Who was worst US president in the 20th and 21st centuries?

[Grave_n_idle]

True, but I was responding in general terms, assuming that the husband-y bit was only part of the post.

I'm not sure that handkerchiefs are worst extremes of Presidential spousal relations, even so.

No, probably not. Jefferson had no wife, I believe, while president, nor did Buchanan (who was supposedly gay and involved with a Senator).

And Presidents collectively seem to have had a little trouble keeping the snake in the cage, so to speak. Chucking a bit of cloth over your wife because she freaks you out seems fairly mild.

[Serrland]

True, but I was responding in general terms, assuming that the husband-y bit was only part of the post.

I'm not sure that handkerchiefs are worst extremes of Presidential spousal relations, even so.

No, probably not. Jefferson had no wife, I believe, while president, nor did Buchanan (who was supposedly gay and involved with a Senator).

Although in Jefferson's defense, his wife had died somewhere around the end of the Revolution (can't remember the exact year), and he wasn't exactly in the best psychological state regarding women.

[Farnhamia]

No, probably not. Jefferson had no wife, I believe, while president, nor did Buchanan (who was supposedly gay and involved with a Senator).

Although in Jefferson's defense, his wife had died somewhere around the end of the Revolution (can't remember the exact year), and he wasn't exactly in the best psychological state regarding women.

I wasn't implying anything, just thinking of the couple of bachelors we've had in the White House.

[Mike the Progressive]

He pushed America to its foreign policy heights. Though it did have some negative repercussions.

Some?

Some. You can find any President who was active in foreign policy to have some negative repercussions, from Roosevelt to Wilson to FDR.

[Chefdevergia]

George W Bush and Woodrow Wilson (whose handling of international affairs left us with the Treaty of Versailles which, in turn, culminated in Nazi-Germany). Wilson also imposed an undemocratic and an equally unconstitutional Sedition Act which was used against union organizers, socialists (Does Eugene Debs ring a bell?) and pacifists. He was also a man of the rich (the Federal Reserve anyone?). Morgan and Co were never happier.

Wilson also inflicted utterly vile James McReynolds upon the country for almost 3 decades. He should get double Crappy President points just for that.

Anti-labor, racist, anti-woman, horrible foreign policy...it amazes me that there are as many progressives as there are who still admire this man.

[Laerod]

He was a man who overcame those reservations and prejudices to do the right thing. A lesser man might have let the southerners go.

By 'right thing', we mean 'Union at any cost'? There's no reason to suspect he 'overcame' his 'reservations and prejudices'. He just had an extreme agenda which subsumed any lesser concern.

If that meant he had to emancipate blacks, it was a price he was willing to pay.

Lincoln was an abolitionist. The fact that he outlined in that letter that preserving the Union was his primary objective doesn't change that.

[Serrland]

Although in Jefferson's defense, his wife had died somewhere around the end of the Revolution (can't remember the exact year), and he wasn't exactly in the best psychological state regarding women.

I wasn't implying anything, just thinking of the couple of bachelors we've had in the White House.

Jackson was a widower, too, his beloved Rachel died in 1828. I recall reading somewhere that it took the already unstable Jackson and drove him into madness. He blamed Clay and Calhoun for killing her (they weren't exactly hesitant to discuss that she was technically polygamous for a brief period after her initial marriage to Jackson, through some legal technicality, if I recall correctly) by putting her through so much stress.

[R Ev0lution]

By 'right thing', we mean 'Union at any cost'? There's no reason to suspect he 'overcame' his 'reservations and prejudices'. He just had an extreme agenda which subsumed any lesser concern.

If that meant he had to emancipate blacks, it was a price he was willing to pay.

Lincoln was an abolitionist. The fact that he outlined in that letter that preserving the Union was his primary objective doesn't change that.

But we shouldn't treat him like some ultra-progressive visionary who fought for a future where white people and black people could hold hands and frolic together in grassy fields, and we certainly shouldn't treat him like somebody who viewed slavery as a deep moral evil that he desperately fought to eradicate in the name of justice.

Frankly, the reality is that he viewed slaves as worthless meat in the same way that the slave-owning Southerners who hated him did.

So, was he an awful President? Certainly not. Did he emancipate the slaves? He certainly did. Was he some selfless paragon who fought and died for racial equality? No. And we shouldn't make him out to be one. Because he didn't give two shits about any of the slaves he freed, and we're giving him too much credit if we start pretending that he did.

[Laerod]

Lincoln was an abolitionist. The fact that he outlined in that letter that preserving the Union was his primary objective doesn't change that.

But we shouldn't treat him like some ultra-progressive visionary who fought for a future where white people and black people could hold hands and frolic together in grassy fields, and we certainly shouldn't treat him like somebody who viewed slavery as a deep moral evil that he desperately fought to eradicate in the name of justice.

Frankly, the reality is that he viewed slaves as worthless meat in the same way that the slave-owning Southerners who hated him did.

So, was he an awful President? Certainly not. Did he emancipate the slaves? He certainly did. Was he some selfless paragon who fought and died for racial equality? No. And we shouldn't make him out to be one. Because he didn't give two shits about any of the slaves he freed, and we're giving him too much credit if we start pretending that he did.

See, you seem to be someone interested in evaluating Lincoln based on what he really was like. But then you ignore his steadfast and lengthy opposition to slavery, the cases where he defended former slaves in court from being enslaved again, and his cordial relations with Frederick Douglass.

[Tahar Joblis]

Lincoln was an abolitionist. The fact that he outlined in that letter that preserving the Union was his primary objective doesn't change that.

But we shouldn't treat him like some ultra-progressive visionary who fought for a future where white people and black people could hold hands and frolic together in grassy fields, and we certainly shouldn't treat him like somebody who viewed slavery as a deep moral evil that he desperately fought to eradicate in the name of justice.

Frankly, the reality is that he viewed slaves as worthless meat in the same way that the slave-owning Southerners who hated him did.

So, was he an awful President? Certainly not. Did he emancipate the slaves? He certainly did. Was he some selfless paragon who fought and died for racial equality? No. And we shouldn't make him out to be one. Because he didn't give two shits about any of the slaves he freed, and we're giving him too much credit if we start pretending that he did.

Never mind the the records clearly indicating he did, indeed, give two shits about it.

Never mind his well-documented and close friendship with Frederick Douglass during the last years of his administration [and his life], in which are documented several episodes where Lincoln dramatically snubbed social conventions.

Never mind that he was opposed to slavery in the first place.

Never mind that he was deeply concerned with social justice on the large scale.

Never mind that he was the closest to ideologically communist of any president we've ever had - that he was an ultra-progressive visionary, who, had he lived long enough, would have been active in the causes later championed by Teddy Roosevelt, Ye Grande Progressive Republicane Presidente; who held labor prior to and superior to capital.

Lincoln's public statement about freeing or not freeing a single slave was largely political and had to do with priorities. In full context, it is perfectly clear he wanted all slaves freed.

[R Ev0lution]

But we shouldn't treat him like some ultra-progressive visionary who fought for a future where white people and black people could hold hands and frolic together in grassy fields, and we certainly shouldn't treat him like somebody who viewed slavery as a deep moral evil that he desperately fought to eradicate in the name of justice.

Frankly, the reality is that he viewed slaves as worthless meat in the same way that the slave-owning Southerners who hated him did.

So, was he an awful President? Certainly not. Did he emancipate the slaves? He certainly did. Was he some selfless paragon who fought and died for racial equality? No. And we shouldn't make him out to be one. Because he didn't give two shits about any of the slaves he freed, and we're giving him too much credit if we start pretending that he did.

See, you seem to be someone interested in evaluating Lincoln based on what he really was like. But then you ignore his steadfast and lengthy opposition to slavery, the cases where he defended former slaves in court from being enslaved again, and his cordial relations with Frederick Douglass.

It's important to distinguish abolitionism from anti-slavery. Abolitionists fought to end slavery because they viewed blacks as humans who deserved to be treated as people, and therefore, slavery as an institution that needed to end. Anti-slavery advocates are different. In a North that was becoming dominated by capitalistic wage-labor (ie: trading your time and work for money in a factory), the idea of another worker who could work for free was a threat to your livelihood. And, as Americans started to look West, Northerners viewed it as an opportunity to buy a small plot of land to raise a family and grow crops and make a modest, independent living, but these large, powerful Southern plantation-owners with small armies of workers and boatloads of wealth would've ruined that (think of how small businesses today get shredded by Wal-Marts and other brand-name competition). For this reason, they wanted to keep slavery out of the West. These were anti-slavery advocates -- they fought to end slavery because it was a threat to their livelihoods, their lifestyle, and their dreams. They did not fight to end it because they cared about the slaves. It's important to make that distinction.

Lincoln (like most then-Republicans) fought to end slavery, but was never a true abolitionist.

[Laerod]

See, you seem to be someone interested in evaluating Lincoln based on what he really was like. But then you ignore his steadfast and lengthy opposition to slavery, the cases where he defended former slaves in court from being enslaved again, and his cordial relations with Frederick Douglass.

It's important not to distinguish abolitionism from anti-slavery. Abolitionists fought to end slavery because they viewed blacks as humans who deserved to be treated as people, and therefore, slavery as an institution that needed to end. Anti-slavery advocates are different. In a North that was becoming dominated by capitalistic wage-labor (ie: trading your time and work for money in a factory), the idea of another worker who could work for free was a threat to your livelihood. And, as Americans started to look West, Northerners viewed it as an opportunity to buy a small plot of land to raise a family and grow crops and make a modest, independent living, but these large, powerful Southern plantation-owners with small armies of workers and boatloads of wealth would've ruined that (think of how small businesses today get shredded by Wal-Marts and other brand-name competition). For this reason, they wanted to keep slavery out of the West. These were anti-slavery advocates -- they fought to end slavery because it was a threat to their livelihoods, their lifestyle, and their dreams. They did not fight to end it because they cared about the slaves. It's important to make that distinction.

Lincoln (like most then-Republicans) fought to end slavery, but was never a true abolitionist.

Prove it.

[R Ev0lution]

It's important not to distinguish abolitionism from anti-slavery. Abolitionists fought to end slavery because they viewed blacks as humans who deserved to be treated as people, and therefore, slavery as an institution that needed to end. Anti-slavery advocates are different. In a North that was becoming dominated by capitalistic wage-labor (ie: trading your time and work for money in a factory), the idea of another worker who could work for free was a threat to your livelihood. And, as Americans started to look West, Northerners viewed it as an opportunity to buy a small plot of land to raise a family and grow crops and make a modest, independent living, but these large, powerful Southern plantation-owners with small armies of workers and boatloads of wealth would've ruined that (think of how small businesses today get shredded by Wal-Marts and other brand-name competition). For this reason, they wanted to keep slavery out of the West. These were anti-slavery advocates -- they fought to end slavery because it was a threat to their livelihoods, their lifestyle, and their dreams. They did not fight to end it because they cared about the slaves. It's important to make that distinction.

Lincoln (like most then-Republicans) fought to end slavery, but was never a true abolitionist.

Prove it.

Which part?

[Dyakovo]

Some?

Some. You can find any President who was active in foreign policy to have some negative repercussions, from Roosevelt to Wilson to FDR.

The negative repercussions of Reagan's policies are extensive.

[Grimlundt]

If by "worst" you mean "most wicked" that would be the one who was the biggest war criminal ... Truman dropped atom bombs on civilian populations.
I'd say he was probably the "worst" ...

Whether or not he was against slavery or for what reasons, Lincoln, btw., was also a war criminal.
O, yes, and gay. Lincoln was a queen!
O, yes, and may have had a pituitary disorder.
He was not, however, a Freemason

[Laerod]

Prove it.

Which part?

That Lincoln was never a true abolitionist. With credible sources.

[Mike the Progressive]

Some. You can find any President who was active in foreign policy to have some negative repercussions, from Roosevelt to Wilson to FDR.

The negative repercussions of Reagan's policies are extensive.

Of course, because we are still living in the aftermath. But I could make an argument that Wilson's weakness to address how to handle Germany during the inter-war years, resulted in the rise of Nazism and eventually WW2. A pretty extensive repercussion. FDR had the military train the Vietnamese guerrilla tactics that they'd use later against us in the Vietnam War. Pretty extensive for the soldiers who were sent there. And Reagan armed those that would later fight us and attack us (from Cole to 9/11).

Every foreign policy is going to have pros and cons in the short and long run. Depending on your politics, it was worth the trouble or it wasn't.

[Dyakovo]

The negative repercussions of Reagan's policies are extensive.

Of course, because we are still living in the aftermath. But I could make an argument that Wilson's weakness to address how to handle Germany during the inter-war years, resulted in the rise of Nazism and eventually WW2. A pretty extensive repercussion. FDR had the military train the Vietnamese guerrilla tactics that they'd use later against us in the Vietnam War. Pretty extensive for the soldiers who were sent there. And Reagan armed those that would later fight us and attack us (from Cole to 9/11).

Every foreign policy is going to have pros and cons in the short and long run. Depending on your politics, it was worth the trouble or it wasn't.

So explain to me what you think we gained from his policies.

[Grimlundt]

How American Presidents REALLY decide --
http://www.sonic.net/~kerry/bohemian/grovenukes.html


Down here in Australia, we have the "old school tie network".
The "old boys" make the decisions while standing at the urinal and then figure out how to trick the voters into going along with it.

[Farnhamia]

The negative repercussions of Reagan's policies are extensive.

Of course, because we are still living in the aftermath. But I could make an argument that Wilson's weakness to address how to handle Germany during the inter-war years, resulted in the rise of Nazism and eventually WW2. A pretty extensive repercussion. FDR had the military train the Vietnamese guerrilla tactics that they'd use later against us in the Vietnam War. Pretty extensive for the soldiers who were sent there. And Reagan armed those that would later fight us and attack us (from Cole to 9/11).

Every foreign policy is going to have pros and cons in the short and long run. Depending on your politics, it was worth the trouble or it wasn't.

I don't think you can put the whole weight of Versailles on Wilson's shoulders. The French and the British wanted Germany to suffer and I doubt that anyone, not even Wilson, could have stopped them getting what they wanted.

Ad just out of curiosity, sources for US military training Ho Chi Minh's fighters?

[Mike the Progressive]

Of course, because we are still living in the aftermath. But I could make an argument that Wilson's weakness to address how to handle Germany during the inter-war years, resulted in the rise of Nazism and eventually WW2. A pretty extensive repercussion. FDR had the military train the Vietnamese guerrilla tactics that they'd use later against us in the Vietnam War. Pretty extensive for the soldiers who were sent there. And Reagan armed those that would later fight us and attack us (from Cole to 9/11).

Every foreign policy is going to have pros and cons in the short and long run. Depending on your politics, it was worth the trouble or it wasn't.

So explain to me what you think we gained from his policies.

I don't think we gained much, or at least I think we sacrificed more than we should have to accomplish our "goals." But I'm biased against his foreign policy, so I'd be the wrong person to ask.

[Grimlundt]

Of course, because we are still living in the aftermath. But I could make an argument that Wilson's weakness to address how to handle Germany during the inter-war years, resulted in the rise of Nazism and eventually WW2. A pretty extensive repercussion. FDR had the military train the Vietnamese guerrilla tactics that they'd use later against us in the Vietnam War. Pretty extensive for the soldiers who were sent there. And Reagan armed those that would later fight us and attack us (from Cole to 9/11).

Every foreign policy is going to have pros and cons in the short and long run. Depending on your politics, it was worth the trouble or it wasn't.

I don't think you can put the whole weight of Versailles on Wilson's shoulders. The French and the British wanted Germany to suffer and I doubt that anyone, not even Wilson, could have stopped them getting what they wanted.

Ad just out of curiosity, sources for US military training Ho Chi Minh's fighters?

is this a reputable source? --
www.cracked.com/funny-2496-vietnam-war/

[Zohai]

It's hard not to be biased against someone who supports murderous bastards like the contras... He would've deserved to be executed for that alone imo.

[R Ev0lution]

Which part?

That Lincoln was never a true abolitionist. With credible sources.

Well, I don't have it on hand right now, so I can't quote it, but "Lincoln Reconsidered" by David Herbert Donald was an eye-opener for me. It's considered by some to be the best and most revolutionary Lincoln biography of all time. Chapter 3, I believe, dealt with Lincoln's views on slavery and his relationship with abolitionism.

If you'd like more information on the culture of the North and why they perceived slavery as a threat to their lifestyle and culture (but not necessarily as an inherently-evil human-rights travesty), I recommend Eric Foner's "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men."

Unfortunately, I live in a somewhat-small apartment with a roommate, so space can be limited. I have to be selective about which books I keep accessible and which ones I leave at home in a box.

[Mike the Progressive]

Of course, because we are still living in the aftermath. But I could make an argument that Wilson's weakness to address how to handle Germany during the inter-war years, resulted in the rise of Nazism and eventually WW2. A pretty extensive repercussion. FDR had the military train the Vietnamese guerrilla tactics that they'd use later against us in the Vietnam War. Pretty extensive for the soldiers who were sent there. And Reagan armed those that would later fight us and attack us (from Cole to 9/11).

Every foreign policy is going to have pros and cons in the short and long run. Depending on your politics, it was worth the trouble or it wasn't.

I don't think you can put the whole weight of Versailles on Wilson's shoulders. The French and the British wanted Germany to suffer and I doubt that anyone, not even Wilson, could have stopped them getting what they wanted.

Ad just out of curiosity, sources for US military training Ho Chi Minh's fighters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_du ... C3.AD_Minh

I also have a book from the era, but I'll have to give you a rain check. It's currently in storage, I'll grab later today or tomorrow :/

As to Wilson, you're correct. I press too much on him, when Clemenceau was the most vindictive. But Wilson was either naive or stupid in how he acted and negotiated there. He was so focused on his absurd 14 points of peace, he allowed Europe to re-establish their empire and punish Germany beyond necessity.