The 7 Best Presidents & The 7 Worst Presidents

[Barty]

As ranked by me.

[number8]

This should be fun.

[Sycophant]

As ranked by me.

Do you know what'd be fun? A list that's ranked by one poster, but presented by a different (mostly dissenting) poster. Not presidents necessarily, but something.

Looking forward to this.

[Derek]

This should be fun.

My thoughts exactly. Can't wait.

[Wryan]

Prediction: Andrew Jackson will be on the "Pro" list.

The whole Indian Removal thing kinda ruined him for me. Even though I respect his hair.

[Barty]

The American President

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/arodmcfoolish/presidential_seal2.gif

The leader of the Free World, as the President has been called, has a long and rich history. Men of various character, motivations, ideas, and persuasions have held this office. Historians have for decades consistently ranked, re-ranked, changed, and updated their lists of who they consider the worst and best. Usually these lists are similar and consistent. Most Presidents don't tend to wildly swing from the top to the bottom of these lists, or vice-versa, although it's not unheard of for President's to gain praise, or criticism, as historians revist their terms.

Since historians tend to rank the Presidents very closely, does that mean the men they picked as the greatest truly deserve the honor? Or does it mean that historians tend to have similar standards and criteria, that may possibly be misguided?

I will attempt to provide my answer and response.

[Barty]

Best

#7. John Tyler - 10th President of the United States

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/John_Tyler.png/426px-John_Tyler.png

Party: Whig/None
“I can never consent to being dictated to.”

Tyler is unique in that he was elected as the Vice President under the ticket of William Henry Harrison, who died a month after being elected, and thus it fell onto Tyler to become the acting President.

Tyler, unfortunately for the Whigs, was not really a Whig, but a Democrat and spent his term stopping the Whig agenda of high tariffs, American Mercantilism, and massive boondoggles of internal improvement. This naturally, pissed off this Whigs, who promptly threw him out of the party. Thus, Tyler was the second president since Washington to have no party.

He also established trade relations with pacific nations, most notably China, and started the process of Texas Statehood.

For his firm stance on keeping the government out of areas it didn't belong, deadlocking an expansionist congress from wielding a lot of power, and for holding his own against massive criticism, he ranks as one of the best.

[Winston*]

Odds on the number one worst having a chin beard and wearing a stovepipe hat? I'm guessing high.

[Barty]

Worst

#7. Theodore Roosevelt - 26th President of the United States

http://www.stcny.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/TheodoreRoosevelt.20084603_std .jpg

Party: Republican
Mark Twain on T.R. "We are insane, each in our own way, and with insanity goes irresponsibility. Theodore the man is sane; in fairness we ought to keep in mind that Theodore, as statesman and politician, is insane and irresponsible."


T.R. Presidency can be characterized by always have his hands in places it didn't belong. He is known in history as a great warrior, conservationist, and trust-buster.

Does it matter though that, despite being excellent at war, his interventionist foreign policy in Latin America and Pacific America was merely for the benefit of US interests in order to expand power and influence. He always was wanting more war and bloodshed, he loved the adventure of it.

His trust-busting was a ruse that targeted industries which had done nothing wrong and were benefiting the consumer. He regulated the railroads and prices with the disastrous Hepburn act.

He openly thought of himself as the will of the people, therefore he could do no wrong, and didn't really have to listen to the congress or the law. His motto was walk softly and carry a big stick. And while I'm all for self defense, Roosevelt didn't even follow his own words, as he was frequently beating people with his big stick for no reason.

For expanding the power of the Presidency and engaging in highly questionable policies and actions, he is one of our worst.

[Sven]

Great reads, Barty, but if you include Reagan on your "best" list, you are dead to me. Seriously.

[Robby P]

Odds on the number one worst having a chin beard and wearing a stovepipe hat? I'm guessing high.

My money's on FDR, actually.

[EyesWideOpen]

Great reads, Barty, but if you include Reagan on your "best" list, you are dead to me. Seriously.

Their is no chance that Reagan isn't his top or second best.

[Ezee E]

Didn't Teddy Roosevelt win a Nobel Peace Prize and put a stop to what could've been a World War?

Doesn't sound like beating people with a stick to me.

I'm sure this is what barty has wanted though.

[Barty]

Didn't Teddy Roosevelt win a Nobel Peace Prize and put a stop to what could've been a World War?

http://www.agoravox.com/IMG/jpg/arafat.jpg

http://americanhistoryquotes.com/images/Henry_Kissinger_small.JPG

[Barty]

Great reads, Barty, but if you include Reagan on your "best" list, you are dead to me. Seriously.

Well, I'm afraid I'll be

You think I would tell you this early? :pritch:

[Ezee E]

http://www.agoravox.com/IMG/jpg/arafat.jpg

http://americanhistoryquotes.com/images/Henry_Kissinger_small.JPG
Not pictures of Teddy Roosevelt, nor Presidents.

Therefore:

http://snarkerati.com/movie-news/files/2008/07/marvin-the-martian.jpg

[Raiders]

It's Arafat and Kissinger, both who won Nobel Peace prizes and apparently also share the bane of Barty.

[Ezee E]

It's Arafat and Kissinger, both who won Nobel Peace prizes and apparently also share the bane of Barty.
Ah, the bane of Barty. Now it makes sense.

[Russ]

Great idea for a thread. It's actually quite rep-worthy.

[Barty]

It's Arafat and Kissinger, both who won Nobel Peace prizes and apparently also share the bane of Barty.

I'm not commenting on them overall, just that one arbitrary award does not mean they advocated peace their whole lives.

[Robby P]

Naturally, in the 2005 Wall Street Journal poll, Tyler ranked 35th, while Roosevelt ranked 5th.

[Ezee E]

Hmm... Strange fact.

The Teddy Bear is named after Teddy Roosevelt.

And teddy bears are nice.

Thread over.

[Spinal]

I predict Kennedy will be rated worst.

[Mysterious Dude]

I predict George W. Bush will be ignored.

[bac0n]

Barty - have you seen the PBS series The American President?

It's fascinating, and amazingly well done. Would probably be right up your alley.

[Sycophant]

Barty - have you seen the PBS series The American President?

It's fascinating, and amazingly well done. Would probably be right up your alley.

I'm making my way through these right now. They give very lucid depictions of their subjects and their settings. The Nixon one was especially impressive.

[Watashi]

I know #1 :pritch:

[Raiders]

I know #1 :pritch:

Grover Cleveland, I presume.

[chrisnu]

I know #1 :pritch:
Hoover

[MadMan]

Even though Barty has a point about Teddy, I can't help but like the guy. And I think its kind debatable about whether or not the companies he busted up were really bad for business or not. They were monopolies after all, although granted monopolies aren't always bad (we have several in this country right now from Microsoft to AOL Time Warner to Wal-Mart). So go figure.

Tyler wasn't a bad president, but I can't agree about him being one of the best. Still a very interesting choice indeed.


It's Arafat and Kissinger, both who won Nobel Peace prizes and apparently also share the bane of Barty.Arafat was a terrorist who got off easy. Kissinger is a war criminal. I understand why Barty doesn't like either one.

I look forward to the rest of your list Barty. Even if I imagine I would't agree with half of it. Or most of it :P

[Sven]

#7. Theodore Roosevelt - 26th President of the United States

He always was wanting more war and bloodshed, he loved the adventure of it.

I'm not the hugest fan of Roosevelt's politics of imperialism, but I think this sentence is a bit of a careless projection. Given my knowledge of Roosevelt (and really, human nature, as well as American sensibility), I don't think that he was going to war for fun. His motives, undoubtedly questionable, but I think suggesting that it was simply for adventure is doing yourself a disservice.


His trust-busting was a ruse that targeted industries which had done nothing wrong and were benefiting the consumer.

Cursory research informs me that the trusts he busted were all in violation of Sherman Anti-trust statutes (made in 1890) and were banking on an administration that would look the other way. "Ruse"? Could you give me examples of these benevolent industries?


He openly thought of himself as the will of the people, therefore he could do no wrong, and didn't really have to listen to the congress or the law. His motto was walk softly and carry a big stick. And while I'm all for self defense, Roosevelt didn't even follow his own words, as he was frequently beating people with his big stick for no reason.

Roosevelt is a fascinating character and you're going to have to work so much harder than aimlessly slinging mud with groundless pejoratives to deride the man's work. I'm all for criticizing the dude, but you offer no evidence. What is "no reason"? What politician has ever been 100% true to their word? How do you derive this apparently altruistic attitude that he had?

Reasons, Barty. Reasons.

[Ezee E]

There are no reasons. Just pictures.

[Barty]

I'm not the hugest fan of Roosevelt's politics of imperialism, but I think this sentence is a bit of a careless projection. Given my knowledge of Roosevelt (and really, human nature, as well as American sensibility), I don't think that he was going to war for fun. His motives, undoubtedly questionable, but I think suggesting that it was simply for adventure is doing yourself a disservice.

The man would frequently dress up in his cowboy outfit and told his friends "I feel able to face anything" when dressed up in it. He was an avid hunter, traveled the world killing prized game. He would, as President, go out of the White House and do target practice on tree branches in the middle of D.C. parks. A college friend wrote that he was always wanting to go to war or to be killing something. He certainly loved the adventure of it on a personal level, but even on a political level his motivations were dubious; "All the great masterful races have been fighting races.." was his reasoning for wanting war.


Cursory research informs me that the trusts he busted were all in violation of Sherman Anti-trust statutes (made in 1890) and were banking on an administration that would look the other way. "Ruse"? Could you give me examples of these benevolent industries?

First off, these industries weren't stopping competition, they simply offered a better product at a cheaper price than their competitors. The Sherman Anti-Trust act was ruled in the E.C. Knight case that the "monopoly" had to be shown to actually stop trade and competition. Roosevelt hated that decision, and when he brought charges against the Northern Securities Company, his administration reversed that decision through it's actions. The Northern Securities acquired two competing railroads (Who actually hadn't been competing for a while, because they realize the benefit of some uniform standards which caused efficiency of both railroads to go up, and prices for both to go down, a benefit to the consumer). There was no legitimate reason to target the Company.



Roosevelt is a fascinating character and you're going to have to work so much harder than aimlessly slinging mud with groundless pejoratives to deride the man's work. I'm all for criticizing the dude, but you offer no evidence. What is "no reason"? What politician has ever been 100% true to their word? How do you derive this apparently altruistic attitude that he had?

Reasons, Barty. Reasons.

Roosevelt was a man who always wanted to be at the front. Roosevelt's daughter said, "Father wants to be the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral, and the baby at every christening." This is why I attack him. He expanded the Presidency into something it's not constitutionally designed for, he put his hands into the cookie jar when it was none of his buisness. Perhaps I should have said "No legitimate reason" for much of what he did. Or even better would be to say he had no right to do some of the things he did.

[Barty]

Best

#6. James Monroe - 5th President of the United States

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2398/2411609537_32f2f242f0.jpg

Party: Democratic-Republican
“Let us, by all wise and constitutional measures, promote intelligence among the People, as the best means of preserving our liberties.”

Monroe presided in the era of good feelings, marked by a lessening of bickering between the political parties of the day. Legislatively he opposed high increases in federal spending for internal improvements. He signed the Missouri Compromise, which would limit the expansion of slavery on geographical lines, but ultimately further divide the states on geographical lines. Under his administration, Spain secede Florida to the US.

His most famous decision, or more accurately, idea, was the Monroe Doctrine, which advocated the idea of American Neutrality and non-intervention in Europe with the reverse in the Americas expected of European Nations, and that any action in the Americas by Europe would be considered a threat. The first part of the doctrine is commendable and sound. US neutrality is something that unfortunately has been lost upon our current form of government, and the non-intervention in foreign affairs, especially when there is no threat to the US, is something we should take up once again.

However, Monroe's veiled threat of military action for any violation of the doctrine should receive some criticism for being to broad and dangerous, even if it reflects a commendable idea of wanting to keep nations from trying to dominate other nations. His doctrine unfortunately was perverted into the idea that because European Nations shouldn't be in the Western Hemisphere trying to build Empires, it therefore gave the US the right to replace them and do it themselves.

One could then argue, that Monroe marks the beginning of the Imperial Presidency since it's ultimately his doctrine which led to the dominance of the US in Latin America and New World. However, taken in his presidency and what he stood for, any blame he takes as a President would be minimal.

[Barty]

Worst

#6. George W. Bush - 43rd President of the United States

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/George-W-Bush.jpeg/453px-George-W-Bush.jpeg

Party: Republican
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

The great thing about ranking W. right now is that he can only go up and ranking. Who knows, in a couple of years maybe he'll take the #4 or #3 spot of worst Presidents. Of course, that will depend on just how bad his seven trillion dollars in bailout money and loans will wreck our economy in the future.

Doing my research for the list it's truly amazing how many pieces of legislation he signed that were either wholly unconstitutional, expanded the Government's power, or would just plain bad.

Patriot Act? Shredding the Constitution more and more, stepping on liberty? Check.

No Child Left Behind Act? More Federal Government intrusion into education? Check.

Medicare? Huge expansion of the program for drug benefits and more government spending? Check.

And that's just some of his legislation.

And then there's his wars. A combination of success, and huge, huge failures. Sure, Iraq is doing better then at any point in this war, but at what cost? Not just money, but lives, our Constitution, and the principals of the founding of the country.

He has doubled the national debt. He has spent an ungodly amount of money we don't have. He has reduced liberty.

Bush's true fault, failure, and evil is not creating the problems of the nation and world that he was faced with, but his fault was his response to them. Bush didn't create these economic problems, but his response to them is horrid. He didn't create the terrorists that caused 9-11, but his response to them was irresponsible and will cause more problems for the US. Other President's have already expanded the size of the Federal Government and reduced liberties, yet Bush, who ran on reducing the size of the Government, has done just what he promised he wouldn't.

Unfortunately, his solutions will cause more problems and more blame will rightfully fall on him, and his legacy will grow even worse. But history has yet to show the true nature of what these problems will be. I'll hope for the best, but I'm not crossing my fingers.

[Spinal]

Well, kudos for that entry.

[Mysterious Dude]

[Antoine eats his hat.]

[MadMan]

Bush is too low, but least he's on the Worst Of list. Monroe is an interesting choice, but I'm not sure if he's a great president. Still he's a good one, yes.

[Barty]

Best

#5. William Henry Harrison - 9th President of the United States

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/William_Henry_Harrison.jpg

Party: Whig
“The prudent capitalist will never adventure his capital . . . if there exists a state of uncertainty as to whether the Government will repeal tomorrow what it has enacted today.”

William Henry Harrison died 30 days after taking office. He passed no oppressive legislation. Fought no unnecessary wars. He didn't suppress rights or freedom.

One can say, he is the only President in history to do no offense to the Constitution nor liberty.

[Derek]

All you need to know about William Henry Harrison is portrayed magnificently by Paul Schneider (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDukCTcITLY).

And kudos on an amazing pick, Barty. Anyone who can vote for a literal do-nothing president without a shred of irony gets rep from me.

[number8]

:lol:

[chrisnu]

This pick makes me wonder if this is all an attempt at a Colbert-like facade.

[Barty]

This pick makes me wonder if this is all an attempt at a Colbert-like facade.

If it was, Bush would be on my best list, no?

[chrisnu]

I just find it difficult to believe that the list of Presidents with positive accomplishments is so few that a President with literally no accomplishments is the fifth-best President in our country's history.

[Barty]

I just find it difficult to believe that the list of Presidents with positive accomplishments is so few that a President with literally no accomplishments is the fifth-best President in our country's history.

My list isn't merely positive accomplishments vs. negative accomplishments, but a free combination of both. So a President with literally no negative accomplishments can be up their with President's who have great accomplishments but also negative ones, because they are equally weighed in my eyes. It is also, yes, a political point about the destructive history of the Presidency to have a President on there who could do no wrong because of circumstance, not will.

[Ezee E]

All you need to know about William Henry Harrison is portrayed magnificently by Paul Schneider (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDukCTcITLY).

And kudos on an amazing pick, Barty. Anyone who can vote for a literal do-nothing president without a shred of irony gets rep from me.
This.

[MadMan]

I just find it difficult to believe that the list of Presidents with positive accomplishments is so few that a President with literally no accomplishments is the fifth-best President in our country's history.That's what I'm thinking. I will now wait for James Garfield to be making an appearance on the best of list next :P

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

I'm calling Polk as #1 on best list.

[Barty]

Worst

#5. Lyndon B. Johnson - 36th President of the United States

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070119/070119_LBJ_vmed_2p.widec.jpg

Party: Democrat
"Once you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."

If there's a pattern in my picks, it's unnecessary and harmful intervention by our leaders. Johnson, naturally, represents some of the most successful harmful intervention of a President.

First there's Vietnam, a war which cost millions of lives for the Vietnamese, and almost sixty thousand American lives. A war which cost Billions of dollars, and was unnecessary for the US to get involved it. As much as I despise the philosophy of Communism, the principal of self government remains, and the US has no right to impose upon another nation our way of government.

Johnson's Great Society programs had the effect of not reducing poverty, but of increasing the size, scope, and power of the Federal government and further pushing the people into open arms of dependency. Johnson is to be commended for his views on race and civil rights, however as a President his legislative accomplishments with regards to Civil Rights unfortunately sometimes sacrificed personal liberty in the name of legislative morality. Under Johnson, private property now came under the regulation of the government, and what they deemed acceptable moral standards for the running of a buisness.

His War on Poverty further unconstitutionally expanded the role of the government into the lives of people. Medicaid and Medicare, expansion of government funding and control of education, government regulation of housing and rentals. Billions have been spent, unfunded liabilities of Medicare is astronomical in the trillions, and the result is more people in subjugation and dependency to the state, and more theft of people's incomes.

He signed the Gun Control Act of 1968, a major stomp on liberty and the second amendment, creating the ill-defined and pointless standard of "sporting purposes" and the prohibited persons category, which is closely reminiscent to Nazi Germany era gun control regulations.

For another unnecessary war, and the creation of the modern welfare state, Johnson receives a failing grade.

[ledfloyd]

LBJ is too low.

[Sven]

Are you a non-interventionist, then? An isolationist?

As for your quibble about legislating private property, do you not think it is in the best interest of a government to ensure the fair treatment and security of its citizens? I wouldn't want to be a part of a community (and by a larger extent, nation) where it would still be legal to refuse someone service based on the color of their skin.

[Mysterious Dude]

I'm calling Polk as #1 on best list.
If he doesn't like Teddy Roosevelt's wars, he sure as hell shouldn't like Polk's war.

[MadMan]

If he doesn't like Teddy Roosevelt's wars, he sure as hell shouldn't like Polk's war.Yep. Especially since the US did star the Mexican-American War.

Also Vietnam alone is good enough to place LBJ as one of our worst presidents.

[ledfloyd]

Also Vietnam alone is good enough to place LBJ as one of our worst presidents.
that, the great society, his general assholishness.

i'm not sure there are 4 worse than him. i can think of maybe 2 offhand. and possibly bush. just cause of what he's done with the defense and intelligence agencies. along with the patriot act and expansion of executive power. thinking about it 3 of the worst presidents ever served 20 of the last 45 years.

[MadMan]

that, the great society, his general assholishness.

i'm not sure there are 4 worse than him. i can think of maybe 2 offhand. and possibly bush. just cause of what he's done with the defense and intelligence agencies. along with the patriot act and expansion of executive power. thinking about it 3 of the worst presidents ever served 20 of the last 45 years.I consider Dubya, Nixon, Harding and Grant to be far worse. Actually only Dubya and Nixon can be considered worse. The other two make the list for corruption reasons, but neither one of them committed the gross abuses of power that Dubya and Nixon did, plus only Dubya and LBJ got us stuck in the two dumbest wars in American history. Bucanan gets an honorable mention just for being incompetent and pretty much setting the nation on the path to the Civil War, and Jackson was also bad for expanding and abusing power and for genocide against the Native Americans. Sure later on that genocide continued, but it was that racist warmonger who layed the stage for all of it and started the whole thing. "The Trail of Tears" took place during his administration and was ordered against the wishes of the Supreme Court.

So really after some thought I'd say that Jackson, LBJ, Nixon and Dubya are the worst of the bunch.

[bac0n]

You guys are forgetting the other Andrew, Andrew Johnson, the only other president besides Clinton to be impeached. LBJ & Teddy could only hope to be as incompetent. His conciliation of civil rights to the south and vetoes of civil rights bills alone should earn him just about everyone's ire.

It's funny that arguably our best president (Lincoln) is sandwiched between two of our worst (Buchanan & Johnson). Lincoln's like a fillet mignon shoved into two pieces of moldy wonderbread.

[Robby P]

You guys do realize that Lincoln, FDR, and possibly Kennedy are going to rate worse than Nixon, Jackson, Hoover, Grant, et al? Have you never met a libertarian before? This is what they do.

Also, they hate Woodrow Wilson something awful.

[MadMan]

You guys are forgetting the other Andrew, Andrew Johnson, the only other president besides Clinton to be impeached. LBJ & Teddy could only hope to be as incompetent. His conciliation of civil rights to the south and vetoes of civil rights bills alone should earn him just about everyone's ire.Johnson's impeachment was questionable, which is partly why he wasn't removed from office. That said, Andrew Johnson was a piss poor president, yes.


It's funny that arguably our best president (Lincoln) is sandwiched between two of our worst (Buchanan & Johnson). Lincoln's like a fillet mignon shoved into two pieces of moldy wonderbread.I like Lincoln, but he is not our best president. I don't know if he would make my Top 5, actually, due to his abuses of power during the Civil War.


You guys do realize that Lincoln, FDR, and possibly Kennedy are going to rate worse than Nixon, Jackson, Hoover, Grant, et al? Have you never met a libertarian before? This is what they do.

Also, they hate Woodrow Wilson something awful.Actually I think Barty kind of likes JFK. But yes I do know that all of those presidents are going to be among his worst. I hate Wilson too, but for the interventionist policy and his racism. The dude screened Birth of a Nation in the Oval Office.

[Barty]

Johnson's impeachment was nothing the height of nonsense.

[Barty]

Best

#4. George Washington - 1st President of the United States

http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~adam_swanson/george-washington.jpg

Party: None
“I walk on untrodden ground. There is scarcely any part of my conduct which may not hereafter be drawn into precedent.”

It was under Washington the new Union was put into practice and began to take shape. The majority of Washington's term, in the plainest sense, was about organization. Organization of the executive branch, of the federal judicial system, of various departments and taxes which would lay the foundation of the government to come.

He established the Cabinet, consisting of Secretary of State, Treasury, and War. Wouldn't it be nice to just have these again instead of the boondoggle of Cabinet officials now.

He established the system of courts, the Supreme, and the lower courts. The Attorney General's office was also created.

He was the President during the time which saw the Bill of Rights codified, the establishment of the first mint, and signed the Naval Act creating our first Navy.

Controversially he signed the Jay Treaty with Great Britain, which normalized relations with England and opened preferred trade with the Nation. Jefferson and the Republicans did not like the treaty because they viewed Britain as a threat and not to be trusted. Ultimately this would prove true with the War of 1812 to some degree, but in my view the treaty itself was a good thing.

I can not however, consent to Washington's favored support for Hamilton, and his signing of the National Bank. Unfortunately Washington was convinced by Hamilton's argument of "implied powers" in the Constitution and his argument for a National Bank, and thus begun the long and terrible history of Central Banking in the US.

The Whiskey Rebellion is notable in that Washington personally led a militia army into Pennsylvania to stop the insurrection. And while I cannot condone an overwhelming force going in to enforce a repressive tax, kudos to Washington for having the spine to lead it himself and taking the responsibility. Ultimately, he would pardon all the men convicted for crimes during the Rebellion, and internal excise taxes were only used once again the history of the country until after the Civil War.

Washington left us in his farewell address two of the most important points he made as President. Avoid entangling and permanent alliances and foreign wars, and avoid political parties. Unfortunately, in our modern Presidency, these two have been ignored completely, and thus the destruction of liberty continues.

Washington, for the most part, followed the Constitution and promoted liberty. He went about and created the necessary institutions of government authorized under the Constitution, and set a good standard for governing. He was a man, like all, who had his own predispositions, but to his benefit he would seek counsel on all issues for both sides. And while I do not agree with all his decisions, ultimately this country would be far better off if there had been more men like him.

[Barty]

Worst

#4. Richard Nixon - 37th President of the United States

http://z.about.com/d/americanhistory/1/0/1/A/37_nixon_1.jpg

Party: Republican
"When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."

Unfortunately I think many of our President's think that way. They just don't have the balls to say it. (Or they're dead)

For the party that ran "Mr. Conservative" in the previous election, I find it astounding that Nixon was the choice this time around. Nixon was hardly a conservative, in fact under Nixon we saw some of the largest increases in the Federal Government, from departments, to wages, to overall spending.

He created a slew of new departments to keep the watchful eye of the government over the population, from the EPA, to OSHA. He imposed price and wage controls over the economy, causing food shortages and problems that would resonate throughout the economy for years.

But wait there's more! He signed affirmative action legislation, and if he had gotten all he wanted, we would have had more Federal intrusion into the lives of people with Universal Health care and his version of the living wage minimum standards. Luckily he didn't succeed in those, but he still has a long record of squashing the principals of classic liberalism and limited government.

Of course he also brought an end to the Gold Standard, the last barrier of sound fiscal policy standing in the way of the Federal Government which has caused massive inflation and expansion of the money supply and credit, which will ultimately wreck the dollar somewhere down the line.

I suppose I can compliment him on a few things, his even handed approach to China and the Soviet Union was a good policy based on the founding principal of being fair to all nations. (Of course, I'm sure he felt very comfortable in countries whose leaders and government had so much power over their people). On the negative, he bombed Cambodia and Laos in a slightly new front of the Vietnam War, but hey, what President since hasn't done a little bombing here and there?

For a man that ran for President three times, was in the executive office's longer than anyone in history, is it any wonder Watergate happened? The man clearly had a drive for power, and we know what power tends to do.

[Qrazy]

I have trouble believing there were many worse presidents than Bush and Nixon.

[Ezee E]

I have trouble believing there were many worse presidents than Bush and Nixon.
I have a suspicion that Clinton will make his worst list.

[Barty]

Best

#3. Thomas Jefferson - 3rd President of the United States

http://misterdiplomat.files.wordpress .com/2008/07/thomas-jefferson-president.jpg

Party: Democratic-Republican
“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. ”

To me, Jefferson is perhaps the greatest American who has lived. If I was ranking purely on overall accomplishments, he would probably be at the top of the list. As a President however, I cannot call him the top.

His administration was marked by the promotion of liberty, as he was naturally be the greatest defender of liberty in the time, it was also marked by some of the first great challenges to face the United States.

Jefferson successfully fought and brought and end (for the time being), to the practice of oppressive tribute to the Barbary Pirates in exchange for the not attacking American merchant ships.

Militarily he decreased the size of the standing army and Navy, which allowed for him to start balancing the budget and pay down the national debt, all while he reduced or eliminated many of the unpopular excise taxes on goods. He also signed into law the West Point Military academy, which would train future military leaders as well as provide civilian leadership for the militia, who Jefferson considered more important than any army.

His most famous accomplishment was the purchase of the Louisiana territory for an astoundingly low price as well the Lewis & Clark expedition to explore the new land acquired. While this purchase expanded trade, ports, and resources for the United States, and generally is one of the best deals the United States ever made. However, Jefferson himself knew it to be likely Unconstitutional for the President and Congress to purchase land, and while he tried to pass a Constitutional amendment to allow it, the rumors of Napoleon selling the land to other countries, notably Britain, and thus possibly allowing for a blocking of American trade or war, caused Jefferson to simply send it to congress, who approved it. Thus, Jefferson deserves criticism for this act, even if it was a "good" thing. It perhaps reflects what Jefferson said about the Presidency, "No man will ever carry out of the Presidency the reputation which carried him into it."

Though Jefferson avoided war with either France or Britain as Napoleon marched over Europe, but the price for trade became high as both Britain and France embargoed each other, and didn't respect American neutrality. Jefferson passed the Embargo acts, banning trading with either nation, hoping economic consequences would force them to stop attacking American ships. It didn't, and the Northern states simply resorted to smuggling, and the exports plummeted and hurt the economy. This lesson was a tough one for Jefferson, as it showed the increased difficultly of American neutrality and the skill needed to not resort to the destruction, and more damaging, but perhaps easier path of war.

Though Jefferson was a very good President, perhaps it's to note he didn't consider it the highlight of his life, as he only requested this be engraved on his headstone.

HERE WAS BURIED THOMAS JEFFERSON
AUTHOR OF THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE
OF THE STATUTE OF VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
AND FATHER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

[MadMan]

I have trouble believing there were many worse presidents than Bush and Nixon.According to Barty apparently there are ones that are worse.

Jefferson and Washington are both awesome, of course.

[DavidSeven]

"Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it is to be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." - Thomas Jefferson.

[Barty]

Worst

#3. Woodrow Wilson - 28th President of the United States

http://www.historyplace.com/specials/calendar/docs-pix/wilson.jpg

Party: Democrat
Charles A. Linbergh on the signing of the Federal Reserve Act;
"When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized, the people may not know it immediately but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed.... The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill."

Woodrow Wilson set a new course for America, one that would permanently cut all ties to neutrality and further lock us into a dominating world force. His pushing for entry into World War I was one of the most disastrous acts in US history. Over 100,000 American lives were lost. The stalemate that had been the Great War was broken and caused the Allied Powers to push over Germany and the Central powers, which led to the Treaty of Versailles, who's harsh terms would directly lead to the rise of the Nazi state and World War II. The price paid for entering a war we had no buisness was great, not just in foreign affairs, but here at home.

The most oppressive and totalitarian acts against free speech were passed with the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. Private speech in your own home became a crime. Almost 200,000 citizens were imprisoned for speaking out against the war and the government. Newspapers couldn't print anything negative or critical about the government. The post office refused to ship printings critical of the war effort of the government. Liberty Died, Liberty Cabbage was born.

Domestically we saw even more regulation of Industry and trade. The FTC was created. He signed the first progressive income tax, which would only lead to more oppressive conditions on the citizen. Most importantly, he signed the Federal Reserve Act, the private central bank who would now be given control over monetary policy and the money supply, and whose policies and expansion of the money supply and credit continue to cause havoc and systematically create cycles of boom and bust. Liberty Died, The Money Tree took root.

For these, Wilson is one of the worst, because liberty was further eroded under him, and the all powerful state grew much faster. The Wilsonian model continues to be a dominating force in America, by god let's hope it ends soon.

[soitgoes...]

Woodrow Wilson set a new course for America, one that would permanently cut all ties to neutrality and further lock us into a dominating world force. His pushing for entry into World War I was one of the most disastrous acts in US history. Over 100,000 American lives were lost. The stalemate that had been the Great War was broken and caused the Allied Powers to push over Germany and the Central powers, which led to the Treaty of Versailles, who's harsh terms would directly lead to the rise of the Nazi state and World War II. The price paid for entering a war we had no buisness was great, not just in foreign affairs, but here at home.
Wilson ran as an isolationist in 1916, he wanted no part of the war. Germany's trying to lure Mexico into a war against the US if the US were to declare, as well as the sinking of merchant ships and suspected German saboteurs working in the US were the reasons for the end to neutrality.

The Treaty of Versailles was more a failure on the part of PMs George and Clemenceau than Wilson. His 14 Points was much more friendly to the Germans than what the Treaty turned out to be. Clemenceau demanded reparations, and was actively trying to place France as the high man on the European totem pole. Just because Wilson was on the winning side doesn't mean he was alone in responsibility for post-WWI. His voice was minimized, rightfully so, by the much angrier French and British leaderships. Wilson even predicted that there would be another world war for the next generation to have to sort out.

As a side note, a great read related to this is Churchill's first book of his 6 book series on World War II. It deals with the complete mishandling of the rise of Nazi Germany up through the defeat of Poland. I thought it was the most interesting of the series.

[Barty]

Wilson ran as an isolationist in 1916, he wanted no part of the war. Germany's trying to lure Mexico into a war against the US if the US were to declare, as well as the sinking of merchant ships and suspected German saboteurs working in the US were the reasons for the end to neutrality.

Wilson was not neutral or isolationist when it came to his views, he was decidedly pro British. What was Germany supposed to do when Britain was blockading them to not even allow food in for civilians who were starving? Britain armed their ships, which made even more reason for the unrestricted warfare. Not good enough reasons for war, and making the world safe for democracy, especially since Wilson had an understanding of the entangling alliances and ego's in Europe that caused the war in the first place.


The Treaty of Versailles was more a failure on the part of PMs George and Clemenceau than Wilson. His 14 Points was much more friendly to the Germans than what the Treaty turned out to be. Clemenceau demanded reparations, and was actively trying to place France as the high man on the European totem pole. Just because Wilson was on the winning side doesn't mean he was alone in responsibility for post-WWI. His voice was minimized, rightfully so, by the much angrier French and British leaderships. Wilson even predicted that there would be another world war for the next generation to have to sort out.

I'm not blaming it all on him, but his leadership from the beginning of the war to the end was ineffectual. He shouldn't have had his hand in the cookie jar of carving up Europe.


As a side note, a great read related to this is Churchill's first book of his 6 book series on World War II. It deals with the complete mishandling of the rise of Nazi Germany up through the defeat of Poland. I thought it was the most interesting of the series.

I've heard good things, so I will have to check it out.

[Benny Profane]

Great thread, Barty. You were way too light on Bush though.

[Yxklyx]

I really can't fathom how our current president is not listed here as the worst president in the history of the USA. He's not only the worst president, he's the worst thing to ever happen to this country.

[Ezee E]

I really can't fathom how our current president is not listed here as the worst president in the history of the USA. He's not only the worst president, he's the worst thing to ever happen to this country.
Worst thing to this country may be far-fetched with all the happenings in the Civil War and whatnot.

[Robby P]

I'm really surprised to see Jefferson here. How can a strict constructionist reconcile TJ's 'greatness' with the Louisiana Purchase? There's some cognitive dissonance there.

[D_Davis]

#3. Woodrow Wilson - 28th President of the United States

http://www.historyplace.com/specials/calendar/docs-pix/wilson.jpg



http://www.sacred-texts.com/nec/hpl/hpl.jpg

Reminds me a bit of HP Lovecraft

[Barty]

I really can't fathom how our current president is not listed here as the worst president in the history of the USA. He's not only the worst president, he's the worst thing to ever happen to this country.

Everything he has done, from waging war, to suppressing liberties, to his economic policies have been done even worse by other Presidents, so why would he be at the top?

[Raiders]

Everything he has done, from waging war, to suppressing liberties, to his economic policies have been done even worse by other Presidents, so why would he be at the top?

He put it all in one nice, neat and easily marketable package?

[Yxklyx]

Everything he has done, from waging war, to suppressing liberties, to his economic policies have been done even worse by other Presidents, so why would he be at the top?

The stakes are much higher today. The USA is in a state of extreme power. Every misstep is magnified. We're not just talking about the health of the USA but of civilization. The human race needs to evolve and better itself - not step backwards or even sideways.

The Civil War might have been worse but we still haven't seen the entire outcome of the current crisis.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The stakes are much higher today. The USA is in a state of extreme power. Every misstep is magnified. We're not just talking about the health of the USA but of civilization. The human race needs to evolve and better itself - not step backwards or even sideways.

The Civil War might have been worse but we still haven't seen the entire outcome of the current crisis.

Then it may be best to hold off on calling him the worst thing to ever happen to our country. More notable issues involve the loss of life in World War II, the Vietnam clusterfuck, the Civil War, the Great Depression, the indirect genocide of Native Americans, the perpetuation of the slave trade, and other issues people more scholarly than myself could bring up.

I'm severely unhappy with W., and he could be the worst thing to happen to America that I've seen in my lifetime, but in the historical sense, calling him the worst thing to happen ever seems factually incorrect.

[Mara]

I'm not a Bush fan by any means, but...

Am I the only one who finds the running theme of stories in The Onion about Bush getting painfully injured unfunny?

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/bushs_eyelid_accidentally

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/bush_passes_three_pound

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/bush_dragged_behind

[Winston*]

I'm not a Bush fan by any means, but...

Am I the only one who finds the running theme of stories in The Onion about Bush getting painfully injured unfunny?

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/bushs_eyelid_accidentally

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/bush_passes_three_pound

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/bush_dragged_behind
Jesus, those are terrible. I don't care about the poor taste involved, but who on earth could actually think those are funny?

[Mara]

Jesus, those are terrible. I don't care about the poor taste involved, but who on earth could actually think those are funny?

Thank you.

[Fezzik]

Jesus, those are terrible. I don't care about the poor taste involved, but who on earth could actually think those are funny?


The worst part about it is...you know there are some people somewhere who find those hilarious.

And it scares me.

[Ezee E]

I love it at film festivals when there's a movie, any movie, that shows just a glimpse of George W. Bush, and people get horrified or sick to their stomach over it.

[MadMan]

I love it at film festivals when there's a movie, any movie, that shows just a glimpse of George W. Bush, and people get horrified or sick to their stomach over it.I wonder how many of those same people voted for him.

And I agree that Wilson is not a good president (his racism also being something rather horrible, although granted Andrew Jackson was far worse and went to the point of actually supervising and approving of genocide), but after some thought I'm not sure if he belongs on Barty's list. Still I concede that I agree with much of what Barty wrote about him.

[Sycophant]

I'm not a Bush fan by any means, but...

Am I the only one who finds the running theme of stories in The Onion about Bush getting painfully injured unfunny?

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/bushs_eyelid_accidentally

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/bush_passes_three_pound

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/bush_dragged_behindMy god. These are awful. There's just nothing funny here.

I expect a lot better of The Onion. Even when my expectations are low.

[Mara]

I expect a lot better of The Onion. Even when my expectations are low.

I'm not going to stop reading the site, or write in and complain, because I'm not one of Those People. But, privately, I'm disappointed.

[Mysterious Dude]

Andrew Jackson should be on the worst list, but I expect it's going to be FDR and Lincoln.

[Sven]

There's no way, given Barty's "government power = evil" take, that FDR is not number one.

[Ezee E]

Andrew Jackson should be on the worst list, but I expect it's going to be FDR and Lincoln.
Yup, same here. Presidents in times of crisis are horrible, horrible Presidents.

[Barty]

Best

#2. Calvin Coolidge - 30th President of the United States

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/79/7779-004-79044FDF.jpg

Party: Republican
“Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business.”

Calvin Coolidge was a President who didn't crave power. He took over after the death of Harding, and a scandal plague administration, and restored the office to respectability. He was a man who didn't feel the need to be the nanny of the American people. He was a man who held to the now political anathema that the people should be able to enjoy the fruit of their labor without the government watching over them. Because of that, he lowered taxes dramatically, both the income and excise taxes.

He had a balanced budget, reducing the national debt by nearly 6 billion in his term. He used his veto to stop bonus bills for WWI veterans, and subsidies for Farmers. He didn't want the government to spend aimlessly, and he respected the boundaries the Constitution set for the President.

In Foreign policy, Coolidge practiced the same philosophy. He had no ambitions of domination or world wide influence, and signed the Pact of Paris, an act between many of the major powers of the world renouncing war as a political tool. Of course, this act meant little, and would not be followed in the slightest, but one gets the sense from his example that Coolidge actually meant it when he signed the paper. To bad his successors would not.

Unfortunately for Coolidge, the infant Federal Reserve would lead us, along with the policies of his successor, into terrible economic times, and thus his legacy is sometimes tarnished unjustly.

Some have called him Silent-Cal, because they say he said very little. And yet, he was more open with the press than perhaps any other President. Of course, he did say some things, great things, but only some now listen. I suppose though, he would like the characterization, as he once said, "You know, I have found out in the course of a long public life that the things I did not say never hurt me."

At a dinner party once, a lady said she had made a bet with a gentlemen that she could get him to say more than two words. Coolidge looked at her and responded, "You lose." He definitely was cool, and the best President of the 20th century.

[Melville]

He did want the government to spend aimlessly
Now that's my kind of president!

[Barty]

Now that's my kind of president!

Whoops. :lol:

[Raiders]

You should have pulled a coup and named Grover Cleveland both number one and number two.

[MadMan]

You should have pulled a coup and named Grover Cleveland both number one and number two.He would have gotten rep from me if he had done so :lol:

Silent Cal was a good president. Likable dude too, at least it seems so. Not like I knew him or anything, heh.

[Barty]

Worst

#2. Franklin D. Roosevelt - 32nd President of the United States

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/t/3/t3b/Tom%27smediafolder/media%20SpCom%20597c%20spring% 202002/FDR%20fireside%20chat%20March% 201933.jpg

Party: Democrat
Benito Mussolini on FDR;
"America has a dictator."

No other President in the history of this country has done more to hurt economic liberty and prosperity than Roosevelt did during his term. Roosevelt did not create the Depression, but he did expand it. Roosevelt did not invent the idea of Government control of the Economy, but he did make it his guiding policy, taking ideas from such sources as his predecessor Hoover, and the Fascist's in Europe.

The greatest myth of the 20th century American Presidency is that FDR got us out of the Depression. Nothing is farther from the truth, his policies across the board hurt recovery, made it worse in many cases, and created almost total government control of industry eerily similar to Mussolini's in Italy.

The problem was Roosevelt's and his advisers complete misreading of what caused the Depression in the first place, that it was low prices and wages, not the expansion of credit and the money supply in the 20's which caused poor investment, further compounded by Hoover's massive government expenditures, tax increases, an ungodly high tariff which set off a trade war across the world. In Response, Roosevelt signed into law the most massive regulations, controls, and limitations on financial and economic sectors ever seen. His programs from the Work Progress Administration, Agricultural Adjustment Act, to the National Recovery Act (There are too many to list and go into detail), effecitvely had the major goals of minimum wage standards, work hour standards, price standards, the elimination of competition and low prices, and the organization of different branches of commerce and industry into giant government run monopolies.

The government, in effect, legalized industries to become monopolies, a great irony considering the turn of the century hysteria over supposed monopolistic trusts and the evils of restricting production and high prices. But of course, when the government does something illegal it's okay. While people were starving, Roosevelt was having farmers burn their crops and slaughter their cattle to keep supply low and prices high. When their was price standards on pressing garments set at 40 cents, men were thrown into jail for the crime of offering the same service for only 35 cents, because this somehow hurt people and buisness.

Of course, none of this helped, the Depression and unemployment was nearly just as bad on advent of WWII as it was during the beginning, and all we had to show for it was less liberty, a gigantic federal government, and a Fascist Dictator sitting by the fire telling everyone it was going to be okay. It took the drafting of millions of men for war during WWII to reduce unemployment, which of course, is not a good thing economically because war destroys, not creates, in any meaningful macro-economic sense.

FDR poured billions into government building and work projects, which create nothing, because they are merely a divergence of capital from the superior private sector to the wasteful government bureaucracy to build parks, and art projects that have no future economic positives. Of course, far more of the government money went to swing States and areas which had high voter turnout for himself, and the WPA frequently told people to Vote Democrat or FDR or be fired. But hey, I guess that's just politics.

And then there's the programs he created we still pay for today, Social Security being the primary one. Contrary to popular belief, it's primary purpose wasn't to help anyone, it's merely a system by where the government can conveniently tax you and reap any surplus for it's own wild spending. It isn't Bernard Madoff who created the biggest Ponzi scheme in history, it was Roosevelt. Lucky for us, we will get to see the collapse of this system this century, and it exposed for the scheme it is.

Further expanding the powers of the Presidency FDR unilaterally made private ownership of Gold Bullion illegal, and confiscated people's gold. Too bad "THIEF" isn't inscribe on his memorial.

There's also this little world war he was a major player in. Of course, selling munitions and sending aid, blockading countries and embargoing trade all while under the guise of being neutral would cause an event to happen which would get us into the war at the completely unnecessary cost of thousands of American soldiers and lives in Pearl Harbor that Roosevelt intentionally tried not to prevent. In his defense, he didn't think the attack would be so bad. This of course, let to the concentration camps for thousands of Japanese citizens, one of the most egregious acts of tyranny in the history of this country.

But, can we expect anything less then a man who once said this, "You know I am a juggler, and I never let my right hand know what my left hand does. I'm perfectly willing to mislead and tell untruths"

[Spinal]

Second best by my estimation.

[Barty]

Second best by my estimation.

:|

[Sven]

Second best by my estimation.

Who's your 1?

[Spinal]

Who's your 1?

Jefferson.

[Sven]

Jefferson.

Good call.

[Barty]

Jefferson.

:eek:

Jefferson and FDR are so diametrically opposed on everything.

[Spinal]

I'm convinced that you don't really understand what Jefferson stood for, but this is not a discussion I'm interested in having again.

Also, it's possible that what was right for America in the early 19th century was not the same thing as what was right for America in the early 20th century.

[Fezzik]

Benito Mussolini on FDR;
"America has a dictator."

Regardless of how you feel about the man, using a quote from Mussolini to emphasize the point is kinda like reviewing a film, and in the review citing Uwe Boll calling the film "garbage."

Isn't it?

[Barty]

Regardless of how you feel about the man, using a quote from Mussolini to emphasize the point is kinda like reviewing a film, and in the review citing Uwe Boll calling the film "garbage."

Isn't it?

No, because Mussolini praised Roosevelt's administration and economic policies thus showing the contradiction in terms for people who despise Mussolini and the Fascists of Europe but love Roosevelt. Their economic policies were from the same mold and purpose.

[Sven]

No, because Mussolini praised Roosevelt's administration and economic policies thus showing the contradiction in terms for people who despise Mussolini and the Fascists of Europe but love Roosevelt. Their economic policies were from the same mold and purpose.

The trains ran on time, did they not?

[MadMan]

I recall many calling FDR a communist, and actually at one point a bunch of right-wingers tried to overthrow him and establish a right wing dictatorship (you won't find that in any history book btw, cause Congress swept the whole thing under the rug). Maybe they didn't get the memo that he was a fascist dictator already :P

When it comes to FDR, I'm mixed about him. I admire his leadership skills, and I'm not entirely convinced his policies really helped, but I don't think they really hurt, either. Also I do believe that FDR actually argued that by 1964 at the latest something had to be drastically changed about Social Security.

Oh and Barty, as long as the old people in this country vote, we're not getting rid of Social Security. Its not going to die. Might take other forms, sure, but that's one government program that isn't going anywhere.

[ledfloyd]

FDR is second best in my estimation as well. He certainly did get us out of the depression. The reason the economy took a dive prior to WWII is because he tried to balance the budget in the late 30's. It was too soon for that. Also, Parks are not necessarily bad spending. Would it be better to let whoever can afford it take control of the Grand Canyon and use it as a landfill cause they determined that would be the best way for them to increase their capital? I mean if they own the land regulating what they can do with it is limiting the all powerful forces of the markets!

OK, I'm getting out of hand. I just disagree.

[Barty]

FDR is second best in my estimation as well. He certainly did get us out of the depression.

Um, no he didn't.

[Barty]

Best

#1. Grover Cleveland - 22nd & 24th President of the United States

http://www.mackinac.org/media/images/2005/povertygrover.jpg

Party: Democrat
“I have tried so hard to do right.”

When one examines the life of Grover Cleveland you find a man committed to the principals of limited government, free markets, and honesty. He was a man who continually throughout his public life stood up against corruption and intimidation. He couldn't be bought or bullied. When one looks at the current state of our Union, and the leaders we have chosen, one should cry out for another leader like Mr. Cleveland.

Grover Cleveland was the only Democrat elected in the post Civil War period that was characterized by Republican rule. The Republican's, much like the Republicans of right now, were characterized by expansionary government policies of high tariffs, massive internal improvements (mostly railroads), easy money, as well as the beginnings of American imperialism. Grover Cleveland was decidedly against their agenda.

For both of his presidencies, Cleveland fought continually to reduce the oppressively high tariffs that had been in place since the War Between the States. He did not succeed in his first term, but in his second he was successful in reducing the average tariff by almost 10 percentage points after a hard fought battle. Though the economic damage of a high tariff were easily seen to him, his argument relied on the fact that the government had been running huge surpluses thanks to the high tariff, and that keeping it so high was nothing more than legalized extortion of people.

Monetarily he favored the Gold standard over the current system of high coinage of silver, which resulted in inflation and easy credit, and like today led to a boom and bust. In his first term he could not muster the support of congress to reduce the purchase of silver, but the panic of 1893 got him enough support to repeal the Sherman Silver Purchase Act which ultimately brought back the Gold Standard and sound currency.

As a person who would later join the American Anti-Imperialist League it should come as no surprise his foreign policy reflected the Jeffersonian view of Peace and Commerce with all nations. When the congress was clamoring for annexation of Hawaii, Cleveland looked to the people of Hawaii for his answer. They did not want annexation, so Cleveland, standing on the most important principal of the American Revolution, self-government, did not interfere in the affairs of Hawaii. The native Hawaii's still to this day greatly admire Cleveland.

In his second term he was faced with the unrest of labor brought on by the recession. The violent Pullman Strike in Chicago was responded to by Cleveland by sending in Federal troops. Cleveland, who was always considerate of the Constitutional limits of his office, justified his actions because the rail line delivered US Mail, the strikers had ignored a Federal injunction, and some of the lines were managed by the Federal Government. Thus he reasoned that it was in his authority to act, and to restore safety, since the local government had been unable too.

In his times in office he vetoed almost 600 pieces of legislation. Many of these political pension favors to Union soldiers from the war, who by this time were receiving 29% of Federal expenditures for their pensions. He would frequently work late at night reading bills and researching the issues. In an era of such political corruption and patronage, it's a wonder a man like Grover Cleveland could have been elected, even winning the popular vote for three elections.

In his first campaign for President his opponents tried to sling mud at Cleveland claiming he had fathered an illegitimate child. His campaigned rushed to Cleveland to consult with him on how to deal with these attacks. His response? "Tell the Truth."

Will a new Grover Cleveland please stand up.

[Ezee E]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/1000-2f.jpg

[MadMan]

Cleveland wouldn't be my #1, but he's still one of our finest presidents.

[ledfloyd]

cleveland is a great president no doubt. lincoln is conspicuously missing from your best list.

[MadMan]

cleveland is a great president no doubt. lincoln is conspicuously missing from your best list.My guess is Lincoln will end up being his #1 worst president. But I could end up being wrong.

[Winston*]

Odds on the number one worst having a chin beard and wearing a stovepipe hat? I'm guessing high.
:pritch:

[Sycophant]

:pritch:

Great. Now "Dancing with Myself" is stuck in my fucking head.

[MadMan]

Great. Now "Dancing with Myself" is stuck in my fucking head.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VNx78SAq8M :twisted: *Runs like hell*

[Barty]

Worst

#1. Abraham Lincoln - 16th President of the United States

http://www.alcwrt.org/images/lincoln_abraham_photograph.jpg

Party: Republican
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."

The basis of the American Revolution was the notion of self-government. Unlike previous, and later, revolutions of various peoples and countries, there was no desire for the overthrow of the British crown, nor the establishment of a rule over Great Britain by the Americans. The Deceleration of Independence, was in fact, a secessionist document that proclaimed the now dissolved ties between the British Crown and the American States.

As Thomas Jefferson eloquently wrote,

"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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

And so the same is true of the Southern States. The Confederate States of America had no desire for rule over Washington, no desire of power over the northern states, they simply wanted to be left alone to govern themselves. To deny the right of secession to any State, is to indeed deny the foundation of the Declaration of Independence, and to betray the American Revolution. The legal case for secession is overwhelming. The Constitution makes no mention of it as any Federal power or prohibition of said power, so under the 10th amendment it is an act left to the States. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, which set up a "perpetual Union" (that of course wasn't perpetual, as all the States seceded from that document and adopted a new Union), the Constitution has no clause of permanency.

Former President's like Jefferson, unsurprisingly, and John Quincy Adams, perhaps more surprising, though fearful of the notion of a separation of the Union, defended the right of secession as a fundamental principal. It was of course, the Northern States who first seriously considered secession from the South during the administrations of Jefferson and Madison, furious at the economic harm done by Jefferson's embargo and the War of 1812.

Ultimately though, one must question the logic and liberty of a leader, or a government, founded on the principals of self-government who's means of keeping a member bound by it's union is done by violence and war. As the abolitionist, and leading proponent of the unconstitutionality of slavery, Lysander Spooner wrote after the war, "The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this --- that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called "peace."

But Lincoln had a different view. Lincoln was the greatest centralizer and proponent in a powerful government that had yet been elected. His chief beliefs were in a high protective tariff, nationalization of the money supply, and large internal improvements. These policies uniformly hurt the South, most notably a high protective tariff, which was damaging to southern economy causing them to pay more for goods, and led to them paying a larger share of the Federal Budget yet receiving little in return as most of the money was spent in the North.

In fact, Lincoln did accomplish these goals in the Civil War as the Tariff was increased to it's highest level ever, new railroads were being constructed even during the war, and the National Currency Acts were established allowing the issuing of paper currency to fund the war. In Lincoln's inaugural speech he did not threaten war over slavery, for he was perfectly willing to permanently let it continue where it was at, he threatened war and invasion over a failure of any state to pay it's taxes.

Lincoln held the view that the Union created the States, and as such no separation was possible. This is a complete fabrication of history, as the States did hold sovereignty before the Union, and even after. They merely delegated certain powers to the Federal Government. The Fort Sumter incident was necessary for Lincoln to get his war, because popular Northern feeling was against military action and for the peaceful separation of the Southern States. Lincoln repeatedly refused any negotiations with the Confederates. Jefferson Davis sent an envoy to Lincoln to negotiate to prevent any hostilities, and offered to not only purchase all Federal Land in the South, but to pay off their portion of the national debt. Lincoln refused to even meet with envoy. He instead, after insisting for weeks he had no intention of resupplying the fort, sent supply ships accompanied by heavily armed warships into CSA territory to resupply the fort. The South fired on the fort, not killing or injuring anyone. But the damaged had been done, Lincoln succeeded in threatening the South into firing the first shot, and achieved success for one of the most important parts of warfare: public support. He had got his war he wanted all along, and wrote to his naval commander Gustavus Fox thanking him for getting the outcome he wanted.

Of course, when one tackles the time period the issues of slavery is at the forefront. The view that the War Between the States was fought over slavery, has, even in our state worshiping present era, been criticized justly, as it was never the primary purpose of Lincoln's war. There is no doubt though, that the deep southern states' primary justification given for secession was their view of a threat against slavery, although Georgia did include the economic exploitation of the south as a prime justification as well. The states that seceded after Lincoln's invasion of the South did so precisely because of that reason, they viewed an invasion as nothing but an affront to self government and the principals of the country, which it was.

Lincoln's primary justification was always "saving the Union", and in his own words he would do it whether it meant keeping slavery or abolishing it, or something in between. One must ask though, why did he want to save the Union? The answer is of course, what it always is in politics of corruption, money. Lincoln needed the Southern States for government revenue to fund all the internal improvements and corporate welfare he wanted, to make the US a glorious and powerful nation. There was no benevolence towards the slaves in his decision to go to war, Lincoln like many of his time believed in the supremacy of the "white race", and was in favor of colonization.

The hallmark of his Presidency when it comes to slavery is the Emancipation Proclamation, which did not free a single slave. Exempting all the border states from the order, as well as any area under Federal Control, going as so far as to name specific areas of Federal occupation in Louisiana.

The order was merely a war measure, hoping to stir up a slave uprising in the Confederacy where the act had no legal authority, and also to keep any foreign powers from aiding the CSA by making the war now an issue of slavery, especially since France and Britain had freed their slaves and didn't want to be seen as supporting slavery.

The act was widely denounced as a political move, abroad and in the north. Combined with the draft and this proclamation, riots broke out in New York which resulted in the lynching of many blacks and lots of violence. This is not surprising, as the North was just as racist as South, and numerous states in the north had laws restricting blacks freedom and rights. Illinois, for example, had harsh black codes and did not allow any black emigration into the State.

In the North during the war Lincoln engaged in the most dictatorial usurpation of power and damning acts against civil and political liberty ever seen before in the country. He personally suspended Habeas Corpus, something the Constitution reserves only to the legislature to do. With the suspension, he imprisoned tens of thousands thousands of Northern Citizens without trials for accusations of speaking against Lincoln, the war effort, or having pro-secession sympathies, and put them in military prisons. He arrested Northern Newspapers editors for writing critical things, suspending their mailing rights, and ordered the army to seize the assets of many Newspapers and their owners. He suppressed elections using the army as well.

He deported a congressmen because he spoke out against him, members of the Maryland legislature were arrested and imprisoned with no chargers for being confederate sympathizers according to Lincoln. When Chief Justice Taney wrote an opinion to Lincoln criticizing him for suspending Habeas Corpus and correctly accusing him of violating the Constitution, Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for him, which thankfully was never acted upon. And yet, Lincoln was supposedly a great defender of liberty. History shows otherwise.

In the South during the war Lincoln and his generals waged a campaign of total war on the cities and populace. Burning cities, stealing private property, killing civilians, destroying valleys of crops and blockading the ports of the South. The destruction was severe.

At the end of the war 620,000 Americans had died, hundreds of thousands of more had been wounded, the Constitution had been shredded, and a government of the people, for the people, and by the people was now a government of force, but yes, slavery had been ended. But though, when one considers that every other major country in the world had ended slavery through peaceful means, usually compensated emancipation, it becomes clear how unnecessary the war was.

Lincoln waged the bloodiest war in American History, still unsurpassed to this today, denying the southern states their natural right of self government, and to keep power consolidated within the Federal Government, to create an American Empire. From now on the government would be one of increasing power, of unlimited means, of complete sovereignty. But it would not be a government for the people, or by the people.

Human slavery was ended, in it's place a new slavery, slavery to the government, to the American State. The Union was not saved, it was destroyed.

[Sven]

Human slavery was ended, in it's place a new slavery, slavery to the government, to the American State. The Union was not saved, it was destroyed.

Boo-fucking-hoo.

[Watashi]

Boo-fucking-hoo.
I think Barty put a bit more effort in this selection than to have it replied by something as childish as that.

[Ezee E]

Barty loves John Wilkes Booth.

[Raiders]

Barty, are States sovereign, or are people sovereign?

[Sven]

I think Barty put a bit more effort in this selection than to have it replied by something as childish as that.

Until Barty includes footnotes and references in his entry, I think I can dismiss it.

Besides, no matter what I say, it's going to come down to Barty's particular moral relativism, which suggests that the private sector should be free to practice hate-based discrimination. That's something that I just don't think I could ever take seriously.

[Ezee E]

Until Barty includes footnotes and references in his entry, I think I can dismiss it.

Besides, no matter what I say, it's going to come down to Barty's particular moral relativism, which suggests that the private sector should be free to practice hate-based discrimination. That's something that I just don't think I could ever take seriously.
But that's liberty!

[Barty]

Barty, are States sovereign, or are people sovereign?

The people express their sovereignty through the State.



James Madison from the Federalist

"On examining the first relation, it appears on one hand that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation; but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act therefore establishing the Constitution, will not be a national but a federal act."

[Watashi]

Seriously, E. Just stop.

[Sven]

But that's liberty!

If I ever see you, I'm gonna punch you.

[Barty]

Until Barty includes footnotes and references in his entry, I think I can dismiss it.

Are you accusing me of lying?

[Sven]

Are you accusing me of lying?

No, I'm accusing you of questionable interpretation. I don't think that what you've been saying is not grounded in some kind of truth, but I'd like to know exactly from what sources you're getting your information.

[Ezee E]

Seriously, E. Just stop.
my bad.

[Barty]

No, I'm accusing you of questionable interpretation. I don't think that what you've been saying is not grounded in some kind of truth, but I'd like to know exactly from what sources you're getting your information.

Most of my points about Lincoln are based on what he said throughout his life, through his speeches and letters, as well as the acts he signed as President.

A great book on Lincoln challenging the orthodoxy is The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. Dilorenzo.

[Ezee E]

If I ever see you, I'm gonna punch you.
No you wouldn't.

[Sven]

No you wouldn't.

You're right. I'd hurt my hand on your iron muscles.

[Sven]

Most of my points about Lincoln are based on what he said throughout his life, through his speeches and letters, as well as the acts he signed as President.

A great book on Lincoln challenging the orthodoxy is The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. Dilorenzo.

You know me, I'm all for challenging the orthodoxy. I'll look into this book.

[Raiders]

I also wonder Barty, how Constitutional is it for a state that existed under the Articles of Confederation, and was thusly signed into a perpetual union to not be dissoluted upon the ratification of the Constitution? Am I to understand that this perpetual union was negated by the adoption of the Constitution?

Also, if the Constitution prohibits the entering into of a Confederation amongst states, then the Confederate States were unconstitutional, correct?

[Barty]

I also wonder Barty, how Constitutional is it for a state that existed under the Articles of Confederation, and was thusly signed into a perpetual union to not be dissoluted upon the ratification of the Constitution? Am I to understand that this perpetual union was negated by the adoption of the Constitution?

Um, yes it was negated, because once New Hampshire had ratified the Constitution it became active and Virgina, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island were no longer members of the Union until they ratified the Constitution.


Also, if the Constitution prohibits the entering into of a Confederation amongst states, then the Confederate States were unconstitutional, correct?

Since the Confederate States was formed after the individual States has seceded from the Union and thus were no longer bound by the Constitution, no, it wasn't unconstitutional.

[Qrazy]

Raiders or someone could you move my 2 or 3 politics specific posts in the film discussion thread in here? This would probably be a good place for them.

[Raiders]

I guess my ultimate question is this: Where did the right for those states to secede from the union come from? Don't quote me The Federalist as it holds no legal weight. Where does this right come from?

[Barty]

I guess my ultimate question is this: Where did the right for those states to secede from the union come from? Don't quote me The Federalist as it holds no legal weight. Where does this right come from?

The same right the the Thirteen States seceded from Great Britain, the Natural Right of Self-government.

[DavidSeven]

From now on the government would be one of increasing power, of unlimited means, of complete sovereignty. But it would not be a government for the people, or by the people.

Human slavery was ended, in it's place a new slavery, slavery to the government, to the American State. The Union was not saved, it was destroyed.

150 years later, America is the wealthiest country in the world and one in which people enjoy many personal freedoms. Most of the problems that persist in this country are tied to strict construction of the Constitution and principles that made sense 250 years ago. Whatever Lincoln's intentions were for stopping the secession, the practical consequences for this country and its people have been great - outside of this intangible and ideological notion of "liberty" to the States. I hope the current president and all others will approach governance with the same view that practical consequences trump political idealogies.

[Barty]

150 years later, America is the wealthiest country in the world and one in which people enjoy many personal freedoms. Most of the problems that persist in this country are tied to strict construction of the Constitution and principles that made sense 250 years ago.

Really? What part of our government sticks to strict construction of the Constitution, or even the founding principals of people like George Washington who didn't want us to be entangled in foreign affairs?


Whatever Lincoln's intentions were for stopping the secession, the practical consequences for this country and its people have been great - outside of this intangible and ideological notion of "liberty" to the States. I hope the current president and all others will approach governance with the view that practical consequences trump political idealogies.

The practical consequence was 620,000 people dead, The Bill of Rights was stomped on, and 100 years of intense hatred between one part of the country to the other, and vice-versa, was promulgated.

I shudder at a President following Lincoln's leadership.

[Sven]

100 years of intense hatred between one part of the country to the other, and vice-versa, was promulgated.

Surely slavery would not have changed this. Point rejected!

[Barty]

Surely slavery would not have changed this. Point rejected!

It would have went away peacefully like all other nations of the world had done, so no, the point stands.

[Melville]

While I like the historical tidbits, this thread doesn't really seem to be doing what Barty wants to do, which is argue in favor of strict Constitutionalism, State's rights, and small government. Why not just argue for those things, rather than list which presidents adhered to them and which didn't?

[Raiders]

Just think though, if secession had been allowed, George Bush could never have been president!

There's always a bright spot.

[Barty]

While I like the historical tidbits, this thread doesn't really seem to be doing what Barty wants to do, which is argue in favor of strict Constitutionalism, State's rights, or small government. Why not just argue for those things, rather than list which presidents adhered to them and which didn't?

Because it wouldn't be as fun. ;)

[Melville]

Because it wouldn't be as fun. ;)
Ah. I see.

[Barty]

Just think though, if secession had been allowed, George Bush could never have been president!

There's always a bright spot.

The US didn't end after secession, so no, he could still be President.

[Raiders]

The US didn't end after secession, so no, he could still be President.

What?

[Sven]

It would have went away peacefully like all other nations of the world had done, so no, the point stands.

1) You have no way of knowing this
2) EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT OF SLAVERY, EVER, ENDED PEACEFULLY? (be careful what you say here)

[Barty]

What?

The United States still had a government, a President, a Legislature, and the Constitution, it didn't cease to exist after the CSA was formed, it just didn't have as many members.

[Raiders]

The United States still had a government, a President, a Legislature, and the Constitution, it didn't cease to exist after the CSA was formed, it just didn't have as many members.

Oh really? Thanks.

That isn't what I meant, though I'm still wrong. Well, I would have been right had Bush been born in Texas like I thought, since I was implying he would have been born a citizen of the CSA and not USA. But, he was born in Connecticut. Dammit.

[Barty]

1) You have no way of knowing this
2) EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT OF SLAVERY, EVER, ENDED PEACEFULLY? (be careful what you say here)

Well, of course, I can't go back in time, but the history of emancipation around the world shows it was highly likely.

And no, there was violence in Venezuela, Colombia, and Haiti when slavery was ended in those respective countries. However, not violence anywhere near the civil war. The majority of countries around the world ended it peacefully.

[Barty]

That isn't what I meant, though I'm still wrong. Well, I would have been right had Bush been born in Texas like I thought, since I was implying he would have been born a citizen of the CSA and not USA. But, he was born in Connecticut. Dammit.

Yeah, that's what I almost said in my first post, that he was born in Connecticut.

[Spinal]

Oh really? Thanks.

That isn't what I meant, though I'm still wrong. Well, I would have been right had Bush been born in Texas like I thought, since I was implying he would have been born a citizen of the CSA and not USA. But, he was born in Connecticut. Dammit.

He wouldn't have been able to start a political career in Connecticut. You're right!

[Barty]

Anywho, I appreciate the comments and discussion. I feel a sense of accomplishment as it's been a long time since I've finished a list. :lol:

[Mysterious Dude]

I kinda agree with Barty. A long, bloody war was probably not the best way to end slavery.

World War II is pretty overrated, too, though I don't blame FDR for it.

[Sycophant]

In all likelihood, George W. Bush would not have been born in a CSA-USA alternate present. The USA's 43rd president would have been, like, James F. McDonough or something.

But then, maybe none of us would've been born, and the Internet might only be accessible at specially designated Sun Stations.

[Ezee E]

Anywho, I appreciate the comments and discussion. I feel a sense of accomplishment as it's been a long time since I've finished a list. :lol:
Rep for bizarroness.

[Raiders]

Yeah, I've never really thought of Lincoln as among our very best presidents, but I think in the end I have to agree that the Constitution was ratified with the perpetual union still in mind. Just because Thomas Jefferson invited anyone who did not like the Constitution to leave at their will does not mean that every one of the Founding fathers or the heads of state who ratified the Constitution did not conceive of the union as remaining intact as it existed in the Articles of Confederation (and Association). The document itself does not say the word, though one could make the argument for its implication. It also does not say the states have a right to secede, though because of the opinions of some, namely Jefferson, some have always assumed it is a right they had. It never mentions the word "sovereign" either, but we still assume that state sovereignty transferred over from the Articles, so why would not the perpetual union as well transfer?

[monolith94]

150 years later, America is the wealthiest country in the world and one in which people enjoy many personal freedoms. Most of the problems that persist in this country are tied to strict construction of the Constitution and principles that made sense 250 years ago. Whatever Lincoln's intentions were for stopping the secession, the practical consequences for this country and its people have been great - outside of this intangible and ideological notion of "liberty" to the States. I hope the current president and all others will approach governance with the same view that practical consequences trump political idealogies.
The principle of self governance is not a political ideology. It is a moral ideology.

[Kurosawa Fan]

My favorite colors are black and white.

[D_Davis]

My favorite colors are black and white.

Oreo.

[DavidSeven]

The principle of self governance is not a political ideology. It is a moral ideology.

As a practical matter, self governance relating to States in America is nothing more than a political ideology. There is also a line between the preservation of complete individual autonomy and the preservation of individual moral rights. The former is a political ideology because the moral interests of the group at large is set aside for a steadfast principle. The latter is a moral principle because it requires balancing and looks at the effects of an action on the whole.

[monolith94]

There is no causal link between holding self-governance as a political ideology and setting aside the "moral interests of the group at large." Of course, both of our statements are becoming ambiguously worded to such a degree that neither really MEANS anything definite. All I can say is that, as bad as slavery was, I'm not sure that it can justify Lincoln's decision to go to war.

[Ivan Drago]

Wow. I'm intrigued as to how you'll take Spielberg's Lincoln biopic.

[MadMan]

My favorite colors are black and white.I've always been a fan of gray :P

Also I'm rather mixed on Lincoln. Not sure if he was a bad president, and I don't think he was as terrible as Barty thinks. But he wasn't a good one, despite the opinions of some historians (actually, many historians) to the contrary.

Besides all this, cool thread Barty. I also enjoy talking about the presidency and presidential legacies of past leaders.

[ledfloyd]

i will say i agree with the majority of your logic on this selection. unlike FDR. we just have basic differences in the way government should be run. i personally feel enacting tariffs on trade to provide internal improvements is a good policy. tariffs keep jobs here and gov't funded improvements makes more sense to me than relying on the goodwill of the people who can afford such things in the private sector.

the civil war wasn't fought over slavery. but, the republican party was formed to stop the spread of slavery. the one thing i take issue with, aside from the quote sven sighted, is the implication that lincoln felt blacks were inferior. he made it clear he didn't know if they were inferior or not, he just though slavery was a barbaric practice, and while he didn't feel government had the right to abolish it, he did think the government had the right to keep it contained in the south and not allow it to spread north or westward.

just because slavery was better for business and benefitted the private sector is not a reason to continue a destructive practice. we are seeing much the same thing right now with global warming. yes, enacting restrictions will hurt business. but i feel a cap and trade system will make the current situation impossible and force the markets to find a new solution that isn't destrcutive. another instance of a "tariff" being beneficial.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Bravo on a good thread. Gave me some things to think about.

As someone who doesn't know all that much about the legacy of each president, I have little context for the articles, and I pretty much have to take you at your word. Given your political leanings and what I interpret to be a focused view of the Constitution, I can't say that I was surprised by much of what you said.

However, I do recall that the issue of the union versus liberty was a significant one during the formation of the Republic, so I understand where you're coming from regarding Lincoln. I always figured that he was not the President he was made to be - that he's become, in essence, more of a folk hero than a legitimately analyzed historical figure. Your points about him make me curious about that biography.

As for my picks, I think Jefferson was pretty damn good, John Adams too, and Andrew Jackson was kind of a tool.

[number8]

Wow. I'm intrigued as to how you'll take Spielberg's Lincoln biopic.

Hahahahaha, this is a brilliant conundrum. Good question.

Steve?

[Robby P]

I think we can all agree that a Barty-supervised Lincoln biopic would be a lot more interesting than a Spielberg production.

[ledfloyd]

I think we can all agree that a Barty-supervised Lincoln biopic would be a lot more interesting than a Spielberg production.
indeed. even though i love lincoln. hero-worship biopics are always boring.

[MadMan]

Barty's Lincoln biopic would end up being the most controversial biopic ever. And I would consider going to see it.

[transmogrifier]

I want to see Barty to do a Best 7 and Worst 7 Match Cut posters list next

I'm feeling confident seeing as I haven't unconstitutionally passed legislation expanding the role of the government and impinging of civil liberties. At least, not yet.

[Ezee E]

I want to see Barty to do a Best 7 and Worst 7 Match Cut posters list next


Ha.

[Barty]

I love JFK, and yet don't believe in any of the conspiracy theories concerning his assassination.


Also:

Obama to be sworn in on the same Bible Lincoln used (http://www.pic2009.org/blog/entry/president-elect_barack_obama_to_be_sworn _in_using_lincolns_bible/)

:|

[MadMan]

I want to see Barty to do a Best 7 and Worst 7 Match Cut posters list next

I'm feeling confident seeing as I haven't unconstitutionally passed legislation expanding the role of the government and impinging of civil liberties. At least, not yet.I wouldn't make either list. I'm too mediocre.

[Derek]

I wouldn't make either list. I'm too mediocre.

You'll always be my James K. Polk.

[MadMan]

You'll always be my James K. Polk.Um....thanks? :confused: :lol:

Hey wait, I never invaded Mexico! :P

[transmogrifier]

Um....thanks? :confused: :lol:

Hey wait, I never invaded Mexico! :P

Not what I heard.

[Derek]

Um....thanks? :confused: :lol:

Hey wait, I never invaded Mexico! :P

I tried to think of the most mediocre president and without any research or facts to back me up, Polk was the first to come to mind. :)

[Robby P]

When I think of mediocre presidents, I tend to think of Gerald Ford.

[MadMan]

I tried to think of the most mediocre president and without any research or facts to back me up, Polk was the first to come to mind. :)Well yeah he does fit the book. Although you could make an argument that the illegal war with Mexico (we started it, of course) and thus illegal seizure of lands Mexico laid claim to makes him a bad president. Still, I think of him as below average, which does equal mediocre.


Not what I heard.Lies! Rumors!






Shit, they're on to me. Gotta run!

[Barty]

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.

You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."


-Abraham Lincoln

Those are all forgeries, Lincoln never said them.

[Benny Profane]

OK. I will delete.

[Spinal]

Historians choose Lincoln as best president. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ranking_presidents)

[Barty]

Historians chose Lincoln as best president. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ranking_presidents)

Not surprising.

[MadMan]

Historians choose Lincoln as best president. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ranking_presidents)That list mostly fails. Hard. I expected better from historians, honestly.

[lovejuice]

And no, there was violence in Venezuela, Colombia, and Haiti when slavery was ended in those respective countries. However, not violence anywhere near the civil war. The majority of countries around the world ended it peacefully.

you can add thailand to this list. :)

[Sycophant]

That list mostly fails. Hard. I expected better from historians, honestly.

Yeah, stupid assholes. Having different opinions and shit that form a relatively unsurprising consensus.

That is to say, what are your specific objections here? Looks like a list of generally well-respected presidents to me.

[ledfloyd]

Yeah, stupid assholes. Having different opinions and shit that form a relatively unsurprising consensus.

That is to say, what are your specific objections here? Looks like a list of generally well-respected presidents to me.
aside from truman.

[Barty]

Four new Lincoln Pennies to be minted:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/lincolns-penny.html

[Robby P]

First of all, 65 respondents is a pretty small sample size. Second of all, who are these historians? Were they randomly selected? Are they academic historians? Popular historians?

From my experience, most academic historians a) wouldn't bother doing a silly survey like this and b) would be a bit more critical in their assessment of the more lionized presidents like Lincoln, Roosevelt, etc.

[soitgoes...]

Four new Lincoln Pennies to be minted:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/lincolns-penny.html
That's ridiculous. It costs more money to make a penny than it's worth, so let's come up with 4 new designs? How much money was wasted in this effort? Do away with the penny altogether.