who is the worst President in US history?

Great Debates
61

Okay, more on Franklin Pierce

Franklin Pierce was probably a man ill-suited for the job not solely because of his alcoholism, but because (according to Richard Shenkman’s Presidential Ambition, pp. 78-94) of a bizarre turn of events which appears to have ruined him before he even took the oath of office.

Pierce’s wife had a near-pathological hatred of politics. Pierce, in turn, had a near-pathological desire to stay away from his wife. She finally convinced him to step down as Senator in 1841 after the birth of their third–and only surviving–child, but then took the job as Chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. When she managed to talk him out of that, he went and joined the Army to participate in the Mexican War.

When the opportunity to put himself up for nomination to the Democratic ticket came up in 1852, he took it. He just didn’t tell his wife. She supposedly didn’t find out until after he won the nomination.

Then, as President-elect, the Pierce family was on a train when it derailed, and while Mr. and Mrs. Pierce were virtually unscathed, their only son was killed before their eyes. Pierce reputedly took to the bottle and allowed his cabinet to make virtually all policy decisions–or no decisions at all–and managed to hit a pedestrian while drunk-driving a carriage as President. When he lost the nomination for re-election, he reputedly said, “there’s nothing left to do but get drunk.”

In the meantime, Pierce had (theoretically) presided over the opening of Japan at gunpoint, the cession of the Gadsen Purchase by Mexico (also, metaphorically, at gunpoint), the purchase (again, at gunpoint) of the lands of the Indian tribes in future Washington state, and the boiling over of Kansas into outright civil war–four events which 20/20 hindsight tells us had unusually long-reaching consequences for the United States.

But we might not be able to hold Pierce accountable, because he was a grieving drunk who didn’t have a crystal ball.

(Incidentally, George W. Bush is a relative of Franklin Pierce, via his mother, Barbara Pierce Bush.)

62

Okay, more on Franklin Pierce

Franklin Pierce was probably a man ill-suited for the job not solely because of his alcoholism, but because (according to Richard Shenkman’s Presidential Ambition, pp. 78-94) of a bizarre turn of events which appears to have ruined him before he even took the oath of office.

Pierce’s wife had a near-pathological hatred of politics. Pierce, in turn, had a near-pathological desire to stay away from his wife. She finally convinced him to step down as Senator in 1841 after the birth of their third–and only surviving–child, but then he took the job as Chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. When she managed to talk him out of that, he went and joined the Army to participate in the Mexican War.

When the opportunity to put himself up for nomination to the Democratic ticket came up in 1852, he took it. He just didn’t tell his wife. She supposedly didn’t find out until after he won the nomination.

Then, as President-elect, Pierce and his family were on a train when it derailed, and while Mr. and Mrs. Pierce were virtually unscathed, their only son was killed before their eyes. Pierce reputedly took to the bottle and allowed his cabinet to make virtually all policy decisions–or no decisions at all–and managed to hit a pedestrian while drunk-driving a carriage as President. When he lost the nomination for re-election, he reputedly said, “there’s nothing left to do but get drunk.”

In the meantime, Pierce had (theoretically) presided over the opening of Japan at gunpoint, the cession of the Gadsen Purchase by Mexico (also, metaphorically, at gunpoint), the purchase (again, at gunpoint) of the lands of the Indian tribes in future Washington state, and the boiling over of Kansas into outright civil war–four events which 20/20 hindsight tells us had unusually long-reaching consequences for the United States.

But we might not be able to hold Pierce accountable, because he was a grieving drunk who didn’t have a crystal ball.

(Incidentally, George W. Bush is a relative of Franklin Pierce, via his mother, Barbara Pierce Bush.)

63

THANK YOU! I knew people would be jumping on Dubya and Reagan and Clinton and I think it’s way, waaaay too premature to judge their place in history.

Andrew Johnson was also the first Prez to be impeached.

64

The three pre-Civil War “doughfaces”–Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan–have never fared well in historical appraisal in any era. No one admires Northerners with pro-slavery sympathies. The best that can be said about these men is that by appeasing the South they postponed the Civil War for ten years, until the North was better prepared to fight it.

But none of the three were really evil, in the sense of Andrew Johnson or Richard Nixon. They were more like passive political hacks.

And Sofa King, good stuff on Pierce, but I’m not sure what you mean by saying the Gadsden Purchase was “metaphorically at gunpoint”. From everything I’ve read, Santa Anna was a willing seller because he needed the money to fight the endless civil wars in Mexico.

65

I just had a conversation yesterday where I made up a list of the four most dangerous Presidents we ever had. My list:

1 - Woodrow Wilson
2 - LBJ
3 - Nixon
4 - Dubya

All had the same thing in common: abusing the power to make war by sending our boys overseas to fight in wars they had no business fighting. Dubya has the unique privelige to be the only one of the Fab Four to actually begin the hostilities, on almost entirely trumped up charges.
Woodrow tops the list for all the reasons already cited by RexDart above.

66

John Adams. There has never been a more egregrious violation of the Constitution than the Alien and Sedition Act.

67

Well, jklann, I was looking at the Gadsen Purchase as more of a “we’ll do you a favor, and we won’t kick your ass again” sort of a favor. My knowledge of Mexican history is sadly poor from the years 1845-1916.

The result I was thinking about was the inclusion of many thousands of square miles of desert to American territory which would have presented a fine natural border on the other side of the line, which might have prevented the habitual incursion and retreat of gangs of bandits and renegade Indian tribes.

Come to think of it, it might have led to even earlier, stronger “splendid islolationism” and who knows what else. Nevertheless, Pancho Villa and his predecessors proved to be a long-standing pain in the butt for America, with nominal returns, save that it politically blocked any potential Southern gateway to the Pacific Ocean.

I can’t claim that “what if” to be any more beneficial than the attempted French coup during the Civil War, or anything else that actually happened. But I think I can say that taming the Gadsen Purchase is now a primary objective of our Department of Homeland Security today.

68

I can’t believe that DSeid’s friend (cited in the OP) thinks that George Washington was the worst President in US History.

69

Am I really an SDMB contrarian? I always thought of myself as a normal fellow Doper, but my opinions on this question–and I think my opinions fairly well-considered–are WAY the other side of much that has been said.

The last time I looked–and it wasn’t really ALL that long ago–Andrew Jackson was considered well in the upper reaches of the Presidency: ie, either a “great” or a “near-great.” He was credited with enhancing the power of the Chief Executive vis-a-vis the Legislative and Judicial branches, and that was thought to be a good thing by most historians and pol-scis of the 20th Century–so I understood. I gather he was a vile racist in personal life and an oppressive aggressor against Native Americans. (Was this as President? Pardon me for asking.)

It may well be that Old Hickory was far overesteemed in the past. But going from top tier to rock bottom is QUITE a drop. Is it possible that revisionist readings of American history are weighing-in a tad too heavily? I’m not making a CASE for him, just a little distrustful of emotional revulsion as a basis for historical judgment.

In fact, I have something of a problem with the whole idea that a “worst President” has to be a “truly vile human being.” Unless all of our Presidents are of absolutely equal “Presidentiality” (whatever the Hell that might mean), it’s entirely possible that there will be a “worst” who isn’t especially bad, as well as a best who isn’t terribly admirable.

Where is the standard? What “ought” a President do? Enforce contracts and protect our shores from invasion? Make us more virtuous people? Enhance national greatness and honor? Bring on the millenium? (Bill Clinton did that.) Establish absolute equality? Make the world a safer place for Jesus?

My standard:

The President “ought to” conduct himself in office in such a manner as to promote (with reasonable likelihood, based upon available information) the kind of society (and to a degree, the kind of world) that the alert conscience can consider with some satisfaction.

A very nice, philosophical, theoretical formulation.

It’s morality over “moralism,” ethics over “legalism,” sober concurrence over mob-democracy, looking-with-fresh-eyes over don’t-upset-the-applecart, reluctant interventions over hungry invasions, clear-eyed modesty over jingoistic chest-thumping, a searching conscience over haggling diplomacy, personal liberty over conformist group-think–BUT advancing The Good over merely self-centered “libertarianism” (small “l”).

Perhaps it is indeed “President-as-avatar”–in several senses.

So then: worst Presidents?

Harding was too much a weak-willed bumbler to be an anti-avatar. But US Grant, when sober, ranks near the bottom for failing to confront his corrupt poker buddies. Pierce put his personal neuroses ahead of his duty. Both Johnsons, perhaps Jimmy Carter as well–heartbreakingly stubborn. Coolidge?–too much the minimalist. To the bottom third I’ll add a few of those “mediocre Presidents” memorialized in the Simpsons song.

As to the very worst, I’m inclined toward James Buchanan–not so much for “not preventing the Civil War,” but for what I gather was his role in the circumstances of the Dred Scott decision, which was deeply immoral and a national shame.

I rank Woodrow Wilson very high; Clinton and George I somewhere in the middle around Ike; Reagan and George II too close to the present to assess fairly.

70

Nixon
Because his particular brand of presidential shame was so far-reaching, and his denial so very very adament.

71

Then don’t read this book…

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684849267/ref=lib_dp_TFCV/103-2143822-3471818?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader#reader-link

72

I don’t think it’s too soon to nominate Bush the 2nd for “absolutely the worst ever”.

> Turning surpluses into record-breaking deficits,

> large tax cuts for the rich,

> getting us into a war on false pretences

> and with no exit strategy (perhaps because no exit is planned?),

> getting us into a war without UN backing,

> poor conduct of said war (large number of civilians killed, maimed, injured; looting of national archaeological treasures, art treasures, nat’l library),

> insistance on having large tax cuts for the rich and fighting a war at the same time,

> roll back of environmental protections, withdrwal from the Kyoto Treaty,

> frittering away of the good will of our allies (former allies?),

> reinstituting the global gag rule,

> replaceing real sex ed with abstinence-only-until-marriage,

> appointing Ashcroft,

> the USA PATRIOT Act (and PATRIOT II, if it passes)

> funelling tax money to religious organizations,

> and loss of jobs (how can it be a recovery if we are not gaining jobs?).

I’ve probably overlooked a few things, but that’s what I can come up with off the top of my head.

73

Oh, yeah, and then there’s 9/11: the worst intelligence failure in history. And once in progress, how well was it handled? Why, when even one plane changed course with no warning and stopped resonding to the control tower, were no Airforce planes sent out to take a look?

And then there’s the unaccounted-for $2.5 billion per month. Senator Kennedy, in a recent interview with the AP, said that the Congressional Budget Office has reported that, out of $4 billion a month being spent on Iraq, $2.5 billion cannot be accounted for.

74

I’ll have to add that LBJ is one of the oft-nominated worst that I would also name as one of the best. I mean, come on, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. That’s what ended American apartheid. He knowingly sacrificed the political future of the Democratic party in order to pursue this ideal.

Do you mean to say that overall, this country is a worse place to live now than it was in 1933? Man, you have got some twisted view of reality.

75

I agree that the Alien and Sedition Acts were truly horrible acts. Especially the Sedition act, which made writing critically against the government punishable by fine and imprisonment. Unfortunatly, judicial review wouldn’t be established for a few more years until Marbury vs. Madison.

That said, Adams just doesn’t compare to Andrew Jackson. Jackson was fucking insane. His actions during the First Seminole War deserve a painful sledgehammer to the head. He was also a murderer. But as for his administration as president, the Trail of Tears and other actions against Indians collectively were the most blatant and horrific acts the country has ever done. Over 100 million acres of Indian land were abandoned. Jackson also ignored a Supreme Court Decision giving the Cherokee Nation sovereignty forcing them to move to Oklahoma, and killing 30% on the trip there.

The Alien and Sedition Acts were bad, but they were all repealed or expired by 1802, 4 years after they were signed. Those adversely affected by the acts were also pardoned by Jefferson. The Trail of Tears had much more lasting and horrible consequences.

76

Sofa King,

[Partridge family]

  • I think I love you…*

[/Partridge family]

Just wanted to say that this was a great post! Thanks for the links.

77

I’d say Reagan for utter incompetence and for taking the country in the wrong direction. But, as a general opinion, and not just mine, it would have to be Nixon for inciting general contempt and removing the respect one ordinarily holds for an office of that sort. Dubya’s creepy, but no one is even surprised anymore.

Best: (1) FDR, (2) Clinton.

78

Clinton took us in pretty much the same direction Reagan did, or he was led that way by Congress, take your pick.

Welfare reform, spending cuts, free trade, “era of big government is over”.

79

Sorry about that. I don’t care much for Harrison the grandson.

Thanks for the complement, Mehitabel.

80

The United States was never a party to the Kyoto Treaty, because the Senate never ratified it, as required by the Constitution.

And this is Bush’s fault how, exactly?