Who would you say is the worst President this country has ever had? I would ask people to except the current President from this, because it is way to early to judge a presidency before it is over.
My choice would be Rutheford P. Hayes. He was best known for the accusations of fraud that got him elected, and for the Teapot Dome scandal. I can't think of anything positive he accomplished.

Grant has to be right up near the top of the list. He was proof that good soldiers don't always make good Presidents.

He appointed cronies to high office with no thought to their qualifications, he alienated the defeated South through his harsh reconstruction measures and he proved to be generally incompetent during his two terms of office.

I would like to cast a vote for Warren Gamaliel Harding, a relative of my own grandpa. (sorry, grandpa, but he was the first to admit that this guy was one of the worst).

A handsome, thoroughly incompetent man who really should have been a farmer, he was rumored to have been in the Klan, appointed his Ohio Gang of cronies to important offices, played poker and drank steadily in the White House, and carried on at least one extra-marital affair during office ( tho, in all fairness, his wife was a real battle-ax). She is rumored to have poisoned him while he was on a trip to San Francisco ---he died suddenly, June 1923.

hillary

Grant

William McKinley. With the decision to annex the Philippines, rather than grant it independence, America began it's long and bloody history of foreign intervention for imperialism's sake.

Clinton....I think he made America a laughing stock with all his lies. That stuff with Monica just went on and on. I remember him coming on tv denying it all to the American public. Then, finally he owned up to it. It seems some people treat him like he's God or something. He was messing around on Hillary even when he was governor here as well.....

I remember when they opened up the Clinton Library here. It seems like that was ALL people talked about. I kept thinking, have you forgotten what a liar this man was to all of us? Such a disgrace......

Hey Imagineer, can we exclude Clinton from the current thread as well? It would be a damn shame to have this thread reduced to such petty politics.

Andrew Johnson - his many racist views, "the black codes," his method to veto any bill that came his way that was for equality for blacks and whites, his overall incompetence while in office, the OTHER impeached president, and basically destroyed what little prestige, honor and Civil War peace Lincoln had worked for so long to get.

Originally posted by southernlady
Clinton....I think he made America a laughing stock with all his lies.

I think you greatly overestimate the extent to which people in other countries care about such things.

I respected the hosts request to not put Bush down since his term isn't over yet. If this is a thread where we can only pick certain people, then maybe the host should have done that. But Imagineer didn't do that. I know alot of people who think Clinton is the best President of all time. Frankly, I respect their opinion even though I don't agree with it. That's the beauty of living in a free country. To be honest, if your President is in trouble every time you turn around because he can't keep his snake in the cage, then in my opinion, you are a laughing stock. I don't think it's all about what other countries think of us. I care more about what Americans think of their country, then I do of what other countries think of us. I think Americans were so sick and tired of hearing about it on a daily basis.

If this is a thread where we can only pick certain people, then maybe the host should have done that.

The idea is to provide a historical perspective to those of us who don't have sixty years perspective with which to judge current events. Not to give people a soapbox to rail against all of America's perceived 'problems'. I would say the same if Freethinker got up here and bitched about Reagan or Bush Sr.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Hey Imagineer, can we exclude Clinton from the current thread as well? It would be a damn shame to have this thread reduced to such petty politics.

I would prefer not to have the thread reduced to petty politics as well. I wanted to include all the Presidents who have completed their terms, but I understand that it is difficult to be objective about very recent Presidents.
Certainly Clinton's behavior is part of his legacy, but he did many other things as well. History may judge him differently than our current perceptions of him.
Certainly, many other Presidents had affairs while in office. For the most part they were not made public at the time they occurred, but they did happen. Among the philanderers were Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Ike Eisenhower, and John F. Kennedy. There may be others that history never discovered. Clinton's big mistake was getting caught.

That is absolutely true. The press admired and liked Kennedy for his wit and looked the other way.
Personally I could care less if a President has an affair--that's his business--I try to judge his term by other things.
It's true tho, that rampant philandering could possibly leave a man in office open to blackmail. I wonder if that ever happened to some of these men.
Then there's the scurrilous tale of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings. He was not in office when this supposed affair took place tho---this story is absolutely false.

Originally posted by southernlady
Clinton....I think he made America a laughing stock with all his lies. That stuff with Monica just went on and on. I remember him coming on tv denying it all to the American public. Then, finally he owned up to it. It seems some people treat him like he's God or something. He was messing around on Hillary even when he was governor here as well.....

I just wanted to add something if your pissed because a prez. had afairs or lied then you've got a much longer list to look at then just Billy bob.

What about Nixon or Carter, I've seen people bitch about them in the political forum but no mention here???

Despite Watergate, Nixon will go down as a better than averag president. He did more to advance civil rights than most presidents, achieved reapproachment with Communist China, ended the Viet Nam War.

Carter on the other hand will go down as a pleasant but non-effective president.

Nixon kept us in Vietnam for the sole purpose of getting himself re-elected. THEN he got us out as quick as you please. THAT was his "secret plan to end the war". What a tragic farce!

I don't know the details, but that sounds like an effective way to play politics. I don't blame him for it.

Originally posted by silverbulletkc
Andrew Johnson - his many racist views, "the black codes," his method to veto any bill that came his way that was for equality for blacks and whites, his overall incompetence while in office, the OTHER impeached president, and basically destroyed what little prestige, honor and Civil War peace Lincoln had worked for so long to get.

Andrew Johnson was so inebriated at one of his speehes ( I believe it was his inaugeration) that he made a spectacle out of himself and the newspapers of the time tittered about it for WEEKS.
Anyone who thinks the papers are mean now should have seen them THEN.

I believe that excessive drinking (Grant, Harding, Johnson, possibly Nixon) and drug usage (Kennedy) has caused a lot more problems for presidents than affairs. Kennedy had quite the drug problem--besides regularly smoking pot, he also took speed, which wasn't considered dangerous then. There's a story that he got high in the Oval Office once and said it would be a laugh if the Russians launched missles at that very moment. A Secret Service man has verified the truth to this story. He would also get regular injections of speed and was high on this when he met with Kruschev at their Vienna Summit meeting.

Gee, first I wuz gonna say Bury Goldwater, but he never made it ta the top...


Nixon endeared hisself ta the common folk by teachin' mere Plumbers how ta BREAK IN ta politics... (True "tricky Dick" kinda bugged every buddy, some say even hisself... That's why it's said he had a bug up his... )


But then I remembered who saved our country from the Grenada threat...



Two quotes ALONE are worth rememberin':


1) "It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so."


and...


2) "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." (1981)


Ronnie also reminded us that SS storm troopers buried at Bittburg wuz every bit as much a victim as Jews who died in gas chambers...


Finally, Ronnie assured a troubled nation that there wuz never any arms fer hostages...


And he wuz backed by by Ollie North whose career went South after it wuz determined he warn't exactly no Colonel of Truth...



I alwayz wundered why Rebublicans wasted so much money on Reagan's coffin at the funeral when a simple plastic bag woulda been so much more fiscally prudent...



Don't Rightwinkers believe in sentimental good buys no more?



:(

As fer Warren Harding, at least he wuz HONEST about how DISHONEST he wuz...


(Gotta luv that Teapot Domer fer at least that much...)


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/amerpres/presidents/pres29/pres29_intro.html

Been awhile since I've posted, but after reading this I had to reply:

A president's personal affairs and whether he drinks or does drugs makes no difference in retrospect. Drugs and sex scandals may be a reason to not vote for someone, but the job they hold is to run our country. I could care less if our president was a crack addled sex fiend if he kept our economy going, kept peace and our allies close, and kept us moving forward towards civil and democratic ideals.

To southerlady. I hate to see such petty things as a family matter change your opinion of how the president ran the country. It seems you would rather have a smooth talking model for president, an eye candy for the other countries.

As for who I think is the worst president; after considering the values that I hold: the economy, civil and democratic ideals and world allies; I still have to go with Bush. You said not to because it is difficult to judge him so far, yet no other president has declared war under false pretenses, trampled on our privacy this much, and distanced so many allies. Not to mention our declining economy and the new addition of church to the government.

Welcome back Wind Wip. :)

Originally posted by WindWip
Bush.

:hitout: :bike: slap slap you weren't suppose to say that name, now you won't get a cookie. GET TO YOUR ROOM!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by WindWip
Been awhile since I've posted, but after reading this I had to reply:

A president's personal affairs and whether he drinks or does drugs makes no difference in retrospect. Drugs and sex scandals may be a reason to not vote for someone, but the job they hold is to run our country. I could care less if our president was a crack addled sex fiend if he kept our economy going, kept peace and our allies close, and kept us moving forward towards civil and democratic ideals.

To southerlady. I hate to see such petty things as a family matter change your opinion of how the president ran the country. It seems you would rather have a smooth talking model for president, an eye candy for the other countries.

As for who I think is the worst president; after considering the values that I hold: the economy, civil and democratic ideals and world allies; I still have to go with Bush. You said not to because it is difficult to judge him so far, yet no other president has declared war under false pretenses, trampled on our privacy this much, and distanced so many allies. Not to mention our declining economy and the new addition of church to the government.


You make some good points but I don't believe that a president can do a reasonably good job if his brains are addled by alcohol or chemicals. Excessive use of such can create paranoia even.

Also, what Bush has done---this is nothing new in American history. Wilson "lied" to us about WWI---the sinking of the Lusitania is but one example. Lincoln did away with habeus corpus during his presidency and all but strangled the northern press.

Originally posted by WindWip
Been awhile since I've posted, but after reading this I had to reply:

A president's personal affairs and whether he drinks or does drugs makes no difference in retrospect. Drugs and sex scandals may be a reason to not vote for someone, but the job they hold is to run our country. I could care less if our president was a crack addled sex fiend if he kept our economy going, kept peace and our allies close, and kept us moving forward towards civil and democratic ideals.

To southerlady. I hate to see such petty things as a family matter change your opinion of how the president ran the country. It seems you would rather have a smooth talking model for president, an eye candy for the other countries.

As for who I think is the worst president; after considering the values that I hold: the economy, civil and democratic ideals and world allies; I still have to go with Bush. You said not to because it is difficult to judge him so far, yet no other president has declared war under false pretenses, trampled on our privacy this much, and distanced so many allies. Not to mention our declining economy and the new addition of church to the government.

I agree with your criticisms of President Bush, however he is not the only president to have done such things. As was mentioned, Woodrow Wilson lied about the circumstances of the Lusitania sinking, Lyndon Johnson lied about the incidents that led to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that authorized the War in Vietnam. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and muzzled the press during the Civil War. There were prosecutions during World War I for publishing anti-war newspaper articles. During World War II, all persons of Japanese descent on the west coast were imprisoned and their property siezed, even if they had been American citizens for several generations.
More recently, President Johnson engaged in illegal surveillance and harrassment of those who opposed the war in Vietnam. We should not forget the Watergate scandal, with the "plumbers" unit who staged illegal break-ins at the Democratic Party Headquarters and the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist. There was also his practice of subjecting political opponents to punitive audits by the IRS.
I prefer to wait until all the facts are in to make judgements as to the best or worst overall performance. I would have to agree that President Bush is on his way toward being the worst, but I will suspend final judgement until his term is over, and all the facts have been determined.

Originally posted by Imagineer
I agree with your criticisms of President Bush, however he is not the only president to have done such things. As was mentioned, Woodrow Wilson lied about the circumstances of the Lusitania sinking, Lyndon Johnson lied about the incidents that led to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that authorized the War in Vietnam. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and muzzled the press during the Civil War. There were prosecutions during World War I for publishing anti-war newspaper articles. During World War II, all persons of Japanese descent on the west coast were imprisoned and their property siezed, even if they had been American citizens for several generations.
More recently, President Johnson engaged in illegal surveillance and harrassment of those who opposed the war in Vietnam. We should not forget the Watergate scandal, with the "plumbers" unit who staged illegal break-ins at the Democratic Party Headquarters and the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist. There was also his practice of subjecting political opponents to punitive audits by the IRS.
I prefer to wait until all the facts are in to make judgements as to the best or worst overall performance. I would have to agree that President Bush is on his way toward being the worst, but I will suspend final judgement until his term is over, and all the facts have been determined.

Good post, imagineer.
Here is what happened to Eugene Debs, labor leader who spoke out against World War I and America's involvement:

On June 16, 1918 Debs made an anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio, protesting World War I, and was arrested under the Sedition Act of 1918. He was convicted and sentenced to serve ten years in prison and disenfranchised for life.



I agree, let's let history judge Bush's term. It's too early as yet to tell what the effects of his administration will be on the next generations.

"I agree, let's let history judge Bush's term...."



"Uh, who gits ta WRITE history? Either when it jest HAPPENED or even a hundred years after?"--In Odder Words




"We wish the pale faces would RIGHT history, not write it. But who is the write-wink in the write house these days?"-- Geronimo! I think ya jest SAID sumthin'...




www. or am i openin' up a can of Campbell's soup? .edu



www. oopz, a can of worms? Sorry Senator Campbell? Don't throw me outta here, I might know how ta do an uchi-mata-sukashi... .edu



;)

"You make some good points but I don't believe that a president can do a reasonably good job if his brains are addled by alcohol or chemicals. Excessive use of such can create paranoia even."-- rendova



Yep, gotta be some truth ta THAT, rendova, my friend...




JFK, who wuz constantly takin' PAIN pillz fer his PT-49 back pains wuz so "outta it" that he OVER-RODE the advice of saner military generals who DEMANDED that the U.S. INVADE Cuba durin' the confrontation of '62...


JFK, that "buzzed out on pain pillz" prez of ours only let us BLOCKADE Cuba 'n wait fer Khruschev's next move...



Let's not praise him fer what he had the WISDOM 'n COURAGE ta do...



...let's jest apply a pre-conceived notion that "a president can do a reasonably good job if his brains are addled by alcohol or chemicals. Excessive use of such can create paranoia even...."




www. it wuz a general mistake back then ta believe that Cuba's missiles at that time wuzn't ALREADY armed 'n "good ta go"... .edu



think that'salottacrap?



Well, after JFk wuz shamefully removed from office by bullets, not ballets, WHY didn't the CIA CONTINUE ta harrass 'n eventually invade Cuba ta this day?



www. some say the generals got so scared after they fucked up ONCE, even TWICE (by "removin' " JFK, that they wundered if Castro STILL had a nuke or two up his sleeve...) Time ta pick on Iran these days... .edu

OOPZ!



"JFK, who wuz constantly takin' PAIN pillz fer his PT-49 back pains wuz so "outta it" that he OVER-RODE the advice of saner military generals who DEMANDED that the U.S. INVADE Cuba durin' the confrontation of '62... "



Uh, PT-109...



"Any buddy who says Odder ain't no JFK don't hafta Quayle such rumors... I remain in total AWE that we once had such as he fer our President durin' times of more promise... "--In Odder Words

Originally posted by In Odder Words




"Uh, who gits ta WRITE history? Either when it jest HAPPENED or even a hundred years after?"--In Odder Words







;)

You mean, like what was written about Lincoln in both the Southern and NORTHERN press?
"Ape" "baboon" "idiot" etc.

A historian needs balance, needs to look at the big picture. --the long -term effect. It's also dangerous to try to get a balanced view from newspapers only, who are, by and large, unbalanced. They're out to sell themselves, basically.

I'll leave the Kennedy post alone. Not my strong point, his term. What I have read about him is unflattering, in many sources.

It would be nice to keep current day politics out of a history thread but I suppose that's unavoidable.

From FDR in 1941:

"I am a juggler, and I never let my right hand know what my left hand does ... I am quite happy to mislead and to tell untruths if it will help to win the war."

This speaks volumes about how much our political culture has changed since then. There is also a lesson to be learned from the master politician: don't hand your opponents a club with which they can beat you.

"I am a juggler, and I never let my right hand know what my left hand does ... I am quite happy to mislead and to tell untruths if it will help to win the war." This speaks volumes about how much our political culture has changed since then. heh...it does?

I klnow what you meant, it could just be taken other ways...

don't hand your opponents a club with which they can beat you.

Someone tell slim that.

Thanks Imagineer and rendova for calling me on that. I was ranting a little and didn't cover my bases, but I'd like to consider the circumstances of each of these prior presidents that you mentioned

Originally posted by Imagineer
As was mentioned, Woodrow Wilson lied about the circumstances of the Lusitania sinking, Lyndon Johnson lied about the incidents that led to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that authorized the War in Vietnam. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and muzzled the press during the Civil War... During World War II, all persons of Japanese descent on the west coast were imprisoned and their property siezed, even if they had been American citizens for several generations.

Woodrow Wilson did lie about the Lusitania for a more valid reason to go to war. But we already had a valid reason to go to war; boarders were breached and our allies were attacked!

With Nam, we had already been in the war when we decided to support the French with a billion dollars a year. The only difference is that we didnt start it and it was the French who were sending the soldiers. True, Johnson screwed up royally, but I would say that it was less of a screwup than if Nam was not in any military conflict, especially a conflict that we were supporting already. The real mistake was in supporting the French. For nearly all intents and purposes, that is when we entered the war.

The suspention of Habeas Corpus was wrong as well, but the war itself ended slavery. The end does not always justify the means, but in my mind it lessens the wrongness of the act.

And WWII Japanese internment camps: once again it was a bad decision made for protecting the US. Comparable to the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, also a wrong decision, though not anywhere near comparable to the wrong pretext for the war.

All in all, I don't think any of these compare to the pretext for the war on Iraq. The closest is the purposeful sinking of the Lusitania, but at least there was good reason for us to go to war, despite the lie.

Speaking of the Lusitania, there's some doubt even now as to exactly what she was carrying. The Germans insisted she was carrying armaments, which made her fair game as a war ship. (she sailed under England's flag). The German Embassy, just before she sailed from New York, posted warnings that the ship might be attacked. Witnesses later said they heard two distinct explosions and she sank incredibly quickly..IOW, like she was carrying explosives. But, the sub may have fired more than one torpedo. It's a controversy even now...but because there were prominent Americans on board,(one was a Vanderbilt) there was quite a to-do and this was a rallying point for us to enter the war.

IMO, if she was carrying weapons, under the rules of war, this DID make her fair game. The Germans were correct on this.

Not only that, but my understanding is that the Lusitania's escort was taken away directly before the attack and ships' course was changed; directed straight towards an enemy sub.

Quite a few people believe that the Lusitania was the sacrificial lamb which we purposely put in that situation in order for us to enter the war.

Wow--I didn't know that--that's interesting.

Didn't Dr Ballard explore this wreckage a few years ago? He said he found no evidence of explosives, but how could you tell? Also I believe some people have said that undampened boilers caused the second explosion (the Titanic had time to dampen her boilers). Yet other ships haven't done that and there wasn't an explosion. Interesting --also on a side note, the Titanic had an Astor, the Lusitania, a Vanderbilt--also odd. She traded off with sister ship Mauretania for records for fastest crossings.


(And we've come a long way from the Presidents topic but I find shipwrecks fascinating--maybe someone can start a shipwreck thread, lol.)

Bush is the worse EVER, he doesn't have to complete his term to be judged by me. He lucked out with 9/11 and rode that wave to shit.
Clinton the best.

Partisan rambling...

Whew, thank God. I was starting to go into withdrawal...

Originally posted by WindWip
Thanks Imagineer and rendova for calling me on that. I was ranting a little and didn't cover my bases, but I'd like to consider the circumstances of each of these prior presidents that you mentioned



Woodrow Wilson did lie about the Lusitania for a more valid reason to go to war. But we already had a valid reason to go to war; boarders were breached and our allies were attacked!

We were not allied with any of the combatants in World War I prior to our entry into the war. Certainly our trade interests were mostly with the English and French, however we were hardly allied with either. In fact, there was considerable bad feeling about the British before World War I. Up until that time, the English had never been on the same side of any conflict with the United States since before the American revolution. They fought against us in the War of 1812, and actively supported the Confederate side during the Civil War. There were still many Civil War veterans alive at the time of the World War I, and that was remembered.
Our relationship with France was better historically. They had, after all, supported us in the Revolutionary War. The rise of Napolean, however, considerably soured the relationship.
The majority of Americans wanted nothing to do with Europes wars. There was a sizeable minority in the midwest that wanted to enter the war on the side of Germany. I am from Milwaukee, and there was a sizeable population of German immigrants there. There were German language newspapers and schools at the time. Those were closed as a result of the declaration of war, and the suspension of civil liberties.

[i]With Nam, we had already been in the war when we decided to support the French with a billion dollars a year. The only difference is that we didnt start it and it was the French who were sending the soldiers. True, Johnson screwed up royally, but I would say that it was less of a screwup than if Nam was not in any military conflict, especially a conflict that we were supporting already. The real mistake was in supporting the French. For nearly all intents and purposes, that is when we entered the war.[/B]

We were supporting the French during the 1950's because of World War II. Unfortunately that led to our support as they attempted to regain their former colony, Indochina, which Vietnam was a part of. After the French withdrawal following their defeat at Bien Dien Phu, we were a party to the agreement that divided the area into various countries that exist today, along with France, Russia, and England. Vietnam was to be one country, although there was to be an interim period where it would be divided into northern and southern parts. There were supposed to be elections to decide on the new government, however the United States withdrew from sponsorship of those elections and they were never held. Shortly thereafter, the North Vietnamese started supporting an insurgency aimed at overthrowing the government of the South, and began infiltrating troops to aid that insurgency. During the Kennedy administration we supported the South Vietnamese by sending advisors to train their military, and by providing military aid. After the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed, based on lies told to Congress, we entered the war with combat troops.

Originally posted by Imagineer
They fought against us in the War of 1812, and actively supported the Confederate side during the Civil War. There were still many Civil War veterans alive at the time of the World War I, and that was remembered.





This is correct, and the Confeds may have rued the day that they asked for help from the British. According to some English lords who were camp followers of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, and reported back to England, the plan was, if the South had won, to take it over again as a colony, and eventually use this base as a springboard to attack the North--again.
You have to give credit to the English--they never give up.

Originally posted by rendova
to take it over again as a colony, and eventually use this base as a springboard to attack the North--again.


You think it's coincidence that Drew lives in New Orleans?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
You think it's coincidence that Drew lives in New Orleans?


HHHHmmmmmmm....sorry Redcoat!

Imagineer, you have quite an expansive knowledge of that era. I did not know that we had no European allies before the war.

Regardless, Germany attacked with the goal of taking over other countries. Their pretext for war was 'a buildup of troops' on their boarders. The more just side to join in this case would be those defending.

Im too tired to keep writing right now, but ill finish my response soon.

Windwip

Germany did not enter WWI with the intention of gaining territory. She entered WWI as part of a treaty with Austria/Hungary. If you look at the orders of mobilization during this period you will see that the war was not about territory but about treaty obligations.

Windwip, Here is a link to a good summary of how World War I started. It is worth looking at, because it is hard to believe that people could be so foolish in starting such a big war over something so small.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm

Im curious though, by the time we entered the war, was the goal of Germany to conquer? It is not very clear on when Germany changed from merely protecting their allies to conquering.

I believe that it is possible that Germany saw their chance when Stalin gave the order for their buildup of troops to NOT fire on the Germans even if the Russians were fired upon (about the biggest Russian blunder to date).

After Germany initially attacked Russia it did turn into a land grab. Germany kept pushing further and further into Russia, so my claim is that the treaty obligation was merely a pretext for war.

In any case, if the goal of Germany was to expand by the time we entered the war, then we could justly enter the war on the side of those who were defending against Germany, even without the Lusitania.

Originally posted by WindWip
Im curious though, by the time we entered the war, was the goal of Germany to conquer? It is not very clear on when Germany changed from merely protecting their allies to conquering.

I believe that it is possible that Germany saw their chance when Stalin gave the order for their buildup of troops to NOT fire on the Germans even if the Russians were fired upon (about the biggest Russian blunder to date).

After Germany initially attacked Russia it did turn into a land grab. Germany kept pushing further and further into Russia, so my claim is that the treaty obligation was merely a pretext for war.

In any case, if the goal of Germany was to expand by the time we entered the war, then we could justly enter the war on the side of those who were defending against Germany, even without the Lusitania.

I believe you are confusing the two world wars. Russia at the start of World War I was ruled by the Czar Nicholas. During the war, he was deposed and a democracy was briefly instituted. This was followed by the Bolshevik Revolution in which Lenin came to power, and Russia became a Communist country.

Stalin was the leader of Russia during World War II.

The Germans and Austria-Hungary did make some territorial gains during the First World War. It was nowhere near as drastic, however, as the territory seized during World War II.

Germany was certainly interested in gaining territory, mainly at the expense of France, however it is notable that England was also seizing territory. They took what today is called Iraq, Syria, Jordan, the Palestinian territories, and Israel from Turkey. France gained control of Lebanon.

Expansion of territory was something that both sides in the war were doing, and hardly an excuse for favoring one side over the other.

hahaha, well I think I need a refresher course in my history, but thanks for bearing with me

Windwip

There is nothing wrong with being mistaken. There is only something wrong with continuing with misconceptions when they are shown to be wrong. Lionel is right. You seem to be confusing the two wars, something that will probably be more and more common as they both fade into the distance of time.

Germany did not want to enter WWI and tried to get Austria/Hungary to lesses its demands on Serbia. In fact, no country, with the probable exception of France which was still smarting from its defeat in the Franco/Prussian War wanted war to happen.

Because armies were so large and unwieldy in those days mobilizations often occured even if war was not imminent. However, when one country mobilized all its potential targets also had to mobilize or risk being overrun. When Russia mobilized its armies and sent them toward Germany, Germany had little choice but to declare war. After that it was just one domino after another falling into the war.

Andrew Johnson.

I submit that the "worst" President has yet to be seen. The United States continues to exist despite the antics of all those listed here. The "worst" President will be the one to preside over the collapse of this great nation.

I submit that the "worst" President has yet to be seen. The United States continues to exist despite the antics of all those listed here. The "worst" President will be the one to preside over the collapse of this great nation.

That could well happen someday, and that would constitute a new worst in my eyes as well. Even more worrisome is the prospect of an American Caesar, a president who will change the republic into an empire. That could well also represent a new worst in a president.

Changing the republic to an empire - IMHO - qualifies as a collapse.

Civilizations don't "collapse." They generally decline slowly over a period of hundreds of years. It is something that one cannot attribute to a single ruler, let alone one that only rules for eight years at a time.

The leader of sect of Shiites called the hashshashin (known today as assassins), sent a delegate to Hulegu, the leader of the Mongols in 1256, with orders to kill Hulegu. The attempt failed and this prompted the Mongols to wipe them out.

The King of Carizme commended his governor's killing of 450 peaceful mongol merchants and killed mongol envoys that returned later. Ghengis Khan obliterated them. The Carizme Empire most definitely collapsed because of this king.

Third Reich, anyone?

Well being that we still exist, I can't say the worst president. But, the worst president thus far,I would have to say Lincoln. He disregarded the Constitution and attacked his own people, he didn't declare war before killing southern combatants and civilians, secession is a right that Americans have. If it weren't for secession, the USA wouldn't be here. Lincoln grossly enlarged the size of government. After him I would suggest Jimmy Carter.

Ha ha ha! A wannabe slave-owner joins our ranks!

Welcome, Charlestowne83!

Ha ha ha! A wannabe slave-owner joins our ranks!

Welcome, Charlestowne83!


wannabe slave-owner? You tink b/c I know Lincoln isnot the great man that history has made him out to be that i'm a wannabe slave owner? c'mon I know you are better than this, :lolhit:

Just giving you a taste of what to expect around here. It's alot of fun.

If it's anything like Anygivensaturday.com Don't worry, I can handle it. Thanks Sedan.

Charlestown, I gather that you don't feel that the end can justify the means?

the wors t president is George Bush.the best president i s Bill Clinton

I actually think Chester Arthur was the greatest President.

History has neglected him, but soon his real greatness, farsightedness, mercy, and profound insight about the American people and their destiny will be apparent to all.

(I'm writing a book about him!--soon available at a nice bookstore near you.... "Chester--the Man, the Myth, the Metamorphosis.")

Charlestown, I gather that you don't feel that the end can justify the means?

not if the means includes sending an army to kill civlians, destroying economy's and disenfranchising an entire region.

But to make the world safe means that I must kill one man that intends to do harm to entire countries, then my crime of Murder i feel would be jusitified

not if the means includes sending an army to kill civlians, destroying economy's and disenfranchising an entire region.
You would still stand by this claim no matter what it accomplished? I mean, if I created a hypothetical situation where this was the means to abolishing hunger/ending all wars etc etc...., would you change your mind?

Personally I would always weigh the end and the means. If there was a better way to end slavery then that would be fine, but I think that ending slavery was almost worth the war in itself.

Windwip, in my opinion the war had very little to do with ending slavery. Had it been over slavery the Emancipation Proclomation would have ended slavery in all states rather than just in those states in active rebellion against the Federal Government.

The war was a war between the industrialized north and the agricultural south. It was a war to decide one word. Before the Civil War the statements read, (The United States ARE). After the Civil War the statements read, (The Unites States IS).

HAHa, the "Blue and Grey" thread is back!
There was another B and G thread here in History--thought it died a slow death.:(

Frogger, you're right. The EP was considered a worthless peice of paper in the Confederacy, just more meddling by a hostile government with whom they were at war.
We could argue the causes of the War until the cows come home. But, to the Confederacy, there was only one reason--the right of a state to secede and govern themeselves as they see fit. States' Rights, if you will.

South Carolina seceded Dec 1860. Other states quickly followed suit. When Virginia went, Lee went with them, resigning his commission and saying he could not raise his sword against his beloved homeland. (How I admire him for this. ) Federal forts and weapons within Southern borders were seized by Rebel militia, and Union soldiers allowed to go home unharmed. However, a few forts were defiant, refsuing to give up without orders. One of them was Fort Sumter, commanded by Robert Anderson.

You know the rest...Lincoln took office March 1861. Within days, he sent Federal reinforcements to Sumter. There, at 4:30 AM, April 12, 1861, the first shots of the War were fired by Brigadier General Beauregard, commanding out of Charleston, SC.

643, 000 dead men later, it was over. And I'll say that most of them wished it could have been settled another way. As felt the Union soldiers writing home (see "Billy Yank") or the participants in the New York draft riots.

No one here argues the merits of slavery. The wrongness of this is without question. Yet the right of a state to secede is also without question.

This was our Armageddon. When the dust was settled, nothing was the same.
And the bad feelings continue to this day.

We can spend the next several hundred years wondering why.

Wow, well this shows how shitty public education gets. They painted a very different picture. But regardless, my previous post still makes the same point as a hypothetical situation.

I recall when my youngest son, then in the third grade, was given an assignment to write a 2-page report on a famous figure in American history.
He chose Robert E. Lee from a list of several dozen other individuals.
His report came back with a big "F" on the top--in all honesty, it was a scribbled work containing many misspellings--but what angered me was what else the teacher had written on the top of the page--

"Lee was a war criminal who should have been hanged."

Ah, politcal correctness.......sometimes a real laugh.:mad:

Lincoln may have violated the law but the Americans (and many others) were breaking the laws of humanity. Tyranny must be oppossed at every turn by every person even if it does not directly effect them.

"Lee was a war criminal who should have been hanged."

Isn't it great when teachers bring their own political judgements into the classroom?

Whats the American spec on President Kennedy

Whats the American spec on President Kennedy

There are thousands of theories....that it was the Soviets, Coca-Cola, the Mafia, aliens, hitmen involved with Marilyn Monroe, a group of political renegades, or an extremely skilled sniper by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald (the last one being the most popular). Oswald was killed, the factual evidence involved in the case ("The Warren Commission findings") are locked away until 2017, and the conspiracy theories have been prominent in pop culture, all combining to warping the public's idea of what actually happened.

They should be able to make a good 'cover up',I mean story by 2017.But what was he like as a President.

They should be able to make a good 'cover up',I mean story by 2017.But what was he like as a President.

They already made a pretty good cover-up, since the truth has eluded the public for so long. As for the president in his performance, he had a lot involved in his presidency: The Berlin Wall is put up, the Space Race, beginning of Vietnam tensions, the missle crisis with Cuba and the Soviets; all between '61-'63. In every list ranking American presidents, he always is near the top. He was a a pretty good politician and orator for the most part, took responsibility for some fiascos (Bay of Pigs), was a philanderer and a Catholic, young, and was a big thrust of "Americanization" in the Cold War. If he was not assassinated, America may have done better in the long run, but his legacy may not have been what it is now.

I may be wrong,but was Kennedy the only Catholic President,and if so,Would that have been a factor in his killing.

I may be wrong,but was Kennedy the only Catholic President,and if so,Would that have been a factor in his killing.

Only Catholic? Yes. Factor in the assassination? Most likely not at all. The most likely explanation for the murder was a great deal of power-playing among powerful officials, who wanted him out of office, or "used" him to set to set certain things in motion. Times were tense, it was the Cold War, and the things that went on were largely from the citizens' eyes.

JFK was heavily mob-connected, and pissed off a lot of the very people that put him in office.

JFK was heavily mob-connected, and pissed off a lot of the very people that put him in office.

Make that very heavily, due to his father's past life as a bootlegger during Prohibition.

I saw a History Channel special on the Irish mob, and the peak of the Irish quest for respectability was when they put one of their own in the White House. Irish gangsters are very different from their Italian counterparts. They worked alone, and were exceptionally vicious.

History will eventually judge John Kennedy as one of the poorer American Presidents. He did nothing of substance during his time in the Whitehouse. Truman ended WWII at least as far as the Japanese/U.S. part was concerned. Eisenhower started the interhighway system. Nixon had reapproachment with Communit China, they all did something. Kennedy folded like a cheap chair with the Bay of Pigs. He at first told the invaders they would receive air support and then left them to hang like laundry on a clothesline. He embargoes Cuba and then folded and removed our missiles from Turkey and promised Castro and the Russians we would never invade Cuba. He introduced nepotism into the Whitehouse by appointing both his brother and brother-in-law to offices for which they were not qualified. The country would have been far better off had Kennedy never been elected.

He embargoes Cuba and then folded and removed our missiles from Turkey and promised Castro and the Russians we would never invade Cuba. And he thereby averted a nuclear war. I wouldn't consider that a minor achievement.

Odd Frogger that you stated that he put his family into the White House,because that sort of thing is very widespread in Ireland,the old 'looking after your own',scenario.

Jester, through his indecision he got the U.S. into a positition it never should have been in. Had he been more decisive as President he would not have had to give in to the Russians.

Jester, through his indecision he got the U.S. into a positition it never should have been in.

Had he been more decisive as President he would not have had to give in to the Russians.

He "gave in" to the Russians because he was trying to make a deal. A very fair deal. We didn't want the Russians putting missiles in Cuba, yet you think we should have missiles in Turkey?

Obviously the worst President was William Henry Harrison.

From Wikipedia:

He took the oath of office on March 4, 1841, an extremely cold and windy day. Nevertheless, he faced the weather without his overcoat and delivered the longest inaugural address in American history, at nearly two hours (his friend and fellow Whig, Daniel Webster, had edited it for length). He later caught a cold, which then developed into pneumonia and pleurisy. (According to the prevailing medical misconception of the times, it was believed that his illness was caused by the bad weather, when, in fact, he was likely a victim of the virus that causes the common cold.) He sought to rest in the White House but could not find a quiet room as he was deluged with persons seeking his favor in the hope that he would appoint them to the numerous offices the President then had at their disposal.

His doctors tried everything to cure him, applying opium, castor oil, Virginia snakeweed, even actual snakes. But the treatments only made Harrison sicker and weaker until he went into delirium. He died a month later at 12:30 a.m. on April 4, 1841 of right lower lobe pneumonia, jaundice, and overwhelming septicemia, becoming the first American president to die in office. His last words were "Sir, I wish you to understand the true principles of the government. I wish them carried out. I ask nothing more." Harrison served the shortest term of any American president: only 32 days, 12 hours and 30 minutes.

LOL, our only Hoosier Prez--what a bust--he just had to stand out in the cold and rain with no coat or hat to show what a tough frontiersman he was. Ninny!

Surely Americas worst President is the present one,apart from dragging America into,what could turn out to be a Vietnam scenario,in the Middle East,on the domestic front,the vast riches and resources of the nation are being squandered on a war machine that has no direction.Security measures at home,which infringe on Americans more than aliens,and the entire Southern half of the country were foreigners 'walk in and out' at will',while tourists and business people are treated like theyve got the plague at airports

Surely Americas worst President is the present one
He may be bad...but worst? That is highly suspect.

Looking at America from afar,everyday on news channels its ALL negative,domestic and foreign,id hate to be the next President,coming in trying to sort out all that shit..

Clinton....I think he made America a laughing stock with all his lies. That stuff with Monica just went on and on. I remember him coming on tv denying it all to the American public. Then, finally he owned up to it. It seems some people treat him like he's God or something. He was messing around on Hillary even when he was governor here as well.....

I remember when they opened up the Clinton Library here. It seems like that was ALL people talked about. I kept thinking, have you forgotten what a liar this man was to all of us? Such a disgrace......

Yeah, um... I don't think this makes Clinton a bad president. It made him a bad man. Simple as that. In terms of his leadership ability he was at least sub-par, but far from terrible.

Surely Americas worst President is the present one

Considering that Bush did get us into an unnecessary war resulting in 100,000+ Iraqi civilian deaths, close to 3,000 American soldier deaths (hey, it's like another 9/11 except it was optional) and just general incompetence, I'd say he's damn close to the worst president ever. At the very least he's in the running.

Nixon kept us in Vietnam for the sole purpose of getting himself re-elected. THEN he got us out as quick as you please. THAT was his "secret plan to end the war". What a tragic farce!

And "Regan" conspired to keep the hostages in Iran till after the elections against Carter..., I believe that the dirtiest politicians have always been the Republicans ....

You would still stand by this claim no matter what it accomplished? I mean, if I created a hypothetical situation where this was the means to abolishing hunger/ending all wars etc etc...., would you change your mind?

Personally I would always weigh the end and the means. If there was a better way to end slavery then that would be fine, but I think that ending slavery was almost worth the war in itself.

The probably with the Ends/Means argument is that you can't use a hypothetical situation b/c you don't know the extent of the end. The means to end war might be to destroy a country, but that's just one end and we don't know what is all effected.

Lincoln and Carter, Top 2 worst Presidents