# \*The\* greatest U.S. President **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 19, 2006, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965 "2006-03-19T03:35:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2006, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/41 "2006-03-20T23:46:15Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > I don’t believe you have an accurate picture of slavery as a world-wide and very ancient practice. Yes, the south had their share of atrocities, but there were far greater ones in the past-- millions of people butchered, kidnapped, exploited and totured over thousands of years by those who had conqured their countries, only to do the same to their enemies when their turn came. Here’s what we need to notice about southern slavery. That time of insitutionalized, large-scale slavery had been stopped elsewhere in the Americas earlier in the 19th centruy. Only the American southerners failed to do so. Obviously they could have and should have ended this particular human rights abuse long before 1863. They chose not to do so, thus necessitating the Civil War. This can’t be compared to thousand-year-old events. Primitive tribe A may technically have committed human rights abuse against primitive tribe B. That was before the concept of human rights was brought into existence, however. They had no guiding light, no moral exemplar, nothing to tell them that a more civilized way of life existed. Southerners, by contrast, should have known better. They had a guiding light of freedom in the North (or in Canada, Britain, France, etc…) The South collectively _chose_ to reject freedom. The primitive tribes or Ancient Romans or whatnot had no such choice. Humanity history is littered with events so horrible that people who have lived sheltered lives can’t imagine them. The existence of any other crime against humanity doesn’t even slightly reduce the magnitude of the crime that was slavery. It is 1861. President Lincoln faces the decision of whether to start the war to liberate the slaves. If he chooses “no war”, then the lives of many soldiers and civilians are saved immediately, but slavery in the South continues. If he chooses “war”, many soldiers will die immediately, but slavery ends once the war is over. The relative costs of the two choices are all that matters. Chairman Mao’s Great Leap Forward ninety years later does not affect those relative costs. > [@](#): > > As I understand it, there was quite a bit of abolitionist sentiment in the south, though it wasn’t as open as it was in the north. If I may quote from Paul Boyer’s _The Enduring Vision_: “When abolitionist socities first formed in the 1820’s and 1830’s, they gained some traction in the South, though not enough to wield serious influence at the state government level. As time went on, however, the number of abolitionists in the South dwindled, as Southerners were unable to devise a means of shifting to a post-slavery economy. By the 1850’s, southern support for abolition had almost disappeared.” Sure, economic pressure worked against slavery, but it didn’t work hard enough. The Southern elite were so cemented into their backwards, barbaric way of life that they resisted every incremental step towards progress and freedom. There were absolutely no signs that slavery would end on its own accord. In fact, in the generation prior to the Civil War, Southerners were fighting tooth and nail to have slavery spread into the western territories. And they were succeeding. Slavery was growing in the United States, right up to the moment when Abraham Lincoln killed it. > [@](#): > > What about the genocide of the Native Americans? \* Here’s an interesting historical tidbit that **WillMagic** would probably prefer that you not know. The greatest crimes against the Native Americans were committed by the Confederacy. In the 1820’s and 1830’s, the United States had shoved the eastern Native American population onto the Oklahoma Territory. After secession, Southerners wanted to take Oklahoma and cover it with plantations worked by slaves. Problem: Oklahoma was occupied by Native Americans. Solution: kill those Native Americans. The Confederacy set about this goal by deliberately sparking wars among the tribes living in Oklahoma. Armed Native American units backed by small groups of Confederate soldiers were sent to exterminate the bulk of the population. Of the Native American inhabitants of Oklahoma in 1861, more than half were dead by 1865. If you would like to read further about these events, I recommend [Okla Hannali](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0806123494/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/102-1071309-6336921?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155) by R. A. Lafferty. This is a book which combines fiction and non-fiction. It’s one of the most powerful stories I’ve read. The OK Press edition contains a solid discussion of the history behind the story, with appropriate references. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/42 "2006-03-21T01:17:22Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > Here’s what we need to notice about southern slavery. That time of insitutionalized, large-scale slavery had been stopped elsewhere in the Americas earlier in the 19th centruy. Only the American southerners failed to do so. Obviously they could have and should have ended this particular human rights abuse long before 1863. They chose not to do so, thus necessitating the Civil War. Do you know why slavery fell out of favor in the north? It wasn’t because of sudden enlightenment, or an abrupt change in sensibilities-- it was because the Revolutionary War broke the slave owners’ power in the north, and service in either army meant emancipation. Advancements in mechanization came quicker to the north, and along with immigration providing cheap labor, thus slaveholding became unnecessary. _Economics_ were the driving factors, not abolitionist sentiment. Remember, too, that at this time, the “enlightened” north was working children in factories for fourteen hour days for pitiful wages. > [@](#): > > This can’t be compared to thousand-year-old events. Primitive tribe A may technically have committed human rights abuse against primitive tribe B. That was before the concept of human rights was brought into existence, however. You were the one who said that the abuses of slaves in the south were the worst in the course of human history. Now, when I point out the fallacy of the statement, you say that the two can’t be compared. > [@](#): > > They had no guiding light, no moral exemplar, nothing to tell them that a more civilized way of life existed. Sure they did. There were some peoples that they conquered who did not have slaves. There were philosophers who decried it, and they certainly saw suffering around them every day. They invented new forms of government-- do you really think that human rights as a concept would have been beyond their reach? Just because a people shows no interest in a concept does not mean they are ignorant of it. Shall I point out that we still cling to the death penalty when most other civilized nations have abandoned it? But wouldn’t we get hot under the collar if someone dared to call us uncivilized? Such notions of cultural superiority are quite offensive to those to whom they are directed, regardless of the reason. Southerners, by contrast, should have known better. They had a guiding light of freedom in the North (or in Canada, Britain, France, etc…) The South collectively _chose_ to reject freedom. The primitive tribes or Ancient Romans or whatnot had no such choice. > [@](#): > > Humanity history is littered with events so horrible that people who have lived sheltered lives can’t imagine them. The existence of any other crime against humanity doesn’t even slightly reduce the magnitude of the crime that was slavery. I do not argue that slavery was (and still is) one of the darker aspects of human history, and one for which the human race should be eternally ashamed. But i disagree heartily that the southern US bears a greater burden than others who had the same practices, if not worse. > [@](#): > > It is 1861. President Lincoln faces the decision of whether to start the war to liberate the slaves. No, he doesn’t. As has been pointed out numerous times before, Lincoln’s reason for war was primarily preservation of the Union. He said himself that if he could preserve it without freeing a single slave, he would do it. If I may quote from Paul Boyer’s _The Enduring Vision_: “When abolitionist socities first formed in the 1820’s and 1830’s, they gained some traction in the South, though not enough to wield serious influence at the state government level. As time went on, however, the number of abolitionists in the South dwindled, as Southerners were unable to devise a means of shifting to a post-slavery economy. By the 1850’s, southern support for abolition had almost disappeared.” I refer you to [this](http://www.kentuckypress.com/viewbook.cfm?Group=17&ID=926) book: THE ABOLITIONISTS AND THE SOUTH, 1831-1861, By Stanley Harrold . From the review: > [@](#): > > Harrold explores the interaction of northern abolitionist, southern white emancipators, and southern black liberators in fostering a continuing antislavery focus on the South, and integrates southern antislavery action into an understanding of abolitionist reform culture. He discusses the impact of abolitionist missionaries, who preached an antislavery gospel to the enslaved as well as to the free. From [this](http://www.gprep.org/fac/sjochs/abolitionists.htm) review: > [@](#): > > Showing extensive abolitionist activity in the slave states, and thereby amending this impression, comprises the main task of this study. > > Two chapters on the image northern abolitionists constructed of southern white and black emancipators show that immediatists were absorbed with the career of their cause in the South and used southern abolitionists as evidence that their efforts could triumph. In the 1830s and 40s, abolitionists regarded the South’s few outspoken white supporters of immediate emancipation, such as Liberty party presidential candidate James Birney and Kentucky missionary John Fee, as proof that peaceful moral persuasion had gained a foothold in the upper South and would eventually reform the whole region. > > \ > > Critics might give more emphasis to the role of northern cultural conventions about race and southern inferiority in shaping these images, but Harrold, at the minimum, shows that antislavery activity in the South attracted the sustained attention of northern abolitionists. While it certainly wasn’t as large or open as the abolitionist movements in the north, I think that denying its very real presence gretaly diminsishes the accomplishments and sacrifices of the brave people in the south who literally risked everything for what they believed. > [@](#): > > Sure, economic pressure worked against slavery, but it didn’t work hard enough. The Southern elite were so cemented into their backwards, barbaric way of life that they resisted every incremental step towards progress and freedom. There were absolutely no signs that slavery would end on its own accord. In fact, in the generation prior to the Civil War, Southerners were fighting tooth and nail to have slavery spread into the western territories. And they were succeeding. Slavery was growing in the United States, right up to the moment when Abraham Lincoln killed it. Whether or not they were pushing for slavery to be allowed in added states doesn’t change the practice’s economic viability. The simple fact is, it would have collapsed under its own weight in due time. It was an economic inevitability. > [@](#): > > Here’s an interesting historical tidbit that **WillMagic** would probably prefer that you not know. The greatest crimes against the Native Americans were committed by the Confederacy. In the 1820’s and 1830’s, the United States had shoved the eastern Native American population onto the Oklahoma Territory. After secession, Southerners wanted to take Oklahoma and cover it with plantations worked by slaves. Problem: Oklahoma was occupied by Native Americans. Solution: kill those Native Americans. The Confederacy set about this goal by deliberately sparking wars among the tribes living in Oklahoma. Armed Native American units backed by small groups of Confederate soldiers were sent to exterminate the bulk of the population. Of the Native American inhabitants of Oklahoma in 1861, more than half were dead by 1865. As horrible as that was, it was drop in the bucket compared to what happened when the settlers first arrived in the New World (witness Columbus’ decimation of Hispanola) and what they did after the Civil War. [In California alone:](http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1997/native-americans.html) > [@](#): > > The greed of Americans for money and land was rejuvenated with the Homestead Act of 1862. In California and Texas there was blatant genocide of Indians by non-Indians during certain historic periods. In California, the decrease from about a quarter of a million to less than 20,000 is primarily due to the cruelties and wholesale massacres perpetrated by the miners and early settlers. Some scholars put the numbers of Natives in the US at as high as 20 million (realistically, more like 12 million) before Columbus came, ending with as few as a couple hundred thousand around 1900. In the Continental US, the “Pilgrims” started the trend-- southerners didn’t invent it. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/43 "2006-03-21T01:31:37Z")
No votes for David Palmer? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/44 "2006-03-21T13:56:20Z")
Another thing that made Lincoln a great president (although not something that set him apart from the Whigs, including his model, Henry Clay): He had the right vision for America’s future. Hamilton’s vision, not Jefferson’s. Industry, not agriculture. Technology, not brute labor. That was **why** he was a protectionist – to give American industry space to grow, without competition from more advanced industrial nations. And that set his way of thinking distinctly apart from that of the Southern elite – and of all their later admirers, such as the “Southern Agrarian” writers of the 1920s. Industry in the antebellum South was retarded by its climate and lack of coal mines – but also by the cultural attitude of the plantocracy, who fancied themselves medieval barons lording it over their serfs. European immigrants did not much go to the Southern states because there was no work to be had there for free men. On that point, at least, Lincoln very definitely was right, and Jeff Davis was wrong. True, Lincoln was a racist. But so were most white Americans of his time. Only the Radical Republicans – a minority faction – and some extreme abolitionists accepted the idea that the blacks were here to stay and should be accepted by American society as social/political equals. Most others assumed that whites and blacks were too different to co-exist in the same society as equals. Lincoln, in fact, wanted all blacks (slaveborn and freeborn) deported to somewhere in Africa or Latin America as soon as emancipation had been achieved; but he also predicted that they would set up fully functioning democracy in their colony and inspire other nations. (Toward the end of his life/administration, Lincoln dropped the “colonization” policy, which would have been impractical in any case. General McClellan did a study and determined that, utilizing all the naval and merchant-shipping resources of the U.S., it would be impossible to ship all blacks overseas “half so fast as Negro children will be born here.”) For in-depth discussion of all of the above, see _What Lincoln Believed: The Values and Convictions of America’s Greatest President,_ by Michael Lind – [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385507399/sr=8-1/qid=1142949354/ref=pd\_bbs\_1/104-8953576-6968725?\_encoding=UTF8](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385507399/sr=8-1/qid=1142949354/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8953576-6968725?%5Fencoding=UTF8) ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/45 "2006-03-21T21:39:55Z")
> [@WillMagic](#): > > Sherman’s march through Georgia was a tragedy of epic proportions, with Union soldiers expressly ordered to take the war to civilians. I see this complaint all the time and I understand why soreheaded Southerners _make_ it, but i don’t understand why they think anyone else will _believe_ it. Sherman himself regarded his own march as harsh, for the destruction of property and economic damage done. He accepted that fact that war was hard – hell, he produced some of the best quotes on the subject. However, his express purpose in conceiving his raid was to destroy the Southern will and ability to levy war by destroying _property instead of lives._ After all, he could have joined Grant to foirce combat on Lee, or followed Hood and crushed his army. but instead, he set out on a course to wreck what we would today call infrastructure. And it worked. Confederate general Joseph E. Johnston was unable to fight a pitched battle against Sherman’s column, partly because of overwhelming force, but also because of Sherman’s handling of his troops (was it Lidell Hart who praised Sherman’s “indirect approach”? I forget). Before people dismiss Sherman’s skill because he had overwhelming force, I would point out that the North _always_ had overwhelming force, and seldom used it in a way that deterred battle and saved lives, as Sherman did here. These days, when we feel morally superior to Iraq or Iran, we propose to use economic sanctions to defeat their national will – i.e., economic damage to save the expenditure of lives. The fact that it hasn’t always worked for us doesn’t mean it didn’t work for Sherman, but the fact that we think of it as a first resort today should give us pause in condemning him for using it as a last resort in 1865. I never hear Southerners complaining about the savage massacres committed by [William Quantrill](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantrill) against civilians (and Quantrill’s raid definitely had aspirations toward economic warfare, or at least plain old bank robbery), or Nathan Bedford Forrest against [prisoners of war](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Pillow). Nor do I hear much about the Confedreacy’s plans to [burn New York city](http://www.historybuff.com/library/refburnny.html) in an act of terror. Let’s not forget the Southern [commerce raiders](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Alabama) either, seizing and sinking ships and property. More comparable to Sherman’s march, in that it was a recognized military movement and not purely terror or massacre, John Hunt Morgan’s cavalry raid was an attempt to destroy bridges and railroads, steal horses, and generally inflict deterring economic damage on the North. Morgan lacked the preponderance of force that Sherman would have, but he might well have used more force if he’d had it. Again, bear in mind Sherman’s plan was specifically to exploit overwhelming force to shorten the war and save lives. Although I will concede that the New York plan was to start after Sherman’s march, I’m not sure how long it was in planning stages, and the rest of these incidents occurred before it. I have read that poor Southerners eventually came to feel that the war was being fought by poor men on behalf of rich slaveholders (which is, in fact, not an inconceivable interpretation of the historical record). Some of my own relatives (Mississippi and North Carolina) certainly felt so. Perhaps making war on the wealth of the South instead of the bodies of its poorest citizens wasn’t as wholeheartedly evil as Southern apologists enjoy painting it. Regardless, until I hear Southern apologists condemning their own side’s massacres and economic raids, I am not going to participate in more outrage about Sherman. SURE the march was bad, SURE it was violent and damage…but certainly it was \*less \* destructive of human life than pitched battle, and involved no deliberate massacre of civilains either. Sailboat ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/46 "2006-03-21T23:06:08Z")
Mostly because he held a mirror to us…and showed us what we were really all about! Venal, corrupt, sleazy-willing to say anything or do anything-yep-we have met the enemy, and he is US! :smack: ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/47 "2006-03-21T23:32:46Z")
> [@WillMagic](#): > > Sherman’s march through Georgia was a tragedy of epic proportions, with Union soldiers expressly ordered to take the war to civilians. Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the Jubilee! Hurrah! Hurrah! The flag that makes you free! So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea While we were marching through Georgia! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![LiveOnAPlane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3d9bf3/32.png) [@LiveOnAPlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LiveOnAPlane)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/48 "2006-03-22T01:36:32Z")
My vote is for Rebecca Mansfield Chester. She held the United States through the riots of 2109, and the war of 2115. Had no scandals thru both terms in office, and bought Girl Scout cookies. ---
**Author:** ![LiveOnAPlane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3d9bf3/32.png) [@LiveOnAPlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LiveOnAPlane)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/49 "2006-03-22T01:38:15Z")
:wally This is 2008. Sorry, please ignore this post. I mean, 2006! ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/50 "2006-03-22T02:59:21Z")
We now return you to our OP… more _real_ presidents’ names, if you please. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/51 "2006-03-22T13:44:50Z")
Remember, we’re debating who was the **greatest** president, which is not necessarily the same as the **best,** in a moral sense. FDR’s internment of the Japanese, Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, should not necessarily remove them from consideration. LBJ’s commitment to the Vietnam War, OTOH, should remove him from consideration – not because it was a crime, but because it was a blunder. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/52 "2006-03-22T14:05:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Remember, we’re debating who was the **greatest** president, which is not necessarily the same as the **best,** in a moral sense. FDR’s internment of the Japanese, Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, should not necessarily remove them from consideration. LBJ’s commitment to the Vietnam War, OTOH, should remove him from consideration – not because it was a crime, but because it was a blunder. Was anyone considering Johnson? He was a poor President at best. Far from Great. I give him credit for pushing through many of Kennedy’s Social changes but otherwise his escalation of the war should disqualify from consideration. I don’t think any Great Presidents were without Flaws. \*\*Washington \*\* has the Slave Issue. \*\*Lincoln \*\* picked many poor generals to lead the North and other things listed throughout this thread. **FDR** : Japanese Internment and other issues **Reagan** : Won Cold War? Terrible Domestic and Environmental policies. **Monroe** : Lesser Slave issues, horrible depression on his watch. **Wilson** : Nobody has really nominated him as great, but he is well known. **Teddy Roosevelt** : Oops, I can’t think of a Flaw. Jim ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/53 "2006-03-22T14:18:51Z")
> [@What Exit?](#): > > **Teddy Roosevelt** : Oops, I can’t think of a Flaw. > **[Theodore Roosevelt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_roosevelt#Legacy:)** > > Theodore Roosevelt Jr. (/ˈroʊzəvɛlt/ ROH-zə-velt;\[b\] October 27, 1858 – January 6, 1919), often referred to as Teddy or his initials T. R., was an American politician, statesman, conservationist, naturalist, historian, and writer who served as the 26th president of the United States from 1901 to 1909. He previously served as the 25th vice president under William McKinley from March to September 1901, and as the 33rd governor of New York from 1899 to 1900. Having assumed the presidency aft... > [@](#): > > Overall, historians credit Roosevelt for his accomplishments in changing the nation’s political system by putting the presidency at the center and making personality as important as the issues. In terms of issues his accomplishments were modest, and concentrated in the areas of trust-busting and conservationism. However, he has also been criticized for his interventionist and imperialist approach to nations he considered “uncivilized”. His charisma and heroism, which made him a larger than life figure in his day, have also endured. His friend historian Henry Adams proclaimed, “Roosevelt, more than any other living man …showed the singular primitive quality that belongs to ultimate matter — the quality that mediaeval theology assigned to God — he was pure act.” Historians typically rank Roosevelt just below the top five presidents. [41][42] I hope you would not argue that either “putting the presidency at the center” or " making personality as important as the issues" is a **good** thing. And then there’s the imperialism thing . . . ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/54 "2006-03-22T14:56:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore\_roosevelt#Legacy:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_roosevelt#Legacy:) > > I hope you would not argue that either “putting the presidency at the center” or " making personality as important as the issues" is a **good** thing. And then there’s the imperialism thing . . . That is one quote from one man and his one man’s opinion. He did less to override the powers of the other branches than many other Presidents, and most that we have mentioned. His “Imperialism” (Strong Word) I am okay with. Care to cite where his Imperialism did wrong by either the US or the Nations impacted? Jim ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/55 "2006-03-22T15:37:06Z")
> [@What Exit?](#): > > His “Imperialism” (Strong Word) I am okay with. Care to cite where his Imperialism did wrong by either the US or the Nations impacted? The Philippines, for one. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/56 "2006-03-22T15:46:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The Philippines, for one. The US took control from the Spanish, not an independent nation. He started the policy of building schools & Hospitals. He raised their standard of living. I do not accept this as bad. Furthermore the Annexation took place under William McKinley not TR. He was busy charging up San Juan Hill, remember? 😉 Jim ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/57 "2006-03-22T15:51:27Z")
> [@What Exit?](#): > > The US took control from the Spanish, not an independent nation. > He started the policy of building schools & Hospitals. He raised their standard of living. I do not accept this as bad. > Furthermore the Annexation took place under William McKinley not TR. He was busy charging up San Juan Hill, remember? 😉 > > Jim Well, the Filipinos – who were hoping the end of Spanish rule would mean their independence – found the arrangement objectionable enough that they mounted a rebellion, which continued throughout TR’s administration and into Wilson’s. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_Philippines#Philippine-American\_War.281899\_-1913.29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Philippines#Philippine-American_War.281899_-1913.29) ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/58 "2006-03-22T16:06:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, the Filipinos – who were hoping the end of Spanish rule would mean their independence – found the arrangement objectionable enough that they mounted a rebellion, which continued throughout TR’s administration and into Wilson’s. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_Philippines#Philippine-American\_War.281899\_-1913.29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Philippines#Philippine-American_War.281899_-1913.29) Absolutely true, but we built the early infrastructure of the country and prepared them for democracy. The war was not as widespread as you might think. There was a larger movement to toss out the Marcos then the US if I remember correctly. Most of this took place well after Teddy however. Look for the Philippine-American War from other sources then Wiki, Wiki gives almost no details. The Filipino-Americans I know, said the Philippines were at there Zenith as a commonwealth of the US and Pre-Japanese invasion which really showed how heartless foreign rulers can be. BTW: Still wasn’t Teddy who annexed PI. Maybe I am wrong about the details of the Philippine-American War, but this isn’t Teddy’s Torch to bear. He inherited it from McKinley. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Rieux](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Dr.Rieux](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Rieux)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/59 "2006-03-23T08:41:42Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > No votes for David Palmer? Or Jed Bartlet? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965/60 "2006-03-23T13:35:37Z")
TR also engineered the separation of Panama from Colombia – just so the Panama Canal could be built. Whether that was a good or bad thing might depend on who you ask. I would not be surprised if the Colombians are still resentful. The Panamanians are certainly glad they have the canal, their country’s greatest economic asset, but they might resent the U.S. for keeping control of the Canal Zone for so long; and given the shape Colombia is in, they might well be glad to be independent of it. (Not that Panama’s history of self-government has been much better.) But the point is, TR’s action in this matter was extremely arrogant and high-handed. The Hay-Banau Varilla Treaty, allowing the canal to be built, was signed by the French and the Americans – without a Panamanian in the room. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_Panama#American\_seizure\_of\_the\_Canal\_Construction\_Zone](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Panama#American_seizure_of_the_Canal_Construction_Zone) TR also enunciated his own corrollary to the Monroe Doctrine, holding the U.S. could intervene in the internal affairs of Carribean states if “corruption” made it necessary. This precedent led to a long and shameful history of U.S. Marines fighting in banana republics to shore up unmistakeably corrupt (but pro-U.S.) dictators. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-greatest-u-s-president/348965.md?page=4)