Ranking of U.S. Presidents by historians

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

My nomination would be a tie between Washington and Jefferson, with Andrew Jackson as a runner-up.

I haven't studied Jackson that much, but I would disagree on Jefferson. I'm a huge fan of the man, and as I've said before I read seven different biographies of him between July 2006 and December 2007, including Dumas Malone's titanic 3500-page 6-volume Jefferson the Virginian.

While I admire him as a philosopher and scientist, I believe that both he and Madison were brilliant politcal theorists who weren't all that good when it came to actually doing the job. They both had their good points as presidents, but they both suffered from short-sightedness as well. Jefferson's embargo against England hurt American merchants without affecting the British at all, and his idea of doing away with the ocean-going navy in favor of a bunch of gunboats was silly at best.

Now that I think of it, I always put Washington first because of his qualities as a man, but as an actual politician I think he was weak. He did manage to keep the US neutral in the Anglo-French war, but as soon as Jefferson stepped down as Secretary of State he succumbed to Madison's finagling and authorized that awful Jay Treaty.

As for Lincoln, you make some interesting points. I prefer to see him as willing to do what needed to be done to keep the country together.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I haven't studied Jackson that much, but I would disagree on Jefferson. I'm a huge fan of the man, and as I've said before I read seven different biographies of him between July 2006 and December 2007, including Dumas Malone's titanic 3500-page 6-volume Jefferson the Virginian.

While I admire him as a philosopher and scientist, I believe that both he and Madison were brilliant politcal theorists who weren't all that good when it came to actually doing the job. They both had their good points as presidents, but they both suffered from short-sightedness as well. Jefferson's embargo against England hurt American merchants without affecting the British at all, and his idea of doing away with the ocean-going navy in favor of a bunch of gunboats was silly at best.

Now that I think of it, I always put Washington first because of his qualities as a man, but as an actual politician I think he was weak. He did manage to keep the US neutral in the Anglo-French war, but as soon as Jefferson stepped down as Secretary of State he succumbed to Madison's finagling and authorized that awful Jay Treaty.

As for Lincoln, you make some interesting points. I prefer to see him as willing to do what needed to be done to keep the country together.

But Jefferson was a slave owner himself. Look it up! Some think he may have even raped black women considering they couldn't really refuse their master! Funny how you'd side yourself with a man with such evil morals and then ridicule the South for doing the same exact thing!

Jefferson was a typical Clinton minded person himself. On one note he hated the idea of slavery but on the other hand he just couldn't stop himself from supporting it. Sort of like how Clinton hated drugs but later swore up and down he didn't inhale! Heck, according to Clinton he was just using his penis as a tongue depressor to make sure Monica didn't have strep throat! It was ANYTHING but sexual relations in other words!

Why would you support these sleaze-balls and liars?

Btw, the greatest president in US history was "Ike". He's the only one that I can see that didn't have some form of personal agenda and did the job to protect American's and America alike. Washington as well, but then again, he didn't want the job and was just forced into the position. Being first makes him immune from having any scandalous personal agendas to use the country for his own personal gain.

Worst president ever - Lincoln hands down. Forced the nation into a bloody civil war that's still really not over. Just not as bloody these days. He did this for personal reasons despite the unpopularity of the entire thing. Nobody wanted to go to war. He got the war started. Charleston was in the South. South Carolina had already seceded. Fort Sumter was in Southern hands at that point. Lincoln invaded the South. There are stories on both sides about who shot first. Of course the north claims the South shot first. Typical. We did nothing wrong - yet you're warships just happened to be entering the harbor! Give me a freakin break!

Second worst - Obama. Probably going to lead us into another bloody civil war. Also promotes socialism and redistribution of wealth. All anti-capitalist ideologies and that have been proven to fail. Why work if you're going to pay people to be lazy bums? Where's the incentive for people to want to work? Also, people are not happy under socialism. Why? Because there's no self satisfaction in it. Life is a game. Nobody wants the government to play the game for them (unless they're really lazy). People like earning things on their own. People like to explore their options and grow on their own. When the government controls the people, the game is played for you. You're just a puppet and life is dull and boring.

Third worst - Clinton. Allowed international terrorists to go unchecked during his entire 8 year watch even when they attacked this nation during his first 4 year reign. While his economic plan seemed like it was working out well for the country, it eventually floundered when the trade towers fell. Thus, he really did leave a mess in GWB's lap and left him no choice but to engage in a war on terrorism that is still to this day draining this economy more and more.

He was also a sleazebag liar that womanized and cheated on his own wife during his watch. That's unacceptable! All signs of a person who thinks they are above God just because of their political position in the country. Also, because he appointed Al "freakin" Gore as his running mate. Talk about another disgusting sleazebag! He is currently under investigation for sexually assaulting a woman in Seattle. Hope he gets slapped with a sex crime. He's just disgusting! Glad his wife left his disgusting butt too! I can't see why she stayed with him so long!?

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Worst president ever - Lincoln hands down. Forced the nation into a bloody civil war that's still really not over. Just not as bloody these days. He did this for personal reasons despite the unpopularity of the entire thing. Nobody wanted to go to war. He got the war started. Charleston was in the South. South Carolina had already seceded. Fort Sumter was in Southern hands at that point. Lincoln invaded the South. There are stories on both sides about who shot first. Of course the north claims the South shot first. Typical. We did nothing wrong - yet you're warships just happened to be entering the harbor! Give me a freakin break!

Thorn69, I'm guessing you're from the South?

nothing wrong with that, its just interesting to see that feelings still run so deep 145 years after the end of the war.

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Thorn69, I'm guessing you're from the South?

nothing wrong with that, its just interesting to see that feelings still run so deep 145 years after the end of the war.

I grew up in Richmond, Va.

My mother's side fought for the North. Great Great grandfather was from New York and was a Capt. He died at Gettysburg. Don't know much else about him because I'm more interested in the South.

Father's side fought for the South. Great Great grandfather fought at the battle of Bentonville, NC and was wounded. He also fought at the battle of Battery Wagner (Fort Wagner), SC against the 54th Mass lead by Col. Robert Gould Shaw as depicted in the book and movie "Glory". He was an artilleryman as well as an infantryman with a NC regiment. He's got my respect wholeheartedly. Never owned a slave either. Just did what was right for NC at the time and fought for his State's right to secede.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Thorn69, I'm guessing you're from the South?

nothing wrong with that, its just interesting to see that feelings still run so deep 145 years after the end of the war.

That reminds me of an old story where a Northerner asks a Southerner "When will you guys just accept that the war is over?"

To which the Southerner replies "I guess when you damnyankees stop shooting at us"

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by thorn69

But Jefferson was a slave owner himself. Look it up!

After the books I've listed as having read on the man, you think you need to tell me to look it up? Of course he was a slaveowner, as were Madison and Washington. Have you read Jefferson's writings on the subject? He was conflicted at the very least, if not actually hypocritical. He tried to get Virginia to free the slaves twice, then seemed to slip into a torpid complacency. Jefferson is an enigma, and remains so to this day.

Some think he may have even raped black women considering they couldn't really refuse their master!

Yes, I'm very well versed on Sally Hemings, and can show you all the pro-and-con evidence if you have a few hours to spare.

Funny how you'd side yourself with a man with such evil morals and then ridicule the South for doing the same exact thing!

And you're attacking again, for no apparent reason. When have I ever ridiculed the South? I simply answered your allegations with facts, which you still haven't bothered to answer.

Why would you support these sleaze-balls and liars?

Jefferson was a true genius, and fascinates me, warts and all. What makes you think I ever supported Clinton? You seem to be making this up as you go along.

He did this for personal reasons despite the unpopularity of the entire thing.

Didn't you just get done accusing me of only siding with the "popular opinion?" Which is it?

He was also a sleazebag liar that womanized and cheated on his own wife during his watch.

Just like Ike?

I'm still waiting for you to produce facts rather than shout diatribe.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

After the books I've listed as having read on the man, you think you need to tell me to look it up? Of course he was a slaveowner, as were Madison and Washington. Have you read Jefferson's writings on the subject? He was conflicted at the very least, if not actually hypocritical. He tried to get Virginia to free the slaves twice, then seemed to slip into a torpid complacency. Jefferson is an enigma, and remains so to this day.


Yes, I'm very well versed on Sally Hemings, and can show you all the pro-and-con evidence if you have a few hours to spare.


And you're attacking again, for no apparent reason. When have I ever ridiculed the South? I simply answered your allegations with facts, which you still haven't bothered to answer.


Jefferson was a true genius, and fascinates me, warts and all. What makes you think I ever supported Clinton? You seem to be making this up as you go along.


Didn't you just get done accusing me of only siding with the "popular opinion?" Which is it?


Just like Ike?

I'm still waiting for you to produce facts rather than shout diatribe.

True, Ike tried to divorce his wife and was known to have marital problems BEFORE being elected. He was in a war zone when he found another woman, unlike Clinton who just had an affair with a lowly intern and never in his life was ever close to a war zone. Big time draft dodger!

Ike had his fling PRIOR to being elected and I'm not all that sure that Summersby's account is all that accurate considering her book was written way after (1977) the man died (1969). That's a bit low. Of course she got the last word so that makes her right in your book. Typical.

Might as well enter the fray.

Top of the list:
1: Jefferson
2: Jackson
3: Grant

Bottom of the list:
1: Wilson
2: Johnson (LBJ)
3: Roosevelt (FDR)

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Might as well enter the fray.

Top of the list:
1: Jefferson
2: Jackson
3: Grant

Bottom of the list:
1: Wilson
2: Johnson (LBJ)
3: Roosevelt (FDR)

That's a good list. Though I'd put JFK in place of your LBJ. It was JFK that got us involved with Vietnam. LBJ just went all out after JFK and destroyed all those innocent trees! Never hit crap as far as NVA and VC goes (they were underground getting a headache) but he did kill a helluva lot of trees. I got to give him credit for pissing off the tree-hugger crowd - F'n hippies!.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Might as well enter the fray.

Top of the list:
1: Jefferson
2: Jackson
3: Grant

Bottom of the list:
1: Wilson
2: Johnson (LBJ)
3: Roosevelt (FDR)

interesting choices, but why Grant? I have a lot of respect for him as a general, but he was not really cut out to be a politician.

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

interesting choices, but why Grant? I have a lot of respect for him as a general, but he was not really cut out to be a politician.

A small sub-quote, from within your quote:
". . . he was not really cut out to be a politician."

That in itself, is ONE of the big reasons why.

He also had the guts to say "no" to some very powerful people.
He paid a price for that too, but I'd prefer to stay away from that subject, for the time being.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Typical.

And again with the insults. I'm still waiting for your rebuttal of the Declarations of Causes documents. You haven't posted a single fact yet.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And again with the insults. I'm still waiting for your rebuttal of the Declarations of Causes documents. You haven't posted a single fact yet.

Most of these "facts" you've claimed are real are biased "he said/he said" arguments from long ago and aren't really facts Steve. It's always been one side's story or the other. People have to choose which side they want to believe in I guess. There's just as much "fact" on both sides of this argument. But what was really right back then Steve? Going to war against the South and burning down their cities and homes for choosing to leave in peace? According to the Constitution, they had that right. Would you condone a nasty war like that today if Obama wanted to invade Arizona for passing their law and enforcing it? Come on, you're smart enough to say "No" to that I'd hope! Anytime the government resorts to military use against it's own people in order to force policy on them - it's wrong. As you can see, Lincoln's goal of keeping the Union as a whole hasn't really kept us together. It's just lead to a back and forth argument that will never die. It's pointless to continue to argue. You'll never get me to see things your way and you'll never see things mine.

When you grow up in a city that had a lovely street called Monument Ave. lined with beautiful statues of some of the Civil war's greatest Southern Generals trashed with a statue of Arthur Ashe holding a tennis racket and a book, maybe you'd understand! It was obviously done as a slap in the face to anybody who has respect for the South. Or when Robert E. Lee Blvd got it's name changed to Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd to appease the blacks in the city and once again slap the face of Southern respect!

Richmond was the Capital of the Confederacy. It's also the city I grew up in a long time ago. Now it's being dismounted by sheer ignorance and people who for some reason believe the war was fought on the grounds of slavery. That's just ignorant BS! It's these same people who want the truth about the Civil war to be swept away. Funny how it's not us good ole boy Southerners that want it changed. We have nothing to hide. We want it to stay the way it is. It's history after all and a part of the foundation of the US and the way it is today. Love it or leave it!

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Most of these "facts" you've claimed are real are biased "he said/he said" arguments from long ago and aren't really facts Steve. It's always been one side's story or the other. People have to choose which side they want to believe in I guess. There's just as much "fact" on both sides of this argument. But what was really right back then Steve? Going to war against the South and burning down their cities and homes for choosing to leave in peace? According to the Constitution, they had that right. Would you condone a nasty war like that today if Obama wanted to invade Arizona for passing their law and enforcing it? Come on, you're smart enough to say "No" to that I'd hope! Anytime the government resorts to military use against it's own people in order to force policy on them - it's wrong. As you can see, Lincoln's goal of keeping the Union as a whole hasn't really kept us together. It's just lead to a back and forth argument that will never die. It's pointless to continue to argue. You'll never get me to see things your way and you'll never see things mine.

When you grow up in a city that had a lovely street called Monument Ave. lined with beautiful statues of some of the Civil war's greatest Southern Generals trashed with a statue of Arthur Ashe holding a tennis racket and a book, maybe you'd understand! It was obviously done as a slap in the face to anybody who has respect for the South. Or when Robert E. Lee Blvd got it's name changed to Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd to appease the blacks in the city and once again slap the face of Southern respect!

Richmond was the Capital of the Confederacy. It's also the city I grew up in a long time ago. Now it's being dismounted by sheer ignorance and people who for some reason believe the war was fought on the grounds of slavery. That's just ignorant BS! It's these same people who want the truth about the Civil war to be swept away. Funny how it's not us good ole boy Southerners that want it changed. We have nothing to hide. We want it to stay the way it is. It's history after all and a part of the foundation of the US and the way it is today. Love it or leave it!

Why don't you calm down, Steve is not your enemy. I happen to believe the Civil War was fought over slavery myself, always seemed pretty obvious. But no matter, if you disagree, that's ok. Just be civil.

Neal

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Most of these "facts" you've claimed are real are biased "he said/he said" arguments from long ago and aren't really facts Steve.

You started this by claiming the Civil War was not about slavery. For everyone's benefit I'll repeat the facts that you claim are only "he said/she said".

Texas

the Federal Government has failed to accomplish the purposes of the compact of union between these States, in giving protection either to the persons of our people upon an exposed frontier, or to the property of our citizens; and, whereas, the action of the Northern States of the Union is violative of the compact between the States and the guarantees of the Constitution; and whereas the recent developments in Federal affairs, make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and prosperity of the people of Texas and her Sister slaveholding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression:

South Carolina

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River. The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

Mississippi

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Alabama

WHEREAS, anti-slavery agitation persistently continued in the non-slaveholding States of this Union...

Georgia

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

I'm still waiting.