Who was the worst Democratic president?

[ccharles000]

[Zynx]

1. Buchanan or Pierce.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Barbara Pierce - pronounced 'purse' - Bush is related. 'Nuff said. nt

[Art_from_Ark]

2. Andrew Jackson by far

He was the 19th century version of Duhbyuh

[hobbit709]

5. Not even close

No matter what his failings, he wasn't a coward. And he stood up to the moneyed interests.

[Art_from_Ark]

11. Stood up to the moneyed interests?

More like allowed flim flam artists to bilk bank depositors out of millions of dollars in gold and silver.

[fudge stripe cookays]

13. Yeah...never mind that whole "eradicating the Indians" thing.

Ask any descendant of the Seminole, Choctaw, Cherokee, and Creek Indians what they think of his non-cowardice.

[Art_from_Ark]

19. Yeah, the non-coward ignored a Supreme Court ruling

that favored the Cherokees, and instead started the series of events that would evict them from their Georgia homes and send them on the Trail of Tears.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

20. Terrible, inhuman attrocities - like the S.S. Einzatzgruppen

http://intercontinentalcry.org/colonialism-genocide-and-gender-violence-indigenous-women/

"...Andrew Jackson . . . supervised the mutilation of 800 or so Creek Indian corpses — the bodies of men, women and children that he and his men massacred — cutting off their noses to count and preserve a record of the dead, slicing long strips of flesh from their bodies to tan and turn into bridle reins. ..."

[yellerpup]

26. Second that!

I want a different president on the $20 bill. He betrayed the tribes who won the battle of New Orleans for him. When informed that the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the Cherokees in their effort to keep their tribal territory, he went all Cheney on Justice Marshall and said (paraphrasing) "So? If you want them to keep their land, then you enforce it. I won't."

Edit to add: That's because I am Cherokee/Muskogee (Creek) and other Heinz varieties.

[Art_from_Ark]

30. I believe the exact quote was

"John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can."

[yellerpup]

102. That's it. Thanks!

Just as cold as Cheney but better spoken.

[Faygo Kid]

118. I put Johnson first, but don't forget about VanBuren, too.

"Little Van" continued and expanded Jackson's most racist policies, solidifying the Democratic Party's deal with the devil in gaining Southern backing for Northern Dem racist policies that backed slavery as much as Calhoun. The Trail of Tears actually took place on VB's watch. Plus, he backed Jackson's economic policies that led to the Panic of 1837, maybe the worst until 1929.

So VanBuren doesn't get much attention, but he was definitely one of the worst - I put him below Pierce and just ahead of Buchanan. But Johnson to me wins the overall "prize."

There sure are some stinkers on that list.

[FarLeftRage]

4. Buchanan was...

Please read my journal to find out why.

Thanks.

[UTUSN]

6. Why would this be a question at a Democratic forum?!1 n/t

[asthmaticeog]

9. Because we're grownups who can grasp that party we stand with can produce leaders with failings?

Or maybe we're not...

[Posteritatis]

10. Because even Democrats aren't above reproach? (nt)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

12. Because every finite set of finite quantities has at least one lowest member. -nt

[UTUSN]

27. To 9, 10, & 12: ------------ Neh. n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. Oh, yeah? Well, then......... Honk. -nt

[UTUSN]

34. Of all the possible questions, why this one?!1 n/t

[Zynx]

51. Why not?

Self-reflection is helpful.

[liberal1973]

145. I agree

Where is the worst republican President poll?

Truman was a great President.

[baldguy]

7. No votes for Carter.

[Wizard777]

131. After Bush. BILLY Carter would have been a good President.

:rofl:

[leftchick]

8. No Bill Clinton???

and you have Jimmy Carter??? One word........ NAFTA.

:eyes:

[ccharles000]

14. I picked at random.

[blm]

105. Worse than NAFTA - Clinton's deep-sixing of BCCI matters that would've prevented Bush2 and 9-11

and this Iraq war if he had chosen to side with accountability and honest government instead of siding consistently with secrecy and privilege of the powerful elite who found protection throughout the 90s.

[leftchick]

119. true enough

I can not believe these two are so called democrats.

:eyes:

[damonm]

15. I wanna know...

Who the hare-brained idjit was that voted for Truman...
Carter. Worst in my lifetime until Chimpy McCokespoon (I love you, Stephanie Miller!)

[wuushew]

16. Could be someone who disapproves strongly of atomic weapons

just saying. :nuke:

[Zynx]

46. They would have to put FDR on the same list.

He approved of massive firebombings that killed even more people.

[ccharles000]

17. I did because of the atom bomb.

[damonm]

35. I see.

Never mind the Fair Deal.
Never Mind the Marshall Plan.
Never mind NATO.
Never mind the Truman Doctrine that helped bring down the Soviet Union WITHOUT war.
Never mind the Integration of the Armed Forces.
Never mind the first civil rights message to Congress.
Never mind the recognition of Israel.

Learn more history, and you'll see how good Truman actually was.

[UndertheOcean]

44. Whats a few hundred thousand Japanese men , women and children compared

to that ~sarcasm~

[Zynx]

47. WWII made our country make some difficult decisions. That was a different sort of war

than we have fought since. The decision Truman made was complicated and he agonized over it. Japan, contrary to what many say now, was not on the verge of surrender, though it was being discussed. We had offered Japan a surrender in July that would have kept the Emperor in place and they turned it down. We had little choice and the ongoing air raids as well as combat elsewhere in the Pacific would have killed easily as many over the length of time it would have taken Japan to surrender.

[damonm]

59. I got one word for you - Dresden.

[UndertheOcean]

90. I don't understand your reply

[baldguy]

101. 40,000 killed in the attack of a non-military target

12 weeks before the war in Europe ended.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

[shirlden]

18. Would that be

one of those guys who thought Dewey won ??? He would be a really old idjit by now.

[Robeson]

23. I was the second idjit who did. Read some writings by Vidal if you care to know why...

...I tend to agree with him on Truman. Or is he an "idjit" too?

[damonm]

33. The fact that you cite Vidal...

instantly gives you ZERO credibility. I've read several of his writings, and about 90% struck me as self-indulgent, overrated claptrap.

[Robeson]

40. Thanks, but I'll choose to give his opinion more weight than yours...

...nothing personal.

[damonm]

42. As you wish. You'll just be as wrong as he.

[Robeson]

45. And I do regret that Gore Vidal and myself haven't reached the intellectual heights...

...you have attained.

[Zynx]

48. Gifted intellectuals can be badly mistaken when they let ideology get in the way

of good, sound analysis. Vidal's critique of Truman is not even handed.

[Robeson]

53. A knowledge of the inner workings isn't always a mistaken ideology....

...sometimes, it isn't ideology at all. It's history.

[Zynx]

55. History is very easily manipulated by someone drunk on ideology.

The facts left out of a historical narrative are just as important as those put in.

[Robeson]

57. To say he is drunk on ideology, shows little knowledge of the topic of our discussion....

...and I find few who understand the "historical narrative" as plainly as Vidal does.

[damonm]

63. And well you should...

:rofl:

[Robeson]

65. Finally, we agree.....

...the comparison is laughable.

[damonm]

68. All I did was dare to disagree with Vidal.

YOU'RE the one who cranked up the sarcasm. You don't know me from Adam, my friend, and for you to make any presumptions is what is laughable.

[Robeson]

Hey, I said I'll take his word over yours, because....

...I don't know you from Adam.

[greenbriar]

52. Carter was actually a very ethical president who tried to do the best

and got screwed by the very people he trusted to be honest

[damonm]

61. Carter was a good man...

but let's face facts - he sucked as a POTUS.

[Virginia Dare]

106. Simply because he was too good...n/t

[hyphenate]

21. What makes a president "bad"

apart from the criminals we've known and hated the most since their year 2000 coup?

Some say a "bad" president is one who upset the apple cart the most, bringing major changes to the country, and getting further away from what was laid down in the constitution.

Some will say the worst president is one who doesn't change anything--who stays with the status quo, no matter how much the world changes around it.

Even others will say it is the ones who tolerate evil around them, others will say it is those who are evil in the eyes of others, and even more will insist that the bad presidents are the ones who ignore or accept all those other meanings.


Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter. What we have as parties here in the 2000s has very little to do with what the parties were at the beginning of our country's administration. Even people admit that Abraham Lincoln could never be considered a Republican of today.

I think that all titles are mostly arbitrary, meaning something only to the general population of the time the person was president.

Keeping that in mind, I would say that a consensus of who was the worst president in our history, Republican or Democrat, is impossible. And keeping that in mind as well, in my own generation, I must say that Jimmy Carter was the worst of the Democratic presidents in my life, because I've only lived with Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton. I can't judge someone who was so far away in time that I can't understand their motivations or their values.

On the other hand, if you had asked just who the worst president has been in my lifetime, I would simply say the one who currently looks in the mirror in the wh.

[gmudem]

22. I'm inclined to say LBJ

Yes he was very good on social issues and with the Great Society, however he is responsible for Vietnam and was involved in the JFK assassination.

[rebel with a cause]

25. I agree with you because he was a modern democrat

Earlier ones were more in line with the republicans than democratic. Just as Lincoln was more in line with the modern democrat than have anything in common with the republican. From what I have heard, the republicans use to be the party of the working man, and the democatic party was more that of the wealthy. That turned around over the years, and following Eisenhower it was completely the reverse. Not saying that FDR was not a true democrat, but just saying the parties may have both been kind more middle of the road back then. People could chose the man of their choice then, the one with ideals more like yours, and not just stay within their party. It was after that the parties began to pull further apart in their ideals and became the way they are today. Anyway, this is what my father and other people that are now dead told me. :D

Edited to change democrat to republican in a sentence. Ugggh hate when I have to do that. ;)

[Art_from_Ark]

36. The Republicans were almost never for the working man

There was a time, under Teddy Roosevelt, where a lot of attention was being paid to labor conditions, and "Progressivism" was associated as a Republican movement (which died out with Robert LaFolette in the 1920s), but for the most part, the GOP has been the party of Big Money.

[rebel with a cause]

39. I'll take your word for it.

I guess my dad was wrong, won't be the first time. :)

[Art_from_Ark]

75. Well, it was actually a bit more complicated than that

It seems that the Democrats didn't really start getting interested in Labor until the 1890s, thanks in large part to the work of Samuel Gompers (who supported Democratic candidate William Jennings Bryan in the election of 1896). However, Grover Cleveland seemed to dislike laborers, but so did the Robber Barons, who favored the Republican Party.

[rebel with a cause]

77. I'm getting educated...

never too old to learn. :)

[LeftyMom]

87. Even then, minor concessions were mostly done to prevent radical change.

Keep in mind, huge swaths of the lower classes were committed anti-capitalists of one stripe or another. Throwing the working classes a bone had more to do with preventing strikes and other active rebellion than anything else.

[damonm]

41. Reversed sooner than that...

From what I have heard, the republicans use to be the party of the working man, and the democatic party was more that of the wealthy. That turned around over the years, and following Eisenhower it was completely the reverse.

It was reversed by the time Coolidge came in.

[rebel with a cause]

43. Okay.

I'll take your word also because I was just going by what I had heard, no actual research on it myself.

[Shoelace]

37. yeppers, LBJ was a ruthless man who had JFK killed

and possibly RFK too. I've been researching that for a couple of weeks now and I can't believe what I found out about this man.

Lots of videos about this subject on You Tube:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search=related&search_query=men%20who%20killed%20kennedy%20banned%20lyndon%20johnson%20malcolm%20mac%20wallace%20edgar%20hoover%20assassination%20cover-up%20conspiracy%20murder&v=7mzZGK9tNyM

[Zynx]

54. I've heard the theories and I just don't buy it.

I've read a considerable amount about Johnson and I just don't see that sort of gear in him.

[rebel with a cause]

76. I don't know about the assassinations

but he was ruthless, and had something in common with bush when it came to taking this country to war (he lied us into it), but was different on the home front with his social programs. That is what kept him from being as bad as bush, he had a good side, bush doesn't as far as I can see.

[Shoelace]

111. yes, his "great society" programs were amazing, he was a flawed giant

to borrow the title of a book that is on my "must read" list. I find this man to be intoxicatingly complicated and contradictory in terms of both his legacy of the Great Society and the Vietnam war. He did lie about an incident that helped get the "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution passed which let to a huge escalation of the war. Yet his social programs with the aid of such giants as Sargeat Shriver, Bill Moyers, et al, were a grand legacy which could have put him atop the list of great presidents had it not been for the war, the cost of which, drained away funding for many of these programs.

Similarities between the Johnson, Bush administration in that light can't be ignored yet it should be our job to ferret out the vast differences between how the two parties approach such matters as poverty, war, injustice so we do it better next time. I think we only get one more "next time" if we don't manage to take back our future with Obama winning the election in November.
If we somehow lose this election, it won't bode well for our party's future and that is probably the understatement of the year!

Another member of DU and I are going to try to do more research into the connections with the LBJ/JFK assassination, etc. It's certainly not a task that I relish as I am and have always been a liberal (some would say "socialist") in my political leanings and as such, it's hard to view the many testimonies, evidence that lead me to conclude that LBJ may have been the person behind the above tragedy given all he did during his presidency that was decent and noble. Honestly, given the Republican bent for destroying their enemies, the "a" word isn't something I really want to bring up on this forum (for obvious reasons) anytime in the near future.

Truth be told, I'd imagine that if we knew the backstory of many of our presidents, we would all be quite shocked. Excepting Bush whose "legacy" is beyond shock and awe now.

More info on the LBJ/JFK story here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/150107ciaman.htm

[rebel with a cause]

113. my knowledge about LBJ and his lying

came from research done on his handling of the Dominican rebellion and how that served as a training ground for the Vietnam war. I found a book of his speeches and several others with timelines of what was happening in the D.R. and it was very tellng. To say his speeches were less than truthful is an understatement. The CIA was involved and even the u.S. ambassador to the country. I read books also written by some of these men where they admitted what they had done but felt justified because....well, because they had no respect or concern for the people of that country. No negotiations, because they were not worthy of having their concerns heard. The USA decided what they wanted and they set it up. It is chilling to read it in their own words, and to understand that we, as a nation, were gullible enough to believe someone just because they were our president.

Oh, and Johnson following Kennedy's death was swarmy if nothing else. Kennedy had signed the orders to withdraw our advisors from Vietnam and within days of his death, Johnson over rode those orders and extended our purpose there. There were other things also, but time has passed and I don't remember them all now.

My research was done from 2000-2002 and that is why I recognized what bush was doing from the very beginning. It was if he had read the same things I had and was following the same plan. Like I said, I have some real problems with what LBJ did but have to give the devil his dues, he did good also. bush is a devil that has nothing due him. He has done no good, he has done bad from day one and I expect him to continue to do so. The few good things he may have done in the last few months are for his sake(his legacy)and not anyone elses, so they don't count as far as I am concerned.

Good luck with your research.

[Shoelace]

122. thanks for filling me in on that

boy, there's alot of history in that era and I so wish I had more time to revisit it all. I didn't know about the Dominion Republic timeline either. I was so busy raising 3 little kids then, I barely had time to keep up so now I am making up for lost time.
There's a short, not so sweet but good little article about how LBJ sold the Dominican invasion to the public and how the press played along at the link. Sound familiar?
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0426-21.htm

[rebel with a cause]

124. So much so.

Man, he must have read the same stuff I did, or maybe he got ahold of my thesis. ;) Actually this was only a small part of it.

You can see why I caught on to bush so fast. What this article didn't address was that USA forces set up a cease fire between the two fractions. They took control of the guns, and then in the middle of the night USA forces attacked and killing much of the rebelling forces. Those left were taken to prisons. The commander stated that the US had not agreed to the cease fire, only the Dominican forces, so they were in their rights to do this. I have interveiwed people that were there during the rebellion/civil war. Not as fighters but just innocent by-standers, and their stories are quiet shocking. One such story, and I saw this documented also, was that the young students that had been taken prisioner, were taken out of the prisons and to a park where they were slaughtered. This was done by the US and Dominican forces who were under them. There was also many reports of US death squads and those trained by them. If I had all my research handy, I could probably give you the name of the commander that led that squad. I believe he was later killed in South America by rebel fighters/guerillas. Yeah there was a lot of things going on that we did not know of at the time. In 1965 I was busy trying to find the freedom to be an adult and survive my family (parents and siblings). No family/children of my own until ten years later.

[Shoelace]

126. quite a good history background there

and the reason for your seeing Bush with clear eyes. I did do alot of research into the Iran/Contra era which bore great resemblance to the Dominican Republic fiasco it appears. Incredibly shocking in both cases.
As far as Bush goes, I despised this man and all he stood for right from the get go too. So many of us did either by direct knowledge or just plain intuitive, gut feelings. I wonder what his minions will try in order to sabotage this upcoming election? There are no limits to what they can think of, that's for sure.
I pray there's a benevolent force in the Universe that will prevent anything bad - one can hope.

[rebel with a cause]

127. I was married to a Dominican man and that

is what started my learning about this stuff. When I divorced him and went back to college in my middle age, I decided to find out what I could where I could understand what caused him to be the way he was and what exactly had happened that people had told me about. In other words, what was true and what was not. I was shocked when I got into it. Befoe they told me the stories, I had no idea any of this had happened.

My paper, by the way, was on the formation of the Dominican transnational identity and how it was influenced even before migration by the occupation of their country by the USA. My professor said that I broke new ground with my assertions, but that was six years ago and probably old news now. :D

I know little about the Iran/Conta era, I think I would probably find it interesting also. This was going on when I was raising children. Might as well not make any excuses, I use to not be involved in any of this country's political going-ons except for during the late sixties and early seventies. That was my first time of being on my own, no other people controling me. It took me a divorce and my children becoming adults for me to once again having this freedom.

[Shoelace]

129. that's pretty much my story too

I went back to college in the early '80s after a divorce and the children were then adults. I must say, the freedom was quite wonderful! I was working then for a couple of professors who were trying to help refugees from Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador. We had a weekly film series that included films about the Iran/Contra fiasco under then president Reagan. One evening during a showing of the most controversial film (the name escapes me now), 3 CIA men showed up replete with briefcases, pinstripe suits and weird little cameras (you couldn't miss them in this crowd of refugees and their American hosts. We watched them through the whole movie, they knew we watched them so they left abruptly right after the show - I'll never forget the way they looked at us all. Reagan was even more disliked (if that is even possible) than Bush is now in our circle but for different reasons. #1 was his "trickle down economics" which had profound effects on the economy then as well as the Iran, Contra affair. Some of the same people ended up in Bush's cabinet that were involved with this clandestine op. Elliot Abrams for one but more on that in this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/08/usa.georgebush1

It appears that so many of these men have been recycled for decades from Reagan, Nixon, Bush I and now his son.

For a short, quick history Wikipedia has an interesting story in their section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

[rebel with a cause]

132. Wow,

thanks.

[Hart2008]

133. LBJ's mistress said he was in the conspiracy, along with Nixon, Hoover, and others

Interview here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6962062879996612313&q=Madeleine+Duncan+Brown&hl=en

[Shoelace]

136. yes, I saw that before, quite revealing I thought

hope you saw the History Channel's documentary in 2003 or you can catch it on YouTube. "The Guilty Men" and I have a link to this in one of my posts here on this thread.

[L. Coyote]

78. BULLSHIT> and more bullshit. Welcome to IGNORE!!!!!

[gmudem]

88. Wow good argument.

When you research the matter it becomes very clear that Johnson had a very big hand in the JFK assassination.

[Shoelace]

110. yes, it was a very difficult thing to see the evidence

since I was never aware of anything that connected LBJ to JFK's assassination but as I delved deeper into the testimonies of so many witnesses to these events, it began to make sense to me.
The link has the videos of the banned History channel's documentary "The Guilty Men" that pretty much covers the whole story.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/150107ciaman.htm

[newspeak]

120. so, are you taking that from McClellan's (repuke) daddy's book?

I'm not saying LBJ did not know what was coming down on JFK, but in Nixon's tapes, Nixon mentions the Texas Boys. And, who were those boys in Texas besides LBJ? One, may be Hunt, then there's a possibility of Poppy Bush who was in the CIA at the time. If you want to implicate LBJ, I'd be also looking at other prospects.

[Shoelace]

123. not just that book but it was a start

there were many Texas oil people who hated Kennedy because he was going to cut their "oil depletion allowance" which they found totally unacceptable. Clint Murchison was one of the main people involved. Yes, Bush Sr. too. Spartacus has a good read on Barr McClellan and his dealings with LBJ, et al. He was LBJ's attorney at that time. From this article, you can investigate the other folks that were involved with LBJ. Trust me, it gets really interesting. I couldn't leave it alone and now am getting a bit behind in my work (sigh).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmcclellan.htm

[Stuart G]

139. LBJ..lied us into at least 1,000,000 deaths..

While he did not start Viet Nam..he escalated it on lies. Killed 55,000 American Soldiers, and at least a million, perhaps 2,000,000. Vietnamese.

Think about it 12 percent of your population killed due to one President's view of history...Sure LBJ was and still is one of the worst Presidents..Ask those who had loved ones killed.........

[Glorfindel]

24. IMO, Buchanan, but, just curious, what did poor old Martin Van Buren

ever do or fail to do that anyone would vote him the "worst" Democratic president?

[Art_from_Ark]

31. Van Buren continued Jackson's forced removal of the Cherokees

and basically sat on his hands while the nation went through its first Great Depression

[Zynx]

50. I will never blame a Depression on a president of the 19th century.

Economic orthodoxy at the time was so set against any intervention that the idea was unthinkable. Also, the government was so financially limited there was little it could do, government as a percent of GDP back then was mid single digits at best, and actually closer to 2-3% of GDP. Van Buren actually was unusually active for the time in attempting to loosen up credit through the Treasury.

[Art_from_Ark]

64. People were clamoring for Van Buren to take action

But he didn't. That's one reason why he was so soundly defeated in the Election of 1840

"During the Panic of 1837, approximately ten percent of American workers were unemployed at any one time. Mobs in New York City raided warehouses to secure food to eat. Prominent businessmen, like Arthur Tappan, lost everything. Churches and other charitable organizations established soup kitchens and breadlines. In Ohio, many people lost their entire life savings as banks closed. Stores refused to accept currency in payment of debts, as numerous banks printed unsecured (backed by neither gold nor silver) money. Some Ohioans printed their own money, hoping business owners would accept it. Thousands of workers lost their jobs, and many businesses reduced other workers' wages. It took until 1843 before the United States' economy truly began to recover. The federal government's failure to assist the American people led voters to turn against the Democratic Party, the party in control of government at the start of the Panic of 1837. In 1840, voters elected William Henry Harrison, a member of the Whig Party and an Ohioan, over the Democratic candidate."

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=536

[Zynx]

70. That's so overly simplified it is almost insulting to read.

Find any president who implemented a dramatic economic stimulus package in that entire century. Name one. I dare you. Also, look at the instruments available to Van Buren at the time. Sure, he got the blame as did the Democrats. That is par for the course in every economic downturn in any democratic country that the party in power gets whacked.

[Art_from_Ark]

79. For most of the 19th century, an economic stimulus package

was not needed. However, things were different in 1837. That was the country's first real depression, and people did want the government to take action. Van Buren refused, just like Herbert Hoover nearly a century later. Van Buren was roundly criticized for his apparent failure to understand the situation, and was depicted as a slow-witted turtle on tokens that were being used as money instead of coin of the realm. The view that people in those days just wanted laissez-faire economics is oversimplified.


"At the end of his term, Jackson stipulated that all public lands must be bought with gold or silver. Soon after Van Buren took office, the nation was gripped in a financial panic as citizens rushed to exchange their state-issued paper money for hard currency. The state banks had depleted their own reserves, interest rates rose above 20 percent, and runaway inflation was devaluing all liquid assets. No President could have done much to halt or reverse the situation, but Van Buren's insistence on doing nothing -- along with his tendency to live high and dress well (he had come from a poor family) -- infuriated many Americans. Not until late in his term did his bill to establish an independent treasury become law."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/08_van_buren/index.html

[Zynx]

114. That's so much crap. We had several major depressions. 1807, 1873, and 1893.

The government did nothing in any of them. There were many "smaller" ones that would be grievous by today's standards.

[Art_from_Ark]

138. Government inaction does not mean that people do not demand action

For crying out loud, look at the situation today. Look at the situation in 1929. Just because the government sits on its hands during an economic crisis does not mean that people are satisfied to wait for a chicken to appear in every pot. The Panic of 1873 led to economic turmoil, especially inthe West. There was a lot of popular demand for the government to do something. The government's failure to act in the Panic of 1873 and 1893 is what led to the rise of William Jennings Bryan. Read up on the economic history of that era.

[papapi]

29. Buchanan. In all likelihood he could have prevented the Civil War.....

....if he had gotten up off his duff. Jackson would be a very, very close second. His treatment of the indians was monstrous.

[Art_from_Ark]

32. But the Civil War did not occur during Buchanan's term

The first state to secede, South Carolina, did so because Lincoln had just been elected on an anti-slavery platform. In fact, Lincoln did not win a single state in the Old South.

[Zynx]

49. That's a pretty lame excuse for Buchanan.

Buchanan actually encouraged the Supreme Court on the Dredd Scott case to make a definitive ruling that he felt would settle the issue. Following the turmoil of the ruling, he did nothing to cool tensions or further compromise.

[Art_from_Ark]

60. But the fact of the matter remains that the South seceded

because Lincoln was elected on an anti-slavery platform. South Carolina seceded in December 1860 because Lincoln had been elected President the month before. Other states followed quickly. That was not Buchanan's fault-- there is nothing he could have done to stop that.

[Zynx]

71. That's like leaving Coolidge blameless for the Depression.

As a matter of fact, it is exactly the same.

[Art_from_Ark]

80. No, it is not exactly the same

Hoover essentially continued Coolidge's policies. Lincoln was promising to take a dramatically different turn from Buchanan's.

[Zynx]

115. The fact that it had gotten to such a point is Buchanan's doing, just like Coolidge

let the economy get out of control and Hoover took the hit for it.

[Art_from_Ark]

137. Wrong

Read South Carolina's Declaration of Secession:

Here is the most pertinent excerpt:

"For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This is a direct reference to Lincoln's election, and was the breaking point for the state (at least the state's elite).

South Carolina voted for John Breckenridge, who had been Buchanan's vice president. That is, they voted for someone who was going to continue the status quo policy of his predecessor. However, once an anti-slavery candidate finally won, and only with backing from northern states, they felt they had no choice but to secede. They seceded not because of Buchanan's failed policies, but because of Lincoln's election.

[damonm]

58. True, but not relevant.

Buchanan was a slavery sympathizer who pushed for the Lecompton Constitution in Kansas, and sat on his hands when South Carolina seceded - DURING HIS TERM. Lincoln had only been elected - he hadn't taken office yet. Had Buchanan acted forcefully, he might well have averted the Civil War in Much the way Jackson did during his second term, when he declared that "secession by armed force is treason", and that he would treat secessionists as traitors.
Jackson was a skunk where the Indians were concerned, (but to be fair, he was HARDLY the last POTUS to mistreat the Indians - neither was he first. He just perfected the art.)but ya gotta give him his due on the nullification question.

[Art_from_Ark]

62. South Carolina seceded after Lincoln was elected

because he was elected on an anti-slavery platform. There is nothing short of military action that Buchanan could have done to prevent it. It is not irrelevant by any means.

[damonm]

69. Please ACTUALLY READ my post.

[Zynx]

73. He doesn't care.

[Art_from_Ark]

81. What could Buchanan have possibly done,

short of aggressive military action, to keep South Carolina in the Union after the state seceded after Lincoln was elected on an anti-slavery platform? Really, what could he have done? The South was reading the tea leaves, and they wanted no part of Lincoln.

[damonm]

82. Aggressive military action - hit it hard, hit it fast. Make the price of seceding too high to pay..

...as Jackson threatened to do in 1832.
Buchanan's do-nothing attitude convinced the other states THEY could also secede without consequence.

[Art_from_Ark]

85. That kind of action would only have hastened the Civil War

Other Southern states would have rallied to South Carolina's aid. There was a lot of animosity in the South against Northerners in those days, as evidenced by the fact that Illinoisian Stephen A. Douglas did poorly in the South in the election of 1860, and fellow Illinoisian Abraham Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in most of the South. Aggression military action could also have gained sympathy for the Southern cause in Europe.

[damonm]

86. Declare it insurrection and treason, as Jackson did, and then strike hard and fast,

show those others you mean business; they'd think twice.

[Art_from_Ark]

89. There was a big difference between 1832 and 1860

Jackson's actions in 1832 were in response to South Carolina's refusal to go along with a national tariff. Jackson sent a few ships to Charleston to intimidate the state to stay in line. Other Southern states convinced South Carolina that it was not worth it to have an insurrection against the tariff, so the state backed down (but also won some concessions from the federeal government).

By 1860, animosity between the North and the South was approaching a critical state, due in large part to the question of slavery. With the election of Lincoln on an anti-slavery platform (and Lincoln was not even on the ballot in most Southern states), the South felt it was in their best interest to secede from the Union. This time, rather than convincing South Carolina to back down, they sided with the state. Aggressive military action by a lame duck president, rather than quelling a local uprising, would have fanned the flames of all-out rebellion.

[Zynx]

72. You have to ignore all of Buchanan's term to make a statement like that.

Honestly I feel like I am debating history with an 8th grader.

[papapi]

74. Believe what you want. Buchanan's presidency led up to the Civil War...

As President-elect, Buchanan thought the crisis would disappear if he maintained a sectional balance in his appointments and could persuade the people to accept constitutional law as the Supreme Court interpreted it. The Court was considering the legality of restricting slavery in the territories, and two justices hinted to Buchanan what the decision would be.

Thus, in his Inaugural the President referred to the territorial question as "happily, a matter of but little practical importance" since the Supreme Court was about to settle it "speedily and finally."

Two days later Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the Dred Scott decision, asserting that Congress had no constitutional power to deprive persons of their property rights in slaves in the territories. Southerners were delighted, but the decision created a furor in the North.

Buchanan decided to end the troubles in Kansas by urging the admission of the territory as a slave state. Although he directed his Presidential authority to this goal, he further angered the Republicans and alienated members of his own party. Kansas remained a territory.

When Republicans won a plurality in the House in 1858, every significant bill they passed fell before southern votes in the Senate or a Presidential veto. The Federal Government reached a stalemate.

Sectional strife rose to such a pitch in 1860 that the Democratic Party split into northern and southern wings, each nominating its own candidate for the Presidency. Consequently, when the Republicans nominated Abraham Lincoln, it was a foregone conclusion that he would be elected even though his name appeared on no southern ballot. Rather than accept a Republican administration, the southern "fire-eaters" advocated secession.

President Buchanan, dismayed and hesitant, denied the legal right of states to secede but held that the Federal Government legally could not prevent them. He hoped for compromise, but secessionist leaders did not want compromise.

Then Buchanan took a more militant tack. As several Cabinet members resigned, he appointed northerners, and sent the Star of the West to carry reinforcements to Fort Sumter. On January 9, 1861, the vessel was far away.

Buchanan reverted to a policy of inactivity that continued until he left office. In March 1861 he retired to his Pennsylvania home Wheatland--where he died seven years later--leaving his successor to resolve the frightful issue facing the Nation.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jb15.html

When Republicans lost a plurality in the House in 1856, every significant bill they passed fell before southern votes in the Senate or a Presidential veto. The Federal Government reached a stalemate. Bitter hostility between Republicans and Southern Democrats prevailed on the floor of Congress.

To make matters worse, Buchanan was dogged by the partisan Covode committee, which was investigating the administration for evidence of impeachable offenses.

Sectional strife rose to such a pitch in 1860 that the Democratic Party split. Buchanan played little part as the national convention meeting in Charleston deadlocked. The southern wing walked out of the Charleston convention and nominated its own candidate for the presidency, incumbent Vice President John C. Breckinridge, whom Buchanan refused to support. The remainder of the party finally nominated Buchanan's archenemy, Douglas. Consequently, when the Republicans nominated Abraham Lincoln, it was a foregone conclusion that he would be elected even though his name appeared on no southern ballot. Buchanan watched silently as South Carolina seceded on December 20, followed by six other cotton states, and by February, they formed the Confederate States of America. Eight slave states refused to join.

In Buchanan's Message to Congress (December 3, 1860), he denied the legal right of states to secede but held that the Federal Government legally could not prevent them. He hoped for compromise, but secessionist leaders did not want it.

Beginning in late December, Buchanan reorganized his cabinet, ousting Confederate sympathizers and replacing them with hard-line nationalists Jeremiah S. Black, Edwin M. Stanton, Joseph Holt and John A. Dix. These conservative Democrats strongly believed in American nationalism and refused to countenance secession. At one point, Treasury Secretary Dix ordered Treasury agents in New Orleans, "If any man pulls down the American flag, shoot him on the spot".

Before Buchanan left office, seven slave states seceded, the Confederacy was formed, all arsenals and forts in the seceded states were lost (except Fort Sumter and two remote ones), and a fourth of all federal soldiers surrendered to Texas troops. The government decided to hold on to Fort Sumter, which was located in Charleston harbor, the most visible spot in the Confederacy. On January 5, Buchanan sent a civilian steamer Star of the West to carry reinforcements and supplies to Fort Sumter. On January 9, 1861, South Carolina state batteries opened fire on the Star of the West, which returned to New York. Paralyzed, Buchanan made no further moves to prepare for war.

On Buchanan's final day as president, he remarked to the incoming Abraham Lincoln, "If you are as happy in entering the White House as I shall feel on returning to Wheatland you are a happy man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan

At his inauguration, James Buchanan wasted little time clarifying his stand on the all-important slavery issue. Speaking to a crowd enjoying 1,200 gallons of ice cream furnished for the occasion, he declared slavery a matter for individual states and territories to decide. The new President said, "It is the imperative and indispensable duty of the government of the United States to secure to every resident inhabitant the free and independent expression of his opinion by his vote. This sacred right of each individual must be preserved. That being accomplished, nothing can be fairer than to leave the people of a territory free from all foreign interference to decide their own destiny for themselves, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Of course, by "people" in the territory, he meant only the white male voters since blacks were not eligible to vote, whether free or slave.


The Dred Scott Supreme Court Decision

Two days later, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case of a slave named Dred Scott. Scott's owner had taken him to what is now the upper Midwest. Having lived in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory with his master, an army surgeon, Scott claimed that his residence in a free state and territory made him a free man. The Court decided otherwise. It claimed that the Constitution did not recognize slaves as citizens of the United States, and thus, they had "no rights which any white man was bound to respect," including the right to sue for their freedom in a federal court. A slave, the Court asserted, was property and nothing more, with no more rights than a horse or a chair. Ownership of such property was therefore protected and guaranteed by the Constitution. Since Scott had been a slave in Missouri, his living in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory could not affect his status as a slave. The Court then stated its opinion that the Missouri Compromise had been unconstitutional and that slavery could not be banned in the new territories nor in new states. Its decision on this case was influenced by Buchanan, who urged a Northern justice to join the Southern members. The Court tipped Buchanan off that it was about to decide in favor of the South, and Buchanan in turn put a clause in his inaugural address declaring that the Supreme Court was about to decide and urging "all good citizens" to obey the ruling that was to come. Thus Buchanan would be implicated in the decision and would be vilified by those opposed to it.

Reaction was swift and loud. Abolitionists, who had come to view the fight against slavery as a holy war, were enraged and vowed to disobey the Scott decision; they claimed that their cause was God's and therefore above man's laws. Most Southerners viewed the ruling as a vindication of their interpretation of the Constitution. The national controversy was bitter and divisive. For a new President like Buchanan, it made for a difficult start. To cool matters, he tried to appoint moderates to his cabinet and avoided sectional extremists with antagonistic agendas on either side of the issue. He largely succeeded, though his Southern ministers were staunchly proslavery. America had become a nation with a divided political system: the Republicans, exclusively Northern and antislavery, and the Democrats, Southerners who defended slavery and states' rights and Northerners who stressed national unity and usually followed the Southern lead on slavery-related issues.


Kansas and Slavery

"Bleeding Kansas" had become the focal point of the slavery crisis. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, signed three years before Buchanan came to power, allowed Kansans to decide by election whether to be a free or slave state. Chaos had ensued as Missouri "border ruffians" crossed into Kansas to vote for a proslavery territorial government in 1855. Free-Soilers opposed to slavery subsequently formed their own government and boycotted a call for a constitutional convention for the new state, which the proslavery forces then dominated. Buchanan, eager to retain the support of proslavery Democrats, endorsed this proslavery constitution known as the Lecompton Constitution, though the document had been supported by only a minority of whites in Kansas. Even Buchanan's own territorial governor urged him not to accept these results. Instead, Buchanan sent a message to Congress urging acceptance of Kansas as a slave state.

In Congress, Senator Stephen Douglas boldly challenged Buchanan's endorsement of the Lecompton plan and derailed it. He claimed that it was a fraud, passed by only a small minority of the voters in Kansas and therefore violated the principle of "popular sovereignty." Nevertheless, Buchanan prevailed over Douglas in the Senate. In the House, a prolonged debate, with pro-Douglas Democrats joining Republicans, led to a compromise solution: the Constitution would be returned to Kansas for another vote. A new election was held in Kansas for a constitutional convention. This new convention soundly rejected slavery and set the stage for the admission of Kansas as a free state in June of 1861.

The troubled course necessary to resolve the Kansas situation greatly compromised the Buchanan administration's credibility. To some, it smacked of tampering, reversing the will of the people; to others, Buchanan simply looked inept. In addition, the economy had sunk into recession the year before. The elections in the middle of the President's term were a disaster for his party: Republicans were victorious in many state contests in the North and gained control of the U.S. House of Representatives. And Stephen Douglas won reelection and continued to challenge the President.


Domestic Terrorism

Meanwhile, John Brown, the militant abolitionist who had killed several proslavery settlers in Kansas, had evaded authorities. Brown now planned to fight slavery by means of armed rebellion. In the fall of 1859, his band seized a small military installation and town called Harpers Ferry, in what is now West Virginia. Southerners saw this as nothing less than a plot to instigate a slave uprising against them, and they had Buchanan's support in quelling the insurrection. Within two days, a company of U.S. Marines, led by a Mexican War veteran named Robert E. Lee, moved into Harpers Ferry and captured John Brown. Before his conviction and hanging in late 1859, Brown became a hero, even a martyr, to many abolitionists. Southerners saw his actions as proof that the North meant to end slavery by any means necessary, even through murder.

Buchanan seemed utterly unable to calm things down, and his speeches did not help. In his 1860 State of Union message, the President said: "How easy it would be for the American people to settle the slavery question forever and to restore peace and harmony to this distracted country! They, and they alone, can do it. All that is necessary to accomplish the object, and all for which the slave States have ever contended, is to be let alone and permitted to manage their domestic institutions in their own way. As sovereign States, they, and they alone, are responsible before God and the world for slavery existing among them. For this the people of the North are not more responsible and have no more right to interfere than with similar institutions in Russia or in Brazil." With this statement, most Northerners -- even including many Republicans -- could agree, but here, the President omitted the territorial issues. And on them, there was no agreement. Citing Dred Scott, Southerners said they had the right to take slaves into the territories, yet Republicans recognized no such right.


Prelude to War

Buchanan had promised in his inaugural to serve just one term, and with all the national turmoil over slavery, no one asked him to rescind his pledge. Still, at Charleston, the Democratic convention relied on Buchanan's allies to deny Stephen Douglas the nomination. The convention foundered on the territorial issue, however, and could not agree on a platform or a nominee. The Northern Democrats later nominated Douglas while Southerners bolted from the party and nominated Vice President Breckenridge as their presidential nominee. With the Democrats divided, the 1860 presidential election went to Abraham Lincoln. Six weeks after Lincoln's victory, South Carolina left the Union. Within six weeks, six more states of the Lower South had joined South Carolina.

Buchanan, ever conciliatory, tried not to alienate anyone -- either secessionist or unionist -- but pleased no one. The outgoing President seemed at a loss to take any action against the South, which only emboldened the new Confederacy. All Southerners in his cabinet resigned. Secretary of State Lewis Cass quit too, disgusted with Buchanan's inaction in the crisis. The President did little, fearful of provoking the South; yet he angered the South by refusing to relinquish Fort Sumter at Charleston, South Carolina. While his inaction averted war for the time being, it also enabled the new Confederate government to begin operations. Buchanan seemed eager to get out of the White House before the real disasters ensued.
http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/buchanan/essays/biography/4

[Art_from_Ark]

83. So you're saying that the Civil War would have occurred

even if John Breckenridge or Stephen Douglas had been elected instead of Lincoln?

[papapi]

91. Interpret the information anyway you want. I have my opinion you have yours.

[Art_from_Ark]

92. If John Breckenridge, Democrat from Kentucky, had been elected

would the South have seceded? Would they have said "Our guy won, let's leave"? Really, I'm interested in how you can envision a civil war starting with President Breckenridge, since Buchanan had made civil war inevitable.

[papapi]

93. Breckenridge didn't win, did he? His second place finish in the deep south...

plus a couple of border states wasn't enough to earn him the election. Therefore any effort to determine what MIGHT have been is futile.

[Art_from_Ark]

94. Um, Breckenridge won the Deep South

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860

You are saying that Buchanan's policies led to the Civil War. Therefore, based on that logic, the man who would presumably be continuing Buchanan's policies, his Vice President, John Breckenridge, would have caused the Civil War if he had won. Right?

So how would he have caused it?

[papapi]

95. The end of slavery was inevitable. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and others....

had predicted it from the beginning of the Republic. Buchanan's inability to preside over the peaceful resolution of the issue fed the fire of divisiveness and dissension that finally drew the Confederate States to secession. Breckenridge is irrelevant to the discussion because he was never in a powerful enough position to either promote or prevent the War.

[Art_from_Ark]

142. Breckenridge is NOT irrelevant to the discussion

If he had won, in all likelihood South Carolina would NOT have seceded. South Carolina seceded precisely because Lincoln won. Read South Carolina's Declaration of Secession:

"For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

The Deep South went for Breckenridge, Buchanan's Vice President. Thus, if Breckenridge had won, there would have been, in all likelihood, no secession. But South Carolina specifically lays the blame for its secession at the election of the first president to be elected on a platform of abolition.

[That Is Quite Enough]

38. I'll say Polk...

But then again the only thing I know about him is that he started the Mexican-American War. :P

[ccharles000]

56. Everyone must love Grover Cleveland.

[Jack Rabbit]

66. Buchanan should win by a landslide

Pierce was bad, too, a befits a Bush ancestor.

[fujiyama]

67. The Democratic party before Roosevelt has very few redemable qualities

All I see are those responsible for genocide of Native Americans and the perpetuation of slavery.

Not until Roosevelt did the modern coalition come into fruition. And on civil rights even his record was lackluster. Truman finally desegregated the military and blacks started changing affiliation. Johnson was deluded and misguided on the war, but he risked the party's future success on civil rights. To me, what he did was pretty damn impressive. Though Northeastern Republicans did help get it through.

But since Nixon's Southern Strategy everything that happened prior with regard to modern party coalitions is obsolete. The Democratic Party is open to inclusion and tolerance and at least fights for working class and middle class interests occasionally. The Republican Party is now the fascist party.

And that decides it for me for where my home is for the time being. Unless the Dems start embrace insane psychotic fundamentalist Christianity, torture, the destruction of the constitution and civil rights and a whole host of other idiotic policies, well....

[LeftishBrit]

84. It's a tough one between Jackson and Buchanan

but I chose Jackson in the end, because he actively promoted genocide. Buchanan was totally incompetent and failed to prevent disaster. Causing disaster is morally worse than failing to prevent it - but both were terrible and disastrous presidents.

[BlueIris]

96. Of those choices? Johnson. (And I can't believe people voted for Polk.)

James K. Polk, while certainly not the greatest guy on the planet by any means, ran one of the most efficient and underrated administrations in history. He presided over a period of time so prosperous for America that it was known as the "fabulous forties." Impressive for a man who by all accounts hated being president. Just hated it. Got up every day wishing for it to be over. But felt that it was a citizen's duty to commit to doing the job if his country asked it of him.

[salguine]

97. Buchanan was the more incompetent President, but

having just read Brands' biography of Andrew Jackson, I have to conclude that he was the biggest asshole.

[blindpig]

98. So where's Bill Clinton?

Is it because he was the best Republican President of the last 100 years that he was excluded?

[KG]

144. he's been canonized, so he doesn't qualify to be ranked with mere mortals.

[End Of The Road]

99. Wilson established the Federal Reserve

and that makes him King Dung in my book.

[bunkerbuster1]

100. Well, and that whole "sending our guys overseas to die for corporate profit" thingie kinda sucked.

And he was an unapologetic racist.

[Virginia Dare]

108. I'd argue that most white men,,

at least those in political power were at that time. Not to negate your point though.

[bunkerbuster1]

112. Yeah, but it was worse with Wilson than just garden-variety white-supremacy...

He actively worked to discriminate and segregate.

from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_10_34/ai_98125294

...one Legacy of the post-Civil War Republican ascendancy was that Washington's large black populace had access to federal jobs and worked with whites in largely integrated circumstances. In some departments, white clerks worked under black supervision. Wilson's cabinet put an end to that, bringing Jim Crow to Washington.

Wilson allowed various officials to segregate the toilets, cafeterias, and work areas of their departments. One justification involved health: White government workers had to be protected from contagious diseases, especially venereal diseases, that racists imagined were being spread by blacks. Black federal supervisors, along with most black diplomats, were replaced by whites; numerous black federal officials in the South were removed from their posts; the local Washington police force and fire department stopped hiring blacks.

Wilson's own view was that federal segregation was an act of kindness. In historian Friedman's paraphrase, "Off by themselves with only a white supervisor, blacks would not be forced out of their jobs by energetic white employees."

Indeed, Wilson said as much to those appalled blacks who protested his actions. He told one unhappy black delegation that "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen." When the startled journalist William Monroe Trotter objected, Wilson essentially threw him out of the White House. "Your manner offends me," Wilson told him.

Blacks all over the country complained angrily about the administration--Wilson had actually courted the black vote in the 1912 campaign, and they felt betrayed. The president was unmoved. "If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me;' he told The New York Times in 1914, "they ought to correct it."

[Zynx]

116. We've been much better off with the Fed than without it.

[harun]

103. Truman, Zionist/Palestinian conflict (n/t)

[Zynx]

117. Truman's role in that was quite limited indeed.

Our recognition was not that significant. Aid did not come from our government nearly as much as it did the Soviets as well as private donations from American Jews.

[StickyIckes]

104. polk

[dysfunctional press]

107. bill clinton, hands down- why isn't he on the list...?

nafta, gatt, wto, telecom act, defense of marriage act, welfare "reform"...bubba was MUCH more a repug than a democrat.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

143. Best Liberal Republican Pres ever. You forgot, Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

[Sheets of Easter]

109. I don't think this is a terribly fair poll question,

considering the Democratic party was a far different organization in the 19th century than it is today. The Democrats did not evolve into the progressive wing until approximately around FDR's administration.

[newspeak]

121. hear, hear

I agree with your assessment. I voted for Jackson-the reasons have already been listed.

[TeeYiYi]

125. Truman. Think Hiroshima/Nagasaki . . .

. . . the Greatest Terrorist Attack in History.

TYY

[mnhtnbb]

128. I voted Polk for his westward expansion"Manifest Destiny" that allowed

slavery in the new territories. The "Manifest Destiny" crap only died with VietNam.

Polk contributed greatly to the concept of the U.S. as Empire--and we've been paying the price
ever since.

[Breeze54]

130. Raygun

:P

[opihimoimoi]

134. George W Bush has been by far ...the Worst of the WORST

Shows all the signs and symptoms of being EVIL and counter productive....as a President for all these years...he has not done one POSITIVE THING>>>>NADA. He is all reactionary.....no clear thinking...

He is a monster of a FUCK UP....

[Taverner]

135. Where's Dubya? Where's Reagan?

Both did so much damage to this country...

[terrya]

140. Andrew Jackson for his ruthless slaughter of Native Americans.

No question.

A disgusting, bloodthirsty tyrant.

[bertha katzenengel]

141. boy, that (current) 19% Jimmy Carter vote is going to raise some hackles . . .

:popcorn:

[4_Legs_Good]

146. Freepers! n/t

[Horse with no Name]

147. 28% think Carter?

:rofl:
Guess that goes to show how many freepers have infiltrated here.