The Worst President in US History? 「Yes or No?」

[Arlenton]

So, you are saying that he could have just been neutral on the slavery issue? I really don't see how that would prevent secession, though.

Secession was the melting point. You seriously don't see how him being more neutral on the issue of slavery, rather than helping to heat things up, could have prevented secession?

I don't understand why you can't even fathom the possibility of these things. It's almost like you made a bet with yourself to stick to your guns on this argument and see how far it carries you.

Slavery was a hot button issue regardless of what the President did. Had he been neutral, how would that appease the South enough for them to stay?

[RiderSyl]

No one asked you to speak for me.

I was clarifying because of Arlenton's usage of "y'all". I've seen posters inexplicably fuse two people disagreeing with them into one party before, and I wanted to avoid that here.

[RiderSyl]

Secession was the melting point. You seriously don't see how him being more neutral on the issue of slavery, rather than helping to heat things up, could have prevented secession?

I don't understand why you can't even fathom the possibility of these things. It's almost like you made a bet with yourself to stick to your guns on this argument and see how far it carries you.

Slavery was a hot button issue regardless of what the President did. Had he been neutral, how would that appease the South enough for them to stay?

I just answered this. Had he been neutral on slavery, the secession movement would have been missing some of the fuel that Buchanan otherwise poured on it. It had nothing to do with appeasement, which I've already argued was an ineffective strategy.

[Arlenton]

Slavery was a hot button issue regardless of what the President did. Had he been neutral, how would that appease the South enough for them to stay?

I just answered this. Had he been neutral on slavery, the secession movement would have been missing some of the fuel that Buchanan otherwise poured on it. It had nothing to do with appeasement, which I've already argued was an ineffective strategy.

How did Buchanan fuel the Southern secession movement by being pro-slavery? The South seceded because they feared Slavery would be abolished by the incoming Republican President. The Republican Party existed prior to Buchanan's Presidency. Are you suggesting Buchanan could have prevented secession but taking a neutral stance and trying to stomp out the new Republican Party by minimizing the Slavery issue as much as possible?

If so, I am skeptical that a President playing neutral would have been enough to take the slavery issue out of the headlines.

If that is your reasoning, then I guess you have a point and it'd be fair to criticize Buchanan for not taking that rout.

[San Lumen]

I just answered this. Had he been neutral on slavery, the secession movement would have been missing some of the fuel that Buchanan otherwise poured on it. It had nothing to do with appeasement, which I've already argued was an ineffective strategy.

How did Buchanan fuel the Southern secession movement by being pro-slavery? The South seceded because they feared Slavery would be abolished by the incoming Republican President. The Republican Party existed prior to Buchanan's Presidency. Are you suggesting Buchanan could have prevented secession but taking a neutral stance and trying to stomp out the new Republican Party by minimizing the Slavery issue as much as possible?

If so, I am skeptical that a President playing neutral would have been enough to take the slavery issue out of the headlines.

If that is your reasoning, then I guess you have a point and it'd be fair to criticize Buchanan for not taking that rout.

Maybe not take it out of the headlines but certainly not fan the flames like he did and help
Cause the civil war.

[The Lone Alliance]

I'll agree Buchanan was pretty bad in that he seemed to just make things worse.
Jackson was a horrible person and his Presidency made him the Trump of the 19th century.
Johnson was a mess in the post civil war era.
Some say Grant was pretty but but I argue it's because he had been elected beyond his competency.
Wilson was a racist asshole.
Hoover made some bad calls but he actually started to make the right choices but it was too little too late.
I actually consider Nixon and Reagan to be pretty horrible presidents because they both set the economic and social motions in place to how things are now.
Right wingers claim Carter was horrible but his only problem was he was the right President in the wrong time. What we needed was Carter in place of Trump.
(Of course that means sticking Trump in the middle of the oil crisis, Afghanistan, and Iran.... yeah nevermind)

Yes, I think Jackson is pretty bad as well. Although I haven't seen any lists where he is number one. Is there a reason you dislike him even more than Buchanan?

I don’t know if worse, but he’s in that top. The Trail of Tears specifically, with Jackson.

The thing is all the Trail of Tears did was skip the middle man of what inevitably was going to happen anyway. One way or another the native Americans were going to be removed, either the easy way through the trail of tears, or the hard way in how they were removed every other time, by settlers encroaching on their land, the natives getting fed up and retaliating, and then the US army coming in and slaughtering them.

There was no option that was going to result in peaceful co-existence between the US and the native population, maybe a small group of natives would have held out and we would have had more reservations in the eastern states, but one way or another the native population was going to be oppressed.

However what he did after the trail of tears actually did tremendously harm the nation too. He gave the land out to people who allotted it out to large plantations. This in turn led to a bunch of new land for slavery to expand too, thus helping the southern system of Slavery get a new lease on life.

If you think "taking a hard stance against the South" is dropping a napalm bomb on the burning building, then it really explains how little you've got under your grasp here. The Civil War itself ended in large part because Union Generals became more aggressive and challenged the South. Sherman's March was so brutal because his objective was to demoralize the rebellion, and it worked. Leave a fire to burn and it will spread. Challenge the fire and you can contain it. Buchanan never challenged it. Buchanan fed it.

By 1864 the South losing the war tremendously, even if Sherman had burned nothing and just took a nice slow jog to Savannah while picking flowers along the way he still would have horribly demoralized the south simply because the Union just split the south in two yet again.

[Nooooooooooooooo]

I feel like for the poll options, there should be one where it's like,

"No, but you're still terible."

[Sanghyeok]

I feel like for the poll options, there should be one where it's like,

"No, but you're still terible."

I would add one, but there aren't kpop lyrics for that, I think.

[Sanghyeok]

Giving this a slight /bump, now that Trump's term is likely over unless he tries to use force.

[Luziyca]

Andrew Jackson is certainly on the #1 spot, given his involvement in the Trail of Tears. That said, Trump's definitely somewhere in the top 10, though knowing our luck, in 2024, we'll see Tom Cotton become President.

[Ethel mermania]

Andrew Jackson is certainly on the #1 spot, given his involvement in the Trail of Tears. That said, Trump's definitely somewhere in the top 10, though knowing our luck, in 2024, we'll see Tom Cotton become President.

Without jackson, the unwashed don't get the vote.

[Sanghyeok]

Andrew Jackson is certainly on the #1 spot, given his involvement in the Trail of Tears. That said, Trump's definitely somewhere in the top 10, though knowing our luck, in 2024, we'll see Tom Cotton become President.

Without jackson, the unwashed don't get the vote.

Unwashed?

[Ethel mermania]

Without jackson, the unwashed don't get the vote.

Unwashed?

Jackson brought the vote to all unpropertied males. In other words, the unwashed masses.