Who's the worst U.S. president ever?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Agathon
How can anyone say that FDR is the worst? He's the best president the US ever had, as Churchill is the best Prime Minister the UK ever had.

Personally, I dislike Churchill.

Is he really better than Gladstone, Pitt the Younger, Pitt the Elder, or Disraeli?

[PLATO]

Lincoln
Grant
Hayes

[Dinner]

U.S. Grant.

[Imran Siddiqui]

you must admit that he still has four years to vindicate himself somehow, although I personally don't see a way. He's about sixty years too late to defeat Hitler...

I'll nominate Wilson, whose stubborness ruined his dream of the League of Nations and was an utterly racist idiot. Harding, for running a den of corruption and didn't care a whit.

Rutherford B. Hayes who, like he-who-shall-not-be-named-in-this-thread, stole his election to the presidency, and paid back his South Carolinian supporters by ending Reconstruction, a move that cost black Americans their life, liberty, and property well into the 20th century.

Frankly, I wouldn't not put him on a list. His inclusion is a result of NOT seeing the alternative! Tilden's VP choice was a KLAN member. You think ending Reconstruction was bad? I'm sure Tilden would have tried to repeal the 13th Amendment.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Frankly, I wouldn't not put him on a list. His inclusion is a result of NOT seeing the alternative! Tilden's VP choice was a KLAN member. You think ending Reconstruction was bad? I'm sure Tilden would have tried to repeal the 13th Amendment.

That has nothing to do with what a completely crap prez Hayes was; his "accomplishments" still stand. Moreover, if you can point to a single instance of any 19th-century vice president doing anything with his position, good or bad, I'll be mightily impressed; until then, it's hard to see what anybody's choice for veep has to do with anything.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Moreover, if you can point to a single instance of any 19th-century vice president doing anything with his position, good or bad, I'll be mightily impressed; until then, it's hard to see what anybody's choice for veep has to do with anything.

Indicates Tilden's real beliefs on the issue. You don't nominate a Veep that you find abhorrant.

That has nothing to do with what a completely crap prez Hayes was; his "accomplishments" still stand.

Of course it does. The alternatives were much worse. Gotta look at it in context. Otherwise, Lincoln's near-dictatorial policies during the Civil War 'stand' and he's considered one of the worst Presidents instead of one of the best.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Moreover, if you can point to a single instance of any 19th-century vice president doing anything with his position, good or bad, I'll be mightily impressed; until then, it's hard to see what anybody's choice for veep has to do with anything.

Indicates Tilden's real beliefs on the issue. You don't nominate a Veep that you find abhorrant.

Read up on 19th century presidential politics. Candidates didn't pick their own veeps. The party picked them to balance the ticket. Sounds like they picked a crap veep, but its got nothing to do with how Tilden would have governed, and nothing to do with how Hayes did govern.

That has nothing to do with what a completely crap prez Hayes was; his "accomplishments" still stand.

Of course it does. The alternatives were much worse. Gotta look at it in context. Otherwise, Lincoln's near-dictatorial policies during the Civil War 'stand' and he's considered one of the worst Presidents instead of one of the best.

Oh, come on. Do you evaluate Nixon based on your opinions of Ed Muskie and Sargant Shriver? Do you evaluate Bush based on your opinions of Edwards and Lieberman? That's a very...strange...way of looking at it.

[Jack_www]

I would have to say Jimmy Carter.

[Ted Striker]

I don't think any of the pre Civil War Presidents can be blamed for contributing to the Civil War.

It was an inevitable event that was going to happen since the birth of our nation as an independent nation.

But I think alot of the post Civil war Presidents did a horrible, horrible job.

Oh yeah, my vote is for George W. Bush.

[DanS]

Luckily, the institution of US President is so weak that it is damn near impossible for him to ruin the country in 4 or 8 years (minus the "football" briefcase, of course).

It's tough to pick a worst president. I think Nixon was pretty bad in hindsight, but he wasn't uniformly bad. Carter wasn't uniformly bad either, but he was close. Hoover was in office at the wrong time -- I think he would have done splendidly at any other time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Read up on 19th century presidential politics. Candidates didn't pick their own veeps. The party picked them to balance the ticket. Sounds like they picked a crap veep, but its got nothing to do with how Tilden would have governed, and nothing to do with how Hayes did govern.

You don't think a major player in the Democratic party, like Governor Tilden, had any say over his own Veep? Furthermore, Tilden was against emancipation when it came up during the Civil War. The Democratic Party platform was against Reconstruction as well.

So whether Hayes or Tilden won, Reconstruction was going to end.

Oh, come on. Do you evaluate Nixon based on your opinions of Ed Muskie and Sargant Shriver? Do you evaluate Bush based on your opinions of Edwards and Lieberman? That's a very...strange...way of looking at it.

Well.. yes. It's a very strange way of analyzing Presidents without looking at the context of their time and the possible opponents.

And Bush would be analyzed by comparing him to Gore/Lieberman and Kerry/Edwards and whether they would have done a better job. Both Lieberman and Edwards were fairly similar to their President-nominees in main beliefs.


Btw, some other things about Hayes:

http://elections.harpweek.com/09Ver2Controversy/biofull.asp?UniqueID=1&Year=1876

Hayes took office with many Americans believing he had been elected by fraud, with a Democratic majority in the House (and also in the Senate after 1878), and with his own party divided into rival and often hostile factions. With diligence and integrity the new president was able to overcome some of those impediments. He was assisted by talented cabinet members, especially Secretary of State William Evarts, Treasury Secretary John Sherman, and Interior Secretary Carl Schurz. Hayes formally ended Reconstruction by removing the remaining federal troops from political duty in the South; he advanced the cause of civil service reform, laying the foundation for the latter passage of the Pendleton Act (1883); and he saw to the enforcement of the Resumption of Specie Act, which placed the United States back on the gold standard. His pragmatic, measured response to the Great Railroad Strike of 1877—remaining neutral between strikers and management, and only allowing the limited use of federal troops to keep the peace when state or local officials requested assistance—probably saved lives and property. By the end of his term, economic prosperity had returned. A supporter of a single-term presidency, he declined to run for reelection.

In retirement, Hayes continued to speak out on public issues, supporting veterans’ pensions and the federal regulation of business (e.g., the Interstate Commerce Act). Committed to the diffusion and progress of education, he served as trustee of the Peabody Fund, a charity aimed at educating poor Southern blacks and whites, and as first president of the Slater Fund, established to aid the education of blacks. He urged Congress to allocate monies to supplement educational funding in poor states and territories. He was on the board of trustees of The Ohio State University, Ohio Wesleyan University, and Western Reserve University. He also served as president of the National Prison Association, and opposed the death penalty.

[Dinner]

Carter had notable successes including anti-corruption legislation, the signing of the first middle east peace agreement, strengthing consumer protection laws, and improving relations/pushing for democracy in Latin America. He wasn't one of the best but he sure wasn't won of the worst either.

Grant had to be the most corrupt man to ever be President; he got kick backs on his kick backs and he spent most of his time drunk.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Grant's drunkeness is highly exaggerated.

Oh, and there is little to no proof that Grant profited from any corruption in the White House, but he did do nothing when he found out about it.

[molly bloom]

Reagan, for not knowing his ethics from his elbow, and helping to prolong the life of the apartheid regime in South Africa, whilst also propping up a horde of tyrants, despots and dictators, from the Americas, through Africa to Asia, and giving aid to fanatics, war criminals and terrorists, all the time bleating about the Soviet Evil Empire.


Nixon- for doing his very level crooked, potty-mouthed, best, to demean an office which had once been filled by people of the calibre of Thomas Jefferson, who for all his faults, seems like St. Francis of Assisi in comparison.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Agathon
How can anyone say that FDR is the worst? He's the best president the US ever had, as Churchill is the best Prime Minister the UK ever had.

Best wartime PM probably, but Churchill was an awful peacetime leader .