What’s wrong with Roosevelt’s actions in Panama or the Roosevelt Corollary?
Ummm…actually, Bush the Younger most closely resembles Wilson, especially in his refusal to accept input from outside his “team”.
Who to reply to first?
Miller–I am not so much defensive as puzzled and annoyed. Reread the admin’s reply (riposte?) to my post. I never said a word about Wilson. So, he came out of left field.
What does this mean? I am under the impression that John had issue with me because 1. he did not agree with my disparagement of TR and 2. I did not back up my opinion. Now, per you, I am mis-interpreting the entire thread?
What is your issue with me, Miller?
I would not presume to guess at other people’s motives for their choices–or second guess their interpretation of “worst”–as has been said numerous times by me and others, there is no set criteria. Therefore, any criteria is valid. Worst in terms of what? Dress? Appearance? Policy? War tactics? Morals? All of those listed? I don’t understand how you can define “worst” for all here. If the OP had wanted to lay down the parameters, he would of done so.
Are you setting the guidelines now?
Guis– I think you may be right. I am hardly a TR scholar, and perhaps past figures should not be judged by modern standards. I picked TR because of his “Rough Rider” persona and I believe (I may be mistaken) that the term “jingoism” was coined during his admin. He didn’t just try to free Panama for canal purposes–he supported a revolution–and was angered when Wilson sought to make reparations.
Then again, as was pointed out, so have several other Presidents.(supported various revolutions)I could argue that commonality of occurrence does not make something moral or right, but I think I’ve been contentious enough for one day.
I take TR off the list. He does not deserve the title “worst”. In fact, what was I thinking? :smack: but I still don’t care for him… 
Bosda–as for Bush more resembling Wilson–I don’t know enough about Wilson to say. W might need to be informed of that–I believe that he sees himself as a sort of modern day Teddy Roosevelt. I have no cite, just an interview with Barbara Walters (or was it Diane Sawyer?). I would think that the two(TR and Dubya) are matched in terms of their fervent “patriotism”. And I don’t see Bush as reluctant to enter the world stage militarily.
And Miller–thru is an accepted alternative to through. I tend to use it online b/c it is more easily typed.
Could we get back to the thread? If [BMiller** wants to micro-analyze my posts, please do so via email. I don’t see why this distraction need continue.
But that’s a good thing, Ted – at least, compared to every other path we might have followed, and especially compared to the path we’re following now.
Thanks, Leviosaurus! I had looked for that story online a few years ago and couldn’t find it. OK, in the 1930s when it was written, Nixon hadn’t yet gained enough power to be able to work much mischief. I just took it as though Benét had already participated in the thread, using what American history was available in his day. I notice that he limited his cavalcade of evil to the Colonial period, for some reason. Also the view of Indians he expressed probably would not be acceptable in this day and age. I notice nobody else has nominated a single Indian, nor would the idea even occur to a Doper in 2005. In Benét’s time there were some old coots still left alive who had fought Indians in living memory. Of course, there would still have been some Indian warriors alive then too who had fought for their homes, but was anyone asking what they thought? (There was John Neihardt, who took down Black Elk’s story and published it as Black Elk Speaks in 1932. Black Elk had fought against Custer.)
Because it was set during the lifetime, indeed the prime, of Daniel Webster, who died in 1852?
Thanks for bringing the suggestion in! I’ve been having fun all day trying to look up all the folks Benét listed in the story. I’ve been able to find all of them except Reverend John Smeet, who I haven’t found any information on at all. (Amusingly, I’ve found a couple pages posted by Benét fans also looking to find out who Smeet was. Anybody know?)
Of the remaining folks, several seem to be regarded sympathetically now, and I doubt any of them would appear in the story were Benét to have written it in 2005. You seem familiar with many of them already, but for those in the peanut gallery:
[ul]
[li]Walter Butler was a loyalist who fought with the British in the Revolutionary War. When attacking a fort in Mohawk Valley, Butler’s Indian allies began attacking civilians, and an entire village was slaughtered. There were two Loyalist leaders who could have been blamed for not keeping better control of the Indian forces they were fighting with. One of the leaders was a popular and sympathetic character, so the public lay the blame entirely at the feet of the other loyalist leader: Butler. He certainly deserved at least some of the blame for the incident, but he paid for it dearly… let’s just say he died badly.[/li][li]Simon Girty was indeed a renegade. Raised by the Seneca Indians after being captured in a raid, Girty fought with the Americans against the British, later with the British against the Americans, and occasionally with the Indians against everybody. It’s true that he was in a crowd of Indians watching passively when Colonel William Crawford was brutally tortured to death, ignoring Crawford’s pleas for help. It’s also true that if Girty had spoken one word in Crawford’s defense, the Indians would have strung him up alongside Crawford. So it’s not like Girty had much choice in the matter.[/li][li]“King Philip” was actually an Indian named Metacom. Metacom fought against Europeans in the mid 1600’s. The Europeans were attempting to wipe out or enslave the local Indian population, so you can’t really fault Metacom for organizing a resistance and fighting back. Hell, these days he even has a school district named after him![/li][li]Speaking of schools, Governor Thomas Dale has several named after him. Most of the online resources say he was a very effective governor who successful kept the young Virginia colony intact through seasons of serious famine, sickness, and regular indian attacks. The online resources do say his methods were “severe” though. :eek: [/li][li]That leaves Morton of Merry Mount. Interesting guy, who I hadn’t heard of. Morton was a guy who left Europe about the same time as the Puritans, and for the same kinds of reasons. The difference was, when he got to America, he began following pagan rituals, and encouraged hs followers to have wild drinking parties with loose local women. This was just a few miles away from the Pilgrim’s establishment at Plymouth, and you can imagine what they thought of the whole thing. By no account does Morton appear the least bit violent, or even subversive - he was happy to live and let live with the Puritans. Unsurprisingly, the Puritans had other ideas. Morton’s village was attacked, burned, and he was thrown in jail. These days he’s a big hero to the Wiccans, Pagans and other New Age religious sects.[/li][/ul]
So while Butler and Girty weren’t nice guys, they hardly measure up to most of the folks on this thread. Dale and Morton weren’t really bad at all, although I doubt I would have invited Dale over for cocktails. Metacom, frankly, was a hero.
Everyone involved in the creation of the “war on drugs” is a horrible American, from Harry Anslinger who took a harmless herb and turned it into a “dangerous drug” with racist propaganda, to William Randolph Hearst (I don’t know if anyone’s nominated him yet, and I’m surprised if you haven’t,) for his yellow journalism (the forerunner to today’s sensationalistic American news media, on another topic entirely) which helped publicize the outcry against cannabis, to Ronald Reagan’s “anti-drug” policies, and even Clinton whose adminstration saw the “war on drugs” persecute individual freedom while American pharmaceutical companies grew to gargantuan proportions creating drugs of their own.
Wow, that was a long sentence.
Out of that bunch I’d have to go with Harry Anslinger. What a horrible, horrible person. Supposedly he also supplied Joe McCarthy with morphine even as he condemned cannabis.
It seems hard to beat Henry Kissenger. He was on the wrong side of just about every bet (with the possible exception of the opening to China). He honestly seemed to think the Soviets under Brezhnev were a threat, an equal to the West.
He allied us to tinhorn dictators who did us no good, but cost us much in reputation. At the same time he did not press the Soviets, allowing them to enslave millions for many more years.
He did it all with a smug ‘I am smarter than you’ attitude. A fool, a fool who caused much harm.
The best Kissinger article ever is “the Day Kissinger Cried” By Stephen Talbot (requires a subscription, but you can get a free two day pass.)
Excerpt:
Jackson, while a racist bastard to the Indians, had some good points. He was a Strong President when the Executive Office needed one. Thus, he was great and evil at the same time.
I am not going to castigate Lee, who was a gentleman. I do say he was the very worst thing that could have happened to the South- without him, the South would have lost years earlier, which would have been better for the South- IMHO.
Davis now- I can 't find anything much good to say about him. I won’t cal him Evil, but …
Worse still is Nathan Bedford Forrest, who was a rascist bastard that made Jackson look like the Statue of Liberty. A war criminal, who killed at least one Black man “just because”. Evil incarnate, and an ignorant half-illiterate dude besides. You can tell the unreconstructed Southerner writer by how much he lionizes this racist asshole.
Joe McCarthy was bad for two reasons- his arrogant grab for power- and the fact he has (in some cases) right- so that hunting down the real “Commie spies”.
became unpopular. After the Cold war was over, we found there were a lot of Americans in the Pay of the Russkies. Evil- and half-right. Very bad.
Wilson- he drug the USA into the war, but failed in his dream- which led to WWII. Not a bad American, but one whoes attempt (good intention though it was) led to the horror of Hitler and WWII. Terribly misguided.
I think its worth extra points to still be considered a “hero” today- by some good fraction of the Populace- no matter how bad the person really was. Wilson, Lee, Forrest and Andrew Jackson all get those 'bonus points".
I’d have to go with Nathan Bedford Forrest. But it’s close.
Being a strong leader does not mitigate facilitating a holocaust.
First off- I’m not an adminsitrator at this board. I’m SDSAB, which means I write staff reports.
I came on strong because your initial post carried very much the air of someone who knows very little of history, but has extremely strong opinions about it. We’re here discussing worst Americans, and you blithely dropped TR on the list for being ‘macho’. If you had explained earlier that you thought of “worst” as being “someone I have distaste for”, I would have let it slide. But we’re here talking about treachery, dishonor, massacres and genocides, and for you to drop TR and Reagan and Rove’s name in because you disagree with their politics indicates that you either aren’t taking the topic seriously, or have no idea what you’re talking about.
I reacted as if you had no idea what you were talking about. I brought up Wilson to point out that for whatever faults TR had, Wilson had more, and to decry TR as “worst American” while not including Wilson on the list obviously indicated that you had no idea what you were talking about. You apparently just weren’t taking the topic seriously.
As for my own suggestion of Worst American: Harry H. Laughlin.
Failed schoolteacher who became a scientist and worked at the Cold Harbor Laboratory on the Carnegie Foundation’s dime. While at CHL, he worked with Dr. Charles Davenport to expand the science of Eugenics and to prove scientifically that the Anglo-Saxon race was genetically superior and that the other races carried genes for sloth and crime.
Laughlin’s testimonies before Congress were the major factor in convincing Congress to completely restrict immigration in 1923, as Laughlin was able to ‘prove’ that the incoming immigrants were not as intelligent as previous immigrants. (Had something to do with new immigrants not being as able to read English or as familiar with East Coast American culture. Funny thing, that.)
Laughlin actively worked with the prosecution and the defense in Buck v. Bell, where they colluded to bring a perfect test case to the Supreme Court. As a result of the Court’s rulings, state-run mental institutions were able to sterilize people that the doctors felt should not be able to reproduce; over 60,000 Americans would be sterilized under these laws, many of them for being poor or for having epilepsy. Many of these laws were based upon the “model sterilization law” Laughlin himself had drafted.
Laughlin also happily supplied a copy of this law to Nazi Germany when they began discussing sterilizing their invalids, and Laughlin was awarded an honorary degree from Heidelburg University for his work on the “science of racial cleansing.”
Laughlin was a founder of the Pioneer Fund, and secured two propaganda reels from the Nazis regarding race biology and race cleansing to show in the United States.
Laughlin was a master of bad ideas, a horrible scientist, and used science to drape his bad ideas in good clothes for sale to the American people. There are others who did that as well, but none had the ear of the U.S. Congress like Laughlin did. He was an active collaborator with the Nazi government in their efforts to “cleanse” their people, and was disappointed that he could not convince the U.S. government to do likewise. He ended immigration into this country for generations, and there are thousands of people today still alive who were sterilized for the crime of being poor because of Laughlin’s laws.
But I do not consider Wilson to be in the running for Worst. Not even close. It is your opinion that Wilson did more harm to the nation/as a worse President–I do not know what criteria you are using to make your choices.
To say that since I named X and I must name Y or my position is not valid is incorrect. I am not familiar with the name of that debating technique, but it doesn’t hold up.
Reagan’s policies (from trickle down to the enviroment) have done more damage-IMO-and have left a legacy that harms this nation-perhaps in more insidious ways than some, but harm nevertheless. The amount of damage done by Rove’s ideals remains to be see.
Wilson (from my brief look at him last noc) seems, like so many of those nominated, to be a complex man caught in events that were none of his making(in some ways). He was reluctant to enter WW1, a reluctance shared by many. Idealist? Yes-the League of Nations was an ivory tower sort of approach. But like TR, he also won the Nobel Peace Prize. Are Idealogues only acceptable if they match your worldview? I thnk they can all cause harm, but tend to be more forgiving of those that are more liberal.
I don’t understand the insistence that WW is so horrible and TR so good–seems to me that they differ greatly in approach, policy making and cabinet, but overall neither deserves the moniker worst.
Hindsight being what it is, we can see the courses set in the late teens and twenties in America(and the world) were disasterous. I don’t hold any one person to blame for the onset of WW2(unless that be Hitler himself–but he had alot of help to amass that kind of power).
Try As I Might is correct. Presidents don’t make for good choices because of the complexities involved.
I have to admit, John, of the few “bad americans” so far listed I have never heard of, yours tops the list. Pretty darn evil, and I see no redeming qualities. Good choice. Maybe too obscure.
Because the concept of “worst” is inherently comparative. You can’t have a “worst” unless you have someone better. In contrast, you can’t be the worst if you’re better than someone else. Wilson was a convenient contrast to illuminate why Teddy Roosevelt is a poor choice for “worst” American.
Apparently, yes, you are. You said people were just posting the names of people they disagreed with. I don’t think that’s what they’re doing. They’re posting the names of people they honestly think are the worst examples of humanity throughout history. Look, the name of the thread is “Who was or is the Worst American.” You suggest Teddy Roosevelt, and then a couple posts later you say of TR, “Does it all add up to the Worst American? No.” Well, then why the heck did you post about him in a thread asking who the Worst American is?
You posted something in Gread Debates I disagreed with. Hence, I started to debate you. That’s not me having an “issue,” that’s me using the board for its intended purpose.
Again. Great Debates. Second guessing other people’s opinions is pretty much the entire reason this forum exsists.
How you define “worst” is up to you. You’re now saying Reagan is the worst American, because of (among other things) how his policies affected the mentally ill. So, for you, that’s a criteria for “worst American.” Liberal nominated Andrew Jackson for killing Indians. For him, committing genocide is a criteria for “worst American.” Someone else might nominate Paris Hilton, for starring in stupid reality TV shows. For them, bad TV is a criteria for “worst American.”
Now, there are two ways I could debate those choices. One is disputing the basis for selecting them. Bad TV can be annoying, but it’s hard to classify it as “evil,” so I might decide to question the person who said Paris Hilton. Or, I might agree that a person did something bad, but feel that there’s someone else who did a similar bad thing on a greater scale. Reagan’s treatment of the mentally ill was certainly reprehsible, but John Corrado’s suggestion of Harry Laughlin sounds like someone who did even more damage to the mentally ill than Reagan. So I might dispute Reagan on those grounds. Or, I might argue that, even though treating the mentally ill poorly is a bad thing, genocide is far, far worse, so I might argue that Liberal is correct and that Reagan, bad as he was for the country, wasn’t nearly as bad as Andrew Jackson.
Whatever argument I decide to make, I’m still no more objectively right than anyone else. As you say, “worst” is a subjective term. That doesn’t mean there’s no room for discussion. The fact that it’s subjective at all is what makes it a meaty subject for debate. 2+2=4 is an objective claim. It’s a provable fact, and there’s not really a heck of a lot to discuss about the subject.
No, it’s not.
Consider the Horrible Harpe Brothers.
Terrors of the American Frontier between the Revolution & the Civil War.
And our first recorded serial killers.
And don’t forget his complicity (and Nixon shares the blame equally!) in Augusto Pinochet’s 1973 coup in Chile. He deserves to be hanged for that alone. I hope I live long enough to see the U.S. sign on with the International Criminal Court, just so Kissinger (and Pinochet) can be tried for crimes against humanity.
!!! Cite?
The worst American, in my opinion, would again be a person who had the biggest negative effect on the People of the United States of America by either grossly misrepresenting Americans abroad and by making life for most Americans harder and less enjoyable.
Kind of like a good CEO can be a jerk but he really runs the company well etc.
One of the best Americans by this standard might be Martin Luther King Jr, or Thomas Edison, Helen Keller etc. (you Americans have a LOT to be proud of, but dont let it go to your heads!)
In my opinion one of the worst Americans might be Joseph Smith, whos self-serving “prophecy” has caused one of the largest, most powerful, ridiculous and ongoing cons ever perpetrated on the world in the last few hundred years that has all but blinded millions of people to reality.