I couldn't find a link anywhere. Anyone know?

[Radical Activist]

84. I agree about Buchanan

What's the argument for Pierce?

[Zynx]

115. Kansas-Nebraska Act

'Nuff said.

[Strawman]

109. Agreed

Forget about being a good/bad leader, Buchanan was a NON leader. When South Carolina (I think it was them) seceded he said he couldn't do anything about it.

Pierce sealed the deal of the Civil War. Popular soverignty in the Kansas-Nebraska act led to chaos and civil war.

I think Pierce is fascinating though. Supremely tragic figure.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

6. i'd replace a few

Truman instead of JFK. I'd stick the first term of FDR in there, too.

on the worst list, remove nixon, add the last term of FDR (malta, and other problems caused decades of disruptions and dastardly events)

[Squatch]

7. My list

1) Teddy Roosevelt
2) Thomas Jefferson
3) Abe Lincoln
4) G Washington
5) Clinton

Worst
1) GWB
2) GHWB
3) US Grant
4) Johnson
5) Nixon

[IsItJustMe]

13. Johnson was responsible for the modern day civil rights. If it wasn't for

him, blacks still wouldn't be voting. I think this fact mitigates Vietnam.

[Jack Rabbit]

23. I think he means Andrew Johnson

Just a guess.

[IsItJustMe]

35. LOL I think your right.

[Squatch]

54. Nope. The other one.

[Jack Rabbit]

61. Thank you for clarifying that

I've had my say about LBJ below.

[rurallib]

15. I'll take a stab

the worst list is hard to pare down. I wouldn't put JFK in the best he was inspirational but actually didn't get much done.
Note also that Pierce is in mama Bush's ancestral lineage (greatgreat uncle or something)

Best:
1) Washington
2) FDR
3) TR
4) Lincoln
5) Jefferson
Clinton fails with NAFTA and telecommunications act. Gets an Honorable mention along with Ike and Truman.

Worst: (hard to pare down)
1) W (for me this is a hands down selection)
2) Pierce
3) buchanan
4) Hoover
5) Grant, Harding, McKinley, Fillmore, Nixon, Reagan

Some real stinkeroos in that bunch and they all have something in common.

[WI_DEM]

9. best: Lincoln, FDR, Washington, Jefferson, Truman

Worst: Bush II, Buchanan, Pierce, A. Johnson, Coolidge

Most overrated: Reagan and JFK

Most Underrated: Carter and Hoover

[Deep13]

11. Here we go:

1. Washington-he set the benchmark.
2. Adams-set the precident for orderly transition of power, secured peace with France when war was inevitable. Established primacy of civilian authority over the military. Father of the U.S. Navy.
3. Lincoln-saved the nation
4. FDR-Principled and compassionate yet strong leadership even in a time of war.
5. Jefferson-got all that real estate.

1. Bush, Jr.- Worst-president-ever-simply-a-a-a-awful.
2. Buchananan- Did nothing while nation got ready to commit suicide.
3. Hoover- Did nothing while nation starved.
4. Nixon- used Fed. govt. as personal vendetta machine.
5. Coolige- ordered army to attack Bonus Marchers.

[newspeak]

137. oh yes,

I forgot about Adams---I read that he did not believe in slavery--they paid their servants. Unlike Jefferson who thought slavery was immoral but still had slaves.

[Virginia Dare]

16. Madison is close to being in the top 5...probably 6.

The U.S. was on very fragile ground at that time, and could have easily come apart, he managed to hold it together.

As far as the 5 worst, Bush Jr. hits one out of the ballpark--nobody comes close, but agree with the other nominees for the most part.

[longship]

18. Well, I don't know about that.

Best: I would put FDR up near the top. If you have JFK there, then LBJ also belongs, in spite of Viet Nam. Teddy Roosevelt belongs somewhere. Unfortunately that pushes Clinton off the top five, as good as he was.

Worst: Rutherfraud Hayes comes to mind. I would put Reagan higher than Poppy Bush. And Harding should possibly be second. Nixon lower because, in spite of Watergate and some very bad things, he did some good things, too.

These would be my lists:

Best:
1. Washington
2. FDR
3. Lincoln
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Jefferson

Clinton, LBJ, and JFK would also be in top ten, in that order. JFK below LBJ due only to his short term in office. Also, do add Madison and Monroe.

Worst:
1. GWBush
2. Buchanan
3. Harding
4. Pierce
5. Reagan


Fillmore, GHWBush also in bottom ten, in that order. I think Hoover belongs down there somewhere, too.

On edit: Gees. My bad. Forgot about Buchanan and Pierce, too. Changed lists.

[Jack Rabbit]

21. OK, I'll bite

Best:

1. Licolon
2. F. Roosevelt
3. Washington
4. Jefferson
5. Truman

Worst (from the bottom up)

1. G. W. Bush
2. Nixon
3. Reagan
4. Harding
5. Grant
6. Buchanan

I will list six of the worst because that fellow at the top lost the election of 2000 and therefore should not be eligible.

[Zynx]

25. Buchanan is better than Grant? WTF?

That's just messed up.

[Jack Rabbit]

28. Grant couldn't keep anybody's hand out of the cookie jar

He's Harding as a war hero.

[Zynx]

31. Buchanan was a much worse president than Harding.

If I had to choose between Civil War and scandal, I'll take scandal.

[Jack Rabbit]

43. That's your criteria

Mine is that the President's duty is to see that the laws be faithfully executed. Buchanan (and Pierce, who would be the next one down on my list) did nothing while the nation slid into Civil War, but broke no laws. It should be noted that it was a perfectly arguable case at that time that a state had a right to secede from the Union; Thomas Jefferson held this view.

G. W. Bush and Richard Nixon actively participated in the scandals of their administrations. Bush willfully lied to go to war, which is the greatest betrayal of his people a leader can commit short of Quisling-like treason. Therefore, they occupy the bottom of the list. Reagan allowed a wide range of scandal and even promoted one of his most corrupt White House aides to the office of Attorney General; that, in addition to the Iran/Contra scandal, puts him near the bottom. I think we are agreed on why Harding and Grant belong there.

[Zynx]

46. That's preposterous.

If law breaking is the only criteria, then Coolidge and Hoover were just great presidents and Jimmy Carter was the best of all time. You MUST rate crisis management/what did the president do to the national welfare at the top of the list of criteria or you will have the most inverted presidential rankings I have ever seen.

Harding's scandals, while horrible, don't even compare to the devastation this country sufferd as a result of the policies and inactions of Pierce and Buchanan. 600,000 dead and damage to our nation's very political fabric that took another hundred years to resolve is far worse than a little bit of corruption here and there.

[theobscure]

50. absolutely agree, don't forget Andrew Johnson

who pretty much ensured that Reconstruction was going to be a disaster.

[Jack Rabbit]

55. I'm not denying crisis management

I'm simply putting it below the Constitutional directive that the President, as head of the executive branch, enforce the law.

Once again, in 1860 it was regarded as a valid argument that a state had the right to secede. From that point of view, it was Lincoln who caused those deaths by attempting to prevent states from seceding. This is something else to consider when one asks the question why neither Pierce nor Buchanan did anything. They honestly weren't sure they had the authority to do it.

To rank Lincoln where we do and Buchanan or Pierce low is a matter of history being written by winners. Had the Civil War turned out differently, Lincoln would be among the worst presidents and the right of a state to seced from the Union would be thought inviolable.

[theobscure]

53. so I suppose you've discounted LBJ's illegal war in Vietnam..

on a technicality?

[Jack Rabbit]

58. No.

I don't completely buy the argument that it was illegal. It was foolish, but that's another matter.

The courts ruled the war legal because Congress voted funds for it and maintained the draft to man the war effort.

Note I don't put LBJ on my greatest list. Had it not been for the Vietnam War, his Great Society programs might have put him there.

[theobscure]

63. what about immoral? that would be a more precise description..

I think we'd both agree that an action is not made moral, simply by it's legality or lack of illegality. What is more immoral having a few crooks in your administration that you may or may not be aware of or prosecuting a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people under false pretenses or unnecessarily.

[Jack Rabbit]

73. Yes, I've called the Vietnam immoral

I did forty years ago, too.

However, the Constitution does not direct a President to avoid immoral wars. It gives Congress the right to declare war; one would hope that Congress would not authorize immoral or unnecessary wars. In this case, they authorized it first by passing the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and then by voting funds for the war until the Javitz Amendment finally put an end to that.

The invasion of Iraq is far worse than the Vietnam War. If one were to ask a Johnson administration official what they thought they were doing in Vietnam, they would answer, "We thought we were containing Communism." That would be an honest answer and one that was consistent with the policies of every administration from Truman to the elder Bush, who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

What is different with the present conflict is that if one were ask one of Bush's neoconservative underlings what he thinks was accomplished by invading Iraq, he would say, "We are fighting international terrorism," To which I would say, "Horsepucky." They were strong-arming intelligence analysts into saying what they wanted the American people to believe, cherry picking information that supported their "case" and editing qualifying adjectives casting a doubt on that case out of intelligence reports. They lied and they knew they were lying. They knew there was no solid evidence that Saddam was associated with al Qaida, that he had a vast arsenal of biochemical weapons or that he was actively building nuclear weapons. Yet the continued to state with absolute certainty that they had proof.

One would have hoped that our congresscritters would have looked beyond Judy Miller's fiction on the front page of The New York Times and voted against the IWR. Those who voted for it don't have a leg on which to stand. By going beyond the MSM to alternative media and the foreign press, many of us knew that the case for war had been debunked and that the OSP in the Pentagon was politicizing intelligence. The contents of the Downing Street Memo came as no surprise to those of us who were really paying attention during the run up to the war. If that information was available to us, it was available to Senator Lieberman, Senator Kerry, Senator Edwards, Senator Clinton and Congressman Gephardt. They should have voted No on the IWR and dutifully requested that Mr. Bush and his junta tell the truth if they want wars taken under serious consideration.

[theobscure]

88. so you do believe that immoral behavior should not be held...

against someone as long as it is not illegal? It's a convenient de-coupling that explains much of our country's nefariously ambivalent history.

Please be careful to not assume that my attack on LBJ, or Truman for that matter, is an attempt to mitigate the current administration's behavior. I just happen to find that there is plenty of blame to go around in regard to what has become of this country and what it has become.

[Jack Rabbit]

101. Turning that around . . .

Would you hold Clinton to account over a tacky tryst with an intern?

We may be looking ambivalently at morality. I take more exception to the Republicans who impeached him over that than Clinton. At the same time, it showed a flaw in the man's character that was not admirable. Certainly I would have locked up my proverbial daughter when he came to town, yet I would still regard him as the best President of the post-Vietnam era (he doesn't have a lot of strong competition). Also, I found his ability to equivocate annoying.

I think we are holding these people to account here. LBJ loses points for the Vietnam War. Pierce and Buchanan lose points for doing nothing prior to the Civil War. However, that was not his entire legacy and the Great Society, for better or worse, must also be taken into account. (BTW, I disagree with you about Andrew Johnson; he was the only Southern Senator not to walk out when his state seceded; he quite likely would have prosecuted the Civil War were he president instead of Lincoln.)

The only thing we are disagreeing about is how we weigh the criteria.

As for LBJ, he is one of the most difficult presidents to assess simply because his legislative achievements were so spectacular yet his failures almost as much so.

[theobscure]

114. Are you saying that in order to legitimately question morality...

we must be willing to throw out any distinctions regarding scale of immoral behavior? We have to judge lying about consensual oral sex on the same scale with the killing of tens or hundreds of thousands of people or we forfeit the right to make any moral judgments?

We all commit immoral acts but we have to view them through some reasonable perspective, or at least we should. In fact, it is the moral absolutism that people of religious faith have concocted to live in their parallel fantasy worlds that has propagated immorality in the real world.

[Jack Rabbit]

116. Morality

Of course, I am not saying morality isn't relative. Let's leave it to Christian and Islamic fundamentalists to equate a sexual peccadillo with mass murder.

Moreover, morality a fluid thing. It changes over time.

My problem with condemning Pierce and Buchanan for their omissions prior to the Civil War to the extent that some here would it that it is largely based on hindsight, it imposes a twentieth/twenty-first century morality on nineteenth century people and it imposes a view of the Constitution that was not resolved until after the fact. Neither Pierce nor Buchanan thought war was inevitable. They thought that by proceeding cautiously, they could avert the war. That doesn't have anything to do with morality, that was just bad judgment. This argument was taking place at a time when all but a few recognized one's right to own another human being the same way we recognize the right to own a car or a house. That so-called right was even written into the Constitution. Even the abolitionists knew that in order to abolish slavery, it would take a change in the law (which it did in the form of the Thirteenth Amendment). Finally, as I have said in other posts on this thread, the issue of whether a state could secede was not resolved. Thomas Jefferson held that states had a right to secede. Robert E. Lee opposed slavery but fought for the Confederacy because he thought that states had a right to secede and that his first loyalty was not to the Union or the Confederacy, but to Virginia. These ideas would be very strange now, but were very common then. The issue of slavery and the right of secession were not resolved in a civil manner by the Supreme Court, but in places like Gettysburg and Appomattox.

When I first saw a list of presidents ranked, a list was compiled when Truman was President, there were only two failures: Grant and Harding. They were unable to keep their administrations honest, although no one accused either of them from actively engaging in wrongdoing. Pierce and Buchanan were ranked in a category of "poor" (IIRC), along with Coolidge and some others. This seems right to me. All we can blame Pierce and Buchanan is their bad judgment. Grant and Harding, on the other hand, should have fired subordinates who were breaking the law and replaced them with men of better character. That is what is asked of any president, and they failed to do even that much.

[theobscure]

123. I think you pulled the old switcharoo on me...

How did we go from talking about LBJ and Truman to Pierce and Buchanan in terms of morality? Anyway.....

These kind of Presidential rankings depend so much on the criteria used. I just find it ridiculous that Harding is universally regarded in these polls as our worst President ever. I find it to be a cop out.

To judge things historically, it's much more useful to judge them based on their lasting impact. I hardly think Teapot Dome ranks among the worst of Presidential atrocities or is as corrosive to the democratic values on which this nation supposedly stands as the acts of several other Presidents. I just don't see the value in judging historical relevance in a vacuum. In fact, any act from the past viewed in a vacuum has no historical relevance whatsoever.

[Jack Rabbit]

125. Sorry

I've been arguing about both Harding and Johnson vis a vis Harding all day. They sort of melted into each other.

That's right, you're the one who berates LBJ.

You're right. It depends on the criteria used. To me, there was more to LBJ's presidency than Vietnam, and much of that was positive. When judging Lyndon Johnson's presidency, we have to take all of it, not just the best or worst parts of it. Escating the war in Vietnam was one of the worst mistakes any President has ever made. The Great Society was one of any President's greatest accomplishments. On balance, LBJ comes off as neither one of our very greatest nor very worst presidents, but he president in very interesting times.

I've stated my reasons for placing Harding below Buchanan (it goes without saying that I would place him far below Lyndon Johnson). I am simply saying that the Constitution gives the president a specific duty and that Harding failed at it. He didn't even try to do what he should have done. If a president does nothing else, he must insure that the law is executed, which means that his underlings can't be guilty graft, fraud and bribery, as Harding's were. Buchanan's is rated low less for his inability to perform that duty, but for bad judgment. He did not want to plunge the country into Civil War; he did what he thought would avert Civil War; he was wrong.

Thus, I give Buchanan a D and Harding an F.

Johnson is quite a bit harder to judge. One would love to give him two grades: a D for Vietnam and an A- for everything else.

[theobscure]

130. I guess I find it hard to understand why liberals and progressives

hold LBJ and Truman in such high regard. I don't see anything progressive in killing hundreds of thousands of people. What George W. Bush is doing now is just a symptom, albeit the most virulent, pervasive one yet, of what is wrong with this country; it is not the disease itself. Ignoring or mitigating the earlier, less virulent and pervasive symptoms is not conducive to finding a cure. In fact, it all but ensures future strains and mutations which could quite easily be just as virulent and pervasive, if not more.

[Zynx]

134. Truman did not fight an aggressive war.

Korea was truly brought upon us and it is good for South Korea in the long run that we helped. Kim Il Sung would have killed millions and destroyed the country's economy. I will not apologize for our involvement in Korea.

As for the hindsight regarding the atomic bombs, even WITH hindsight it is far from clear that was the wrong decision. Indeed, if a Japanese military coup had been pulled off as it came very close to doing, they would have fought on even after being nuked.

[theobscure]

141. well then I suppose that you would support Bush if he decides to..

go to war with Iran, preemptively. Perhaps even just nuke them into oblivion. They sure as hell pose a much greater potential risk to the U.S. than Korea or Vietnam ever did.

Your own argument regarding the use of the atomic bombs in Japan exposes the senseless depravity of it. What if they had fought on? Were we going to nuke them until Japan sank into the ocean? Targeting civilians of a government that practices aggression is immoral, indiscriminate murder. Those kinds of governments don't have any regard for their citizens anyway.

Targeting civilians preemptively (as per the current case) may be the height of evil; but it's far from the only manifestation of evil. I don't care whether the person has an (R) or a (D) after their name. Evil is evil; just the same.

[Zynx]

143. None of those arugments made any sense at all.

North Korea invaded a US ALLY! Korea was not an elective war, but a defensive one in which we tried to stop North Korea from seizing the south. What is this revisionist history?

If Japan had fought on, we would have invaded Japan and millions would have died. As it is, we ended up killing 200,000 to save several million lives. I'n sorry, but all you have written is either garbage or hideous historical revisionism.

[theobscure]

145. so honest threat assessment should have nothing to do with

determining U.S. military intervention? If that is the case then what is your beef with the current war with Iraq? They invaded one of our ALLIES in the past. We did not finish the job to properly safeguard our ALLIES in the area and we had to go back and finish the job. Popular American support would not have supported such an action for that reason so the government had to create the WMD and "war on terror" straw man to gain support.

How does this differ with LBJ and Vietnam and Truman and Korea? Were the American people clamoring to go to war to avenge our ALLIES. No. We needed the Domino Theory and to propagate fear in Americans that if we didn't make a stand in Korea or Vietnam, the Communists would be on our shores in short order.

The hypocrisy of demonizing Bush to such an extent (which I agree with) while mitigating or even lionizing LBJ and Truman is sickening. It's a tragic example of how the American people have been manipulated by the two party duopoly into a simplistic, non-critical, and inconsistent Us vs. Them mentality.

As far as Japan and WWII, to say that killing 200,000 with the bombs saved several million, is just rank speculation and treacherous justification. How can you be so certain that the war would not or could not have ended in some other way that didn't require targeting a couple hundred thousand civilians? And, even besides that point, what gives us the supreme right to have such arrogance in times of war to put potential, future risk to the lives of our paid soldiers above the actual lives of innocent civilians? Why are we the only nation in the world that has claim to that right without being deemed a terrorist state?

With your train of logic, it is clear that any opposition you might have to Shock and Awe or potential bombing or even nuclear attack of Iran, North Korea, or even China or Russia would be pure hypocrisy. North Korea has the present, very real potential to kill tens of millions of people. Why not nuke them and kill several million first to protect the tens of millions? Iran would pose the same risk. Why not wipe out tens of millions of Iranians now instead of waiting for them to potentially have the capability of killing hundreds of millions?

[Zynx]

133. I'm sorry, but when the country is teetering on the edge of oblivion and

a president either does nothing or aggravates the situation, and Buchanan did both, they will rate worse than a president who immerses himself in scandal.

[Zynx]

132. Buchanan and Pierce did worse than doing nothing.

Pierce pushed the Kansas-Nebraska Act which was patently offensive to the North and Buchanan, as we now know by historical research, practically conspired with the Supreme Court on the Dredd Scott case among other things. Their actions are nearly directly responsible for the Civil War.

[Initech]

22. My list:

Best:

1. Washington
2. Jefferson
3. FDR
4. JFK
5. Lincoln

Worst:

1. George W. Bush
2. Lyndon Baines Johnson
3. Ronald Reagan
4. George H.W. Bush
5. Nixon

[longship]

27. I dunno about this

I would not judge LBJ by Viet Nam alone. he should be close to the top of the list. LBJ should certainly be above JFK in the list, since JFK was not able to accomplish much of anything other than the peaceful resolution of the Cuba Missile Crisis (which was significant just by itself).

I agree with others here. Both Buchanan and Pierce need to be on the bottom five.

[Initech]

36. I compare Vietnam to Iraq now.

It was an unncessary war which got a lot of people killed, started a draft for no reason other than to piss people off, and nothing was accomplished by being there. Same as now.

[Deep13]

30. interesting

JFK's positive message trumps Lincoln's management of the Civil War. LBJ's role in Vietnam trumps his work on civil rights.

[Initech]

38. I probably should have put "No particular order"

See - JFK was a great president in that the three years he was president, he actually TRIED to unite the country (unlike Bush, who is only saying that he's uniting the country). Also he staved off our involvement in Vietnam.

Vietnam was a horrible war in that nothing was accomplished, which is why LBJ ranks on my worst presidents list. I know LBJ was a champion for civil rights and that is a good thing, but Vietnam was inexcusable. Just like Iraq.

[Deep13]

42. Yes, history must judge LBJ's horrible war decision against...

...his attempts at social justice at home. Similarly, we must judge Bush Jr's disasterous domestic and foreign policies against, um, hmmmm. :shrug: Yah, know what? Never mind.

[Initech]

62. In that respect, LBJ was a better president than Bush.

When you put it that way, what are Bush's attempts at social progress? Demonizing gays, liberals, and anyone who doesnt agree with him.

At least LBJ never tried to pull that shit.

So yeah, maybe replace him on my list with Harding or someone else.

[maveric]

26. No FDR? n/t

[Zynx]

32. I was wondering that too. FDR is arguably the best president.

The only thing that stopped me from putting him in the top spot was that 1937 and 1938 were such horrible years in his presidency that if those were his only years he would have been a bottom ten president.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

44. not in his last term. I agree with 1st, perhaps 2nd

[Zynx]

45. What's wrong wtih his third term?*I don't count the fourth since it was

only a little over two months.

Our conduct of WWII was the most efficient, rapid, and proper that could have reasonably been expected at the time. As a matter of fact, I don't think any nation has ever performed quite as well in so difficult a conflict.

[coalition_unwilling]

64. Hmm, much as I admire FDR, I'd have to say

5 Best:

Washington (see below)
Lincoln (see below)
FDR (see below)
Gerald Ford (see below)
Jimmy Carter (see below)

5 Worst:

Bush, Jr. (Christian fascist)
Nixon (Watergate\COINTELPRO)
Reagan (Iran-Contra\Union-busting)
Bush, Sr. (Desert Fox\Desert Storm)
Harding (Teapot Dome)

Explanation of 5 best rankings:

Lincoln and Washington rank above FDR as "best," if only because Washington helped form the republic where none before had existed and Lincoln helped save the republic from enemies "foreign and domestic" (with heavy emphasis on the latter! :)

FDR's accomplishment, IMHO, while significant was a little less. He certainly saved capitalism and, by aligning the U.S. with Stalin's USSR, saved Western democracies from fascism. But, as bad as European fascism and Japanese imperialism were (and I think WWII was one of the few instances in history of the "Just War" doctrine actually being valid), I think the threat Lincoln faced from domestic civil war was even worse. Washington helped forge a government where none had before existed, except as a Colonial outpost of Imperial Britain. As such, his contribution is in a league of its own, I would say.

I include Ford and Carter on my list of 5 best, because they helped save the country from the deep constitutional crisis of Watergate. (Ford more so than Carter, obviously.) However, Carter's obvious honesty and decency were a much-needed anodyne to the toxin of the Nixon years (and Ford's pardon of Nixon).

I would not include Clinton on my list of 5 best, as it's too soon to ascertain his legacy reliably. True, he presided over a major economic expansion but certain of his policies (like Welfare Reform and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell") are, IMHO, pretty regressive on their surface.

I would really enjoy hearing other opinions on this topic.

[liberalpragmatist]

112. Clinton was also tied by an opposition Congress, though

Remember that Clinton didn't want "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" but to outright end the ban and was stymied by Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress.

Also, I actually agree with the general principle of Welfare Reform needing a work component, but I agree that there needs to be more money for job training and child care, which is something that Clinton also wanted but was unable to get through a Republican congress.

[coalition_unwilling]

147. During Clinton's first two years, he had a Democratic Congress.

The last time I checked the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Clinton could have done gays, lesbians and American society a huge service had he stolen a page from Truman's book and issued an Executive Order (akin to Truman's EO desegregating the services) and then compelling any generals who objected to resign.

Or am I being naive? Would Clinton have been impeached for such an action?

[Zynx]

131. That's a perfectly respectable and reasonable opinion.

I put FDR ahead of Lincoln because I feel that Lincoln's attitude after the 1860 campaign helped contribute to the Civil War, but I can understand how someone would rate Lincoln higher. The Civil War is the most significant crisis our country has ever faced and we came out of it as well as could be expected.

I agree that Ford is underrated badly, but I wouldn't put him top five.

[coalition_unwilling]

146. Thanks for your balanced tone. Historians will debate forever

whether Lincoln's "attitude after the 1860 campaign helped contribute to the Civil War" (your words). My own personal feeling is that the fire-breathers in the South had made it clear to anyone listening that they would secede if Lincoln were elected. (In other words, a Lincoln election meant Southern secession, regardless of any attitude Lincoln might have had or not had.)

Just so you keep an open mind about Lincoln, among his many not-so- famous sayings is the following: "The best way to get rid of an enemy is to make him a friend." Those are words I find myself harkening back to during these dark days of the republic.

[Hidden Stillness]

37. FDR! FDR! FDR!

Best:
1) Franklin Roosevelt (New Deal saved country from Depression; programs helped all indicators until 1937 when Republicans killed many fundamental agencies, National Recovery Administration, etc.; saved the modern world from fascism after building up U.S. forces, which were a second-rate power at the time; much labor, regulatory, infrastructure progress that whole New Deal era--read a book)
2) Lincoln (saved the Union, would have saved Reconstruction)
3) Truman (very underrated--much civil rights and middle-class progress then, the GI Bill, Truman killed GATT which did not kill us until Clinton, tried to pass universal health care)
4) Washington (gave us democracy, rather than a despot monarchy, which we escaped until now)
5) Johnson (very underrated--incredible civil rights progress and programs against poverty, gave us Medicare and Medicaid; Johnson was brought down by Eisenhower's Viet Nam war involvment)

Worst:
1) current Bush (God, will it ever end--total destruction of democratic structure)
2) Reagan (complete criminal, reorganized tax code to begin murderous crushing of middle class by capitalists; most criminal and civil indictments of any Administration)
3) Nixon (tried to subvert Constitution during Watergate; like current Republicans, persecuted citizens who disagreed, with "Enemies List"; Nixon Administration, oddly enough, had many good domestic programs)
3) Hoover (caused Depression by cutting programs to help the poor and middle class, cut taxes for rich people and corporations; all "recovery" efforts were tax cuts to corporations, sabotaged all attempts at regulation of banking and investment industries, etc., etc.)
4) first Bush (invented the modern secretive/Republican-think-tank-cabal-run Federal Government; completely unresponsive to the needs of the people, no domestic programs of any kind, as now)
5) Buchanan (did nothing as slavery crisis worsened and led to Civil War)

[HughBeaumont]

40. Here's mine -

Best:

1. Jefferson
2. Teddy Roosevelt
3. Lincoln
4. FDR
5. Eisenhower

Worst:
1-5: Lancelot Link, non-elected governor. Not legally elected, warhawk, laissez-faire corporatist, failed at EVERY SINGLE THING he's ever done, backed by the worst political cabal in American history.
6. Reagan (for all of the financial and middle class damage he caused, and introducing Lee Atwater mind-warping to make Repukes out of the weak minded)
7. Buchanan
8. Nixon
9. Grant

[enid602]

41. lists

FDR would HAVE to be on the best list; I don't think Bush, Sr should be on the worst. He seemed to know the dangers of fighting in the ME. He enacted the largest tax increase in US history to save the dollar. He served in WWII with distinction. He closed military bases and cut the military, enabling Clinton to ring up a series of surpluses. He sacrificed his reelection chances. His only mistake was marrying the beast who would give birth to the chimp. Unfortunately, that is all he will be remembered for.

[novalib]

47. Wilson Should Be On The Best List

Best (in no particular order): Lincoln, FDR, Wilson, JFK, Jefferson

Worst (in no particular order): Nixon, Harding, Hoover, Grant, Buchanan

[Strawman]

111. Wilson is very interesting

I think there are few presidents as influential, complex or as interesting as Wilson. I debated him being on my best list and my worst list as odd as that might sound. Few men have left their mark on the office in the way he did. Jeffrey Tulis traces the origins of the modern rhetorical presidency to Wilson. If I put together a list of the most "influential" presidents list it would be:

1) Washington
2) Wilson
3) Jefferson
4) FDR
5) Jackson

I leave Lincoln off because despite his tremendous unparalleled skill in office, Congressional Republicans were the driving force behind many of the reforms that would be his legacy.

But having said that, I just really dislike Wilson. He was a supremely dangerous president. He was a racist and an absolute elitist snob. He cooked up a bunch of grandiose ideas about the Presidency in his ivory tower and set about implementing them and edifying himself regardless of the human cost. He was a propagandist with little regard for civil liberites or dissent.

Segregated the White House
Sedition Act of 1918
World War I
"100% Americanism"

There were progressive and/or modern achievements elements too:

Women's suffrage,
the Federal Reserve,
the progressive income tax,
the attempt to found the League of Nations.

But I think these are too often over-emphasized and the negatives ignored. Too often he is seen as the kindly professor with the rounded spectacles trying vainly to make the world safe for democracy and the ugly underside of Wilson's administration goes ignored.

[Zynx]

135. WWI was a God awful decision.

His management of the peace talks was equally as bad.

[novalib]

142. I Meant Edith Galt Wilson

I'm sorry, but I should have been more clear in my earlier post.

I was not referring to Woodrow Wilson, but instead to his wife, Edith Galt Wilson.

Following Woodrow Wilson's massive stroke, Edith Wilson acted (unofficially) as the first woman President.

[Ksec]

48. My three

Best was Clinton, FDR and JFK

Worst was Bush 2, Nixon, Reagan

[merbex]

49. Best

Washington, Lincoln,FDR,Truman,TR

Worst I already posted: B* owns the 5 slots hands down

[BlooInBloo]

51. A Worst list is incomplete w/o Grant, imo

[Deep13]

81. Grant was good at exactly two things:

marriage and fighting. He was a failure at everything else.

[BlooInBloo]

94. 3 things then....

He drank like a champ!

:rofl:

[Deep13]

96. Four: smoked like a chimney.

Died of throat cancer.

[BlooInBloo]

100. LOL - nice!

A more perfect example of the Peter Principle I've never seen....

[liberalpragmatist]

52. Jefferson's overrated

His economic policies were poor (esp. the embargo) and contributed to a massive economic slowdown early on.

The Louisiana Purchase was his big achievement, but even that was hardly his doing but the doing of negotiators in France who made the decision without his knowledge. And his first reaction was that it was unconstitutional and couldn't go through. He tried to stall the plan, then tried to pass an amendment retroactively ratifying the purchase before finally relenting.

He deserves credit for his adherence to democratic norms and principles, something that John Adams for all his strengths did not do. But his presidency was average at best.

And while JFK is top 15, maybe even top 10, he didn't get enough accomplished domestically to warrant a top 5 rating. And even in foreign policy, he expanded involvement in Vietnam (even if he was planning to get us out). Perhaps he would have been a top 5 president had he completed two terms, but we'll never know.

Clinton is top 10 or top 15 but not top 5. He was a great steward of the economy and there was a decline in poverty under him, but it didn't go as far as it could have gone, and he failed at giving us universal health care. His foreign policy in his second term was very good, but it was somewhat bumbling in his first. Overall, a good president, probably on par with Ike.

And how is FDR not included? Or Truman?

My top 5:

1. Lincoln
2. FDR
3. Washington
4. Truman
5. Theodore Roosevelt

Worst:

1. Pierce
2. Buchanan
3. Harding
4. Coolidge
5. Nixon

* W may well make this list but I don't believe in ranking him until more time has passed. In domestic policy, arguably Reagan was worse (although Reagan's fiscal policies did improve compared to Bush) and while Bush is a disaster in foreign policy that could well trigger the gradual loss of American power (it arguably already has), in terms of death tolls for unnecessary wars and curtailing of civil liberties, Woodrow Wilson easily outdid Bush (although his domestic policies were quite progressive regarding workers rights, etc).

[theobscure]

59. Jefferson saved our democracy, puts him at top.

Jefferson stopped Adams from having a second term. If Adams had had a second term, our young democracy would most likely have not survived and we wouldn't have a very long list to consider. So I don't see how you can put Washington in the top 5 and leave out Jefferson.

As for Truman, I don't know how anyone with even the slightest progressive streak could rank him anywhere near the top. He set the modern precedent for "justifiably" killing tens of thousands of civilians in a time of war as long as you are on the "right" side. A precedent that our current dictatorial President is benefiting from.

[novalib]

65. Truman Also

Ordered dropping the Atomic Bomb.

On defenseless men and women.

Twice.

How could he be included among the "Best" is beyond me.

[Deep13]

68. He ended the war without an invasion.

Warring nations have to think to their own and not be overly concerned about the well-being of the enemy. All of WW2 was a war on civilians. More soldiers died in WW1 than WW2, despite the fact that the total deaths for WW2 was much higher. Without the bomb, a costly invasion of Japan would have been necessary which would have cost millions of lives and untold human suffering. I really don't see this as any different than the fire-bombing of Tokyo or the bombing of Dresden.

Truman's importance was that he stood up to MacArthur, reasserting civilian control over the military and stood up to Stalin where the ailing FDR had not.

[newspeak]

138. and that's why he's not on my list

one could argue that he helped expand the military industrial complex

[Deep13]

66. How was Adams a threat to democracy?

Adams was one of the first to call for independence. He was a driving force behind the Declaration of Independence. He was a self made man who farmed his own land, put himself through law school, secured valuable loans from Holland during the war, wrote the Constitution of Massachusetts, never owned slaves or did business with anyone who used slave labor. He was a revolutionary and as committed to democracy as anyone else. Adams attempted to promote grandiose titles for the president because all world leaders had them and Adams wanted the american president to be on equal diplomatic footing with Kings and Emperors. I will grant that the alien and sedition acts were unconstitutional. Still, Adams did not call for them. Congress made those acts on their own. Plus, the notions of what was proper for a free society and what was not in the 18th century were not well considered.

Most of the hostile feeling people have for Adams comes from propganda and, frankly, outright lies by spread by his Vice President, Jefferson, in an effort to discredit his administration. Frankly, Jefferson pulled a Fox news on Adams and destroyed his reputation to the present day.

[BlooInBloo]

69. I believe Adams tried to consolidate federal power with the executive....

... by gaming the judiciary in some manner. Jefferson restored the proper balance, culminating in Marbury v Madison (Madison was J's AG).

Or something like that... been a long time...

[theobscure]

71. Adams reputation destroyed?

He just recently had such a glowing bio written about him by one of the most prominant historians around. (who also by the way did the same glorification of Truman- of whom I've expressed my feeling about elsewhere in this thread)

We're talking about rating Presidents, which I assumed to mean regarded the criteria as their Presidency. There is no doubt that Adams was a valuable revolutionary and there is much to commend regarding his personal life and accomplishments. However, his presidency was a disaster and could have been fatal to a young nation that had just recently chosen to have a government by, for, and of the people.

[Deep13]

77. There are no major monuments to Adams. No pictures on currency...

His home is not a national landmark like Mt. Vernon or Montecello. Jefferson enjoys a towering reputation as a father of democracy while Adams is seen as a peevish, small minded politician.

Book like the one you mention are part of a recent attempt to rehabilitate his image. I know what he did in office what is relevant to his presidency. I mention those other things to dispute that he was out to kill democracy.

"Article VI. No man, nor corporation, or association of men, have any other title to obtain advantages, or particular and exclusive privileges, distinct from those of the community, than what arises from the consideration of services rendered to the public; and this title being in nature neither hereditary, nor transmissible to children, or descendants, or relations by blood, the idea of a man born a magistrate, lawgiver, or judge, is absurd and unnatural.
****
"Article XX. The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for.
****
"Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."

This was written by Adams in the Constitution of Massachusetts. No exactly the stuff of monarchy.

[theobscure]

78. the world's history is replete with people who rail against.....

authority, but then change their tune when they, themselves, attain that authority. Adams was the United States of America's first such example.

[Deep13]

79. We will have to agree to disagree on that.

What about that bastard Chester A. Aurthur? He was no prize, yah know!

[theobscure]

92. bottom line is that the list of the worst has more candidates to..

draw from than for the best. I should also point out that I would not put Adams in a list of the 5 worst. My initial post, in reference to Adams, was in regard to Jefferson being among the best. Because of Jefferson, Adams did not have a second term and in fact was hamstrung for the signficant latter portion of his first. For that reason, Adam's long-term detrimental impact was mitigated.

[Jack Rabbit]

80. Have you ever heard of the Alien and Sedition Acts?

The Frat Boy would love these:

There were actually four separate laws making up what is commonly referred to as the "Alien and Sedition Acts":

1. The Alien Enemies Act authorized the president to imprison (or deport) any alien from an enemy nation (one the United States was fighting).
2. The Alien Friends Act authorized the president to deport any alien considered dangerous, in both war and peacetime.
3. The Naturalization Act extended the duration of residence required for aliens to become citizens, nearly tripling it from five years to 14.
4. The Sedition Act made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials.

[Deep13]

82. Yes, I discussed them in an earlier response.

[Radical Activist]

90. Jefferson kept us out of war for 8 years.

Something that can't be said for many Presidents. Even Presidents during times of relative peace had their adventures in bloodshed, like Clinton, T. Roosevelt and Jackson. Jefferson gains big points with me for that.

[Deep13]

95. Didn't he attack the Barbary Pirates or was that later?

Should point out that Adams had secured peace with France while waiting for the 1800 election results.

[Radical Activist]

97. I forgot about them

But defending American ships from pirates who enslaved and killed innocent people isn't all bad.

[Deep13]

99. No. He had to do it. nt

[Yupster]

60. No Lincoln here

I'll give it a try for the best list anyway

1. Washington
2. FDR
3. Jefferson
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Eisenhower

No Lincoln on the list because his bumbling diplomacy made the Civil War the disaster it was. The greatest example of Bushian diplomacy before the Bushes.

How you could put Clinton on a best list is difficult for me to see? Where are the accomplishments? The crisis he mastered? Clinton over FDR? Sorry that's at best the "sin of presentism" on display.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

67. 1.7 million dead boys won't disagree with that assessment.

[Deep13]

72. Curious where you found that figure.

My understanding is that it was more like 600,000 fatalities. That is still an enormous amount for a nation of 28 million. I wonder if you are including all casualties in your fatalities figure.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

98. the Lincoln Museum in Springfield Illinois

it has this computer generated hall, with artifacts on one side, and uniforms and flags on two others. the prime attraction is a moving map, showing the number of deaths over time and the change in territory ownership. Now that I think back, that is total casualties.

Each second of real time represents either a day or a week. The most horrifying, yet compelling aspect of the show is how quickly the numbers grow as time goes on. At first, they seem to be neck and neck, then the north's fatalities totally outpace the south's. Large battles show up as explosions on the map.

Apparently everyone seems to have the same reaction. They almost cheer as one number grows faster than the other. Like a race. And all of a sudden, you realize that you are seeing body counts of soldiers. And then, that whole competitive taste begins to leave a foul aftertaste and you feel sick to your stomach. The unbelievable loss of life shocks you to your very core.

I highly recommend this museum - an amazing example of what modern society can do to teach and inspire. Do not miss the opening theater show, repeated every half hour. It sets the mood for the rest of the museum. Bring hankies. Even if your heart is as cold and wry as mine. was.

[Deep13]

70. I appreciate your view on Lincoln, but do not agree.

The war was a catastrophe. Nevertheless, Lincoln managed it well or as well as he could considering the political situation. It appears that from the beginning Lincoln alone knew what kind of war it was going to be. Early Federal losses seemed to be caused by a disbelief on the part of general officers that things could get as bad as they did and by an unwillingness to sustain the kind of casualties necessary for a quick victory. McClellan made an awesome army, but he had little will to see it savaged charging entrenched positions. The general that finally understood that was thick-headed, stubbord, not scared of anything Grant. He alone among officers knew how to win--by sacrifice and by bringing the war to the civilians. Likewise, the South suffered with Lee. He won brilliant victories but at a cost he could not afford. He forgot the lessons of Washington who understood how to wage what we now call asymetric warfare.

Lincoln's greatest accomplishments were 1. keeping the North together despite the losses and the no-end-in sight situation and 2. keeping the French and the British out of it. Had they recognized Southern independence, the Stars and Bars would still be flying in Richmond today.

[theobscure]

76. I have mixed feelings about Lincoln

But when one looks at the handful of Presidents we had both just before and just after Lincoln, it's difficult to not conclude that without Lincoln, our nation would not have been preserved. I suppose it can be argued that it wasn't worth the price, a price Lincoln himself escalated.

However, if someone of the ilk of Pierce, Buchanan, or A. Johnson had occupied the White House during the Lincoln years; it's hard to imagine how things could have been any better, and pretty easy to imagine how things could have been far, far worse.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[novalib]

104. Several Southern States Seceded Before????

Several Southern States seceded before Lincoln became President?

I thought that the event that triggered the secession of Southern states was the election of Lincoln.

Am I worng?

[Yupster]

117. There were really three groups of secessions

Back then the president was elected like today in early November. However, unlike today, he didn't take office until March so the president-elect period was much longer than it is today.

South Carolina seceeded in December 1860 after Lincoln's election.

Then there was a feverish attempt to keep other states from leaving, especially in the Senate. Jefferson Davis was one of the senators involved in that attempt. It didn't work and a second wave of secessions occured from January 9-Feb 1, bringing the number of seceeding states to seven.

Still, a bloody Civil War was not possible, as the seven seceeded states (S Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Texas and Louisiana) didn't have the population or strength to challenge the union.

This is where I lose my respect for Lincoln.

Three key southern states had not decided what to do when Lincoln finally took office in March 1861. In fact, President Davis was inaugurated before Lincoln was.

Anyway, Tennessee had called a special election to ask the voters whether to call a secession convention or not. The votrs narrowly said no, keeping Tennessee in the union. North Carolina and Virgiia were also undecided. There could be no strong Confederate States of America without those states.

That's when Lincoln decided on some Bushian diplomacy. He unconstitutionally called forth the militias, and gave each state a quota of how many regiments they'd need to provide for the invasion of the Confederacy.

That knocked the remaining southern states off the fence. Tennessee quickly called another vote and the voters voted by an 80-20 count that rather than help subjugate the south, they would join it. Virginia did the same, North Carolina followed, and you had a strong Confederacy capable of resisting the federal armies and capable of killing 350,000 federal troops.

The biggest diplomatic blunder in US history in my opinion.

Imagine a Civil War where Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, AP Hill, JEB Stuart all fought for the union, not the Confederacy. It would have been a much less lengthy and much less bloody war. Except for Lincoln's inept bungling.

So I'll leave Lincoln off my best list.

[Radical Activist]

119. So it would have been better

to sit and do nothing in the face of growing confederate armies who had decided to defy the federal government? You would have Lincoln leave the north a sitting duck in the face of armed invaders? I'm not sure how anyone could expect Lincoln to realistically do that. It would have been foolish to not prepare.

Kentucky chose to stay with the union because the Confederacy invaded its territory first and Lincoln refused to fire the first shots. Hardly Bushian in nature.

[Yupster]

121. Lincoln could have just asked the free states

to provide troops if he had to have troops. That would have been better.

I would have done nothing for a while. I think there were good prospects of negotiations. The seven state Confederacy was not a viable nation.

There was no threat of armed invasion.

The Confederacy as Davis said just wanted to be left alone. They couldn't invade the north anyway without passing through Virginia or Tennessee and that could have provoked those states to defend themselves which would have been a disaster to the Confederacy.

So I believe there was plenty Lincoln could have done other than his bull in China shop actions.

There was much he should have done in the president-elect period too. While the border states were deciding what to do, Lincoln was holding rallies in the big cities of the north on his way to Washington. His opponent Stephen Douglas broke his health pleading with the border states to stay in the union while the Confederate VP Alex Stephens was in Virginia pleading the CSA's case. And Lincoln was absent.

I just think he bungled it badly.

Oh, and Kentucky declared its neutrality in the war and provided troops to both sides and had congressional representation in both countries congresses.

[Radical Activist]

124. Let me guess

You were educated in Southern Schools. I only hear this kind of revisionist history from people raised in the Southern educational system.

First, obviously there was in fact a threat of invasion since the South invaded Northern territory first and fired the first shots as well. That's a reality check against two of your points. The South didn't just leave Kentucky, Tennessee and Fort Sumter alone.

True, Kentucky declared its neutrality at first, until the South invaded Kentucky soil, at which point they sided with the union. For the rest of the war they weren't neutral. Kentucky did send troops to both sides, just like Tennessee, Virginia, Texas and most other Southern States. (gasp!)

Lincoln did reach out to Southern states before he became President, and he did appeal to them to stay in the union, even with their slaves. His entire first inaugural address is an appeal for peace and for confederate states to come back to the union.

And what do you mean, he should have only asked "free" states for troops? They were ALL free, and they were ALL part of America.

Seriously, you have some severely distorted information about what happened. The Sons of Confederate Veterans is not the best place to get accurate civil war history.

[Yupster]

128. Born and educated in New York City

though admittedly it was the southern end of New York City, where they say ya'll with a Brooklyn accent. Went to college in New York City and Europe, though it was in the Alps which is I guess south central Europe.

Oh to have another mint leaf in my gluwein as we all sat in our lederhosen listening to the colonel's stories of whipping those damned Yankees from Bremen.

Yup, sounds like you've got me figured to a T. Psychic no doubt.

Ahem, when I say "free states" I meant as opposed to slave states. Geeze. That was kind of embarrassing. Don't they talk about free states and slave states in school anymore?

If you want to call Ft Sumpter an invasion of northern territoy, you can though since it's in South Carolina I won't agree with you.

Also, it's true That General Polk did cross into Kentucky, but jeepers man, that was in September, months after the shooting war was in full swing. Hell that was three months after First Bull Run after all.

On Lincoln reaching out, my criticism of him is during his president-elect period. There was a real fight of opinion going on in the border states at that time as to whether they should secede or not. There were large areas of the border states that were completely pro-union. I think Lincoln may have been smarter to be in Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee than in Buffalo and Philadelphia during this key period. But what do I know? I quit teaching history 15 years ago, and the textbook I authored is long out of circulation I'm sure.

[Radical Activist]

120. Yupster explained it

The election of Lincoln did trigger secession. Yet Buchanan did nothing for months before Lincoln took office, watching the nation fall apart. He even allowed Jefferson Davis to move much of the federal arsenal to Southern states. This is one of the reasons he makes many worst President lists.

[JStuart]

150. Absolutely.

The best list here bar none.
1-5 are absolute American heroes, true icons.
Lincoln certainly doesn't belong there. He was responsible for 30x more American DEATHS than chimpy.

Lincoln could have EASILY negotiated his way out of the civil war instead he instigated the agression and started the whole darn thing.

And don't believe the pablum they feed re: The attack on Fort Sumter starting the war.

AFTER South Carolina seceded, the US military there took up positions in Ft. Sumter with his 100 men. Over the next FEW MONTHS, the state asked the UNION soldiers to leave, they were not welcome in the newly seceded South Carolina. They refused. They were foreign occupiers holed up in a South Carolina fort in the opinion of the Confederacy and South Carolina.

Finally they were attacked by Beauregard and surrendered. There's the start of the civil war.

And as YUPSTER said, Lincoln made the colossal mistake of mobilizing militia and preparing for war which FORCED Virgina to secede.

[benburch]

161. Thanks for that General Jeb Stuart.

You didn't do so well under Lincoln, did you?

[mdmc]

74. this is my list

Best =
1. Lincon (a GOP!)
2. Truman
3. Jimmy Carter
4. JFK
5. FDR

Worst =
1. Ray-gun
2. Nixon
3. Hoover
4. W.
5. Washington (so there!)

[Deep13]

85. Why was Washington one of the worst?

I have heard disagreement that he may or may not be one of the best, but I have never heard that he was among the worst.:shrug:

[NJ Democrats]

103. WTF?

Washington worst? Carter 3 best?

[New Government]

122. Reagan, Hoover, Nixon worse than BUSH? No way...

[JohnKleeb]

75. Ok

Best.
1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3. FDR
4. LBJ
5. Truman
Honorable mentions to Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, a
Worst
1. Bucahanan
2. Grant
3. Coolidge
4. Reagan
5. Bush II
Dishonorable mentions to Harding(would be higher if he had lasted longer), Pierce, Andrew Johnson

[saltpoint]

127. Sure like your lists there, John, and a respectful howdy to ya.

I hope things are going your way and I hope your Orioles have themselves a year worthy of their excellent fans.

You hang in there. Good wishes.

[Radical Activist]

83. Mine

5 best:
1. Lincoln
2. F. Roosevelt
3. Jimmy Carter
4. Jefferson
5. Truman

5 Worst
1. George W. Bush
2. James Buchanan
3. Warren Harding
4. Nixon
5. Reagan

I would almost add Wilson to the best list because of his many accomplishments, except that he failed to keep us out of WW1 after he promised he would. I have a hard time coming up with a "best" Presidents list. Most of the famous ones did some pretty horrible things. Truman is difficult to include because of his use of the bomb and busting the railway workers union, but desegregating the military and continuing the new deal programs are big positives.

[Deep13]

86. Tricky Dick ain't doin' too well on this list.

Who woddah figured that flagrant abuse of power would be one of our hot-buttons?
:shrug:

[Jawja]

89. My lists:

Best:

1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3. Franklin Roosevelt
4. Teddy Roosevelt
4. Clinton

Worst:

1. George W. Bush*
2. Hoover
3. Nixon
4. Reagan
5. Harding

[killerbush]

91. Where the hell is FDR??

He only saved the country from depression and was only commander in chief during WWII

[Odin2005]

93. FDR = #1

BEST
1. FDR
2. Jefferson
3. Lincoln
4. Washington
5. LBJ

JFK is over-rated, more charm than substance (his close victory was also the result of election shinanigans in Chicago). It was LBJ who pushed JFK's program from the huge (60%) mandate he got after the '64 election. Also, I think history will rate LBJ much higher than people do now, his reputation will recover when the Baby Boomers are gone.

WORST
1. Bush Jr.
2. Buchanan
3. Harding
4. Coolige
5. Reagan

Hoover gets too much of a bad rap. Most educated people people in his day held the ideas of balanced budgets and low taxes as sarcosant, and Keynsianism was still untested. The economic policies of Harding and Coolige were the real cause of the Great Depression.

[JohnKleeb]

105. I agree about Coolidge and Hoover and LBJ

Coolidge was smart enough to know that economic trouble was coming so he didn't run again in 1928 which Ive been told shocked a lot of people, the big mistake Hoover made was signing hte Harley-Smoot act and being of a primative mindset when it came to federal aid. He certainly wasn't one of the best but he doesnt deserve the blame he gets for teh depression.

Agree about JFK and LBJ too, I love Jack Kennedy but LBJ is the one who created his own legacy with the Great Society which if it hadn't been for Vietnam would be what he is most remembered for.

[NJ Democrats]

102. Here we go:

Best:
1. FDR
2. Lincoln
3. Washington
4. Truman
5. Jefferson

Worst:
1: GWB
2. harding
3. Hoover
4. Nixon
5. Buchanan

[Strawman]

107. OK. Here's mine

Best
1) Washington: set norms that gave republican presidency a chance to succeed
2) Lincoln: faced the most difficult challenge of any president and succeeded
3) FDR: overcame the depression and led us through World War II.
4) Jefferson: refounded the republic on more republican terms, hugely influential
5) JFK: Cuban Missile Crisis. We might all be dead/never born w/a different president then
(Honorable mention: TR and Jackson: achievements/influence undeniable, some normative issues with them though)

Worst
1) Bush 43: has it all: incompetence, corrpution, lies, destruction
2) Buchanan: supremely incompetent and impotent non-leadership
3) Nixon: wanton disregard for law and human lives trump any achievements
4) Harding: corrupt and incompetent
5) Hoover: too rigid in battling the Depression. not all his fault, but deserves blame.
(Dishonorable mentions: Pierce (a complete disaster), Grant (well-meaning person, terribly corrupt administration)

[long_green]

110. mine

Worst.
1) you gotta ask? So bad you can probably get odds on whether or not we'll ever have another President.
2) Buchanan - the last guy before W about whom you could say the same thing
3) Grant
4) Harding
5) Reagan

Best
1) Lincoln
2) Roosevelt - FDR
3) Washington
4) Eisenhower
5) tie - Kennedy, Clinton

[YouthInAsia]

129. Where's FDR fer christ sake?

[newspeak]

136. my best and worst

Best: FDR
Jefferson
Washington
Kennedy
LBJ, Lincoln, Clinton tie--LBJ for his social programs and civil rights, but he escalated the war
Lincoln for Emancipation for he suspended Habeas Corpus, arrested southern
senators after Congress recessed without legal reason
Clinton signed NAFTA-GATT (Poppy's baby), Welfare Reform Act and
Telecommunications Act that give him bad strikes in my book
Worst: DUBYA
Poppy Bush
Reagan
Harding
three way tie with Andrew Jackson, Van Buren who (Jackson) initiated the Indian Removal Act and the
other zealously enforced it (Van Buren) and Nixon who created the EPA but "paranoia strikes deep"

Oh and Carter gets honorable mention in the good column because he walks his talk--and he did try
to maintain an oil reserve and focus on conserving energy

[newspeak]

139. You know, I think

it should be ten worst because I'd also put Buchanan, Pierce and Grant in there. And, I have mixed feelings about Teddy, but he did go after the monopolies and preserved our land. So, I think it should be ten best and ten worst, instead of five. What do you say?

[theobscure]

152. coming up with the 10 worst would be easy......

coming up with 10 worthy of being called best, would be the hard part.

[Norwood]

140. My List

Best:
1. Washington
2. FDR
3. Truman
4. Lincoln
5. JFK

Worst:
1. GWB
2. Reagan
3. Buchanan
4. GHWB
5. Harding

[mvd]

144. My 5 best and 5 worst

Best:

FDR - got us through the depression, implemented Social Security, and managed WWII well.

Lincoln - succeeded in bringing America back together

LBJ - I don't agree with him on Vietnam. He got bad advice, but he still should have known better. He even sounded like Bush when he said "we'll be fighting them over here instead." But the Great Society programs he started, like Medicare, remain very important to this day. He also implemented civil rights provisions started under Kennedy. Kennedy might have been in my top 5 had he lived.

Jefferson - helped to make sure the government didn't get so powerful as to take away individual rights.

George Washington - might have been the only one to be able to lead the new nation

Worst:

George W. Bush - all the bad of the Presidents rolled into one; has taken fascism to unforeseen levels in America. His goal is only to keep the neo-cons in power and to help his rich buddies.

Ronald Reagan - promoter of runaway capitalism, and had the Iran/Contra affair. Very socially conservative; fundies look back at him fondly

James Buchanan - ignored the concerns that led to the Civil War

Warren Harding - very corrupt; Teapot Dome scandal

Calvin Coolidge - his hands off policy helped lead to the depression

[derby378]

148. This thread just got the Guy James "Seal of Approval"

:woohoo: :woohoo:

[theobscure]

149. thought it over, here goes....

Best

1. Washington
2. Jefferson
3. FDR
4. TR
5. Lincoln


Worst

1. GW Bush
2. Truman
3. Wilson
4. LBJ
5. Nixon

[enigma000]

154. and if FDR had lived a few more months

and had given the order to drop the bomb on Japan, how would you have rated him?

[theobscure]

157. he would have changed lists n/t

[JStuart]

151. history lessons?

The "Good List" and I'm tempted to even make FDR #1.

1. Washington
2. FDR
3. Jefferson
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Eisenhower

And for the "bad list" just let me say 2/5 are from the last 30ish years, 1 republican, 1 democrat.



The best list here bar none.
1-5 are absolute American heroes, true icons.
Lincoln certainly doesn't belong there. He was responsible for 30x more American DEATHS than chimpy.

Lincoln could have EASILY negotiated his way out of the civil war instead he instigated the aggression and started the whole darn thing.

And don't believe the pablum they feed re: The attack on Fort Sumter starting the war.

AFTER South Carolina seceded, the US military there took up positions in Ft. Sumter with his 100 men. Over the next FEW MONTHS, the state asked the UNION soldiers to leave, they were not welcome in the newly seceded South Carolina. They refused. They were foreign occupiers holed up in a South Carolina fort in the opinion of the Confederacy and South Carolina.

Finally they were attacked by Beauregard and surrendered. There's the start of the civil war.

And as YUPSTER said, Lincoln made the colossal mistake of mobilizing militia and preparing for war which FORCED Virgina to secede.

[Neil Lisst]

153. History is my first love. American history. But I decided to marry ...

... another, after shacking up with her in college.

My list:

Best:
1. FDR
2. Lincoln
3. Washington
4. Jefferson
5. Clinton

Worst:
1. Bush Jr.
2. Nixon
3. Bush Sr.
4. Coolidge
5. Harding

[Pacifist Patriot]

155. Why not?

But I refuse to put them in order.

Best:

Washington (preventing a monarchy)
Lincoln (preserving a union)
Madison (soft spot because of his involvement with the Constitutional Convention)
John Tyler (set an important precedent for future vice presidents who became president)
FDR (gotta give credit to a man in a wheel chair who sees the country through the depression and second world war)


Worst:

Andrew Jackson (although I know more were responsible, he represents anti-Native American activity to me--also first to maneuver for a unitary executive)
William Henry Harrison (dying a month after inauguration isn't very effective)
Grant (what was he thinking?)
Reagan (me generation)
Bush the current (no commentary necessary -- he leads the pack)

CAVEAT: These are personal opinions and not academically based.

[JStuart]

156. and...

honestly you guys... none of you have Carter on the "worst 5" list? He was completely USELESS. He is forgiven for his humanitarian efforts in the last 2 decades for sure... but while he was in office???? Come on.

[theobscure]

useless doesn't quite cut it when you have so many who were..

actively destructive to humanity or to our democracy.

[theobscure]

158. useless doesn't quite cut it when you have so many who were..

actively destructive to humanity or to our democracy.

[JStuart]

159. true.

Truman was directly responsible for the deaths of HUNDREDS of thousands.
He could have dropped one on a less populated part of Japan to showcase the power to force a surrender.

Lincoln mowed down 600,000

Yeah, you're right. Some are worse than others.

[JStuart]

160. and also...

repugs would put Reagan at top 5 just as fast as DU'er put Clinton in the top 5.

Neither compares to the accomplishments of the "real" top 5. In reality they're middle of the group guys.

Especially FDR...