Most "radical" U.S. President

[Indyellen]

@Oldeb

FDR: How many presidents have amendments added to the Constitution just to prevent someone from duplicating their achievements?

<nitpick>
The 22nd Amendment wasn’t even proposed until after FDR’s death. It was a result of the Hoover Commission, which was appointed by Truman in 1947.
</nitpick>

[pantom]

@Walloon

… in the Confederacy. The 13th Amendment, which was adopted eight months after Lincoln’s death, ended it elsewhere.

I quote:

One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope–fervently do we pray–that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether”.

Further comment would be superfluous.
Well, the further comment that the South seceded in direct reaction to his election would be relevant, so I’ll make that point as well. No one doubted, at the time, that his overriding purpose was to end slavery, importantly including the folks who had a very direct interest in its perpetuation. Why do you?

[AWB]

@gonzomax

Can’t overlook Bush the second. He stuck us with a right wing Supreme Court and gave corporations more power than anyone could imagine. He killed regulation and started wars with no funding ,destroying a surplus and bankrupting the country.

And now, conservative radio hosts blame his successor. :mad:

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Curtis LeMay

This is radical as in enacting new or innovative policies rather than being politically on the radical side.

9. Barack Obama (so far)

OK, I know I’m going to regret asking this… but assuming that we agree there is a difference between liberal and radical, what is radical about Obama? The health-care thing is something lefties have been trying to push for decade, and is an ordinary and unremarkable part of most European democracies. Hardly “radical”. Beyond that, I must unfortunately agree with the wingnuts who point and chortle “haw haw haw, so much for change, he’s not so different from the last guy.” He’s not. There’s been nothing radical about his administration.