Worst presidents

[snowman]

Who was the worst president in US history?

My favorite is Abraham Lincon, closely followed by FDR. Whats yours?

Lincons legacy is approaching 150 years now. Divisiveness without bounds, hundreds of thousdands of americans killed for absolutely NO reason, whatsoever. Bitterness still remaining to this day. A nations laws and constitution totally fuked up beyond all beleif. And no it had absolutely NOTHING to do with slavery, just Lincons ineptness. Grant once said" if the civil war was about slavery, he would have had nothing to do with it".

[aways]

That's easy. Jimmy Carter...

[snowman]

Not Jimmy, he accomplished absolutely NOTHING, thank God. He will be just like Clinton, nothing happed under his watch. THey will also be know for what DID NOT HAPPEN under their watch, and the horrible consequences.

[yellowline]

Originally posted by snowman
Who was the worst president in US history?

My favorite is Abraham Lincon, closely followed by FDR. Whats yours?

Lincons legacy is approaching 150 years now. Divisiveness without bounds, hundreds of thousdands of americans killed for absolutely NO reason, whatsoever. Bitterness still remaining to this day. A nations laws and constitution totally fuked up beyond all beleif. And no it had absolutely NOTHING to do with slavery, just Lincons ineptness. Grant once said" if the civil war was about slavery, he would have had nothing to do with it".

The attack on Fort Sumter roughly coincided with Lincoln's election and inauguration. He had no choice. It would be like President Bush's decision to go to war-a summation of past events forced him to make the decision. We can't blame Lincoln for the war any more than we can blame Bush for Islamic fundamentalism. Both are problems that manifested over time, and one poor guy had to end up dealing with them. Difference is Lincoln could deliver a 5-minute speech that captured America in a nutshell.

The past incidents that divided the country, visualized by such incidents as the caning of Charles Sumner in Congress, strained the country to the brink of war. Lincoln believed the secession was unconstitutional and took measures to restore the Union. Differences that linger today are a result of subculture...Southern life in the US is different than the Northern way.

My pick for worst is actually Wilson. He was a smart, idealistic man, but too intellectual to be President of anything other than Princeton. The League of Nations was an embarassment for him, esp. when the Senate denied it. Carter, Clinton, and Johnson (with exception of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts) come in right behind. They were inept (Carter), authorized the sale of sensitive information to a foreign rival (Clinton), or expanded government to the point where it became too large (Johnson).

[aways]

Originally posted by snowman
Not Jimmy, he accomplished absolutely NOTHING, thank God. He will be just like Clinton, nothing happed under his watch. THey will also be know for what DID NOT HAPPEN under their watch, and the horrible consequences.

Nothing happened under his watch? How about 20% interest rates, the Iran hostage crisis, and the horribly botched hostage rescue effort. Your question asked who the WORST president in history was... Carter was an absolute disgrace. He never found a third-world socialist dictator he didn't like.

[cool_chick]

What did Carter do that made interest rates rise?

[Moses]

Fascinating.

The best president? Washington. At the end of the revolution, he commanded the army and had incredible popular support. The people of our new country were accustomed to royalty, and a majority of colonists expected (and hoped) that Washington would install himself as king. What did Washington do? He surrendered hid sword to congress. That was the defining moment of our nation. I know of no other time in history when a leader voluntarily surrendered power for an "idea".

Second best? Probably Lincoln. He took the presidency at the height of national divisiveness and forged a nation. He commanded a terrible but unavoidable war and made the difficult and sometimes illegal decisions he needed to make. Few people realize how incredibly close the north was to losing that war. Another thing; the brutality of reconstruction and it's bitter legacy would have been different if Lincoln had not been killed. It was not in his heart to punish the south or it's people.

[cstreit]

Originally posted by aways
That's easy. Jimmy Carter...

I dunno... Perhaps he didn't do too much, but the real measure of a President in my mind is what he does AFTER his presidency. Unlike most ex- Pres who went off and built themselves statues and libraries, Carter used his position to help the less fortunate...

[Halm]

Originally posted by cstreit
I dunno... Perhaps he didn't do too much, but the real measure of a President in my mind is what he does AFTER his presidency. Unlike most ex- Pres who went off and built themselves statues and libraries, Carter used his position to help the less fortunate...

No question that Carter is a great human being and continues to work hard for the less fortunate (and his legacy).

The problems with his presidency were at many levels. Among other major mistakes was his total and complete neutering of the intelligence community, the CIA in particualr. A strong case was built by Steve Coll (NY Times) that we can trace most of our middle east / central asia problems back to this single action. Add to that the total mismanagement of the economy (I sure remember his 18% 30 year mortgage interest rates!) and the debacle of the Iranian hostages.

Jimmy Carter clearly gets my vote as the worst president of my life time.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by snowman
Who was the worst president in US history?

My favorite is Abraham Lincon, closely followed by FDR. Whats yours?

Lincons legacy is approaching 150 years now. Divisiveness without bounds, hundreds of thousdands of americans killed for absolutely NO reason, whatsoever. Bitterness still remaining to this day. A nations laws and constitution totally fuked up beyond all beleif. And no it had absolutely NOTHING to do with slavery, just Lincons ineptness. Grant once said" if the civil war was about slavery, he would have had nothing to do with it".

Abraham Lincoln was easily the worst US president ever. The monster initiated a war, which killed nearly one million Americans, for merchantilism and essentially staged what amounted to a coup d'etat via waging his unecessary war, and again in the 1864 election. Lincoln set the stage for the leviathan state we deal with today.

See: The Real Lincoln : A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War , The American Lenin , and The King Lincoln Archive on LewRockwell.com.

Your second choice is accurate as well, Franklin Roosevelt, was easily the worst president in the 20th century; Clinton isn't even in the running when you consider FDR, Wilson, or Johnson all of whom were much worse. F.D. Roosevelt magnified what Lincoln began by several magnitudes; giving us the grossly unConstitutional Social Security ponzi scheme, and other modern problems almost too numerous to list here. See The Roosevelt Myth by genuine conservative and America First Committee founding member John T. Flynn. Note that this book was written in 1949 by a man that opposed Roosevelt throughout the 1930's. Also take a look at The New Dealers War: FDR and the War Within World War II by hard core genuine conservative Dr. Thomas Fleming of the Rockford Institute. For a broader overview of American history, see The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Dr. Thomas E. Woods Jr..

Best presidents? Though far from perfect, that would go to Martin van Buren and Calvin Coolidge.

I look forward to the day that a US president manages to be better than my two choices above.

[Moses]

Originally posted by fastpat
Abraham Lincoln was easily the worst US president ever. The monster initiated a war...

Lincolns predesessor, James Buchanon made the Civil War unavoidable. His administration was as corrupt as any in history, but his real failures were in refusing to move after South Carolina announced secession from the Union and attacked Fort Sumter, and in supporting both the legality of the pro-slavery constitution of Kansas and the Supreme Court ruling in the Dred Scott class declaring that escaped slaves were not people but property.

He was the guy who in 1861 passed on the mess to the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. Blaming Lincoln for the war is revisionist history at it's best.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by yellowline
The attack on Fort Sumter roughly coincided with Lincoln's election and inauguration. He had no choice. It would be like President Bush's decision to go to war-a summation of past events forced him to make the decision. We can't blame Lincoln for the war any more than we can blame Bush for Islamic fundamentalism. Both are problems that manifested over time, and one poor guy had to end up dealing with them. Difference is Lincoln could deliver a 5-minute speech that captured America in a nutshell.

The state of South Carolina left the compact of states known as the Union in December 20, 1860. Fort Sumter was new and as yet ungarrisoned. South Carolina sent delegates to negotiate the departure of the Union garrisons at Fort Moultrie and the other military installations around Charleston harbor. In the middle of the night on December 26th, the night after Christmas Day, Union troops went by small boats to Fort Sumter. That's an act of war by any known standard, particularly since President Buchannan had guaranteed that no Union troops would be moved to the fort. The South Carolina military commander, under orders from the governor, then allowed the illegal occupation force to have a continuous supply of food and needed medicines, but no military provisions. Lincoln ordered a flotilla south to supply additional troops and military hardware and supplies that attempted to land after South Carolina tolerated more than four months of the illegal occupation. This second act of war resulted in the sovereign state of South Carolina taking defensive action against the troop ship and then shelling the fort to dislodge the occupation force. No union troops were killed.

The past incidents that divided the country, visualized by such incidents as the caning of Charles Sumner in Congress, strained the country to the brink of war. Lincoln believed the secession was unconstitutional and took measures to restore the Union. Differences that linger today are a result of subculture...Southern life in the US is different than the Northern way.

Secession was legal then and remains legal today. The country was founded via the states seceding from Great Britain. One of the reasons that Jefferson Davis trial was canceled was that no one within the Union camp wanted their illegal war put on trial. See Jefferson Davis: Our Greatest Hero, ours meaning all southerners.

My pick for worst is actually Wilson. He was a smart, idealistic man, but too intellectual to be President of anything other than Princeton. The League of Nations was an embarassment for him, esp. when the Senate denied it. Carter, Clinton, and Johnson (with exception of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts) come in right behind. They were inept (Carter), authorized the sale of sensitive information to a foreign rival (Clinton), or expanded government to the point where it became too large (Johnson).

[Taz's Master]

Who was Grant talking about? It looks like either the content of the quote is inaccurate, or that he was talking about someone else.

[aways]

Originally posted by cstreit
I dunno... Perhaps he didn't do too much, but the real measure of a President in my mind is what he does AFTER his presidency. Unlike most ex- Pres who went off and built themselves statues and libraries, Carter used his position to help the less fortunate...

It's precisely what Carter's been involved with since leaving the white house (with the exception of habitat for humanity) that is especially sickening. For example:

As Joshua Muravchik wrote in the New Republic in 1994 - when Carter was bollixing up then-President Clinton's efforts to stop nuclear proliferation in North Korea - "Jimmy Carter, for all his heroic advocacy of human rights, has a long history of melting in the presence of tyrants." At the time, Carter said of Kim Il Sung, a brutal Stalinist dictator, "I found him to be vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues and in charge of the decisions about this country." As for the North Koreans, Muravchik wrote, Carter said the "people were very friendly and open." The capital, Pyongyang, is a "bustling city," where customers "pack the department stores," which looked like "Wal-Mart in Americus, Georgia." North Korea, it should be noted, has suffered from such government-imposed mass-starvation that millions have been forced to live off grass. While the first President Bush was trying to orchestrate an international coalition to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, Carter wrote a letter to the U.N. Security Council asking its members to stymie Bush's efforts. As the "human rights president," Carter noted that Yugoslavia's Marshall Tito was also "a man who believes in human rights." Carter saluted the dictator as "a great and courageous leader" who "has led his people and protected their freedom almost for the last 40 years." He publicly told Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, "Our goals are the same. ... We believe in enhancing human rights. We believe that we should enhance, as independent nations, the freedom of our own people." He told the Stalinist first secretary of Communist Poland, Edward Gierek, "Our concept of human rights is preserved in Poland." Since Carter has left office, he's been even more of a voluptuary of despots and dictators. He told Haitian dictator Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras he was "ashamed of what my country has done to your country." He's praised the mass-murdering leaders of Syria and Ethiopia. He endorsed Yasser Arafat's sham election and grumbled about the legitimate vote that ousted Sandanista Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. And, I learned from a devastating critique by my National Review colleague Jay Nordlinger, Carter even volunteered to be Arafat's speechwriter and go-fer, crafting palatable messages for Arafat's Western audiences and convincing the Saudis to continue funding Arafat after the Palestinians sided with Iraq against the United States. So, yes, it's unfair to say that Jimmy Carter was history's greatest monster. But it's a safe bet that if Carter could shake the hand of history's greatest monster, he'd leap at the opportunity.

Read the whole thing in:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/jonahgoldberg/2002/05/15/163222.html

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moses
Lincolns predesessor, James Buchanon made the Civil War unavoidable. His administration was as corrupt as any in history,

Lincoln's was far more corrupt. Further, Lincoln chose war when negotiations were underway. You are forgettng the fact that only about half the eventual number of southern states had seceded prior to Lincoln's call up of troops to begin military operations and training.

It was only after Lincoln made it obvious to the remaining southern states what he planned to do that they left the Union as well.

but his real failures were in refusing to move after South Carolina announced secession from the Union and attacked Fort Sumter,

No, Lincoln was president when the defnse of South Carolina was initiated to defend against the flotille sent south by Lincoln. Buchannan might swhare the blame by not ordering the troops out of what was a sovereign foreign nation at once, allowing the illegal occupation to proceed for over four months, but nothing more than that.

and in supporting both the legality of the pro-slavery constitution of Kansas and the Supreme Court ruling in the Dred Scott class declaring that escaped slaves were not people but property.

You're taking events out of 19th century context. The Kansas problem had little to do with Lincoln's actions in starting the War Against Southern Independence.

He was the guy who in 1861 passed on the mess to the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. Blaming Lincoln for the war is revisionist history at it's best.

When historical lies abound, setting the record straight through revision based on the real facts is warranted.

Lincoln initiated and prosecuted the deadliest war America has ever been involved in, before or since; and set the stage for the irresponsible fascist leviathan state of today.

[1967 R50/2]

Best President:

Lincoln was the BEST president this country ever had bar none. He was pure will. I have lived down south and heard all the Civili War apologist arguements, but they carry little weight.

If Lincoln had lived, the south would have been rebuilt properly. It was his greatest dream to see the country re-united. But Booth put an end to that. Even Lee lamented the assasination. It was a pity, but his Veep, Johnson had no political clout to carry out plans for reconstuction, whatsoever.

It was a measure of Lincoln's character that Lee, Davis, and the other southern leaders were allowed to live after the war. In any other time, they would have been hung as traitors. That's the fact. But Lincoln saw it was better that they be treated as wayward brothers and be given mild, if any punishment.

As far as "fuking up the constitution" I fail to see how adding the 13th amendment that prohibited owning other men as property is "fuking up the constitution". That's Lincoln's legacy if not his actual act.

The "150 years of devisiveness" that you talk about can hardly be laid at Lincoln's feet. He DID NOT secede from the Union. THAT is devisive. On the contrary, he sought to UNITE the country. Upon the conclusion of the war he wanted to rebuild and spiritually re-unite the country in the worst way. THAT is not devisive.

The worst President:

JFK. The man slept with an East German spy as well as a Mafia Don's girlfriend, almost got us in a nuclear exchange, involved us in Vietnam and left the Cuban's out to dry at the Bay of Pigs. In retrospect I am suprised things turned out as well as they did.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
Best President:

Lincoln was the BEST president this country ever had bar none. He was pure will.

Yep, pure iron will; just like Lenin and later Stalin, with similar results.

I have lived down south and heard all the Civili War apologist arguements, but they carry little weight.

That's like saying, "I have lived in Germany, or France, and therefore understand them perfectly". Kierkegaard's "Subjective Christianity", one of his "Edifying Discourses", will set you straight on that.

If Lincoln had lived, the south would have been rebuilt properly.

There's no reason, other than certain Lincoln rhetoric, that Reconstruction would have been any less than the reign of terror aganst the south than it was had he lived. J. W. Booth did the right thing, killing a tyrant, he just did it about 18 months too late to be as effective as it could have been.

It was his greatest dream to see the country re-united.

No, Lincoln's greatest dream was to see the nation changed into a merchantilist state, a dream he was denied seeing by the Confederate hero, Booth.

But Booth put an end to that. Even Lee lamented the assasination. It was a pity, but his Veep, Johnson had no political clout to carry out plans for reconstuction, whatsoever.

It was a measure of Lincoln's character that Lee, Davis, and the other southern leaders were allowed to live after the war.

Lincoln had no say in that, he was dead. If anything, it was Grant that accomplished that by making it clear that he wanted no part in any war crimes trials because, "I don't want to lose in the courtroom what so many gave their lives to accomplish on the battlefield."

In any other time, they would have been hung as traitors.

Traitors to what? Their respective states lawfully seceded from the Union. If there was a traitor, it was Lincoln, who usurped powers found nowhere in the Constitution he was sworn to uphold.

That's the fact. But Lincoln saw it was better that they be treated as wayward brothers and be given mild, if any punishement.

As far as "fuking up the constitution" I fail to see how adding the 13th amendment that prohibited owning other men as property is "fuking up the constitution". That's Lincoln's legacy if not his actual act.

The 14th Amendment is the culprit, not the 13th.

The "150 years of devisiveness" that you talk about can hardly be laid at Lincoln's feet. He DID NOT secede from the Union.

Secession was lawful. are you forgetting these words, That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government from the Declaration of Independence? The country was founded on the right of secession, further, the whole nation seceded from the Articles of Confederation and voluntarily entered into the Union. Since the Constitution is an envelope within which the federal government must remain, and the power of the states to secede was guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment, the southern states were entirely lawful and correct.

THAT is devisive. On the contrary, he sought to UNITE the country.

By invading and killing 25% of every adult white male, and not a few black men, in the south? Yes, that's really a kindness.

Upon the conclusion of the war he wanted to rebuild and spiritually re-unite the country in the worst way. THAT is not devisive.

Yep, in the worst way, now that's something I'd agree with.

[tabs]

Originally posted by cstreit
I dunno... Perhaps he didn't do too much, but the real measure of a President in my mind is what he does AFTER his presidency. Unlike most ex- Pres who went off and built themselves statues and libraries, Carter used his position to help the less fortunate...

Most Presidents go off and die...as they are allready old when they leave office.

[tabs]

Scholars have long acknowledged that Lincoln was the GREATEST American President.

Lincoln was not for the abolishment of Slavery, he was for containining it in the states where it allready existed. That in effect would have been its death knell over time.

Lincoln also stood for reelection in Nov 1864, fully expecting to lose to McClellen whose platform was to make peace with the South.

There is a new book out which I have started reading on the Lincoln Presidency called "A Team of Rivals" by Goodwin Knight. Lincoln in effect hired his rivals for the Repblican Presiential nomination to be in his Cabinet...Seward, Chase and Edward Bates...along with Stanton they were the Best and the Brightest the country had to offer...Seward was a Senator, Chase Govoner of Ohio and Bates one of the founding fathers of St. Louis, Missouri. Lincoln by his own estimation only had ONE YEAR of formal eductaion. The rest was on his own hook.

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by fastpat That's like saying, "I have lived in Germany, or France, and therefore understand them perfectly". Kierkegaard's "Subjective Christianity", one of his "Edifying Discourses", will set you straight on that.

No...it's like saying: I have heard all the Civil War apologist arguements and they carry little weight.

Originally posted by fastpat
Yep, pure iron will; just like Lenin and later Stalin, with similar results.

Hardly considering their country doesn't exist anymore and their political philosophy is on life support.

Originally posted by fastpat

The 14th Amendment is the culprit, not the 13th.

The 14th Amendment is highly appropriate, all things considered. A moot point.

Originally posted by fastpat
There's no reason, other than certain Lincoln rhetoric, that Reconstruction would have been any less than the reign of terror aganst the south than it was had he lived.

And you have something to prove that it would have been other than his stated goal? Of course you don't. He was dead.

Originally posted by fastpat
Secession was lawful....

The fact that there are STILL modern supporters of secession always astounds me. Because what is the alternative? A collection small aparthied states starting at the Maryland border? No USA today? What would the world be like with no US to stand up to the Nazi's, Imperialists or Communists? Please, the alternatives are all very, very bad.

Originally posted by fastpat
By invading and killing 25% of every adult white male, and not a few black men, in the south?

Hmmm. Let's see the population of the southern states was 9 million. 3.8 million were slaves. that means 5.2 where white. Let's say 50% of those were men. That's 2.6Million and 25% of that is 650,000 DEATHS. Considering that casualties for BOTH sides of the was are rarely considered to exceed 650K...and that's casualties not deaths...and being the north made up the lion's share of those numbers, I'd suggest you check your figures.


All I can say, is you are probably not going to convince many people that Lincoln was some evil guy. You can continue to vent if you like, but the war and Lincoln are 140 years gone and the society we are living in is VERY good by any historical standard.