PDA

View Full Version : Worst Presidents of the United States?




kah13176
01-12-2011, 06:45 PM
Hello RPF. Who do you think are the worst presidents of the United States? My list:

Woodrow Wilson
-Started the Federal Reserve
-Set up the first system of progressive income taxation, and the IRS.
-Got the USA involved in WWI, which had no moral backing whatsoever.


Herbert Hoover
-Passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, one of the highest import taxes in US history. He did so contrary to the advice of leading economists, which extended the Great Depression.


FDR. Basically the father of Keynesianism in the US. Had the fed print money like crazy to pay for WWII. Passed the Social Security act, which infringes upon our rights to property, among the dozens of other New Deal goodies.


Lyndon Johnson
-Vietnam War.


Jimmy Carter
-Supported Operation Cyclone, to arm Afghans against the Soviet invasion, with no regard to future blowback.
-Boycotted the Olympics. The Games are designed as an apolitical event where nations can come together. Carter turned it into a political stint.


George Bush and Barack Obama for obvious reasons.

oyarde
01-12-2011, 06:49 PM
Wilson , Johnson , Obama

Heimdallr
01-12-2011, 06:51 PM
Lincoln, perhaps. I also have a bit of a vendetta against Reagan, because he basically betrayed people like us.

Anti Federalist
01-12-2011, 06:54 PM
Lincoln, Wilson, FDR in chronological order

Bman
01-12-2011, 07:02 PM
You forgot Nixon

oyarde
01-12-2011, 07:04 PM
You forgot Nixon

I rated my top three just on permanent economic damage . It would be easier if we tried to list the best , shorter lists .

DamianTV
01-12-2011, 07:08 PM
I think the list of Best Presidents will effectively be much shorter...

YumYum
01-12-2011, 07:10 PM
JFK started the Keynesian mess that we are experiencing today. Prior to that, every president believed in a balanced budget (except when there was war). The greatest president we ever had was Chester A. Arthur.

kah13176
01-12-2011, 07:11 PM
Best Presidents:

Jefferson
Jackson: Opposed central banking. That outdoes anything else he did.
Taft, perhaps?

TroySmith
01-12-2011, 07:12 PM
Worst 5: Lincoln, Wilson, LBJ, GWB, Obama
Best 5 : Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Cleveland, Coolidge

Not necessarily in that order.

low preference guy
01-12-2011, 07:14 PM
Jackson: Opposed central banking. That outdoes anything else he did.


Another thing he did:


The United States has had public debt since its inception. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly reported value of $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. Over the following 45 years, the debt grew, briefly contracted to zero on January 8, 1835 under President Andrew Jackson, but then quickly grew into the millions again.[8]

oyarde
01-12-2011, 07:20 PM
Worst 5: Lincoln, Wilson, LBJ, GWB, Obama
Best 5 : Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Cleveland, Coolidge

Not necessarily in that order.

Yes . I think Washington , Jefferson , Cleveland and Coolidge would be good picks for the best list .

Rothbardian Girl
01-12-2011, 07:24 PM
My #1 worst president would probably have to be just about every single U.S. president after (and including) Wilson, besides maybe Harding. I don't really care for Coolidge, either, especially after reading Rothbard's book America's Great Depression in which he savages Coolidge, although I've heard a lot of support for him from some libertarian-minded people.

E: Just noticed "Best Presidents" thread, I shall go post the second half of this post there. Hehe.

akforme
01-12-2011, 07:31 PM
I think this get's done about every six months or so on here, but it's always a good thread.

Wilson, Lincoln FDR, LBJ, after that it's pretty close tie for 5th with everyone after LBJ.

HOLLYWOOD
01-12-2011, 07:38 PM
Where's the links from all the previous polls taken on this subject? I think the 'Worst US President poll" from 2007-08 was the best. It was conducted in stages, with post justifications narrowing it down. I wish all stages were merged and made a sticky.

Vessol
01-12-2011, 07:45 PM
Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, JFK, Truman

Pretty much each and every president in the 20th, excluding potentially Coolidge.

Galileo Galilei
01-12-2011, 10:38 PM
Worst by far: Wilson

FederaL Reserve, income tax, drug war, alcohol prohibition, espionage act, Lucitania, Zimmerman telegram, WWI, League of Nations, lied about his health, ADL formed, Italian Hall mass murder in Michigan, influenza pandemic (LIHOP), gigantic increase in spending, assassination attempt on Ted Roosevelt, congressional districts doubled in size, and worst of all the direct election of Senators which was the worst thing to ever happen in this country.

Best: James Madison

Presided over the smallest federal budget in history, at only 1.1% of GDP.

Mr.Magnanimous
01-12-2011, 10:45 PM
...

cindy25
01-12-2011, 10:49 PM
Hello RPF. Who do you think are the worst presidents of the United States? My list:

Woodrow Wilson
-Started the Federal Reserve
-Set up the first system of progressive income taxation, and the IRS.
-Got the USA involved in WWI, which had no moral backing whatsoever.


Herbert Hoover
-Passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, one of the highest import taxes in US history. He did so contrary to the advice of leading economists, which extended the Great Depression.


FDR. Basically the father of Keynesianism in the US. Had the fed print money like crazy to pay for WWII. Passed the Social Security act, which infringes upon our rights to property, among the dozens of other New Deal goodies.


Lyndon Johnson
-Vietnam War.


Jimmy Carter
-Supported Operation Cyclone, to arm Afghans against the Soviet invasion, with no regard to future blowback.
-Boycotted the Olympics. The Games are designed as an apolitical event where nations can come together. Carter turned it into a political stint.


George Bush and Barack Obama for obvious reasons.

you are way too easy on them

Wilson
conscription

FDR
peacetime draft
withholding tax

LBJ
ended student deferments of the draft (before LBJ the military was a de-facto volunteer army)

Carter
draft registration

t0rnado
01-13-2011, 12:58 AM
Lincoln should've been shot earlier.

cindy25
01-13-2011, 02:08 AM
Lincoln should've been shot earlier.

would Hamlin have been any better?

BamaAla
01-13-2011, 02:40 AM
Lincoln, Wilson, FDR.

Aratus
01-13-2011, 09:29 AM
thaddeus stevens and charles sumner would have applied the same
radical republican politically correct litmus paper to hannibal hamlin
and auld honest abe they clearly jumped andrew johnson for in 1868.
i think the only time potus andrew johnson seperates out politically from
either hannibal hamlin and honest abe is after he stares at the results
of the 1866 election as he refuses to sign the first CIVIL RIGHTs ACT.

Fozz
01-13-2011, 09:40 AM
Worst president: Woodrow Wilson

Fredom101
01-13-2011, 09:42 AM
Lincoln, Wilson, FDR in chronological order

This.

Captain Shays
01-13-2011, 10:00 AM
#1 worst-Lincoln without his policies the #2 worst might not have been able to do what he did.

#2 Wilson

#3 FDR

#4 Johnson

#5 Carter.

#6 Bush 41

#7 Clinton

#8 Bush 43

#9 and moving up fast... Obama

YumYum
01-13-2011, 10:02 AM
#1 worst-Lincoln without his policies the #2 worst might not have been able to do what he did.

#2 Wilson

#3 FDR

#4 Johnson

#5 Carter.

#6 Bush 41

#7 Clinton

#8 Bush 43

#9 and moving up fast... Obama

Why is Carter in your list of worst?

WilliamShrugged
01-13-2011, 10:11 AM
Can someone explain a little on why Lincoln is the worst? Im not saying they're wrong...Just would like to get a brief history lesson on him. From the research i have done i would have to say FDR and Wilson were the worst.

akforme
01-13-2011, 10:28 AM
Why is Carter in your list of worst?

I'm with ya on this one ymmers. I don't understand the hatred for Carter either. He was a horrible president, but less evil than most. 80% of his problems were caused by Nixon and LBJ. Carter just handled them in the worst possible way is all.

I know the neocons hate him, but their partisan hacks who just want to make Reagan look better

Captain Shays
01-13-2011, 10:37 AM
Why is Carter in your list of worst?

Not only was he completely inept but at the time we needed leadership that he was unable to provide. He degraded our military while the Soviets were building up their's. He presided over 14% national unemployment, and 21% prime interest rates. He gave us the idea of corporate welfare in the form of subsidies, tax breaks and grants for renewable resource technologies all the while restricting development of natural resources domestically that helped to perpetuate our dependence on foreign oil. Those artificial government support mechanisms and restrictions are the antithesis of free market capitalism. Meanwhile we continued to use our military to secure and maintain profits of oil companies operating on foreign soil which also helped to maintain our dependence on foreign oil, all while he was talking out the other side of his mouth about us transitioning to alternative sources of energy. He was weak and wishy washy at a time when we needed strength.

Captain Shays
01-13-2011, 10:46 AM
Can someone explain a little on why Lincoln is the worst? Im not saying they're wrong...Just would like to get a brief history lesson on him. From the research i have done i would have to say FDR and Wilson were the worst.

Here are just a couple of sources for you to start.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo186.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo139.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/young8.html

Granted they are all articles posted in LewRockwell.com but they are nonetheless relevant.
Once you do the research I think you'll find that as bad as Wilson and FDR were to our freedom and our economy and our foreign policy they might not have been possible without the policies of Lincoln. He opened the doors and they took them off the hinges.

WilliamShrugged
01-13-2011, 10:48 AM
Here are just a couple of sources for you to start.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo186.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo139.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/young8.html

Granted they are all articles posted in LewRockwell.com but they are nonetheless relevant.
Once you do the research I think you'll find that as bad as Wilson and FDR were to our freedom and our economy and our foreign policy they might not have been possible without the policies of Lincoln. He opened the doors and they took them off the hinges.

Thanks +rep

Todd
01-13-2011, 10:54 AM
Can someone explain a little on why Lincoln is the worst? Im not saying they're wrong...Just would like to get a brief history lesson on him. From the research i have done i would have to say FDR and Wilson were the worst.


Because you can trace the first major shift in power and influence of the executive branch to THIS POTUS. What Bush II did IMO, is much like what Lincoln did. Men like Wilson and FDR naturally built on the precendents of his.

akforme
01-13-2011, 10:57 AM
He degraded our military while the Soviets were building up their's.

I would have degraded it more. After a 10 year war on lies this country didn't need more war.



He presided over 14% national unemployment, and 21% prime interest rates.

Blame the fed, Nixon taking us off the gold standard because LBJ increase the welfare warfare state., Also the fed is in charge of interest rates, and employment.


.
He gave us the idea of corporate welfare in the form of subsidies, tax breaks and grants for renewable resource technologies all the while restricting development of natural resources domestically that helped to perpetuate our dependence on foreign oil.

We've been in the corporate welfare business for a while, Carter didn't invent anything.


Meanwhile we continued to use our military to secure and maintain profits of oil companies operating on foreign soil which also helped to maintain our dependence on foreign oil, all while he was talking out the other side of his mouth about us transitioning to alternative sources of energy.

Name a president who hasn't done this.



He was weak and wishy washy at a time when we needed strength.

Like Reagan who gave into the terrorist demands and traded them weapons for the hostages release, or smuggling drugs in to pay for an illegal war? Or I know, putting on a show to make it seem like he took down the USSR while putting this country on the same path of destruction?

Carter sucked, don't get me wrong, but to put him in a class of the worse without include the ones around him first is ignoring a lot.

Stary Hickory
01-13-2011, 11:07 AM
Worst

Lincoln
Wilson
FDR
LBJ
Obama

and Bush after the O man.

Although the first 3 on that list are way worse than anything else out there. In ths century alone Wilson/FDR/LBJ did more damage than anything else that faced America. We have these guys to blame for our horrible fiscal problems and practica slavery to central banking.

YumYum
01-13-2011, 11:11 AM
Carter sucked, don't get me wrong, but to put him in a class of the worse without include the ones around him first is ignoring a lot.

Good post. Carter inherited a big mess, and while he didn't handle it very well, it is like you said, he wasn't "evil" like our other presidents. In fact, as a person goes, I think Carter is the most decent president we have had where "character" is concerned. To me, he is a fine example of what a Christian should be. I very much admire his work after he left the presidency. Yes, he made some big blunders trusting certain people within his administration, but his heart was in the right place.

LibertyBrews
01-13-2011, 11:59 AM
Wilson was the worst, the Federal Reserve Act was unforgivable, the League of Nations pushing also very bad. Wilson was the founding father of todays UN, and in turn one of the first champions of NWO.

Lincoln and FDR was also bad.

Wilson is for me the polar opposite of everything libertarian.

MaxPower
01-13-2011, 02:07 PM
This is my presidential ranking list as I compiled it last summer, from best to worst:

1. Grover Cleveland
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. George Washington
4. James Monroe
5. Warren G. Harding
6. Calvin Coolidge
7. James A. Garfield
8. Ulysses S. Grant
9. John Tyler
10. Benjamin Harrison
11. James Madison
12. Martin Van Buren
13. Rutherford B. Hayes
14. John Q. Adams
15. John Adams
16. Zachary Taylor
17. Ronald Reagan
18. Chester A. Arthur
19. William H. Taft
20. William Henry Harrison
21. Jimmy Carter
22. Gerald Ford
23. Herbert Hoover
24. Abraham Lincoln
25. Andrew Jackson
26. Dwight Eisenhower
27. Andrew Johnson
28. Franklin Pierce
29. Millard Fillmore
30. William McKinley
31. John F. Kennedy
32. Theodore Roosevelt
33. George H.W. Bush
34. James K. Polk
35. James Buchanan
36. Bill Clinton
37. Richard Nixon
38. Lyndon B. Johnson
39. George W. Bush
40. Harry Truman
41. Woodrow Wilson
42. Franklin Roosevelt

To defend what will probably be my more controversial choices on this site:
Many of you will no doubt feel that I have been too generous to Mr. Lincoln in placing him only at 24th, rather than at or near the very bottom of the list. This is not shocking, given his brutality, disregard for the Constitution, trampling of individual liberties, and pro-centralization philosophy, all of which did great damage in his own time and set precedents for future centralizers. However, I will say that, as much as more rabid critics like Thomas Dilorenzo would like to do so, I do not believe Lincoln's ultimate role in the abolition of slavery- the ultimate anti-libertarian institution- can be rightly discounted here, and I daresay that Lincoln's reaction to the South's secession, while quite ugly indeed, was little different from what nearly any other president in our history would have done in the same situation, including one Andrew Jackson, who many here rank as one of the best, and who is probably my other notably controversial placement at 25th. Note that Jackson explicitly opposed the idea that states had a right to secession or even nullification during the dispute over the Tariff of Abominations in the early 1830s, and that he pushed legislation through Congress which authorized him to use the military to force Southern compliance with said tariff (though they backed off before any actual violence could ensue). Moreover, Jackson was rather unspeakably brutal to the Indians by way of his Trail of Tears policies, which killed thousands of civilians, and was explicitly and unabashedly pro-slavery. It is true that he was one of the best fiscal conservatives our country has ever seen, that he extinguished the debt and that he killed the national bank, and these facts keep him from falling into my bottom tier, but they certainly do not whitewash all of the authoritarianism, savagery, and disregard for human rights that marked his administration.

Travlyr
01-13-2011, 02:55 PM
Lincoln should've been shot earlier.

Perhaps, but that would not have changed anything. Wars are hard to start. Can one man start a war? Really? How?

Hypothetical: Imagine for a moment that Obama wanted to start a war with Germany. It could not happen, today, tomorrow or this year and he is Commander in Chief of the mightiest military in the world. So, when somebody calls the War Between the States, Lincoln's war, it is just not true. Just like Iraq is not Bush's war, and WWI is not Wilson's war, and WWII is not Roosevelt's war. War is a racket orchestrated by powers behind the scenes.

SovereignMN
01-13-2011, 03:06 PM
Lincoln - Military tyrant. Made the States slaves to the Federal government.

Wilson - Financial tyrant. Made the Federal government slaves to the Federal Reserve.

FDR - Financial tyrant. Created the leviathon we have today.

GWBush - Military tyrant. Conqueror of foreign nations, laid the framework for a despot to rule domestically.

Aratus
01-14-2011, 12:15 PM
This is my presidential ranking list as I compiled it last summer, from best to worst:

1. Grover Cleveland
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. George Washington
4. James Monroe
5. Warren G. Harding
6. Calvin Coolidge
7. James A. Garfield
8. Ulysses S. Grant
9. John Tyler
10. Benjamin Harrison
11. James Madison
12. Martin Van Buren
13. Rutherford B. Hayes
14. John Q. Adams
15. John Adams
16. Zachary Taylor
17. Ronald Reagan
18. Chester A. Arthur
19. William H. Taft
20. William Henry Harrison
21. Jimmy Carter
22. Gerald Ford
23. Herbert Hoover
24. Abraham Lincoln
25. Andrew Jackson
26. Dwight Eisenhower
27. Andrew Johnson
28. Franklin Pierce
29. Millard Fillmore
30. William McKinley
31. John F. Kennedy
32. Theodore Roosevelt
33. George H.W. Bush
34. James K. Polk
35. James Buchanan
36. Bill Clinton
37. Richard Nixon
38. Lyndon B. Johnson
39. George W. Bush
40. Harry Truman
41. Woodrow Wilson
42. Franklin Roosevelt

To defend what will probably be my more controversial choices on this site:
Many of you will no doubt feel that I have been too generous to Mr. Lincoln in placing him only at 24th, rather than at or near the very bottom of the list. This is not shocking, given his brutality, disregard for the Constitution, trampling of individual liberties, and pro-centralization philosophy, all of which did great damage in his own time and set precedents for future centralizers. However, I will say that, as much as more rabid critics like Thomas Dilorenzo would like to do so, I do not believe Lincoln's ultimate role in the abolition of slavery- the ultimate anti-libertarian institution- can be rightly discounted here, and I daresay that Lincoln's reaction to the South's secession, while quite ugly indeed, was little different from what nearly any other president in our history would have done in the same situation, including one Andrew Jackson, who many here rank as one of the best, and who is probably my other notably controversial placement at 25th. Note that Jackson explicitly opposed the idea that states had a right to secession or even nullification during the dispute over the Tariff of Abominations in the early 1830s, and that he pushed legislation through Congress which authorized him to use the military to force Southern compliance with said tariff (though they backed off before any actual violence could ensue). Moreover, Jackson was rather unspeakably brutal to the Indians by way of his Trail of Tears policies, which killed thousands of civilians, and was explicitly and unabashedly pro-slavery. It is true that he was one of the best fiscal conservatives our country has ever seen, that he extinguished the debt and that he killed the national bank, and these facts keep him from falling into my bottom tier, but they certainly do not whitewash all of the authoritarianism, savagery, and disregard for human rights that marked his administration.



big gov't verses small gov't? big business verses small business?
america the 20th century superpower with nukes not being discharged
yet kept at an alert readiness usually with a college degree boosts the more
recent presidents in the eyes of historians. if one is giving high marks for respecting
the bill of rights, or being a "man of the people" populist, logically many of the
presidents of the 1800s are then elevated. the list has a logic to it all told!

Stary Hickory
01-14-2011, 12:18 PM
Lincoln was garbage man, he hurt the republic and freedom more than any other president. He waged war on his own and killed many Americans. For political power.....he is the closest thing we have ever had to a true tyrant in this country.

Aratus
01-14-2011, 12:23 PM
MaxPower--- even by your own rules i feel you rate Ronnie Reagan too high even if you hand Harding his due!
also i did notice that the potuses downwards from Millard Fillmore onwards tend to be hawks rather than doves!

Aratus
01-14-2011, 12:28 PM
james buchanan correctly is at number 35
rather than higher in the list. MaxPower may
have been kind to honest abe but he REALLY
likes andrew johnson, who had to deal with
the first year after the devastating war in
order to give the nation a firm foundation.
grant usually made cautious decisions, and
nearly all can agree that herbert hoover faced
an almost unsurmountable problem. clearly if
one takes away an elan vitale from FDR you add
it to hoover. james buchanan handed lincoln
a raft of problems and no easy solutions. i feel
harding was not on the take at all, teapot dome
was not truely his fault. kennedy, nixon and LBJ
ought to have low marks due to the vietnam war.

Aratus
01-14-2011, 12:42 PM
in a sense, if high I.Q points and an awareness of America's role in the greater world are taken
into account, richard m. nixon is the president who had the prospect of being a rival to FDR
who could have set a better tone for the nation at large, whose own internalized issues tore
apart his presidency as they eclipsed his potentiality for true greatness. in the public opinion
polls, presidents can leave office under a cloud and then be rediscovered by historians. truman's
name was mud in 1952/53 due to korea being thought a stalemate. ironically as the Vietnamese War
dragged on, people got nostalgic for the korean war. the only war MaxPower barely tolerates is the
War of 1812! reagan in his second term basically had nancy and the veep at the time running things.

MaxPower
01-14-2011, 06:35 PM
Hey, Aratus- thank you for all the feedback for my list. Here are some thoughts/responses:


big gov't verses small gov't? big business verses small business?
america the 20th century superpower with nukes not being discharged
yet kept at an alert readiness usually with a college degree boosts the more
recent presidents in the eyes of historians. if one is giving high marks for respecting
the bill of rights, or being a "man of the people" populist, logically many of the
presidents of the 1800s are then elevated. the list has a logic to it all told!
Thanks. I arrived at this list by adding up point totals after ranking each president on a scale of one to 10 in each of four different categories, which were as follows:
Integrity (factual honesty, genuineness in caring about the welfare of fellow citizens, willingness to place said welfare above self-interest)
Respect for the Constitution/Limited government (observance of limitations on the office and the federal government in general; special credit to presidents who actually shrank government and/or reduced the national debt)
Contemporary moral issues (positions on and actions regarding matters of war, slavery, etc., which were on the table at the time of said president's tenure)
Competence/leadership (wisdom in cabinet and court appointments, general intelligence and rationality in conduct)


MaxPower--- even by your own rules i feel you rate Ronnie Reagan too high even if you hand Harding his due!
also i did notice that the potuses downwards from Millard Fillmore onwards tend to be hawks rather than doves!
You have a case, there; I don't think Reagan was a good president, but then again, there just haven't been very many good presidents. If I were to divide this list into tiers, I would say that maybe the top 8 were presidents I could consider to have actually been good, while 9-15 were decent, 16-31 were pretty bad, but had something good to be said for them, and 32-42 were utterly awful with virtually no redeeming qualities. I consider more or less any of the guys in the 16-31 range to be pretty reasonably interchangeable with any of the others- they were all very close together in their totals according to my points system, as I recall, and there were a number of ties I simply broke via "gut feeling."

I might even be able to dig up the specific point sums I had when I originally compiled this list. I do remember that Cleveland was first with 34 points, Jefferson and Washington each totaled 33, Monroe was something like 30 or 31, I think Wilson scored an 11, and FDR squeaked past him for the bottom spot with, I believe, a 10.


james buchanan correctly is at number 35
rather than higher in the list. MaxPower may
have been kind to honest abe but he REALLY
likes andrew johnson, who had to deal with
the first year after the devastating war in
order to give the nation a firm foundation.
grant usually made cautious decisions, and
nearly all can agree that herbert hoover faced
an almost unsurmountable problem. clearly if
one takes away an elan vitale from FDR you add
it to hoover. james buchanan handed lincoln
a raft of problems and no easy solutions. i feel
harding was not on the take at all, teapot dome
was not truely his fault. kennedy, nixon and LBJ
ought to have low marks due to the vietnam war.
I agree about Harding. Harding gets a lot of credit from me for reversing many of Woodrow Wilson's odious policies (ending the Sedition Act and freeing its victims, finalizing peace agreements, etc.) and returning to the fundamentals of constitutionalism where many other presidents would have seized on their predecessors' momentum to continue ballooning the federal leviathan. I agree that Harding was not personally involved in the scandals that devastated his presidency, and will further say that I think similar things have happened in most White House administrations and simply not been exposed at the time- Harding did still lose a few competency points over this business, but not enough to negate the good that he did.

in a sense, if high I.Q points and an awareness of America's role in the greater world are taken
into account, richard m. nixon is the president who had the prospect of being a rival to FDR
who could have set a better tone for the nation at large, whose own internalized issues tore
apart his presidency as they eclipsed his potentiality for true greatness. in the public opinion
polls, presidents can leave office under a cloud and then be rediscovered by historians. truman's
name was mud in 1952/53 due to korea being thought a stalemate. ironically as the Vietnamese War
dragged on, people got nostalgic for the korean war. the only war MaxPower barely tolerates is the
War of 1812! reagan in his second term basically had nancy and the veep at the time running things.
Well, I don't really think the War of 1812 was justified, but neither do I consider it one of the more egregious follies in our history, and I give Madison credit for not using the war as an excuse to trample the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights, as nearly every other wartime president has done and the vast majority of presidents would have done in Madison's situation. I tend to think US involvement in World War II was justified after the Pearl Harbor attack, but condemn the atrocities and black eyes for freedom that Roosevelt and Truman dealt out in pursuing it.

Galileo Galilei
01-14-2011, 07:06 PM
Well, I don't really think the War of 1812 was justified

err, let's see, the British seized about 400 innocent US ships and kidnapped about 8000 American men. They then forced these men to serve in the British military empire.

There were also at least 4 incidents prior to the war where the British fired upon innocent US ships and killed & injured Americans on board, one in 1806, one in 1807, and two in 1811.

MaxPower
01-14-2011, 08:11 PM
err, let's see, the British seized about 400 innocent US ships and kidnapped about 8000 American men. They then forced these men to serve in the British military empire.

There were also at least 4 incidents prior to the war where the British fired upon innocent US ships and killed & injured Americans on board, one in 1806, one in 1807, and two in 1811.
I will admit that I do not have a thorough, convincing argument prepared for this issue, nor do I have a tremendously strong conviction on it; note the wording, "Well, I don't really think the War of 1812 was justified, but neither do I consider it one of the more egregious follies in our history." It may be pointed out that Britain repealed the orders underlying its predatory naval practices two days before Congress declared war, although the news had yet to travel across the ocean at the time. I have seen it argued that British impressment was less the cause of the war than an excuse for America to invade Canada, as many had wanted to do for years, that many of the higher-ups were aware that Great Britain was about to bring an end to said policy, and that they thus made sure to make the declaration before news could arrive of their formal repeal.

Aratus
01-15-2011, 02:20 PM
tecumsah basically kept us to our borders when he
managed to put a stop to our invasion of canada.
he brought together the tribes, briefly & heroically.
yes, he was an ally of the british, there is no doubt.

MaxPower's list has themes and patterns. i was mentally
going over the wars we had, and who was in the oval office.
i made a comment about president reagan because the 2 potuses
Bush are much further down on the list. i was a tad curious
given that some think the "H.W" to be ronnie reagan's 3rd term!

vita3
01-15-2011, 02:31 PM
Dick Cheney was the worst.

Galileo Galilei
01-15-2011, 08:47 PM
I will admit that I do not have a thorough, convincing argument prepared for this issue, nor do I have a tremendously strong conviction on it; note the wording, "Well, I don't really think the War of 1812 was justified, but neither do I consider it one of the more egregious follies in our history." It may be pointed out that Britain repealed the orders underlying its predatory naval practices two days before Congress declared war, although the news had yet to travel across the ocean at the time.

Impressment (kidnapping) was not canceled, only the orders in council.


I have seen it argued that British impressment was less the cause of the war than an excuse for America to invade Canada, as many had wanted to do for years, that many of the higher-ups were aware that Great Britain was about to bring an end to said policy, and that they thus made sure to make the declaration before news could arrive of their formal repeal.

Let's see, the British seized 400 ships and kidnapped 8000 American men, that's not a cause for war? And then forced the kidnapped men to serve the worldwide British military machine. The invasion of the Canadian portion of the British empire was just good military strategy, as the US had not much of a navy in 1812.

Legend1104
01-15-2011, 11:50 PM
Lincoln.

On a side note. I am just finishing a book about the CIA and I have to be honest. Out of all the presidents between Truman and Bush 2, Carter was the most moral president. He resended a lot of the CIA's unlawful clandestine actions around the world and put some moral restraint on them. I am not saying he was a good president, but I don't think he was exactly the worst.

MaxPower
01-16-2011, 12:47 AM
Impressment (kidnapping) was not canceled, only the orders in council.
I had been under the impression that their vote was ostensibly intended to bring an end to the impressment as well, though I do not have a ready source for this. The War of 1812 has probably been one of the more neglected points in my historical studies thus far; I have read in-depth and formed strong opinions on several other wars and historical epochs, but not this one.



Let's see, the British seized 400 ships and kidnapped 8000 American men, that's not a cause for war?
1. This is almost word-for-word what you already said in your last post, down to the perhaps-somewhat-condescending "let's see" introduction.

2. I was aware the British had been engaged in the practices you mention, but was not under the impression the numbers were quite on the scale you're citing; who, precisely, compiled these numbers, and how? This is not necessarily meant as a denial, but I am aware of more than one instance in which pretty wildly-exaggerated figures have been thrown around as fact regarding historical persecutions (eg. the victims of the Spanish Inquisition don't seem to have been anywhere near as numerous as has often been claimed).

3. You'll find that I am a very hard sell with regards to what is a valid justification for war; I have, at times, even bordered on pacifism. Now, again, I was not offering a strong opinion one way or the other about the War of 1812, though I will say, at the least, that it was not an egregious war of aggression, like, say, the Mexican, Civil, Vietnam or Iraq wars. Moreover, I do not think the issue bears much on Madison's quality as a president one way or the other, since this was not a "presidential" war such as most of those our country has fought in the last 150 years, but was rather declared by Congress, and since it would have been fought virtually no matter who held the presidency. More significant to me is the fact that Madison continued to respect the Bill of Rights and constitutional separation of powers even under the great pressure of the wartime crises; you'll notice that most of the other wartime presidents are in the bottom half of my list, and that the bottom 10 is brimming with them, because they often unconstitutionally launched the wars themselves and/or used them as excuses to trample free speech and civil liberties. Madison suffered most for supporting and signing into law the Second Bank of the United States, and for supporting a military draft.


The invasion of the Canadian portion of the British empire was just good military strategy, as the US had not much of a navy in 1812.
Perhaps this is a fair assessment- I will look into this matter in greater depth in the near future.

qh4dotcom
01-16-2011, 12:51 AM
Without a doubt Wilson....responsible for the 16th amendment and the Federal Reserve

Galileo Galilei
01-16-2011, 01:33 AM
QUOTE=MaxPower;3066495]I had been under the impression that their vote was ostensibly intended to bring an end to the impressment as well, though I do not have a ready source for this. The War of 1812 has probably been one of the more neglected points in my historical studies thus far; I have read in-depth and formed strong opinions on several other wars and historical epochs, but not this one.[/QUOTE]

As soon as the War of 1812 began, James Madison sent ambassador Jonathan Russell to England with specific instructions to end the war if the British ended impressment (kidnapping). The British never agreed to this during the entire war! In fact, they never even agreed to it in the final peace treaty, although by that time, after severe British defeats on three fronts and in the oceans, Madison knew they would not do it anymore.


1. This is almost word-for-word what you already said in your last post, down to the perhaps-somewhat-condescending "let's see" introduction.

2. I was aware the British had been engaged in the practices you mention, but was not under the impression the numbers were quite on the scale you're citing; who, precisely, compiled these numbers, and how? This is not necessarily meant as a denial, but I am aware of more than one instance in which pretty wildly-exaggerated figures have been thrown around as fact regarding historical persecutions (eg. the victims of the Spanish Inquisition don't seem to have been anywhere near as numerous as has often been claimed).

The exact number of ships seized by the British was 389, according to one book I own. The total number of men seized has been variously estimated at 5000 to 9000. James Madison had an itemized list of specific names made up that included about 6000 men kidnapped. The real number was no doubt higher, given the difficulty of obtaining information in those days. Whatever the exact number, the British were in initiators of force against the Americans.


3. You'll find that I am a very hard sell with regards to what is a valid justification for war; I have, at times, even bordered on pacifism. Now, again, I was not offering a strong opinion one way or the other about the War of 1812, though I will say, at the least, that it was not an egregious war of aggression, like, say, the Mexican, Civil, Vietnam or Iraq wars. Moreover, I do not think the issue bears much on Madison's quality as a president one way or the other, since this was not a "presidential" war such as most of those our country has fought in the last 150 years, but was rather declared by Congress, and since it would have been fought virtually no matter who held the presidency. More significant to me is the fact that Madison continued to respect the Bill of Rights and constitutional separation of powers even under the great pressure of the wartime crises; you'll notice that most of the other wartime presidents are in the bottom half of my list, and that the bottom 10 is brimming with them, because they often unconstitutionally launched the wars themselves and/or used them as excuses to trample free speech and civil liberties. Madison suffered most for supporting and signing into law the Second Bank of the United States, and for supporting a military draft.


Perhaps this is a fair assessment- I will look into this matter in greater depth in the near future.

Another factor is that aggressive British military empire was in the habit of telling many lies in those days. For example, the British re-started the war with Napoleon in 1803 because the British never vacated Malta as required by the recently signed treaty.

In 1807 the British entered Copenhagen and destroyed the entire Danish fleet, even though Denmark as a neutral country!

FACT: the first shots of the war were fired in 1806 by the British. So were the second shots in 1807. And the third and 4th shots in 1811. The war declaration of 1812 was merely a counter attack after enduring years of aggression.

The War of 1812 did not have a federal military draft nor did Madison support one. In those days of states rights, states could draft soldiers if they wanted to. Madison's purported support of a draft amounts to the fact that he asked state governors to raise troops, that does not mean he asked for or wanted a draft.

In regards to the central bank, James Madison, in one of the most remarkable executive actions in world history, actually let the bank die (by one vote) in 1811 on the brink of war. Amazing! Had the bank been in operation during the war, it might have become entrenched early in our history.

Then, in January of 1815 (before he knew about the Treaty of Ghent or Jackson's victory at New Orleans), in another remarkable action, James Madison vetoed another bank bill, a bill that would have expanded the powers of the bank beyond those deemed Constitutional by George Washington. This was the first significant veto in the history of the United States.

Then Madison signed a new bank bill in 1816 that was almost exactly the same as Washington's bank. This, in conjunction of Madison's veto, established a precedent that the powers of the bank cannot exceed those of the first and second banks. This means that by the precedents of Washington and Madison, bailouts today are unconstitutional. So is fiat currency. So is an unlimited term for the Fed. So are the buying and selling of private securities. So is the lack of an audit. And so is a 100% privately owned Fed.

James Madison was about setting good precedents and preventing bad ones. He set great precedents regarding the conduct of a just war. But he put his foot down on the powers of the bank.

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-16-2011, 01:36 AM
Lincoln by a thousand light years. I will never forgive for the rape, plunder, and scorched earth of Sherman and him. I mean, objectively I don't even think any other President even comes remotely close.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/cherokeecauses.htm

I am half Cherokee, and 100% southern.


Throughout the Confederate States we saw this great revolution effected without violence or the suspension of the laws or the closing of the courts. The military power was nowhere placed above the civil authorities. None were seized and imprisoned at the mandate of arbitrary power. All division among the people disappeared, and the determination became unanimous that there should never again be any union with the Northern States. Almost as one man all who were able to bear arms rushed to the defense of an invaded country, and nowhere has it been found necessary to compel men to serve or to enlist mercenaries by the offer of extraordinary bounties.

But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the Constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men. The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed; the officers and men taken prisoners in battle were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of their Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by Southern hands.

TroySmith
01-16-2011, 08:59 AM
Lincoln.

On a side note. I am just finishing a book about the CIA and I have to be honest. Out of all the presidents between Truman and Bush 2, Carter was the most moral president. He resended a lot of the CIA's unlawful clandestine actions around the world and put some moral restraint on them. I am not saying he was a good president, but I don't think he was exactly the worst.

Legacy of Ashes?

doctor jones
01-16-2011, 12:29 PM
Best:

Tyler
Cleveland
Van Buren
Washington
Jefferson (although much worse as president than statesman)
Ike
Jackson (minus the tragedy known as the trail of tears)
Harding

Bad:

All the rest with
Wilson
FDR
Bush
Obama
at the top of the list

MaxPower
01-16-2011, 03:42 PM
As soon as the War of 1812 began, James Madison sent ambassador Jonathan Russell to England with specific instructions to end the war if the British ended impressment (kidnapping). The British never agreed to this during the entire war! In fact, they never even agreed to it in the final peace treaty, although by that time, after severe British defeats on three fronts and in the oceans, Madison knew they would not do it anymore.



The exact number of ships seized by the British was 389, according to one book I own. The total number of men seized has been variously estimated at 5000 to 9000. James Madison had an itemized list of specific names made up that included about 6000 men kidnapped. The real number was no doubt higher, given the difficulty of obtaining information in those days. Whatever the exact number, the British were in initiators of force against the Americans.



Another factor is that aggressive British military empire was in the habit of telling many lies in those days. For example, the British re-started the war with Napoleon in 1803 because the British never vacated Malta as required by the recently signed treaty.

In 1807 the British entered Copenhagen and destroyed the entire Danish fleet, even though Denmark as a neutral country!

FACT: the first shots of the war were fired in 1806 by the British. So were the second shots in 1807. And the third and 4th shots in 1811. The war declaration of 1812 was merely a counter attack after enduring years of aggression.

The War of 1812 did not have a federal military draft nor did Madison support one. In those days of states rights, states could draft soldiers if they wanted to. Madison's purported support of a draft amounts to the fact that he asked state governors to raise troops, that does not mean he asked for or wanted a draft.

In regards to the central bank, James Madison, in one of the most remarkable executive actions in world history, actually let the bank die (by one vote) in 1811 on the brink of war. Amazing! Had the bank been in operation during the war, it might have become entrenched early in our history.

Then, in January of 1815 (before he knew about the Treaty of Ghent or Jackson's victory at New Orleans), in another remarkable action, James Madison vetoed another bank bill, a bill that would have expanded the powers of the bank beyond those deemed Constitutional by George Washington. This was the first significant veto in the history of the United States.

Then Madison signed a new bank bill in 1816 that was almost exactly the same as Washington's bank. This, in conjunction of Madison's veto, established a precedent that the powers of the bank cannot exceed those of the first and second banks. This means that by the precedents of Washington and Madison, bailouts today are unconstitutional. So is fiat currency. So is an unlimited term for the Fed. So are the buying and selling of private securities. So is the lack of an audit. And so is a 100% privately owned Fed.

James Madison was about setting good precedents and preventing bad ones. He set great precedents regarding the conduct of a just war. But he put his foot down on the powers of the bank.
I can tell you are a great admirer of President Madison, and you are convincing; I am now tempted to bump him up a little on my list, though I am not sure whether or not I still have the original charts I used to construct it around anywhere, which would be necessary to plug any changes of assessment into the original ranking system.

I realize that the First and Second National Banks of the United States were not so repugnant as the Federal Reserve system is, but they were nevertheless mercantilistic forays into the realm of economic centralization of a kind I cannot condone, and both Washington and Madison lose a couple points for supporting them.

Regarding the draft, I have seen it cited in many places that Madison openly advocated conscription to raise troops for the war. Do you have a ready source I can look into which refutes this?

Brett85
01-16-2011, 04:02 PM
I guess I'm not really a student of history like many others. Why was Lincoln so bad?

kah13176
01-16-2011, 04:13 PM
I guess I'm not really a student of history like many others. Why was Lincoln so bad?

Lincoln being bad is an idea held predominately by libertarians. The Constitution says nothing about states and a possible right to secession. South wanted to secede, and Lincoln wouldn't allow it.

low preference guy
01-16-2011, 04:22 PM
I guess I'm not really a student of history like many others. Why was Lincoln so bad?

Because he was a centralizer. He is the most important figure in the destruction of having states as "laboratories of democracy", where each would have different policies and find out that way which produce the best outcome.

Matt Collins
02-21-2011, 09:24 PM
Mike Church and Dr. Kevin Gutzman discuss whether or not George Washington's birthday is worth celebrating:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuNl8iepOOs

Anti Federalist
02-21-2011, 09:30 PM
Where's the links from all the previous polls taken on this subject? I think the 'Worst US President poll" from 2007-08 was the best. It was conducted in stages, with post justifications narrowing it down. I wish all stages were merged and made a sticky.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?127989-Best-and-Worst-U.S.-Presidents&highlight=presidents

scottditzen
02-21-2011, 10:36 PM
For worst presidents list, at the top I'd include any one of them who did absolutely nothing to help abolish the evil that was slavery.

To me, I can imagine nothing closer to hell than being owned by another human being.