The American Presidents

Discussion in 'History' started by tim840, Jul 22, 2008.

?

Who were America's best eight presidents?

  1. George Washington

    16 vote(s)
    72.7%
  2. John Adams

    5 vote(s)
    22.7%
  3. Thomas Jefferson

    12 vote(s)
    54.5%
  4. James Madison

    4 vote(s)
    18.2%
  5. James Monroe

    3 vote(s)
    13.6%
  6. John Quincy Adams

    2 vote(s)
    9.1%
  7. Andrew Jackson

    5 vote(s)
    22.7%
  8. Martin Van Buren

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. William Henry Harrison

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. John Tyler

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  11. James Polk

    1 vote(s)
    4.5%
  12. Zachary Taylor

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  13. Millard Fillmore

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  14. Franklin Pierce

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  15. James Buchanan

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  16. Abraham Lincoln

    15 vote(s)
    68.2%
  17. Andrew Johnson

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  18. Ulysses Grant

    1 vote(s)
    4.5%
  19. Rutherford Hayes

    1 vote(s)
    4.5%
  20. James Garfield

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  21. Chester Arthur

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  22. Grover Cleveland

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  23. Benjamin Harrison

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  24. William McKinley

    2 vote(s)
    9.1%
  25. Theodore Roosevelt

    12 vote(s)
    54.5%
  26. William Taft

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  27. Woodrow Wilson

    4 vote(s)
    18.2%
  28. Warren Harding

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  29. Calvin Coolidge

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  30. Herbert Hoover

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  31. Franklin Roosevelt

    10 vote(s)
    45.5%
  32. Harry Truman

    4 vote(s)
    18.2%
  33. Dwight Eisenhower

    6 vote(s)
    27.3%
  34. John Kennedy

    13 vote(s)
    59.1%
  35. Lyndon Johnson

    1 vote(s)
    4.5%
  36. Richard Nixon

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  37. Gerald Ford

    2 vote(s)
    9.1%
  38. Jimmy Carter

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  39. Ronald Reagan

    8 vote(s)
    36.4%
  40. George Bush, Sr

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  41. Bill Clinton

    7 vote(s)
    31.8%
  42. George Bush, Jr

    1 vote(s)
    4.5%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    Amen!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    There were plenty of leaders who did not need to murder women and children to become leaders. I can take the names of Buddha, Christ and Mohammed as the most obvious examples. And I'n busy. I'll also be away for the weekend sans computer, so don't get your panties in a bunch.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kadark Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,724
    Your examples are all divinely inspired.

    Unfair.

    Kadark the Behemoth
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Nice try. They were religious leaders and only one actually had any political mettle and that one (Mohammed) did oversee war and rampage, it's just that most Muslims excuse such actions as being okay because Allah said so.

    Try again.

    ~String
     
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    You asked for leaders I gave you leaders. Whats more leaderlike than having followers 3000, 2000 and 1400 years after you're dead?
     
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    You think Washington was justified in burning down 40 Iroquois villages and massacring them? Because he did not know any better? Really? I suppose you think the British were justified in causing 25 famines in 100 years because they did not know any better? The Australians were justified in decimating the Aboriginals because they did not know any better? Radovan is justified in massacring the Bosnians because he comes from a backward society? The Rwanda massacres are justified because they don't know any better? Or is everyone to be judged by the moment when the white man saw the light?
     
  10. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Whatever SAM. No wonder people call you SPAM. We're talking political leaders who commanded nations. Mohamed does count, but then again, he also ordered people to their deaths without hesitation. So, it proves my point even more: when religious people get ahold of power, they become just like everybody else.

    No one ever said "justified", SAM. You are the one who used those words. The violence exacted on the Indians was certainly unjustified in a macro-historical sense (there may have been unique cases where individuals may have been justified in using violence as a self defense), but we aren't talking about justification, because the vast majority of wars are totally unjustified.

    We're talking about comparative ethics. It would be like you taking your mathematical knowledge and calling Romans stupid for not getting calculus. Knowledge isn't the only thing that increases with time. Humans have slowly, but surely inched closer to more humane societies over the last few millennia. While we still have a long ways to go, the fact is, we posses substantially more sensitivity to pain and suffering than people did hundreds and thousands of years ago. This sensitivity to our own pain and suffering has made us significantly more sensitive to that of others.

    Why? It's simple: Individuals judge reality by their own experiences. Even the wealthiest people lived relatively painful lives, devoid of real sanitation, in extremely less comfortable surroundings than we do today. When such a person is also educated from day-one to believe that red skins, blacks and women are inferior, It's a near certainty that they will grow up to reflect both the experiences they endured and education they received. What matters is how they broke free from their education, saw beyond their time, and did something extraordinary. This is why, for example, Darius of Persia's banning of slavery was so extraordinary. Slavery was a law of physics back then. It was simply was a piece of the fabric of life. Even slaves dreamed of owning slaves. They didn't question the reality or wholesomeness of it because it was an institution beyond question. But still, Darius looked at it, hated it and banned it. He was the first great leader in history to do such a thing. This same man, however, razed entire villages with women and children inside. He exterminated whole tribes. But that was typical of the era and was instilled upon him through his experiences and education as a child as being normal for a ruler of men. What wasn't normal was the fact that the man codified a system of justice for all to see, all while freeing slaves from their bondage. Was he an evil sadistic man for all the slaughter? Or was he a saint for his prescience in governing his subjects? It's easy to sit back and call the man evil for all the bad things he did, but then you'd miss the whole holistic point that he was a product of the times he lived in. You have to establish the baseline of what was, and what was not, normal and then judge his actions that deviate -- above and below -- that norm.

    What is it that Washington did that was out of the norm? Would other leaders of his era have done the same were Washington removed or if he had never existed? Was he the sole impetus of this event, or merely a part of it? Was there any recognizable movement -- moral, legal or otherwise -- to stop such activities? Most importantly did he feel shame at wiping out Indians? Probably not. But, what you aren't understanding is this: Washington didn't feel shame at his actions NOT because he was heartless tyrant but because such actions were just an unquestioned practice of the time. Justification didn't factor into it and wasn't even a blip on the edge of their radar. The perception was: Indians are not human. It's easy to become emotionally overwhelmed by that judgment (which judgment was the norm for millennia before Washington, even amongst the Indians themselves), but then you become too overwhelmed to see the reality for what it was in an era that preceded ours. It's called prejudice, and it's no surprise that you -- a human -- are hampered by it as well. Accepting human beings for being exceedingly flawed human beings in an era that was totally different than ours does not preclude rejecting the ferociousness of that reality as barbaric and anachronistic. One can judge the actions and find them wanting whilst still not demonizing leaders for doing what was unfortunately normal and -- for the most part -- required in their times.

    It's easy to say that they should have known better or for us to invent little dreams where they took up the mantle of peace and salvation, but such ideas are little more than rosie dreams and weren't just rejected by leaders, but by the populous as well. People simply were barbaric on all levels. And while life may have been better if everybody believed as you do, chances are, things would also have been worse if people lived in some hive-like peace as well. Individualism, as you well know, is both a force of good and evil, without which homo-sapiens would certainly have never even come to exist. In a contemporary sense, we can establish a rule and say, "...this point is too far and we will not cross." But, it is because of the grotesque lessons of the past that we can make such a judgment.

    Humans did horrible things. Washington was human. What Washington did that was super-human, was to be handed total power on a silver platter and then walk away from it all while teaching a young nation keep in place its ability to grow and evolve. He established a tradition of respect for the republic which gave it the ability to reflect upon itself, accept criticism of itself and grow from the experience. Nobody said it was perfect, that it didn't backtrack at times, or that it was at its zenith (even yet), but with his (and other's) guidances the USA was given the ability to grow and evolve in a time when governments stagnated in regal class decadence and crushed any criticism or dissidence with an iron fist. If he hadn't, the USA could very well have ended up far worse (GASP! Yes, far WORSE!) than it did. And while this may come to small consolation to those who were killed (none can be offered, so why try?), it does bear upon one's understanding of where things could have gone.

    Actually, SAM, you're the one saying that. Not us. What I believe, in fact, is that historical figures who did what we call "evil deeds" shouldn't be "judged" at all by any white man's standards (or contemporary Indian or Muslim standards, for that matter). Their actions should be taken in the context of the time and seen within a larger framework of human development. In comparative anthropological sense, how did the person differ from the era? A leader, or any person, has to be judged by the times they live in. If a legal trial is necessary, it should happen by the actions of his contemporaries and not by some pompous girl from India who thinks that she has the wisdom and intelligence to judge all human beings by her own self-centered moral code.

    ~String
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2008
  11. tim840 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,653
    Most underrated President: William McKinley. His election marked a major realignment in the party system, allowing the GOP to dominate for the next twenty tears. He got America out of the Panic of 1893, and presided over a successful war, although only entering when all agencies of peace had failed. He guided America into its place as a world power, meanhwile acquiring the Philippines and assuring American dominance in the Western hemisphere. One of our best presidents, and yet only I have voted for him.
     
  12. Farnarkeling Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4
    I garnered an impression somewhere that you were a historian of sorts.
    In which case I suggest you do some serious reading into the Kennedy administration's actions in the two or three years prior to the Cuban missile crisis.

    It was Kennedy who was largely responsible for precipitating the crisis to begin with. Were you aware that Cuba appealed to the UN more than once to have sanctions lifted, or that "terrorist" actions for years before the crisis itself were launched from US soil against Cuba as late as 1997?
    The Cubans tried just about everything they could just to be given a sporting chance, but Kennedy didn't let them breathe.

    Kennedy left the Cubans no choice but to appeal for Russian help, misguided and ultimately foolish as that may have been. And it was a Russian submarine commander who should probably take the credit for preventing it from becoming more than just a "crisis". Kennedy's administration was responsible also for developing doctrine and strategy in Nicaragua and Paraguay, at the very least, which later presidents took the fall for.
    And then there is Grenada, Haiti...
    Kennedy probably didn't want war with the Russians. His strategic advantage in placing nukes in Turkey a year or so before the crisis was to a large extent nullified by silos in Cuba, after all. He did, however, want a war with Cuba.

    The Kennedy administration records have been publically available, to one extent or another, since early this century (how odd does it feel to say that?). I very much doubt that Kennedy's assassination had anything to do with the CIA, seeing as there is a much longer list of suspects, in South America in particular, who had a very good reason to want him dead.
    Unfortunately, that did little but pave the way for more American Presidents.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2008
  13. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    Your points are well taken, though the degree to which Kennedy was a factor in precipitating the Cuban Missile Crisis is a hotly debated issue in some circles. I was merely pointing out that there is some conceivable basis for people to view Kennedy as a good President.

    As for my being an historian, I'm really more of a banker. I read a lot of history (not American history to any special degree) and there was a time when the impoverished life of a history professor beckoned, but I was too greedy.
     
  14. Farnarkeling Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4
    Hmm... I remember even Chomsky saying that it was possible that he wasn't as informed of his administrations' doings as he should have been. According to one quote in "Hegemony or Survival" he even wrote Kennedy said something like "Why, that's insane. It would be like us placing ICBM's in Turkey pointed at Russia" in response to being told the Russians were setting up missiles in Cuba... perhaps indicating he didn't know the Americans had done exactly that a year or so earlier.
    Quote paraphrased, it's been a while since I've read it. It could be one of those mythical quotes which was never actually said, of course. Or he might have said it in a sarcastic fashion rather than out of ignorance. I wasn't there, and who can tell, in print?
    To imagine that Kennedy knew nothing of flashpoints and interference all over the globe during his administration might be pushing credulity a little. Still, a president who doesn't even know what his own administration is up to is a worry... perhaps Marilyn was more a distraction than anyone truly realises

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    , and one who doesn't can hardly be considered one of the best.

    The Cuban Missile Crisis basically consisted of a massive bloke slapping a tiny little fella around in a bar, picking a fight.
    The little fella appeals to the bar and gets either ignored or laughed at, so he enlists the support of a bigger friend from across the road.
    This bigger friend sees it's a fight he can't win, and retreats, leaving the little fella at the mercy of the massive bloke, who continues jabbing him in the ribs when no one is looking.
    The whole bar applauds the massive bloke for "standing up to them", ignoring this little fella bleeding on the ground and forgetting that the "hero" started the whole damn thing to begin with.

    That about sum it up?

    The Cuban thing was only one of the better known machinations of the time, because it was dangerous to everyone rather than a single emerging south american republic. Also, they actually didn't fold under pressure... something which a couple of other pacific islands did, eventually, and therefore no longer have any input into documented history, other than as the local empire of someone like Papa Doc Duvalier.

    On the domestic front, I suppose Kennedy is up there. He did a lot of good inside the USA itself, but remember it was the 60's... a tidal wave of reform which presiding governments had little choice but to ride it out, or get washed away.
    Internationally speaking, the man was a complete bastard who was responsible (through deliberate design or ignorance, whatever your poison), for a south american nightmare. His main accomplishment during that period was avoiding the repercussions for it and handing them down to his successors. Eisenhower might be blamed for laying the groundwork, but it was Kennedy's administration which intially carried it out and set international policy for decades to come... indeed, most of which the USA is still clinging to today.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2008
  15. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    For some reason I only voted for 4 and clicked submit...they were...
    James Madison
    Abraham Lincoln
    William McKinley
    Ronald Reagan
     
  16. tim840 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,653
    Yay William McKinley!!! :bravo: I am no longer the only one.
     

Share This Page