I say Zachary Taytlor or US Grant

When dealing with bad US Presidents, there are really two tiers.

The first tier is James Buchanan. So bad that nothing else really compares. The only debate, in my mind, is the rankings among the second tier of bad presidents.

The worst was Warren Harding. For instance, in 1921, Harding was induced by the Secretary of the Navy, Edwin Denby, to sign an Executive Order transferring control of the naval oil reserves at Teapot Dome, Wyoming and Elk Hills, California to the Department of the Interior. In 1922, Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall leased the Elk Hill reserves to Edward Doheny and the Teapot Dome reserves to Harry F. Sinclair, both without competetive bidding. The Senate investigation that began in 1923 showed that Fall had received more than $400,000 and Denby got $200,000 from Doheny and Sinclair for their services.

Three of Harding's cabinet officers went to jail, another committed suicide after he was convicted but before sentencing, and nearly fifty lesser officials were convicted of bribery, stealing from the government, and similar crimes.

Zachary Taylor accomplished noithing, and the roberts ridge scandal was disastrous

Zachary Taylor accomplished noithing, and the roberts ridge scandal was disastrous
He is still not as bad Harding or Coolidge.

I often read Nixon rated very lowly mainly because of the watergate scandal. While certainly he had his corrupt criminal side atleast he accomplished things on the elsewhere whereas Harding failed in general at everything.

I'm tempted to say Bush Jr. and Sr. for increasing the national debt to enormous levels and creating unbalanced budgets. Each even managed to spend more than Ronald Reagan who at the time was trying to end the cold war. I can't even begin to understand where all that money went to and why they felt the need to spend so much taxpayer money.

To me having such an enormous debt is probably the second most ruinous economic process (next to the stock market crash) the US has undergone.

I'm tempted to say Bush Jr. and Sr. for increasing the national debt to enormous levels and creating unbalanced budgets. Each even managed to spend more than Ronald Reagan who at the time was trying to end the cold war. I can't even begin to understand where all that money went to and why they felt the need to spend so much taxpayer money.

To me having such an enormous debt is probably the second most ruinous economic process (next to the stock market crash) the US has undergone.
Well they are not considered good presidents but not near the worst. I'd put Bush Sr., Clinton both into some middle category. Can't say for Bush Jr till hes done and we're some years ahead. Unbalanced budgets aren't nearly as bad people make them out to be.

Actually know that I think about it this is kind of a tough question to answer.

Take for instance Andrew Jackson who in today's standards would be considered a real jerk. Jackson forced the removal of Cherokee Indians from Georgia into the West (see Trail of Tears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears)) even though they were long time allies of the US and had assisted the rebels during the American revolution. Even though this act is immoral, one could turn around and say he helped America by expanding its power and land holdings. One could consider him to be a bad president for his rampant Expansionism, racism, and rabid Anglophobia but one could consider him to be a good president for his victory and the Battle of New Orleans, expanding the power of the US, and patronage of architecture.

He is still not as bad Harding or Coolidge.

I often read Nixon rated very lowly mainly because of the watergate scandal. While certainly he had his corrupt criminal side atleast he accomplished things on the elsewhere whereas Harding failed in general at everything.

Collidge was average. While he accomplished nothing, thats what the country needed, unmolested affairs

I think Abraham Lincoln was a bad president as he was the one who presided over the Civil War and if it werent for him that war may of been delayed or even avoided. However what do I know? I am only an Australian!

The most disastrous president is probably Ronald Reagan, just for setting up the whole Republican party's bussiness and debate forms. He got the debt rock rolling, as well. The consequences of that have yet to show in full...

The Civil War was economically bound to happen, Sheep, even if the southern Democrats didn't decide to split from the other Democrats, leading to a Republican being elected.

The most disastrous president is probably Ronald Reagan, just for setting up the whole Republican party's bussiness and debate forms. He got the debt rock rolling, as well. The consequences of that have yet to show in full...

Well written. :goodjob:

That guy who died......

Grover Cleveland, cause the city that is named after him is not a nice place to live (for want of stronger language) and the Sesame street creature named after him is annoying.

I think Abraham Lincoln was a bad president as he was the one who presided over the Civil War and if it werent for him that war may of been delayed or even avoided. However what do I know? I am only an Australian!

Maybe not the worst, but i'd agree with the sentiment. Lincoln was a two-faced agitator with a gorilla's face. His repuation is so exagerrated its unbelievable. Anyone ever hear that story about Lincoln walking for miles to correct an error he had made when giving a customer change when he'd worked in a shop in his youth or something? Outrageous.

I usually rate Jackson as the worst overall, he presided over a resurge of partisan politics, and also was a racist xenophobe who massacred innocents.

Ronald Reagan .

http://www.chez.com/miyazaki/galeries/porco_rosso/personnages/hr/curtis2.jpg

Harding and his crowd were the worstest! :eek: :(

Grover Cleveland, cause the city that is named after him is not a nice place to live (for want of stronger language) and the Sesame street creature named after him is annoying.

There's a city named after Grover Cleveland?

Cleveland, Ohio was around before Grover Cleveland ever became President...

...at least I'm almost certain...

I'd vote for Harding as well, I can't think of anyone who did worse. He accomplished nothing and had a major scandal.

Zachary Taylor accomplished noithing, and the roberts ridge scandal was disastrous

Both Taylor and Coolidge both lost their sons during their lifetimes, so they have an excuse IMHO. How can you run a country in a state of grief?

Harding on the other hand has no excuse, he was just an inactive skunk. He gets my vote.

Gimme a break people...this one is sooo easy.

Ulysses Grant, not really that great of a general. Still, he got elected like many American generals did after a great win. He did nothing and left it up to his cabinet...which was rocked with scandal after scandal.

[Note]: I make no claim I'm correct with my facts. :p I'm lacking a bit in Civil War history. Things I'm not sure on are identified in italics.

Well, Grant is no way near the top-tier, but I think he was an acceptable President. His presidency wasn't that bad... If you ignore the corruption from his war buddies. I think I remember reading somewhere that while he wasn't corrupt, the people he placed on his cabnet were. Plus, for a non-carrer politician, he came at a bad time.

My choice for worst president ever is Andrew Johnson. Only put on the ticket by Lincon in hopes his presence would re-assure the southern Demicrats, he was slapped into office after Lincon was asasinated. Probably the closest thing to a racist president ever, he messed with a lot of Lincon's reconstruction plans.

Now, while I agree Lincon is a good bit overrated, he was still a great president. If there weren't exagerations about the leader of the US during one of its bloodiest wars, I'd be surprised. He had a a good approach to reconstruction that would have peaced the country together well. But Johnson pretty much crapped it all up.

Wasn't the south in such turmoil during Johnson's presidency that Grant was forced to send troops to prevent total chaos? :confused:

William Henry Harrison or Nixon.
Harrison: was in office for only 29 days (i think).
Nixon: you know! :)

There's a city named after Grover Cleveland?

Cleveland, Ohio was around before Grover Cleveland ever became President...

...at least I'm almost certain...

It was, they have nothing to do with eachother.


Harding is probably worst, His friends were what was really bad though. I actually heard somewhere, honestly that Harding didn't know that much about anything his friends were doing, and probably would have stopped it. He was a very nice guy. abit Niave, but he did care. Him and his friends were from small towns, where corruption could be gotten away with alot easier, and didn't realize how bad it would get on a national level. Most didn't even understand why their scandals were as bad as they were I think. His "Ohio Gang". I am not sure anyone that was tied up in the scandals ever held anything more then a county office, before that.

Was JFK all the great? other than being shot and the cuban thing he was pretty bad wasnt he?

Also, Millard Fillmore and Rutherfors B Hayes were crooked crooks

Ohio has a history of producing a lot of terrible presidents. The best come from Massachusetts, New York and Virginia (and Illinois deserves an honorary mention).

Oh but the most fun presidents come from the south =). Scandaliscious. :goodjob:

Gotta love Old & Little Hickory. Manifest Destiny I say. Anyways, Lincold also broke the Constitution more than once during 1860, such as calling all those troops and declaring war on the South without congressional support. Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee were all still in the Union when Lincoln called for troops to quell the rebellion. Also there was allot of Southern sympathy in Kentucky, Missourri, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey since they were all slave states, so Congress may have voted down his War Decleration. If he would've just pulled his troops out of Ft. Anderson and Ft. Sumter, the war at that particular time may have been avoided, and the South may have eventually re-joined the Union under a different compromise. The majority of Republicans weren't against the institution of Slavery, but merely its spread into the west. They were as racist as anyone else. Free soil anyone?

Jimmy Carter was the worst. Gave away the Panama Canal, appeased dictators, dismantled the military, and was absolutely feckless during the hostage crisis.

Thank Gawd for Ronald Reagan :worship:

Yeah, Clinton was a sleazeball, but at least he had the Republican congress to keep him in line on domestic issues. The Democrats ran everything during the Carter years and the first two Clinton years and we can't afford to ever go back to those times.

Obviously D-Bear would not be a Democrat himself then. The problem with this thread is that Americans are usually Republicans or Democrats. Thank god Australia has a true democracy with more than just two parties capabable of winning seats and having their voice heard. hear hear for TRUE DEMOCRACY!

Gotta love Old & Little Hickory. Manifest Destiny I say. Anyways, Lincold also broke the Constitution more than once during 1860, such as calling all those troops and declaring war on the South without congressional support.
The United States never did declare war on the Confederacy.

Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee were all still in the Union when Lincoln called for troops to quell the rebellion.
So what? South Carolina had already fired on Ft. Sumter. Just because four states were tardy in joining the rebellion was no reason for Lincoln not to call out troops to quell a rebellion that had already started.

Also there was allot of Southern sympathy in Kentucky, Missourri, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey since they were all slave states, so Congress may have voted down his War Decleration.
Since, (a) Lincoln never presented a War Declaration to Congress and (b) Congress passed its own (not submitted by Lincoln) Resolution condemning the rebellion, I doubt that you have a point.

If he would've just pulled his troops out of Ft. Anderson and Ft. Sumter, the war at that particular time may have been avoided, and the South may have eventually re-joined the Union under a different compromise.
And if pigs had wings then everyone would have to wear a hat.

South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, 3-1/2 months later.

The majority of Republicans weren't against the institution of Slavery, but merely its spread into the west. They were as racist as anyone else. Free soil anyone?
Slavery was NOT the major question dividing the North and the South.

Southern politicians convinced a majority of their constituents that the North was threatening their way of life and their culture. Northern politicians convinced a majority of their constituents that the South, if allowed to secede, was striking a serious blow at democratic government. In these arguments, both southern and northern politicians were speaking the truth, but not "the whole truth". They knew that to say the war was a fight over slavery would cause a lot of the potential soldiers of both sides to refuse to fight.

It was also about the constitutional argument over whether or not a state had a right to leave the Union, and, of primary concern to most southern soldiers, the continuation of antebellum southern culture.

The South had other complaints. For example, there were high tariffs on imported goods. Since the South had essentially no industry, they had to pay these tariffs. That was the nullification argument was all about, southern states wanted to say that the tariffs did not apply to them.

Tied to this was the issue of states rights. Was the country a collection of sovereign states or not? Many southerners, such as John Calhoun, believed so. Many northerners, such as Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln, believed the opposite.

James Buchanan is the worst. Did nothing to realive the tensions between north and south and actually helped lead up to the 1861 crisis.

Intresting, Congress had their own decleration of war? And was that after the secession of the 4 Northern most Confederate States because Lioncoln asked them for troops to fight the South? And your right Lincoln never presented a War Decleration to Congress he just decided to raise troops and march. Hence the severe unconstituionality of his actions.
And those four states being tardy to the party was all the more reason for Lincoln not to raise troops. Thomas Jackson, R.E. Lee, Hood, J.E.B. Stuart, all of these men would've been Northern generals had Congress demed war necessary when their respective states remained in the Union. Not to mention the multitude of troops the 4 late seceeders contributed.
The South never threatened to attack Northern lands, unless they threatened expansion West from Texas and if they did I admit Im ignorant to those threats. They merely siezed all federal troops and supplies within their borders.
So lacking a threat of Southern aggression, had Lincoln, or Buchanan, recalled their men from Fort Sumter, the war wouldn't have started. Even when Confederate guns turned American ships back in January of 1861, neither side was willing to concede that war had begun. It wasn't until Lincoln's inaugural adress in which he stated that the government would "hold, occupy, and possess" federal property in the seceded states, and called any violence or acts of force in the secession "insurrecionary acts" thereby refusing the acknowledge the Confederate States of America as a seperate Country he made his plans for Northern aggression quite clear. Furthermore, Beauregard didn't fire on Ft. Sumter until Lincoln dispatched official Union warships, granted they were supply ships, to restock Ft. Sumter which was alrady a lost cause.

Also, I noticed you didn't address John J. Crittenden's proposed compromise. The heart of which was to reestablish the Missourri Compromise line and extend it Westward to the Pacific coast. The Southern senators seemed willing to accept this compromise but it was rejected by Lincoln's Republicans because it violated their most fundamental expansion- that slavery not be able to expand. Not that slavery be abolished, only that it not be able to expand.

I never said Slavery was a main cause of the war I merely cited that one of the founding grounds of the Republican party that ran Abraham Lincoln's ticket in 1860 was Free Soil and Free Labor which apply directly the spread of slavery. I agree that the institution of slavery in itself was not the Main cause of the war, but I also believe that it can be argues as such. Souther politicians did convicne their constituent that the North was threatening their way of life and culture, but the North was doing the same damn thing. Lest we forget the Wilmot Proviso of 1846 which dictated that all lands gained from the Mexican war be free rather than slave lands, when Polk didnt't back this Proviso he was accused of being an advocate for the expansion of slavery. But as I said, I believe that the issue of States Rights, of the states' rights to seceed from the Union was the major cause. However you cannot say that slavery was not atleast a major player in why those states wanted to seceed.

1846 isn't digging too far into the past if Southern complaints of tarriffs are going to be brought forth, since complaints over tarriffs had settled down quite considerably as opposed to when they were actually being used as an issue for secession, by Calhoun and South Carolina, during the Jacksonian period. Clay's compromise dealt with the Tarriff issue March 1st 1833, diverting any wars over nullification.

And since this is a thread on the worst presidents, heres another reason I support Lincoln was one of the worst presidents ever. He abolished the right of habius corpus in Maryland and New Jersey during the war to quiet down anyone with Southern Sympathies.
Not only that but his 1st and 2nd Confiscation Acts, along with the E.P., violated the 5th amendment according to Scott v. Sanford. In that case, of course, Justice Taney ruled that Scott could not bring a case to trial because he was not a citizen he was property. He cited the Fifth Ammendment stating that Congress had to right to confistace property without the due process of law. consequently, Taney concluded, Congress possessed no authority to pass a law depriving persons of their property in the states. Since Lincoln considered the south states in insurrection, then niether he nor his Republican congress had any constitutional right to Issue either Confiscation Act or the E.P. The luxury for setting the slaves free shoudl've been reserved for the 13th ammendment. Even though the Southern senators had no right to vote in the 13th ammendment because they hadn't been readmitted to the union which, according to Lincoln, they had never officially left. Again showing that being consistent or adhereing the constitution meant little to him.

edit: Took out Bragg from the list of CSA generals, though a North Carolinian, he served for Louisiana in early 1861.

I'd be inclined to say Andrew Jackson -- though I could strongly argue for many others. My memory is a little fuzzy, but I believe he launched his presidency with a two week, open invitation, drunken free-for-all at the White House.

Anyone who thinks Lincoln was a bad president, comparitively speaking, really needs to brush up on their presidential history.

Jimmy Carter, hands down. If you have any understanding of the late 1970s, no explanation is needed.

While Lincoln had his faults, I doubt anyone, other than a few Southerners trying to excuse the South's treason, would consider Lincoln to have been a bad president.

I don't think he was the worst President, but I don't think his unconstitutional actions make him a good president. I'm not putting the war squarely on Lincolns shoulders but I feel he could've easily avoided it. And the South's secession was hardly treasonous.

edit: Changes "the war squarely on Lincoln's soldeirs" to "squarely on Lincoln's shoulders"

And the South's secession was hardly treasonous.

I'm just as Johnny Reb as the next feller down here below the Mason-Dixon line and all, but this is a stretch if I've ever heard one. That said..

THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN! :lol:

It's supposed to be a Union of Soverign states! And Danny Webster's precious New England flirted with secession long before South Carolina got the idea, for reference see the Essex Juncto.

It's between Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. Pierce was an alcoholic, supported the Kansas-Nebraska act (which led to civil war in Kansas) and the slave interests to such a degree that the Republican Party formed to prevent the extension of slavery into the territories, and managed to alienate his own party to such a degree that they refused to renominate him, the only time that's ever happened. His Secretary of War was Jefferson Davis, who would later lead the Confederacy.

Buchanan continued the slide toward Civil War, tried to support the undemocratic pro-slavery Lecompton constitution in Kansas (incidentally bribing senators in the process, which is an impeachable offence) and did nothing but wring his hands as the first seven Confederate states seceded. His VP was John Breckinridge, whose nomination by the pro-slavery fraction of the Democratic party split the Democrats, electing Lincoln and making Civil War inevitable.

Andrew Johnson was no prize either. Benjamin Harrison supported fiscal policies that led to the nation's gold reserves running out, which led to the Panic of 1893 (which Cleveland handled particularly badly). Grant's administration was notoriously corrupt, and his personal secretary was one of the ringleaders.

I actually Taylor would have eventually become a pretty good president, and he had the strength to oppose the futile Compromise of 1850.

I think Buchanan's official stance on the secession was "They have no right to do it, but I have no right to stop them". Bit of a wet noodle.

I always think of Andrew Johnson, or Calvin Coolidge, when I think of awful presidencies. Here are two guys who have no idea of how to manage anything--it's a wonder they were able to put their pants on in the morning.

I think Buchanan's official stance on the secession was "They have no right to do it, but I have no right to stop them". Bit of a wet noodle.

I thought it was closer to "I'm about to leave office, so I couldn't care less" :D

Who was the former American President who went with the south when they succeeded again? He is pretty bad. Maybe not his time in office, but I would call it the worst post presidency.

That was John Tyler. He was a former Democrat elected Vice-President on the Whig Ticket and succeeded William Henry Harrison when the latter died a month into his term. Tyler is best known for (1) insisting that when a VP succeeds to office, he has all the powers of the presidency and is not just acting president, (2) keeping enough of his Democratic principles that all his cabinet except Daniel Webster quit (Webster was negotiating the northern boundary of Maine at the time and wanted to finish that), (3) marrying the 24-year old Julia Gardiner while he was in office, and (4) annexing Texas. He was pretty much without a party for most of his term, which limited his effectiveness, but his presidency was more difficult than awful.

The most disastrous president is probably Ronald Reagan, just for setting up the whole Republican party's bussiness and debate forms. He got the debt rock rolling, as well. The consequences of that have yet to show in full...

Berlin, anyone?

The worst president of the second half of the 20th century was Carter. If you want to talk economy, blast him.

Overall, i dont know the worst.

Berlin, anyone?

The worst president of the second half of the 20th century was Carter. If you want to talk economy, blast him.

Overall, i dont know the worst.
I agree. I won't put Carter as the worst president ever but he's definetely the worst since Coolidge.

Berlin, anyone?


Yes, you can have that highly deficite city ;).

What has Ronnie to do with Berlin? He visited it. Well, so did I.

Seriously, while I don't think Reagan was as bad as the historical idiots (at least, in his first years...after that, he WAS a bigger idiot. Luckily, Nancy took over :D ), you should be aware that almost no European shares that myth about Ronnie winning the Cold War.
For us, Reagan was a senile, dogmatic charming man who managed to alienate his closest allies. And we fail to see any connection between him and the end of the Cold War aside he coincidentially was in the office at that time. As much as a Helmut Kohl or John Major won that war...

Reagen for sure was the most desastrous president the US had in the 2nd half of 20th century. Irangate, deficite spending, supporting fundamentalist islamists...he clearly is the root for the extreme anti-Americanism in many parts of the world, as well as the defiant stance of many Americans towards the rest of the world.
Even worse, Reagan managed to spoil the image of the US in the Western mainstream, not only the usual left-wing students.

Bitburg, Pershing 2, 'We begin bombing in 5 minutes'.
Compared to him, I like Bush Jr.
And, I'm sure most today protesters in the West would if they'd be old enough to remember the real cowboy.

Yes, you can have that highly deficite city ;).

What has Ronnie to do with Berlin? He visited it. Well, so did I.

Seriously, while I don't think Reagan was as bad as the historical idiots (at least, in his first years...after that, he WAS a bigger idiot. Luckily, Nancy took over :D ), you should be aware that almost no European shares that myth about Ronnie winning the Cold War.
For us, Reagan was a senile, dogmatic charming man who managed to alienate his closest allies. And we fail to see any connection between him and the end of the Cold War aside he coincidentially was in the office at that time. As much as a Helmut Kohl or John Major won that war...

Reagen for sure was the most desastrous president the US had in the 2nd half of 20th century. Irangate, deficite spending, supporting fundamentalist islamists...he clearly is the root for the extreme anti-Americanism in many parts of the world, as well as the defiant stance of many Americans towards the rest of the world.
Even worse, Reagan managed to spoil the image of the US in the Western mainstream, not only the usual left-wing students.

Bitburg, Pershing 2, 'We begin bombing in 5 minutes'.
Compared to him, I like Bush Jr.
And, I'm sure most today protesters in the West would if they'd be old enough to remember the real cowboy.
Very good post. :goodjob:
I could also add bleeding the poor and atrocities in Latin-America to the sin register of this "killer, conman, coward" (Greg Palast).
I am old enough to remember him clearly, and he is in fact the only US president I have felt a personal animosity towards, and that includes the current one.
Actually the only thing in your post I can't agree with you is the word charming. To me "charming Ronald Reagan" is an oxymoron.

Very good post. :goodjob:
I could also add bleeding the poor and atrocities in Latin-America to the sin register of this "killer, conman, coward" (Greg Palast).
I am old enough to remember him clearly, and he is in fact the only US president I have felt a personal animosity towards, and that includes the current one.
Actually the only thing in your post I can't agree with you is the word charming. To me "charming Ronald Reagan" is an oxymoron.

I agree. George Sr. Was pretty bad as well, but I don't remember it to well

You may have a point, I am anti-American as I feel your government is trying to forestall its fall from power through imperialistic means, however I remind you that the whole aura of anti-Americanism began as America begun its more provocative role not just outside the Middle East but more in the media at the end of the Cold War. However I would say that Vietnam would be a turning point and thus a bad president could also be Lyndon Joshnson for he continued a war long past what the American military considered winnable and Nixon for spreading that war into neigbouring nations.

Woodrow Wilson

re-elected on, "he kept us out of the War", he turned around and threw the United States into WW I.

His intentions could not be clearer, he thought his intervention, could establish a new one world government built on diplomacy through the League of Nations.

He was dead wrong, and over 100,000 Americans lost their lives in his gambit.

Harding:

The President after World War Wilson. The largest landslide victory ever by a US president.

Hardings "scandals" were overblown by a war-hyped loving press. Indeed, most of the scandal was revealed after his death, and when he was alive and discovered The Secretary of the Navy's shenanigans, some witnesses say he literally began to choke him around the neck with his bare hands in rage.

I cannot believe Harding was the worst ever... no way. There have been scandals such as Enron and Global Crossing, not to mention Lincoln Savings and Loan, and I do not believe the extent of the corruption was ever truly revealed.

I do believe you American's place too much importance on your President and in the end he has the ability to be blamed for thing's that happen that are beyond control, because he was around at the time.

Well in my opinion, despite the fact its his fault or not, signing up for the job, means he is willing to take part if not all the blame for anything that happens. And I admire presidents who say they make mistakes, because thats the first step in fixing them. I Think it was Truman who said "the buck stops here" Meaning he was the final authority on everything, so he got the credit, or took the blame.

Truman was good

Truman was good

You are calling a guy who received the Presidency due to a death of a great President and the only President to deploy nuclear weapons on actual civilian populations good?

Ever noticed the US members exclusively consider domestic affairs, and the rest foreign affairs/ the US image in the world?

Interesting.

If you arent, I will. But that's another thread I think.

Worst Presidents? I'd go for Van Buruen (Did nothing to stop a depresison in the early US, and refused to help the flegdling Mormon church, whose members were being killed by agents of the goverment

Pierce-worst forgien policy president either

Harding-see other posts

In recent memory, I'd say that Nixon, Carter and possibily Reagan have been pretty bad. Watergate, Iran Hostage Afair...Iran-Contra....all rather UGLY pages of our history. Plus, after the combined economic ineptitude of Carter and Reagan, i'm surprised we still have an economy.

Worst Presidents? I'd go for Van Buruen (Did nothing to stop a depresison in the early US
Van Buren couldn't do much when the depression was caused by his predecessor's idiotic financial policies. I believe Andrew Jackson may be the most overrated president in U.S. history. There's no reason he should be on the currency he helped devalue.

You are calling a guy who received the Presidency due to a death of a great President and the only President to deploy nuclear weapons on actual civilian populations good?


People are always are like the A bomb wasn't needed, but I think it seriously downright was. Maybe not the 2nd one, but the first one guerenteed a surrendur, so we didn't have to occupy, which would have costed tons of American and Japanese lives, I'd say the conventional bombing that would be needed to secure towns and bases would be almost as many casulties, and worst off, it would mean the Soviets would send an occupying force. Can you imagine another N. Korea in Japan? Also using it there, showed us how bad it actually was, and that it probably should not be used again. If we hadn't used it and saw the after effects a few years later, we might have used 10 or 20 in the Korean War, when it definatly wasn't needed. People always forget the fact that between 1945-1950, the atom bomb was our sole bargaining chip, and Stalin would have tried to grab alot more all over the world, and there would be nothing we could do about it. And Anyways, Truman was elected his 2nd term, so its not he was an idiot who got it entirely unfairly.

Worst President? But there's so many to choose from! Let's see... Coolidge, Harving, Reagan, Nixon, Bush 1st, Bush 2nd are the ones that come off the top of my mind.

No question! It has to be Woodrow Wilson, the president who instituted the Income tax!

No question! It has to be Woodrow Wilson, the president who instituted the Income tax!
The first income tax was instituted by the Lincoln administration, but was rescinded after the Civil War. When another income tax was enacted in 1893, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment, allowing an income tax, was ratified on February 3, 1913. Within a month Congress passed an income tax bill, which was signed into law by Republican William Howard Taft. :rolleyes:

However I would say that Vietnam would be a turning point and thus a bad president could also be Lyndon Joshnson for he continued a war long past what the American military considered winnable and Nixon for spreading that war into neigbouring nations.
Always nice when people forget about Pol Pot and that whole Cambodian genocide thing. :rolleyes: For all the people that complained about Vietnam (not unjustifiably) you didn't hear a single one of them complain while that butcherer was building mountains of skulls.

As for whoever said Nixon earlier: reopening diplomacy with China, initiating SALT II talks, beginning to withdraw from Vietnam - yeah, Nixon was just awful because a bunch of idiots broke into a hotel to steal some files, and he decided to protect them because they were his men. Not condoning what he did, but you could do a lot worse. Nixon's biggest failure wasn't Watergate - it was that Watergate caused a subsequent lack of trust in the government.

I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton because he got the U.S. where it is today by utterly failing to deal with terrorism despite the numerous times Al Qaeda reared its head during his administration, and for prolonging the disasterous "containment" of Iraq (which was grinding the USAF into the dust with rotations, burnouts and equipment fatigue), but he wasn't the worst by a long shot.

Honestly: William Henry Harrison simply because he barely lasted 30 days. More recently, Jimmy Carter.

But Harrison had a term devoid of scandal and military misadventures!

On the bad side, he gave the longest inaugural address in history, and on a cold, blustery day, so he does have something to answer for (and he did).

Andrew Jackson is by far the worst President ever. His banks were far from ideal, and drove parts of our country to financial ruin. I would like to thank Andrew Jackson for removing the SOutheastern Native Americans from their lush homeland to the desert southwest. Such a burden those Natives are. Why allow them to stay when many tribes are actually attempting to assimilate? Andrew Jackson, once again I thank you for causing the death of so many Native Americans. Andrew Jackson did a fantastic job of showing total disregard for court decisions, such as with the Georgia case regarding the Indians. Is a President who achieved military importance earlier in his life through ill means so great? When Jackson was still a general, he used to continuously raid Indian encampments and kill all the women and children. Why do people still insist he was one of the greatest American Presidents, and why is he honored on American currency? If any president was to be impeached, it should have been Jackson.

William Henry Harrison simply because he barely lasted 30 days.

Should a President be at fault for their own death?

Worst US president? Gott in himmel, so many to choose from.

But, I think it boils down to FDR. What a terrible looter.

Worst US president? Gott in himmel, so many to choose from.

But, I think it boils down to FDR. What a terrible looter.


hmm...

Wilson was worse.

But taking people's gold is bad, simply because they own gold is un-American.

Should a President be at fault for their own death?
When they stand out in the rain for hours and hours without putting on a jacket or getting an umbrella, yes. That's a mark of idiocy right there. ;)

He abolished the right of habius corpus in Maryland and New Jersey during the war to quiet down anyone with Southern Sympathies.
New Jersey was not a slave state.

As for my opinion:

Buchanon, Wilson, and FDR.

Buchanon:Thanks for not stopping the Southern succession before it got out of hand, bub.

Wilson: Got us nothing out of WWI, not even a peace treaty.

FDR: Socialism, not getting us anything from WWII, breaking the two term tradition, expanding presidential power, and having the same last name as the other Roosevelt, who I also dislike.

New Jersey was not a slave state.

As for my opinion:

Buchanon, Wilson, and FDR.

Buchanon:Thanks for not stopping the Southern succession before it got out of hand, bub.

Wilson: Got us nothing out of WWI, not even a peace treaty.


The US played a part in defeating in the Germans. Whether thats a good or bad thing is another issue.

Most people ignore the fact that the reason why we got no treaty was that both Democrats and Republicans were intransigent on the issue of Article X: attack on one is an attack on all.

Buchanan. He sat there, did nothing, and was just an out-and-out opportunist. There are two reasons why he was called "Miss Nancy" by half the country: he was probably gay (not bad, just couldn't happen today) and he tried to appease the South (in the end, really devastating).

FDR: Socialism,
Learn what socialism is before claiming that FDR was socialist.
not getting us anything from WWII,
Defeating Hitler and the Japanese was nothing? The U.S. being confirmed as a superpower was nothing? What is it that FDR failed to grab that you think he should have taken?
breaking the two term tradition
Tsk tsk, what a terrible man. Imagine, allowing the American people to elect him four times. How inconsiderate of Roosevelt.
expanding presidential power
This one I'll grant you. Of course, there was a major economic crisis and a war going on during his presidency, but that's no excuse.
and having the same last name as the other Roosevelt, who I also dislike.
So FDR would have been ok if his last name were Jones?

Wilson: Got us nothing out of WWI, not even a peace treaty.

That was actually because the Republican majority of the Senate rejected the League of Nations. Wilson was all for it.

I'm not sure how people can say Harrison was the worst president just because he died after a month in office. :lol:

That was actually because the Republican majority of the Senate rejected the League of Nations. Wilson was all for it.

Good for Wilson. Too bad he BLANTANLY diregarded the message of the voters who voted him into office, they did not want to go to war. They did not care that he had some vision of a one world government, built off the ashes of war. He made the Republicans real popular. Enter Harding, the most popularly elected president, besides George Washington.

Good for Wilson. Too bad he BLANTANLY diregarded the message of the voters who voted him into office, they did not want to go to war. They did not care that he had some vision of a one world government, built off the ashes of war. He made the Republicans real popular. Enter Harding, the most popularly elected president, besides George Washington.
Wilson did not want to go to war. However, after Zimmermann announced that his telegram to the Mexican government was authentic, Wilson had no choice but to go to war. The American people did not look kindly on Germany offering to help Mexico regain Texas, Arizona and New Mexico.

That was actually because the Republican majority of the Senate rejected the League of Nations. Wilson was all for it.
No, the league was rejected because Wilson refused to comprimise with the Republicans in congress.

Good for Wilson. Too bad he BLANTANLY diregarded the message of the voters who voted him into office, they did not want to go to war. They did not care that he had some vision of a one world government, built off the ashes of war. He made the Republicans real popular. Enter Harding, the most popularly elected president, besides George Washington.

Neomega, is your only reasoning for hating Wilson because he brought us into WWI despite his campaigning promises that he would keep us out of it? There are plenty of other reasons to hate the guy, for example: He was a huge white supremicist and he supported many misadventures in Latin America. Not the worst president mind you, but not a good one either.

As for the worst President, I'd have to agree on Buchanan and Harding.

always cover your tracks, you never know when Bush is looking for traitors

Worst American President: Bill Clinton. :mad:

It is hard to know if WW II would have ever even happened, if Hitler would have ever even risen, if we would have just let the European nations duke it out amongst themselves. But after WW I, we had no choice, but to join in a second world war.
Well the Germans would have most likely won if America keep its nose out. This would make Hitlers rise less likely for several reasons. Since Hitler was a soldier there was the increased possibility of him dieing. The monarchy would have survived the war as well so it would be harder to take over the government. Also the Germans would not have had the heavy reparations and other bad things associated with losing the war.

George W. Bush. It's early yet, but history will confirm it.

William Walker. Well, he was American and a President.

Also Jefferson Davis.
I've already given my opinion on worst president of the United States.

William Walker. Well, he was American and a President.

Also Jefferson Davis.
I've already given my opinion on worst president of the United States.


Good point, Didn't even think of them two, though they fit the topic.

William Walker. Well, he was American and a President.

Also Jefferson Davis.
I've already given my opinion on worst president of the United States.

Jefferson Davis was President of the Confederated States, not the United States.


William Henry Harrison is hard to beat as worst President - after all, he didn't manage to do anything in his month in office.

Of all of the others, Buchanan and Harding were pretty bad.

Richard Nixon.

George W Bush, and im not one of the "hate bush all the time people" but he seems to do a lot of bad, like attacking Iraq for no reason.

William Henry Harrison is hard to beat as worst President - after all, he didn't manage to do anything in his month in office.
"There is nothing more frightful than active ignorance" - Goethe.
So I still stick to Gipper.
I also want to remind other anti-Bush people that his administration is full of recycled Reaganites.

FDR.

It's amazing there still is a United States after his rule.

It's amazing there still is a United States after his rule.

If it wasnt for his rule there is chance that Japan and germany would have done america in and there would be no america

Why do people hate FDR so much? I've studied him a bit in history and he only seems to have had positive effects for America.

Cuivienen
Incredible, yet Inedible


Also Jefferson Davis.
I've already given my opinion on worst president of the United States.



Jefferson Davis was President of the Confederated States, not the United States

I never said he was. He was still an American and he was a President.

Why do people hate FDR so much? I've studied him a bit in history and he only seems to have had positive effects for America.
Because helping poor people is Un-American.

Because helping poor people is Un-American.
No it is not. It is "Un-American".
Actually USA has a rich and important history of labour activism and solidarity.

Blow job Clinton is next on my list!

Because helping poor people is Un-American.

No, because he didn't help the poor. He made things worse.

and American labour unionism is a pretty shameful affair of intimidation and greed.

and American labour unionism is a pretty shameful affair of intimidation and greed.

It is? Do explain? Because I think some would say that without labour unionsim the sweat shops would not be in China, but in America itself. Without unions, we have no labour laws... (yes, I realize things are different than they were a hundred years ago, but the importance of unions has not diminished that much).

If you have the time, you should listen to both these lectures on the subject.

Major Episodes in American Labor History: An Austrian Reevaluation, Part I (http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Woods/Woods7.mp3)
Major Episodes in American Labor History: An Austrian Reevaluation, Part II (http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Woods/Woods8.mp3)

Interesting stuff.

Blow job Clinton is next on my list!


I think its pretty unfair to say GWB or Clinton was the worst president ever. To do so is being blinded by partisianism, and shows a lack of knoweledge of American History. The fact is, while a lot of people really didnt like the administrations of these two presidents (although i bet a lot of people who hate clinton usually cant name three major policy disagreements other than the blow job problem. whatever. the rabid GWB haters are dumb too), but we just havent had enough time to look at them. in 30 years, Iraq might work, and GWB will be thought of as a better president. Maybe, in retrospect, Clinton's lasting policies will look better or worse. We dont know. prehaps in 2020, we can stick Clinton and Bush somewhere in there.

If you have the time, you should listen to both these lectures on the subject.

Major Episodes in American Labor History: An Austrian Reevaluation, Part I (http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Woods/Woods7.mp3)
Major Episodes in American Labor History: An Austrian Reevaluation, Part II (http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Woods/Woods8.mp3)

Interesting stuff.
Interesting perhaps, since I have found worthwhile material on the von Mises institute before, but reliable? Hardly.
I think I want some other references, and preferably something in print. Besides it seems to written by Thomas E. Woods jr., he is not what I would call exactly an outstanding historian.
As far as I can see, Moss is right, without labour unions things would have been quite different and worse for most of us. Think a bit over why corporations love China.
Sorry for threadjacking by the way.

It's between Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. Pierce was an alcoholic, supported the Kansas-Nebraska act (which led to civil war in Kansas) and the slave interests to such a degree that the Republican Party formed to prevent the extension of slavery into the territories, and managed to alienate his own party to such a degree that they refused to renominate him, the only time that's ever happened. His Secretary of War was Jefferson Davis, who would later lead the Confederacy.

I completely agree with Franklin Pierce as the worst. He was by far the most reprehensible of all the Presidents - a traitor to the welfare of the US right in the White House.

Buchanan was ill-prepared to handle the crises of his time. But he wasn't necessarily a bad person, just not the right person for the job at the time.

Funny that people consider Buchanan and Lincoln the worst - two Presidents who went at their jobs in two completely different ways. The arguements in the thread saying that Lincoln was the worst are pretty shallow to say the least. :cringe:

Interesting perhaps, since I have found worthwhile material on the von Mises institute before, but reliable? Hardly.
I think I want some other references, and preferably something in print. Besides it seems to written by Thomas E. Woods jr., he is not what I would call exactly an outstanding historian.
As far as I can see, Moss is right, without labour unions things would have been quite different and worse for most of us. Think a bit over why corporations love China.
Sorry for threadjacking by the way.

This article (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1590) pretty much summarizes any argument I could have made. Personally, I think the Mises Institute is very reliable. I haven't seen, read or heard of anything that would lead me to believe otherwise.

And I think Mr. Woods suffers from a bad public perception because of his most famous book, The Politically Incorrect Guide yada yada, while ignoring his more serious, academic works. Certainly, most people seem to attack him rather than his arguments.

Personally, I think the Mises Institute is very reliable.
Only if you're an economic illiterate.
And I think Mr. Woods suffers from a bad public perception because of his most famous book, The Politically Incorrect Guide yada yada, while ignoring his more serious, academic works. Certainly, most people seem to attack him rather than his arguments.
Woods is a historical revisionist pushing an extremist libertarian agenda. He wrote a book which showed that he was out of step not only with most historians and economists, but the vast majority of Americans. He selected only those historical examples which supported his ideology, and ignored anything that didn't support it. I won't call him a liar, because, unlike Boyce Lee Muller, he didn't actually make up facts, but he was extremely selective in his arguments.

I am leaning towards FDR and Grant as the absolute worst.

Reagan, for demolishing any social model that was left and for his ultra-capitalistic views.

Richard Nixon- The Breakin at watergate, which overshadows a bunch of other schemes and stuff....
Ronand Reagan- The Weapons smuggling, the Republican insurge and anti socialism. He did very little to the crumble of the USSR.
Warren Harding- Mr. Do nothing and abuse my powers. Bet away fine White House china and the US Boat teathingy. Played golf instead of important business. He did almost nothing as president, and was a crook!
James Buchannon- Finally, a democrat on the list... He couldn't do ANYTHING about the Confederacy and states ceeding. He was relieved to have Lincoln take his place. He just didn't care.
George W. Bush- He started 2 wars we didn't need. Sent the economy downhill. He has lost too many jobs. Does little on the war on terror. Spends too much time at his ranch in crawford and almost chokes to death on a freaking pretzel!