Bestest Presidents

[David Floyd]

Washington through Jackson were pretty damn good, but Madison should have been more prepared for 1812.

Yeah, he should have given diplomacy more time rather than listening to the hawks in the Senate, who really just wanted to invade Canada. The Brits were ready to give in until the US declared war.

[Geronimo]

If FDR is one of our best presidents for beating the great depression why did he preside over more years of depression than any other president? If he is the best president for winning ww2 then why isn't stalin an even better leader for inflicting far more damage with far fewer resources than the americans and uk combined? If he is a superior president for beating the germans while not being a ruthless leader who stomped on liberites as Stalin did then what about his decision to imprison americans for having japanese ancestory? What makes FDR even a mediocre president?


FDR

I have to say I'm especially surprised to see imran rank FDR so high.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Geronimo
If FDR is one of our best presidents for beating the great depression why did he preside over more years of depression than any other president? If he is the best president for winning ww2 then why isn't stalin an even better leader for inflicting far more damage with far fewer resources than the americans and uk combined? If he is a superior president for beating the germans while not being a ruthless leader who stomped on liberites as Stalin did then what about his decision to imprison americans for having japanese ancestory? What makes FDR even a mediocre president?


FDR

you make good points. I used to think FDR was great when I was a kid because he presied over such terrible times in history.

but what we have to look at is whether another president could have speeded the U.S. through the great depression. FDR pushed his socialist policies through because we were desperate. FDR's greatest asset was the fact he offered hope.

As for WW2, you can't fault FDR completely for this. He's a president, not a general. The fact is the U.S. had an army the same size as Portugal's. There was no way we could achieve the success of Stalin in less time. And it is congress who appoints the military, not the president. The fact is, it took us years to build up sufficient force.

[David Floyd]

The fact is the U.S. had an army the same size as Portugal's. There was no way we could achieve the success of Stalin in less time.

And there was no way the Soviets could have achieved their level of success in ANY timeframe without US Lend Lease

[DanS]

FDR also did an Executive takeover of the Judicial.

[David Floyd]

Yep, although in fairness, Lincoln was the first to come up with that particular strategy

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Geronimo
If he is the best president for winning ww2 then why isn't stalin an even better leader for inflicting far more damage with far fewer resources than the americans and uk combined?

1. Stalin wasted many human lives rather inefficiently (not that efficient waste of human life is that much better).
2. Stalin has never been US President.

If he is a superior president for beating the germans while not being a ruthless leader who stomped on liberites as Stalin did then what about his decision to imprison americans for having japanese ancestory?

There's awful and then there's really awful. Compared to what Stalin did to Germans, Poles, Finns, and others, Americans of Japanese descent were merely tickled by public school kids.

[David Floyd]

Well, compared to what Stalin and Hitler did, slavery in the US wasn't all that bad either. That's why you look at the act itself, not the act relative to acts other people have done.

[Berzerker]

Didn't FDR turn away Jewish refugees trying to escape the coming crackdown and eventual genocide in Nazi Germany?

[David Floyd]

So he did.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, compared to what Stalin and Hitler did, slavery in the US wasn't all that bad either.

Actually, I'd say that slavery was that bad.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yeah, he should have given diplomacy more time rather than listening to the hawks in the Senate, who really just wanted to invade Canada. The Brits were ready to give in until the US declared war.

Well, I was referring to the fact that we had an incredibly small navy. The war was really about assertion of power in North America. The Brits were stacking soldiers in their forts down the Mississippi and had violated US citizens. Madison should have had a plan to deal with the British and not just declared war without being prepared to fight one of the best armies in the world. The attacks into Canada and the attacks through Chesapeake Bay were evidence of the fact that we were not prepared at the time.

Waiting another month would have seen the Brits stopping their policies of capturing US sailors, but then again the US would never had asserted itself. Without the war US growth in territories and world power would have been stunted.

[David Floyd]

Well, I was referring to the fact that we had an incredibly small navy.

Which, of course, was a holdover from the Jefferson Administration - Jefferson believed that a large ocean-going fleet was unnecessary for coastal defense, and that a network of forts and small gunboats would be enough. The US had plenty of both forts and gunboats, but neither was enough to defend the coast.

Without the war US growth in territories and world power would have been stunted.

The US didn't really become a major world player until the very end of the 19th Century anyway - any influence it exerted prior to that point was economic in nature. Would the US have expanded a little more slowly? Maybe, maybe not. Without the war, could the US have stepped up campaigns against the Indians, if it so desired? Sure, probably.

I just don't really see what the War of 1812 did to expand US power in the long run.

[David Floyd]

Madison should have had a plan to deal with the British and not just declared war without being prepared to fight one of the best armies in the world.

Firstly, he was largely pressured into war by hawks in the Senate, and second, the British were embroiled in the Napoleonic Wars at the time, so the US didn't have to face the best or largest British armies/regiments/generals.

[Ted Striker]

In my lifetime, teh Reagan and Clinton were the best.

The were both good leaders, although teh Reagan was in a class of his own.