I’m not sure that’s true, but I would argue that fucking over his own citizens makes Trump a worse President of the U.S. than other presidents that may have committed things that make them worse human beings.
If you say so.
If the new nation of the CSA can’t control its hotheads, perhaps they should reconsider their desire to be a new nation
Maybe you had to be there. From my perspective, Nixon declared war on the half the country that didn’t support him. He sent federal goons after protesters. He had an enemies list. He was the proto-Trump.
He halted and then reversed all the progress LBJ had made in civil rights. He was a loathsome bigot who drew support from other loathsome bigots and helped keep them in power when there was a chance the country might swing against them.
He lied to the country about having a peace plan in Vietnam just before the 1968 election, which helped him squeak to a narrow victory. He kept the war raging from 1969 through 1973. He secretly bombed neutral countries, a total violation of international law.
He was so bad an alcoholic that the people around him quietly made plans to ignore or deflect orders given while he was drunk, including on nuclear weapons.
What frightens me when people ask this about Nixon is the thought that people born after Trump leaves will start asking why we think Trump was so bad, and not believe us when we explain what it was like to live under him.
So much “wow” in one little sentence.
Well they were racists. Their violent impulses were part and parcel of that, not something that cooler heads among them could be expected to control. So why not use it as leverage?
As the better biographies of Lincoln point out, he wasn’t just a noble soul. He was an also a devious bastard when that was the only way to win.
We’ve had principled but politically incompetent presidents: Grant, Truman, Carter. We’ve has unprincipled presidents who knew what levers to pull and buttons to push: Polk, LBJ, Nixon. The best presidents combined the better qualities of each.
I think not, because it will be obvious based on the destruction Trump left behind. I disagree that Nixon reversed all of the progress LBJ had made on Civil Rights. If that was the really the case, that means that things in the late 70s and 80s would have been just as bad for racial minorities as they were in the 50s and earlier. Cleary that wasn’t the case. Whatever Nixon did (and he did many bad things, although he did several good things as well), the United States continued to improve and become a better place to live under his watch. The US continued to become a better place to live WRT the progress of civil rights of minorities right up until Trump came around.
In other words, in some hypothetical where I was a Black person (or gay, or a woman, or any other minority you can think of) and I had to choose to live in either 1965 or 1975, I’d choose 1975 every time. Add 1985 in, or 1995, or 2005, and each additional 10 years becomes the obvious time to choose.
ETA: I can easily imagine that this won’t be true WRT Trump. In some theoretical future, 50 years from now, or 100, or whenever, my guess is that this same minority (or even a working class cis-hetero white Christian man), asked to choose between 2015, 2025, and 2035, will say “it’s obvious, 2015 is the better choice”.
So the hotheads did start the war?
What was the alternative for Lincoln? Giving up a facility pened by the federal government, paid for by Union taxes (and built on an island constructed from New England rock) without reimbursement?
I agree Lincoln was not a saint - he believed that slavery would die out on its own if restricted to the South, and campaigned on that basis. He didn’t want a war - but if war came, he wanted it begun by the rebels.
From the perspective of the Confederate states, the only acceptable alternative would have been for Lincoln to either lose the election or not run in the first place. Clearly their’s was a shitty perspective.
The problem with Vietnam in general — and LBJ in particular — was not so much the war itself (which was bad enough), but the way the administration reported and promoted it. Granted that censorship has always been, and always will be, part&parcel of wartime efforts, Vietnam was communicated to the US public in a PR campaign which became increasingly detached from the reality on the ground. And when that reality became obvious, it led to a mistrust of government that has only grown over time. And as a side effect, the US public became polarized to an extent that had not been evident before.
The worst atrocities may have been committed by Nixon and his henchbeings, but when it came to the “credibility gap” he was just building on his predecessor.
(Yes, I am a Boomer. Born 30 years before you.)
What I was getting at, at least from the USAian perspective (and given the current way things are in Vietnam, presumably from the Vietnamese perspective as well), those things eventually faded into the background after the war ended. Our current polarization doesn’t have anything to do with Vietnam and how it was reported on. The mistrust of government didn’t keep growing after Nixon. Those things calmed down for a good 20 years or so, especially during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years. The current problems really got going with Newt Gingrich and the 1994 mid-terms, not with LBJ or Nixon. Even at that, the momentum was still on the side of the “we want to make things better” side of the American public until Trump came along.
In other words, yes, the “good old days” did exist, but they weren’t in the 1950s under Eisenhower (which is when the stereotypical Boomer thinks they were), or the 1990s under Clinton (which is what the stereotypical Gen Xer supposedly thinks), they were as recent as the early 2010s under Obama. Whatever Nixon may have done, he didn’t stop the progress the Unites States was making in becoming a better country. Trump has done that, and is still doing so. That’s why I rank him the worst. Other than possibly Hoover with the Great Depression and Andrew Johnson stopping reconstruction, there isn’t a single POTUS that has halted or even reversed the progress of the country, going all the way back to Washington. And Hoover at least gets a little bit of a pass in that his mistakes weren’t made out of malice, which is why I didn’t rank him in my top 5 worst.
ETA: Andrew Jackson also qualifies as another POTUS to halt US progress based on his making the US the sort of country that invades other sovereign nations and takes their territory and kills their people. Which is why, as presidents that actually made the US a worse place, I have Jackson and Andrew Johnson among my top 5 worst.
I’ll admit I am making an unstated assumption by ranking Trump as the worst. If he were to die today, then I would have his at 4th, after Jackson, Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson. But he isn’t likely to die any time in the near future, and my guess is that he’s only going to continue to make things even worse than what he’s already done. By the time his term is over, I think he’ll have done enough harm to pass those three in the race to the bottom.
Trump seems to be holding on the “worst” slot in the various scholar surveys along with James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Franklin Pierce. In fact a sizable chunk of the early-to-mid 19th century seems to involve poor presidents (Polk and Lincoln being the standout exceptions).
I don’t know enough about Pierce or Fillmore or WH Harrison to know why they rank so low, but the other dishonorable mention goes to Harding for a lot of reasons.
Depends on what we mean by “worst.” He has the worst intentions, and he has the worst ability, judgment, and character. Perhaps the outcome is not yet the worst, but he’s just a fucking disgusting person, I’m perfectly comfortable calling him the worst president of all time.
Ironically that’s part of why Jackson is still worse, so far. Jackson not only had bad intentions, but he was competent and able to get his evil agenda to become reality because he was intelligent and wasn’t cowardly. Trump’s lack of intelligence and cowardice has, ironically, probably saved us from an even worse outcome, at least so far. That being said, those things will hold Trump back only so long, and by the time he’s done I have no doubt he will have passed Jackson.
The short answer is yes. The problem is that most of the run-up to the shooting is forgotten. A very short, hopefully fully factual, summary.
Anderson’s garrison of about 80 men occupied the obsolete Fort Moultrie. Fort Sumter was literally in the hands of workmen finishing the interior. South Carolina started demanding that both forts be turned over to them even before they formally seceded on Dec. 20, 1860. Its militia vowed to drive Anderson out if not.
On Dec. 26, Anderson secretly moved his troops to Sumter. The North, even Democrats, saw this as a heroic victory and one never to be given away. Buchanan (Buchanan!) felt he had to resupply them. On Jan. 9, 1861 the unarmed merchant vessel Star of the West arrived in Charleston harbor. Artillery fired at the ship, hit it, and made it turn around. Some people called that the true start of the war.
Lincoln felt he couldn’t surrender Sumter; Davis felt he must take it. Various negotiations with states failed to achieve anything and showed Lincoln even more intransigence. By early April Anderson’s troops were starving. Lincoln sent S.C. Gov. Pickens a message saying he was sending a ship with provisions only: no war materiel. Davis called a cabinet meeting and sent out word to take the fort before the ship arrived. On April 12, the Confederates did just that.
Now, opinion. Blame can be apportioned to all parties. That Lincoln deliberately provoked the war is the least best answer to the sequence of events. (People who argue that today are known as neoconfederates, which should be a signal as to their veracity.) He waited a full six weeks before taking any action in the hopes that a peaceful settlement could be reached. None was possible. South would take nothing less than surrender. The North was full of fury and demanded action. Sumter was merely a long-delayed excuse.
The war started on Dec. 20, when South Carolina was the first state to secede. Nothing can change that.
2 million is a heinous amount! That’s Hitler/Stalin numbers. It’s a order of magnitude higher than the entire native American population of the US at its founding. And a large proportion (most?) of those people were killed directly by US forces under the command of the president.
The Vietnam war is absolutely one of the worst things the America has ever done if not the most.
The Civil Rights laws. No one else could have powered them thru Congress. And you could blame JFK just as well.
Good points. I hereby add him to my list.
Saving the Union was not needless, and the CSA started it, not Abe.
Bought, not stole. The Mexican government had little use for those lands, sparsely populated by their people, and inhabited by what they called “savages”. The was little wealth to be found there ( or so they thought) even California was restless (The Californios resented the Mexican Government) and no tax income. All that territory was a money sink, and Mexico was near bankrupt. Many actually thought they had got the best of the deal- worthless land for hard US currency. Of course, once gold was found…
LBJs civil rights legislation more than clears him of VietNam, which at least was a war against encroaching Communism.
Right.
Just FYI, the Trail of Tears was Van Burens mess, caused by rampant corruption and racism.
Nonsense. It was Federal property. And the South fired the first shot before they fired on Sumpter- they tried to sink an unarmed relief ship- The Star of the West, on Jan 9.
Yes, little known, but Lincoln did not let that stampede him into war.
And Lincoln had no intention at all of outlawing Slavery. His desire was to stop it’s spread into new states.
Great post and points.
Thank you for your detailed answer, though my question was rhetorical (pushing back against the untrue assertion that Lincoln chose the Civil War)
Absolute worst - Donald Trump. Racist, rapist, and has single-handedly destroyed the US reputation for fairness and diplomacy. It will be at least a generation before the rest of the world trusts the US again, and that trust might not ever be regained.
For the rest, I’d put Andrew Jackson for his appalling treatment of the Indigenous peoples.
Richard Nixon, for both criminal activity in trying to hold on to power, and for his involvement in the Vietnam War.
George W. Bush, for getting the US into Afghanistan and then Iraq, the latter on false pretenses.
Ronald Reagan, for his economic policies that the US is still dealing with, and also for his guilt in allowing AIDS to claim far more lives than necessary.
I’m surprised that Nixon hasn’t made as many people’s lists as I would have thought.
I think this more or less summarizes him. Rape. Racism. Abuse. Treason.