Ranking of U.S. Presidents by historians

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori..._United_States

Discuss.

[Betonov]

I'll leave the discussion to americans, but I just want to make one comment. Teddy Roosevelt #1

[tater]

The notion that these polls are even close to unbiased is of course absurd. Academic historians share the same overwhelming one-sidedness in political affiliation that other academics have. The book "In Denial" talks at some length (with publication statistics supplied) about academia's treatment of communism, for example.

Odd to see Johnson up there in the top 20 all the time, he was awful. Ditto Wilson, arguably the more repressive president ever.

[Sailor Steve]

I like that they show the results of all the polls taken over the years. Of course the rankings are biased. It's impossible for anyone to not have a bias, period.

I still put Washington first, because without his honest dislike of power our history could have been far different, and worse. When John Adams wanted congress to give him the title "His Excellence, The President Of The United States And Defender Of Their Freedoms", it was Washington himself who suggested "Mister President" might be more appropriate.

[Jimbuna]

America have had some excellent Presidents but IMHO Roosevelt was the most helpful and friendly toward the UK.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

America have had some excellent Presidents but IMHO Roosevelt was the most helpful and friendly toward the UK.

Guessing you mean FDR?

FWI there were two President Roosevelts.

[tater]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

America have had some excellent Presidents but IMHO Roosevelt was the most helpful and friendly toward the UK.

FDR was actually kind of scary when you look at his constraints on civil liberties—not just during the war, but also on private commerce in his poor attempts to fix the Depression (experiments that were actually counter-productive).

Down South, Lincoln is not well liked at all, nor was Grant. Depending if you believe in States rights or not - Lincoln was wrong and Grant was a war criminal. Thank God, Sherman was never a President! His actions in the South definitely equate to war crimes! (Burning down entire towns and cities and encouraging the raping and pillaging of your enemy IS a war crime)

You also have to consider that history has been rewritten to make some of these folks seem like national heroes. Lincoln is thought to be the man that ended slavery and racial discrimination in the US. This is far from the truth however. He didn't value blacks as ever being equals to whites at all. He even had slaves working for him throughout his entire life. He freed the slaves in the South during a time he had no control over the South. The South was a separate country at that time. His actions to free the slaves weren't based on compassion or even one of human equality. They were based on stirring up trouble for the South and to get blacks in the South to rise up against wealthy Southerners. Foolishly, many blacks and whites thought and still think it was about some rich white guy in power caring about blacks. How simple minded people are!

The Civil war was started because of Lincolns tyrannical rule and taxing system - NOT SLAVERY as is taught in many school systems these days. He tried to tax the hell out of rich Southern plantation owners and aimed a tax directly at them. it wasn't going to effect rich Northerners like himself and his family. When the South refused to pay this unfair tax, they united and agreed to secede from the Union. When told of this, Lincoln was quoted as having said, "Now who am I going to tax?"

If you watch the movie "Glory", based on the life of Col. Robert Gould Shaw and the 54th Massachusetts regiment, you will clearly see that northerners didn't value blacks as their equals. When the 54th was founded, Col. Robert Gould Shaw (a white man) was placed in command of an ALL black regiment. However, when it came time to pay his troops at the end of the month, his troops were only given 1/2 the pay of a white troop. All northern black troops petitioned this DISCRIMINATION to Congress and were eventually back-paid in full AFTER the war was over - considering of course they lived through it.

People should realize that when you win a war you get the advantage of talking bad about your enemy and making them look as evil as Satan himself. After all, they lost. You get the advantage of rewriting history because people tend to side with the victor. Nobody likes to hang with the losing side. Look at how we bash Nazi Germany today. Imagine if the Nazis had won. What would your history book tell you then? Of course you'd believe it because you'd be brainwashed that any other opinion that differed from your own was wrong, anybody who opposed you was a racist, etc etc etc. Just think, YOU'D be the biggest, proudest, Nazi in the world right now!

That's how history works folks! It's filled with a bunch of untruths and personal bias. It's the fact that we'd rather side ourselves with the victor instead of the loser and that's exactly what makes us a bunch of sheeple willing to listen and obey anything we're told.

[MH]

Ronald Regan

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Guessing you mean FDR?

FWI there were two President Roosevelts.

I honestly wasn't aware....but yes FDR, the 32nd POTUS

Originally Posted by tater

FDR was actually kind of scary when you look at his constraints on civil liberties—not just during the war, but also on private commerce in his poor attempts to fix the Depression (experiments that were actually counter-productive).

I'll take your word for it because I can't say I know much about him

What I do know/recall is the way he helped the UK when she stood alone against the Axis

[August]

Originally Posted by thorn69

It's filled with a bunch of untruths and personal bias.

That is caused by rabble rousers on both sides. Take the stuff you just wrote for example. That evil Yankee Despoiler theme remains quite popular among certain segments of the south even today, mostly those who want to redirect attention away from the fact that their oh so pure southern ancestors bought and sold human beings like cattle and it took a huge and bloody civil war to get them to stop it. But the more it's repeated the more good people such as yourself begin to believe it.

Originally Posted by August

That is caused by rabble rousers on both sides. Take the stuff you just wrote for example. That evil Yankee Despoiler theme remains quite popular among certain segments of the south even today, mostly those who want to redirect attention away from the fact that their oh so pure southern ancestors bought and sold human beings like cattle and it took a huge and bloody civil war to get them to stop it.

I wrote nothing about evil yankees in my post. Re-read it and point it out. I'm not attacking the north but I am attacking the popular mistruths that originated from the north after the civil war was won.

Fact is August - northerners bought and sold human beings as well. As a matter of fact, it was done more in the north than it was in the south. The US Constitution even claimed that slaves were property of their owners and explained what to do about runaways. This is the same Constitution that many northern presidents used as a power basis and made no qualms about it while they were in power. You try to blame Southerners for practicing what was considered law of the time and paint them with the same vile brush as being all the same. Paint your northern brethren with that same brush while you're at it. They were just as guilty for slavery if not more so. Just because they won the war, doesn't give them the right to vilify their foe with falsifications and push the entire blame of slavery on them to boot. That's just appalling!

[tater]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Some stuff about the Civil War not being predicated by slavery

Nonsense. The reaction to Lincoln was absolutely about slavery, not taxes. The (brand new) Republican party was heavy with abolitionists. The South feared the new administration for that reason, it had squat to do with taxes.

This has been done to death, with modern state's rights people trying to paint the CW as "State's Rights" when it was all about a State's right to OWNB HUMAN BEINGS.

Originally Posted by tater

Nonsense. The reaction to Lincoln was absolutely about slavery, not taxes. The (brand new) Republican party was heavy with abolitionists. The South feared the new administration for that reason, it had squat to do with taxes.

This has been done to death, with modern state's rights people trying to paint the CW as "State's Rights" when it was all about a State's right to OWNB HUMAN BEINGS.

Um, No! You're completely wrong about that. Look further than your liberal northern school books. Do some research for yourself and you will see that the civil war didn't really have anything to do with slavery at all. It began based on unfair taxes that Lincoln aimed at the wealthy South. You can't escape from the truth. It's been written!

I know the truth hurts, but you must accept what you've been denied your entire life. Lincoln is not your savior. He was just a rich man who had blacks sewing his pants just like Jefferson had.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Do some research for yourself and you will see that the civil war didn't really have anything to do with slavery at all. It began based on unfair taxes that Lincoln aimed at the wealthy South.

In all fairness, I think the onus is on you here to show something.
"Nothing to do with slavery" sounds like hooey to me.

As far as I recall, the taxation/tariff system in place was put in place to protect Southern agriculture (cotton etc) and was unfair to the growing industrial North. Could well be wrong, mind. Anyone know?


EDIT - Just going to post this for some source material