If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   Americans rank presidents: Iran-Contra, blowjobs and war outrank freeing the slaves and being the father of the country   (story.news.yahoo.com) divider line 373
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

23110 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Feb 2005 at 8:19 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



373 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-02-20 09:31:31 PM
huszar!:

I don't know if he was an asshole, but I do enjoy the story where both of an assassin's pistols misfired and then Jackson beat the dude's ass with his cane, if I remember correctly.

The first attempted assassination of an American president, as well. Happened on the steps of the Capitol at the funeral of a congressman.
 
2005-02-20 09:31:41 PM
thornhill: Being a science major isn't an exuse for ignorance.

Thats not ignorance. I've been as well versed in history as the next person. I just don't remember it since I never use it or have any reason to remember it
 
2005-02-20 09:32:01 PM

One thing to consider wrt Washington is that at the close of the Revolutionary War, there were those who wanted him to be king. In the words of my Constitutional Professor, Washington basically said "No thanks, I'll just go over here and farm a little."

Imagine, had he had the mentality of GWB, there may never have been any presidents.

I think this wasn't an act of his while in the presidency, but at least this should mean that he should figure high on the list of greatest men who were presidents.

 
2005-02-20 09:32:30 PM
Well, y'all have a good night...gotta get some work done before beddybye.

/good night from beautiful South Carolina!
 
2005-02-20 09:32:53 PM
SilentStrider: but he was, in my mind, fairly unspectacular.

Except for the one line that will live in infamy: "Read my lips. No new taxes." I don't have an opinion either way. It's still too early for me to study him. He's not past the 25 year limit yet.
 
2005-02-20 09:33:06 PM
i to the submitter defeating communism was not great thing
 
2005-02-20 09:33:57 PM
lfv: That's the top 5. No argument.

you haven't been on fark long have you?
There's always an argument.
 
2005-02-20 09:34:16 PM
Atvar,

I agree, he took war powers to a whole new level. I especially decry the handling of the draft riots in NYC. But I also think he put the health of the Republic over Civil Rights for a good reason: the press was working against the effort. FDR would have done the same thing. (And did--all foreign reports of the pacific front, for example, had to be run though censors. Also see Japanese interment camps.) Lincoln would have done reconstruction right, too. Johnson was a petty man who liked seeing the planters grovel. he was an intellectual weakling compared to Lincoln.
 
2005-02-20 09:35:06 PM
What exactly did JFK do that makes people put him on the list? He wasn't in office long enough to screw up?
 
2005-02-20 09:35:07 PM
Not because of your politics, but because you haven't yet figured out that insulting people, then stating conclusions without backup, isn't enough. Given this, how friggin' sharp can you possibly be?


For the sake of space and sanity, I assume a certain level of education, maturity level and intelligence are common to your 'average' fark poster/reader. I realize that i'm being overly generous in my assumptions but I do give you the benefit of the doubt.

In other words, it ain't my fault if you can't keep up.
 
2005-02-20 09:36:41 PM
5 seconds prior to the first presidential beatdown...



"I'm gonna show you why they call me Old Hickory, biatch!"
 
2005-02-20 09:36:46 PM
lfv: No argument.

Mine's fairly similar:

1) James K. Polk
2) George Washington
3) Abraham Lincoln
4) Franklin Delano Roosevelt
5) Theodore Roosevelt
6) John Fitzgerald Kennedy
7) Dwight D. Eisenhower
 
2005-02-20 09:36:59 PM
Major Thomb: He wasn't in office long enough to screw up?

he had a full term before he was assasinated. He had just begun his second when he was shot, if I remember. (and I could be wrong, if i am, please correct me)
 
2005-02-20 09:37:13 PM
What exactly did JFK do that makes people put him on the list? He wasn't in office long enough to screw up?


Sure he was. He was in office long enough to screw up, down, sideways.

Couldn't resist. He wasn't bad, had enough sense to lower capital gains taxes and did a hell of a job with the missile crisis.
 
2005-02-20 09:37:46 PM
What exactly did JFK do that makes people put him on the list?

Three things:

1. He's a Kennedy
2. He was handsome and oh so presidential
3. Cuban Missle Crisis

That's generally why people cite him as a great president (although if number 1 and 2 were absent, I doubt he'd top any lists). Did have some notable internal improvement programs, however, and showed a genuine concern for the poor and downtrodden.
 
2005-02-20 09:37:48 PM
Wow... I'm surprised. I'd say Lincoln and Washington as 1 and 1a, in no particular order. I'm pretty conservative, but I'd personally not include Bush Jr. on the poll until his terms are over. He has a bit to prove still. I give Eisenhower high domestic marks for realizing he just needed to keep his hands off... not many people could resist tampering.
 
2005-02-20 09:38:00 PM
matt4864
I just don't remember it since I never use it or have any reason to remember it

There is no need everyone needs to have a history majors [or PHD] knowledge of history, but there are always reasons to remember history, if just as cautionary stories. Well that, and in many cases the knowledge reasults in the BS detector pegging at 11 in discussions of certain topics.

/wow a history thread, and a possible evolution flamewar [which as per SOP I will avoid to maintain my sanity] in the same evening.
 
2005-02-20 09:38:50 PM
Plus, Lincoln was funny as hell. When asked to describe one of his cabinet members he said....."The only thing he wouldn't steal is a red-hot stove."

You gotta love that.
 
2005-02-20 09:39:06 PM
Alured Popple: but there are always reasons to remember history, if just as cautionary stories.

But do I need to remember that Wilson was a racist and that someone had a Teapot Dome Scandal?
 
2005-02-20 09:40:16 PM

To continue with the observations TheDumbBlonde and SmashAdams made about the "Emancipation Proclamation"... Not only was it only directed to the Southern states, and Lincoln had no authority over those states, but it only threatened to free the slaves if the South did not rejoin the Union.

Also, calling the "Civil War" is a misnomer. A civil war is when two factions in the same country struggle to seize control of a single government.

The "War of Southern Seccession" was one group of states wanting to exercise their right to dissolve their bond with the Union and to form an entirely new country much as the colonies had done during the Revolution (except the United States was originally designed so states legally had the right to secede).

Some bits from A Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.D. are...

As H.L. Mencken observed about the Gettysburg Address:

The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history... the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold hard words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination -- that the government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not vanish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers actually fought against self-determination. It was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves
Ulysses S. Grant said:
If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side.
Grant owned slaves until the 13th Amendment was ratified after the war.

Lincoln himself said in 1848:
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right -- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit.
Lincoln also wrote:
I will say that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they can not so live, while they remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
Lincoln is probably spinning in his grave today.

CanSomeonePleaseKilltheChristmasShoes: nicely put!
 
2005-02-20 09:40:20 PM
TheGoblinKing:

I didn't have issue with that. I agree. I am just of the opinion that that would be overruled by the economy thing which is why I centered on that. Again, just an opinion. Even if it were a house of cards, why wouldn't they be able to keep it up? China has. NKorea and Vietnam have. They'd do it at the tip of a bayonnet if need be as they always had. I guess I didn't see it as important to what I was trying to say so I didn't cut/paste it. Apologies if you were slighted.

Defense spending became what it is today under Truman. All RR did was keep the status-quo. A Democrat president might have cut spending, but not enough to prolong the cold war. Defense spending is an institution. Not only can't you pull the plug on it, but you can't easy up on it since so many people with interests are going to be impacted.

China has kept it up because they're government is much better organized and they've produce economic progress.

North Korea has sustained itself through aid from other countries. Their current leadership has taken them on an express train to collapse.

Vietnam too has a better government that the Soviets.

It really cannot be overstated how terribly run Soviet Russia was.
 
2005-02-20 09:40:55 PM
Unshavenhelga:

I also think he put the health of the Republic over Civil Rights for a good reason: the press was working against the effort. FDR would have done the same thing. (And did--all foreign reports of the pacific front, for example, had to be run though censors. Also see Japanese interment camps.) Lincoln would have done reconstruction right, too.

I don't doubt that he had good intentions when he shut down many Democratic presses, and he used that suspention of habeus corpus to imprison Confederates and Confederate sympathizers. That being said, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. It simply sets a bad precedent. I've got Lincoln up there at #3 because of the good he did. Without suspending rights, and able to put his reconstruction plan into effect (if it had worked), he'd be #1 in my book. I'm against the Patriot Act, and if anything, Lincoln's actions were a Patriot Act x5. I don't like suspensions of rights. I'm too familiar with French and German history for anything else.
 
2005-02-20 09:45:36 PM
keylime: Lincoln himself said in 1848:

The key there is in 1848. I've read that myself, and he obviously changed his mind between 1848 and 1865. I say 1865, because the Emancipation Proclaimation was simply a war measure to cripple the economy of the Confederate States. His actions toward the end of his life show that he had changed his mind to that, as well. He was working toward an equal rights amendment, which, ironically, may not have passed without his death to inspire other Americans to vote for it.
 
2005-02-20 09:46:47 PM
EmbodiedHate:

Other than washington, I'd say Eisenhower is the greatest American president, for the simple fact that he signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act into existence. That one stroke of the pen changed transit and with it, our society in ways we're still feeling profoundly today.

I like the idea of lots of highways, and would love the same to be true in Canada. Having said that, some would say that the huge network of highways allowed people to live farther away from the city, therefore creating the climate for suburbs and urban sprawl. Also, it led to the increased reliability on the automobile (not the only factor, GM bought a lot of transit to put it out of business for example), and less emphasis on public transit, which would be a contributing factor in the air pollution and congestion we have today.
 
2005-02-20 09:47:20 PM
matt4684
Alured Popple: but there are always reasons to remember history, if just as cautionary stories.
But do I need to remember that Wilson was a racist and that someone had a Teapot Dome Scandal?

Specifically, no. But both can serve as excellent cautionary tales.
 
2005-02-20 09:48:18 PM
Atvar,

I don't think he had good intentions. I think he did was was necessary to preserve the union. I don't like it, but given his position, it was the only thing to do. I also agree that he might have treated the confederate sympathizers better, but the thin line between sympathizer and spy was is too difficult to find in the fog of war.

keylime,
Just curious, which part of the Constitution implies that States can come and go? That part of the deal was ambiguous at best, until 1861. Then it was put to bed. No one is arguing that Lincoln wasn't racist. He shared the same racial views as his contemporaries. Only a very few whites weren't convinced of Racial superiority. And those that weren't were closet paternalists who saw blacks as exotics.
 
2005-02-20 09:48:57 PM
Atvar:

I'm against the Patriot Act, and if anything, Lincoln's actions were a Patriot Act x5. I don't like suspensions of rights. I'm too familiar with French and German history for anything else.

Again, I'm not defending what he did, but I think he was reasonably justified in being afraid of losing control of Maryland, which would have been disastrous.

Or as Lincoln argued, the ends justify the means. When you're fighting for the existence of the Union, what's more important, winning or doing the legal thing?
 
2005-02-20 09:50:00 PM
ottawaboy:

I like the idea of lots of highways, and would love the same to be true in Canada. Having said that, some would say that the huge network of highways allowed people to live farther away from the city, therefore creating the climate for suburbs and urban sprawl. Also, it led to the increased reliability on the automobile (not the only factor, GM bought a lot of transit to put it out of business for example), and less emphasis on public transit, which would be a contributing factor in the air pollution and congestion we have today.

Can't have the good without the bad, and vice-versa. The expansion of the suburbs was already fact prior to the Interstate Highway Bill. It was greatly accelerated, but keep in mind that most Interstates weren't completed before the late 1960s. If you keep that in mind, trends to suburbanization were already established. I've got Ike up there in my list, even still.
 
2005-02-20 09:50:24 PM
name one american hurt by the patriot act.
 
2005-02-20 09:52:32 PM
Unshavenhelga:

I don't think he had good intentions. I think he did was was necessary to preserve the union. I don't like it, but given his position, it was the only thing to do. I also agree that he might have treated the confederate sympathizers better, but the thin line between sympathizer and spy was is too difficult to find in the fog of war.

I agree that it was the right course of action for the War of Secession, but I'm afraid that it sets a bad precedent, one that's continued in a watered-down version with the Patriot Act. I much prefer laws to act within the constraints of the Constitution and Bill of rights, which is as it should be.
 
2005-02-20 09:54:23 PM
Thomas Jefferson is first.

(So who's second?)

Sir, there is no second.
 
2005-02-20 09:54:39 PM
Unshavenhelga:

keylime,
Just curious, which part of the Constitution implies that States can come and go? That part of the deal was ambiguous at best, until 1861. Then it was put to bed. No one is arguing that Lincoln wasn't racist. He shared the same racial views as his contemporaries. Only a very few whites weren't convinced of Racial superiority. And those that weren't were closet paternalists who saw blacks as exotics.


The Federalist Papers make it clear that states cannot come and go. But you don't even need the FP to prove this. Think about it logically. If states can leave the union whenever they want because they don't like national policy, than you're essentially giving every state veto power over the Federal Government, and now you're back to the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were dumped in favor of the Constitution because nothing could be accomplished nationally because states had so much power.
 
2005-02-20 09:57:00 PM
Atvar:

Can't have the good without the bad, and vice-versa. The expansion of the suburbs was already fact prior to the Interstate Highway Bill. It was greatly accelerated, but keep in mind that most Interstates weren't completed before the late 1960s. If you keep that in mind, trends to suburbanization were already established. I've got Ike up there in my list, even still.

And FDR gets 100% credit for the boom in home ownership and suburbia since he made it much less risky for banks to give people mortgages thanks to regulation of the housing and banking industries.
 
2005-02-20 09:57:36 PM
Is it too late in the thread to have people submit their list of top five historians of American history?
 
2005-02-20 09:58:40 PM
Atvar:

Can't have the good without the bad, and vice-versa. The expansion of the suburbs was already fact prior to the Interstate Highway Bill. It was greatly accelerated, but keep in mind that most Interstates weren't completed before the late 1960s. If you keep that in mind, trends to suburbanization were already established. I've got Ike up there in my list, even still.

Defintely agree with you; the mass production of cars (and other things like the decline of inner cities) had gotten the ball rolling much beforehand.
 
2005-02-20 09:58:54 PM
thornhill:

And FDR gets 100% credit for the boom in home ownership and suburbia since he made it much less risky for banks to give people mortgages thanks to regulation of the housing and banking industries.

I don't know much about FDR's banking regulations as part of the New Deal, but I don't give anyone full credit for anything.
 
2005-02-20 09:59:00 PM
Dude, Taft was the farking man. Busted more trusts in four years than Teddy did in eight. Plus he was also Cheif Justice, which brought him him two thirds of the way towards the coveted Federal Government Triple Crown.
 
2005-02-20 10:00:29 PM
Hoover not all bad. Handled famine during wartime well.
 
2005-02-20 10:00:35 PM
Alured Popple:

Is it too late in the thread to have people submit their list of top five historians of American history?

Off the top of my head:

Richard Polenbeg
James T. Patterson
David M. Kennedy
 
2005-02-20 10:01:15 PM
Atvar, what sources do you have that say that Polk didn't want a war with Mexico? After negotiations failed, he sent Tyler down to Texas with a few thousand troops to try to start something. Polk was so caught up in Manifest Destiny that he wanted not only the north of, but all of Mexico. Congress was against it (Southern plantation holders, who didn't want "mixed-breeds" in the Union, and Northern Whigs). The jist of the whole war was that Polk got the area he was bargaining for for 10 million dollars instead of 30 million.
 
2005-02-20 10:01:27 PM
Atvar
but I'm afraid that it sets a bad precedent

By any chance have spent a lot of time dealing with late-colonial and revolutionary America?

/a sentence that sums up many colonial writings from 1763-1776.
 
2005-02-20 10:03:55 PM
pvd021: wrote: Wow sounds like southerners are still bitter with Lincoln.

That's because, for Southerners, it is still a relatively recent event. I knew a slave (Charlie Smith) and my in-laws retell stories of specific actions their great-grandparents took fighting in the war.

My Physics professor in college lived in an ante-bellum plantation mansion and I nearly bought one in Ridgeway, SC in the 1980s.

There are traces of Sherman's atrocities all around us in South Carolina and Georgia. The woods I used to cruise through on my dirt bike contained the remains of several homes burned to the ground by Sherman's troops and the State House has cannonball marks on it.

Some people like to claim Southerners are ignorant. However, unlike some other parts of the country, we are acutely aware of history and its importance to the people of a country.

Upon re-reading this post, I realize it might come across as a personal reply against pvd021. It is not. It is just some comments inspired by pvd021's initial observation which made no comment one way or the other about the war except the South seems to still be bitter.
 
2005-02-20 10:04:47 PM
Alured Popple:

By any chance have spent a lot of time dealing with late-colonial and revolutionary America?

Unfortunately, yes. Spent the last semester studying Colonial America.
 
2005-02-20 10:06:06 PM
Atvar:

I don't know much about FDR's banking regulations as part of the New Deal, but I don't give anyone full credit for anything.

On this issue, he really totally overhauled the housing industry single-handily. He standardized the way appraisals were done, insured bank loans, intervened in construction, etc. Home ownership before him was low (like 3/10 of American families) because banks were afraid to give out mortgages, and when they did, rates were very high. It was so risky that banks avoided taking the risk of helping someone become a homeowner. FDR simply eliminated the risk.
 
2005-02-20 10:07:26 PM
keylime:

That's because, for Southerners, it is still a relatively recent event. I knew a slave (Charlie Smith) and my in-laws retell stories of specific actions their great-grandparents took fighting in the war.

My Physics professor in college lived in an ante-bellum plantation mansion and I nearly bought one in Ridgeway, SC in the 1980s.

There are traces of Sherman's atrocities all around us in South Carolina and Georgia. The woods I used to cruise through on my dirt bike contained the remains of several homes burned to the ground by Sherman's troops and the State House has cannonball marks on it.

Some people like to claim Southerners are ignorant. However, unlike some other parts of the country, we are acutely aware of history and its importance to the people of a country.


I'd think the South would be more bitter about Earl Warren.
 
2005-02-20 10:08:17 PM
Just curious, which part of the Constitution implies that States can come and go? That part of the deal was ambiguous at best, until 1861.


Thats the deal, if something is not in the Constitution then its reserved to the states or the people. Bayonets and guns settled the issue and thats fine, but it amazes me that people feel they can justify such an awesome display of centralized power just by something being absent from the Constitution. If the founders had intended for the central government to be able to suspend the concept of "consent of the governed" they would have put it in there. Instead, they even stated that the central government had to be invited in by a state legislature to deal with unrest in a state. Do you really think that the founders who required a state legislature's approval for the central government even putting down domestic violence in a state would be in favor of the central government going in and putting down the legislature itself? Yeah right.

In fact, states seceded from the "perpetual" union of the Articles of Confederation essentially at the behest of the founders themselves. We theoretically could have had two countries at that point, 9 states under the Constitution and 4 remaining behind under the old Articles. Luckily, all the states eventually joined under the new Constitution. The Federalist papers state that if this were to occur it would probably be best to let the non-ratifying states go and hope for an eventual reunion.

If you believe in consent of the governed, and self-determination, you have to believe in a right of peaceful secession. Otherwise, its just might makes right with lip service to self-determination.
 
2005-02-20 10:08:32 PM
thornhill

Well, replying of the top of my head [and alas not with much of my history library at hand].

Charles Andrews [if only he could have written Vol5]
Francis Parkman [if only for the efforts he went to in finding primary sources]
Thomas Barrow and Joseph Malone [okay, they really dont belong on this list but Trade and Empire and Pine Trees and Politics were such great books]
Edmund Morgan

Really, I would want to think for a while about it to give a better [and non-colonial skewed list] but Andrews, Parkman, and Morgan did some really interesting work.
 
2005-02-20 10:11:14 PM
Atvar
Unfortunately, yes. Spent the last semester studying Colonial America.

Use of the word "unfortunately" in relation to colonial america fills me with pain, given that I focused on Colonial America.
 
2005-02-20 10:11:40 PM
rumblerob:

Atvar, what sources do you have that say that Polk didn't want a war with Mexico? After negotiations failed, he sent Tyler down to Texas with a few thousand troops to try to start something. Polk was so caught up in Manifest Destiny that he wanted not only the north of, but all of Mexico. Congress was against it (Southern plantation holders, who didn't want "mixed-breeds" in the Union, and Northern Whigs). The jist of the whole war was that Polk got the area he was bargaining for for 10 million dollars instead of 30 million.

Digital History Textbook These articles show Polk's efforts to avoid conflict with Mexico by attempting to buy the contested territory. However, they also show that he was ready for war, should it have come.
 
2005-02-20 10:12:16 PM
I think William Henry Harrison was a better Prez. than good ole Georgie Jr.

And I have to agree, Andrew Jackson is a total A$$hole. Correct me if I'm wrong (I was only a history major for 1 semester), but didn't he fight the whole battle of New Orleans AFTER THE DAMN WAR WAS OVER?

/I Hate that guy
 
Displayed 50 of 373 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report