Worst Democratic President

[Lenape85]

Since we had a best puke thread, we should have a worst dem thread

I would have to say either Andrew Jackson (Indian killer) or Grover Cleveland (union busting SOB DINO)

[Aristus]

1. Polk. Pro-slavery, pro-secession, bloodthirsty, xenophobic

monster.

[brainshrub]

2. Seconded.

[On the Road]

16. Despite the Catchy Theme Song

you could indeed make a good case for James K Polk:

In 1844, the Democrats were split
The three nominees for the presidential candidate
Were Martin Van Buren, a former president and an abolitionist
James Buchanan, a moderate
Louis Cass, a general and expansionist
From Nashville came a dark horse riding up
He was James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump

Austere, severe, he held few people dear
His oratory filled his foes with fear
The factions soon agreed
He's just the man we need
To bring about victory
Fulfill our manifest destiny
And annex the land the Mexicans command
And when the votes were cast the winner was
Mister James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump

In four short years he met his every goal
He seized the whole southwest from Mexico
Made sure the tarriffs fell
And made the English sell the Oregon territory
He built an independent treasury
Having done all this he sought no second term
But precious few have mourned the passing of
Mister James K. Polk, our eleventh president
Young Hickory, Napoleon of the Stump

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/they-might-be-giants/james-k-polk.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/clipserve/B000002HKS001010/0/103-7566731-4143829 (clip)

But you could also make a good case for a lot of Democratic presidents before FDR. They were the slavery party.

[theboss]

26. I go the other way; I've always felt Polk was unbelievably underrated

I mean, the United States would not look like the United States without him.

[Hippo_Tron]

46. Not really

Texas was re-annexed under Tyler (Polk's predecessor) but was done after the election. And although he negotiated PART Oregon territory out of the hands of the British, that didn't require too much effort considering that all he had to do was threaten war. It's kind of like Raygun taking credit for the hostages. Besides, with the exception of California, the Texas territory producted all Republican states.

[Cuban_Liberal]

121. I agree.

Polk came into office with one promise and two objectives:serve one term, bring Texas into the Union and extend America to the Pacific. He kept the promise and achieved both goals. I'd rate him 6th or 7th, overall.

[Hippo_Tron]

134. Actually it was to bring back Texas, and Oregon to the 54-40

The slogan was 54-40 or fight and the re-annexation of Texas (he believed that Texas belonged to the US under the Louisiana purcahse). And Polk didn't keep his promise really, because he settled the Oregon territory dispute with a peace treaty so that we have present day Washington and Oregon instead of a piece of land that extends quite far north into Canada.

[antigone382]

3. I agree with you on Andrew Jackson--he was practically a dictator

It isn't even just that he caused the death of all those Indians (not that that isn't bad enough), it's that he did it even though the court had ruled that he couldn't. He violated the Constitution, in order to forcefully and brutally drive a minority group from their homes, for the sake of money from gold and land.

If that isn't a modern-day Republican action, I don't know what is.

[pansypoo53219]

7. true, and iagree with the indian killer

but he also was quite the progressive and i have some good quotes from him. sadly he was of his times.
gotta take the good with the bad.

[G_j]

8. trail of tears=genocide n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

41. Jackson's presidency certainly makes for interesting history

Probably one of my favorite subjects from US History class. You're right in the practically a dictator sense. He abused his power about as much as possible to punish people he didn't like, in particular, his own Vice President John C Calhoun (another VERY interesting figure in American History). And of course there's the whole trail of teras thing, Jackson's REAL crime.

But Jackson is by no means a modern day Republican. Unlike the Republicans. Jackson was pro small government but populism was about small government back then because there were no giant corporations that needed to be regulated by the government.

Also consider that a lot of the corruption in the Jackson administration revolved around Martin Van Buren, who later became President. Perhaps Van Buren was a worse President than Jackson because he was the founder of political machines.

[antigone382]

45. Granted, Jackson changed the way our government ran considerably

Particularly regarding presidential power, and a lot of good has come from that. But disregarding the Constitution by violating a direct court order, particularly when thousands of human lives were involved, was an unforgiveable offense.

And I don't like Van Buren either, mostly because of his hair (just kidding ;))

[coda]

48. I agree about Van Buren. The Trail of Tears happend during his term.

As far as punishing Calhoun, it couldn't have possibly been punishment enough. I would count that as a high point of Jackson's presidency. That said, Calhoun was definitely an interesting figure. Complicated would be a good definition, as well.

But Jackson did broaden democracy bigtime, pushing expanded voting rights, esp. for those who owned no land (excepting blacks, Indians, and women of course).

I think my worst list would have Van Buren and Buchanan near the top, too.

[Hippo_Tron]

74. Well Calhoun was obviously a racist but so was Jackson

The Calhoun debacle wasn't over slavery it was over the Tariffs. Jackson caused the whole Tariff debacle with Calhoun because Calhoun's wife wouldn't accept one of the new Secretary's wives into the social circle.

[RoyGBiv]

129. The Eaton Affair ...

Jackson's problems with Calhoun were deeper than the Eaton affair. Eaton was ostracized by a large proportion of Washington society, even by members of Jackson's own family.

But you're right that it was at least to some degree personal. Jackson was paranoid -- not without cause given the events that lifted JQ Adams into office -- about political intrigue, and he felt people like Calhoun and Henry Clay were behind much of it.

[Hippo_Tron]

135. Any idea why Calhoun left JQ Adams to join Jackson?

Cause Calhoun was Adams' VP before he was Jackson's VP, I found that very weird.

[RoyGBiv]

136. Simple ...

Calhoun wanted to be President.

Remember at the time that VP's were not explicitly "chosen" to run with a presidential ticket. Jackson (read Van Buren) was in fact partly responsible for changing this.

As to why Calhoun put his support behind Jackson, that's pretty straightforward too. JQ Adams was the worst enemy the South had in the Presidency until Lincoln. Calhoun was more politically aligned with Jackson than with Adams and felt his own political fortunes would be better served with Jackson as President.

[RBHam]

4. truman

dropped a second atomic bomb on Japan for an insane policy of collective punishment and then created the national police state...

allen dulles was one of his boys...

just my opinion.

take it or leave it...

[jonnyblitz]

37. I agree.

completely. can't believe DEMS idolize this asshole.

[Senator Lamb]

39. r u serious

[Hippo_Tron]

47. In retrospect, dropping the atomic bomb was a mistake...

But it's hard to say whether he thought that it was the right thing.

[rfkrfk]

112. Limited options

Invade, starve em out, nuke.
The Japanese military, would have gladly fought, to the
last drop of the civilian-population's blood.
HT also had the Soviet Union to worry about.

[Bush was AWOL]

123. Why was it a mistake?

Japanese were willing to fight to the death, every man, woman and child.

[Art_from_Ark]

126. Not true

The Pacific war could have been ended in May, the Japanese were ready to surrender, but their request was denied and the war was prolonged in part to test the bomb and in part to allow the Soviet Union to reach the Kuriles and help themselves to Japanese islands and pave the way for Japan's Western role in the coming Cold War.

[Bush was AWOL]

137. The Japanese leadership was ready to surrender

but not the military leaders.

[KG]

51. a union buster too, IIRC.

[proud2BlibKansan]

57. No way

Truman was a great prez.

[Royal Observer]

98. Right

He also put a stop to the national liberation forces in Greece and other eastern European countries.

[UdoKier]

113. Total agreement here. Unnecessary mass murder.

Terrorism, plain and simple.

[KSAtheist]

117. National police state?

Are you talking about Japan? It's called occupation, not a police state. Since they surrendered, they were occupied and demilitarized.

Besides, compared to Germany, the Japanese got off very, very easy during occupation.

[TO Kid]

5. FDR

Gutted the constitution.

[Lenape85]

6. WTF, FDR was the epitome of Democrat values

[KSAtheist]

49. Yeah.

He attempted to stuff the court to push his policies through, attempting to bypass the system of checks and balances. He was a merciless strike-buster. He presided over the mass internment of Japanese civilians. He was in a sham marriage. He bent over backwards for Stalin...

FDR did many great things, but let's not pretend he was the epitome of democratic values.

[Lenape85]

53. In response to that

He attempted to stuff the court to push his policies through, attempting to bypass the system of checks and balances

Well, the Great Depression was a national emergency and the Hoover court just about declared every remedy unconstitutional. Just imagine if there was no social security because these charlatans appointed by his supply-sider predecessors wanted to stop it in the name of "constitutionality"

He was a merciless strike-buster

From http://www.worstpresidentever.com/tengreat.html

"FDR, unlike his predecessors, had a lenient attitude toward organized labor, which had found membership swelling during the depression. In 1935, the National Labor Relations Board was created, laying ground rules for union organizing. Unionization improved wages and working conditions for millions of the employed."

He presided over the mass internment of Japanese civilians

Um, I guess this was one of the horrible things he has done. But then again, AFAIK, it was nowhere near as brutal as Hitler's death camps. Besides, several Japanese had served honorably, ask Daniel Inouye.

He was in a sham marriage

You could say that about Bill Clinton too

He bent over backwards for Stalin

Listen, Stalin was a brutal dictator too, but Hitler just plain needed to be stopped. We needed all the help we could get defeated the bastard.

Besides, if he bent over backwards to Stalin, then Kucinich bends over backwards to Saddam

[wyldwolf]

79. there's also a little LIHOP theory on him, too...

[yardwork]

110. What's his marriage got to do with his performance as president?

Totally irrelevant and an unfair judgement on anybody's job performance, imo.

[KSAtheist]

114. "The epitome of Democratic Values"

That's what I was responding to.

I find the notion of a cynical, machiavellian marriage an affront to my values system.

[mitchtv]

13. sniff sniff to I smell Pizza?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. unless he's referring to Japanese internment that statement is wack

eom

[AP]

21. FDR did 1000 brilliant things for every bad thing he did. It's probably...

...the best ratio of any president.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Japanese Internment Was Pretty Bad But FDR Didn't Have The Benefit Of Hind

sight....


If one of us aren't free none of us aren't free but I think the poster mitch and I were referring to wasn't referring to Japanese internment but the New Deal which many conservatives believe is a usurpation of state's rights...

The bottom line is FDR is up there with Lincoln and Washington as our best presidents...

[AP]

29. ...and defeating domestic and foreign fascism was pretty great.

Washington fought to create America, Lincoln held it together, and the things FDR did held back the tide of fascism for 60 years after his death.

[Lenape85]

25. Just about every president did something wrong

[RoyGBiv]

130. Not really ...

I'm going to take a devil's advocate point of view in this. I disagree with the originator of this sub-thread that FDR was the worst Dem president. I think he was among the best, if not these best. However, FDR did do things that were arguably illegal under the constitution, and he did other things that toyed with the spirit of how the constitution was then interpreted as a curb on federal power.

Without going into any great detail, FDR had no constitutional authority for many of his dealings with China and Britain prior to the United States' entry into WWII. Further, some actions he did take had been explicitly denied by Congress. Certain particular actions with regard to China were impeachable offenses, and it may well have come to that if the attack on Pearl Harbor had not changed everyone's thinking on international involvement. FDR was a visionary in what the developing war meant to the world, but the greater percentage of the country was not behind him in the least until Pearl Harbor. (As an aside, the PNAC reference to Pearl Harbor means more than it says on the surface. The author is not just talking about a big attack. He's talking about an event that thoroughly changes the way American society perceives its role in the world.)

It's also notable that FDR's dealings with China were a cog in the chain of events that led to Pearl Harbor.

If it were possible to put yourself thoroughly into the mind-frame of someone living in the United States in the late 1930's, many of FDR's actions with regard to foreign relations, then hidden from public view, would have been infuriating to your sense of how the government was supposed to function.

We have the benefit of hindsight and know that, overall, what FDR did was necessary and proper and so may be excused. But, had much of this come to light at the time, or had events turned out badly for us in the war itself, we might well be singing a different tune.

[Bush was AWOL]

124. FDR? He's easily the best Dem president

FDR guided America through some of its toughest times and darkest hours. FDR was the first progressive president.

[Sugarbleus]

9. Clinton..............

A HUGE let down, that guy.

[bobweaver]

10. Wolf in sheep's clothing

[barb162]

11. there is some truth to that. I especially didn't like his foreign trade

agreements which I think are being used to hurt American workers

[dobegrrrl]

12. Clinton is GREAT

You must be kidding.:o

[Deja Q]

66. What did he do good that compensates for the bad?

A reminder are some examples of his bad:

DOMA (it affects me but I know some will like this one. As Wellstone had. They can all sod off or apologize to every LGBT person after rescinding it.)

DMCA (technological fascism, and perverted out of its meaning by money-hungry corporate scum too)

NAFTA (offshoring and unfair trade, also gives us Canadian oil should the US run into an energy crisis, how odd...)

Welfare reform (made it harder for regular people to get, didn't do much stop corporations from getting more...)

Telecom act (media monopolization)

Monica (obvious)

The firing of Jocelyn Elders under fear he'd lose his congress (he did anyway). See, Jocelyn had the damn nerve to get the American public to think and talk. She's the only post-Carter political figure I know of that deserves respect and an award for being a conscious, conscientious, compassionate American. (make fun of that all you want)

Nixing the federal 55MPH speed limit law (most people probably forgot why it was there in the first place, as had I at the time. Indeed, little if any post-1980 media even talks about oil and its uses and its value. Just lots of fast cars... :eyes: )

He even spun facts about his glorious economy, saying what great he did for the poor - saw this elsewhere on DU yesterday and I just about threw up my liver in anger. (MANY other graphs, including a real juicer from www.faireconomy.org, had shown that the top 1% were still getting far richer, by a factor of 624, and that there was no magical 8 year change of the economic system that gave the poor/middle classes any long term hope. It was a sham. Clinton was a centrist and well known for doing things for his corporate friends. NAFTA is obvious, but isn't it enough? He's a charlatan, no better than *. At least Bush is unable to lie.)

There are more examples, I regret to say. But my examples affected a LOT of people.

So Clinton balanced the budget. Whee. Most people could have, especially when a higher economy meant higher percentages of income for the government to collect. A recession WILL affect the amount of income going into the government.

And, all things considered, I think he was GENUINE about Middle East peace. And that got the freeptards burning in their fury.

But 1 (or 2) good out of 8 examples? The two good ones had better be pretty good ones. One was. The other wasn't.

He had his good points, but I can not wholly trust or like the guy. Sorry. (at least I will give him credit for what good he did. Manyw on't. I like to be reasonable.)

[cmkramer]

97. Joycelyn Elders

Actually, her firing was tied in with Dee Dee Myers and Leon Panetta. After Panetta became Chief of Staff, he wanted to fire Dee Dee. She heard about it and went in to see Clinton and long story short, they laughed, they cried, and she got to keep her job at least temporarily. Panetta heard about it and told Clinton that he would not be able to be an effective Chief of Staff if he kept getting undercut on his decisions. So Clinton promised that he would not interfere the next time Panetta wanted to fire someone. That person turned out to be Dr. Elders. Now, I don't believe Clinton -- or anyone else -- thought that what she said was so terrible. Also, she worked for him in Arkansas and her reputation as a firebrand was well-known. So why didn't he override Panetta again? Because the whole thing was a major distraction. It was the only thing the press wanted to talk about when it happened and since Clinton had already gotten stung by the "the only thing you care about is gays" over the gays in the military flap, he wasn't about to have the same thing happen over this. By the way, I'm pretty sure -- although not 100% positive -- that all this happened after the 1994 elections not before. But, like I said, I could very well be mistaken.

Worst Democratic president? How about Franklin Pierce?

[antigone382]

17. Clinton isn't above criticism, but I don't think he's the *worst* ever.

He didn't commit the crimes against humanity that some of the "Dems" of the 19th century committed.

[Sugarbleus]

28. He's the most disappointing Democratic President in MY lifetime....

I didn't think so at first and I like him personally...BUT

He signed on with that NAFTA crap, he KILLED the welfare program, jobs STILL went offshore during his stint, He gave up on the Healthcare thingy too early, poverty was NOT addressed properly,....I could go on.

I'm just thunderstruck by it. The more I dig, the more I find out, and I don't like it. I didn't even know there WAS a DLC until these last four years, I wasn't paying attention!

Edit: I forgot Bosnia and Somalia (I know that 41 started Somalia..but)

[antigone382]

34. He's the only Democratic president in my lifetime (20 years) :(

Sad state of affairs, isn't it?

[Sugarbleus]

36. Gee, I forgot about all that... I'm a "Young" granny =o)

Like I said; I like the guy personally...I don't think everything turned to shit at his hands. I was just disappointed at what we got for our vote once he took office.

He promised several things but didn't deliver "quite" like we'd imagined. "Don't ask don't tell"??? Stuff like that. I wasn't paying attention closely enough to politics to understand a "shift" had taken place. I just "assumed" his domestic policies would be similar or BETTER than previous socially conscious democrats of the past.

I also don't think he deserved to be "hounded" like he was by the RW. I didn't care one whit about his "indescretions"...I ONLY care about how a leader Leads..

Well, there's always the future and we've got more people waking up to all the changes that have overtaken us dems in recent years.

Hang in there.. :hi:

[Hippo_Tron]

76. Bosnia was appropriate as would Sudan be right now

Well, that's my opinion anyway. Of course you could make the argument that it would about showing third world nations that America was "still boss" but I still disagree.

[Sugarbleus]

30. Democrats had heavy southern RACISTS until after LBJ signed

the civil rights act. LBJ said: "We just lost the south"

I know, everything is so turned around.....sad

[Hippo_Tron]

84. But we didn't loose the south until much later

Jimmy Carter won southern states, and so did Clinton. Alabama didn't have a Republican Governor until the 90's I believe. Louisiana didn't have a Republican Senator until Vitter, Mississippi recently had a Democratic Governor who lost re-election. The transfer of the south into GOP hands was a slow process and one which I believe was virtually completed in this election. That is, unless the Republicans do manage to unseat Pryor, Lincoln, Nelson, and Landrieu, as well as virtually every Democratic state official, which I don't think will happen.

[DireStrike]

69. Clinton was a republican

A good, old style repub. Certainly not a dem.

[wyldwolf]

80. funniest post yet

simply comical

[medeak]

94. Eisenhower democrat

he was labeled.

I still love the guy...cousin bill..:-)

[yellowdog]

14. William Jefferson Clinton

A brilliant man, but was willing to sell out too much to the corporate side. Thanks to him we are saddled with the DLC today.

[Smirking_Chimp]

15. Woodrow Wilson

Supply sider, KKK leader, Fascist Pig. Scholastic history ignores these issues, but its true.

[Arkana]

32. In all my readings about Dr. Wilson, I didn't see any of that.

I only see that he was a President who made a bad decision in taking us into WWI.

[Hippo_Tron]

63. His foreign policy may have been the ONLY good thing about him...

Well partly. Looking back, it might've just been better that Germany had won World War I, because Hitler would've never come to power. However, after the war, Europe really should've listened to Wilson and formed the League of Nations as well as not make Germany pay huge reparations. Had Wilson been able to enact his 14 points and had Henry Cabot Lodge and the US Senate not been do bitterly opposed to the League of Nations, World War II probably would not have happened.

[David Zephyr]

87. You Might Want to Read Up on The Palmer Raids.

n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

42. I don't think that he was a suply sider, fascist, yea probably...

KKK leader, absolutely. Wilson was definately a racist. Wilson and his Attorney general were also responsible for the first red scare and several illegal raids on communist headquarters accross the country. But Wilson was also a champion of the progressive movement, something that needs to be taken into consideration.

[Smirking_Chimp]

55. I think Hellen Keller would disagree

that Wilson was a progressive, for she was a champion of the disabled at the time, and was the Wilson Admins worst nightmare.

[David Zephyr]

88. Yep.

And it was Wilson's Adminstration that gave us the Palmer Raids which is simply unforgivable. Unforgivable.

[immoderate]

56. According to a movie I saw...

Wilson opposed the women's suffrage movement until it was absolutely politically unviable for him.

--IMM

[Hippo_Tron]

60. No kidding, I need to read up on that

That would make sense because Wilson was so aweful that it's hard to imagine that he was a progressive.

[NRAGUY]

140. WW

He was the worst Pres Rep or Dem

[Mabeline]

19. Clinton....

big issues with a man cheating on is wife, he's lucky Hillary stayed married to him. IMO, she is smarter than him.

[Spiffarino]

23. Personal life is immaterial, IMHO.

JFK was the far more infamous womanizer, and LBJ was even worse. Based on your own criterion - cheating on a spouse - how does Clinton rate worse?

Far more material is how a president performs in the job and where the country is left when he's through. Clinton left the economy in great shape and the country was prosperous and at peace. He boffed an intern with a see-gar. He was a lousy husband, but that's got nothing to do with why most of us hired him.

I have to agree with many that the worst Dem president was James K. Polk just based on the evil-factor; he'd give the Shrub a run for his money.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I Nominate Andrew Jackson For The Trail Of Tears

They should have made him walk from Oklahoma to Tennessee ....

[Mabeline]

81. If he'd done it outside of the White House

then maybe it wouldn't have bothered me so bad. Personal life or no, he did it in his office and that brings it into public domain, IMHO.

Though I think all cheating husbands are louses.(is that a word?)

Would you feel the same if we found out Bush was cheating on Laura with some intern? A cheat is a cheat, no matter politics to me.

As for JFK and LBJ I'm not old enough to remember them nor do I have a competent enough grasp of their lives to justify labeling them.

[Spiffarino]

96. It's none of my business if Bush cheats on Laura

He'd still be an insufferable ass. :evilgrin:

I don't remember much about LBJ and JFK, either. But the fact is, aside from rumors, none of that tawdry stuff got into the mainstream until both were dead and buried. I've only read about it in biographies and elsewhere. In those days the press didn't consider marital infidelity a national issue.

Sure, Clinton did it in his office, but it's a "home" office. He lives there. Where else is he going to do it? If you did it in your home office in the basement, would you expect your employer to stop sending checks?

Please don't get me wrong; I do not mean to pick on you at all. Your beliefs are strong and I respect you for it. I just don't see the Clinton thing as worthy of so much angst. I really don't care to get worked up about somebody else's screwed up marriage. I just want somebody who can do the job well and not ruin the country.

[American Tragedy]

100. Yes, I would feel the same.

Why do you find that hard to believe? I judge presidents by their professional performance, not their private lives.

However, I would be outraged at the sheer hypocrisy of that sanctimonious pig.

[AP]

20. I'm not a big fan of Carter's rush to privatize and his overseas imperial-

ism.

I have a feeling that some of the chickens he let free on the Afganistan range came home to roost.

(But he was great on South Africa...and he's been one of the best former presidents ever.)

[FreedomFry]

40. Since his presidency, Carter has been an inspiration.

Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter practice what they preach. And they do their preaching softly and respectfully. Millions of Americans could take a lesson from this man who was admittedly a mediocre president but a truly great humanitarian.

[x-g.o.p.er]

27. LBJ

The Great Society has been a failure, Vietnam was a disaster that him and that jackass McNamara are almost solely responsible for, and the convention in 1968 helped get Nixon elected.

Yes, the Civil Rights Bill was passed under his watch, but it was JFK who got the bill rolling, and it could be argued that it was passed as more of a tribute to Kennedy than as a legislative accomplishment of Johnson's.

LBJ was an unmitigated disaster.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Which Great Society Program Would You Like To Eliminate First?

Medicare or Medicaid?

[x-g.o.p.er]

77. They both need fixing....

And if it isn't done soon, those programs, along with Social Security, will bankrupt this country.

Now, before your head explodes in anger, I am NOT advocating the elimination of these programs, only the fixing of them.

And please tell me, how under any stretch of the imagination, that you can call Johnson's "War on Poverty", which was part of the Great Society, a success.

[argyl]

35. Truman desegrated the Army and Eisenhower called out the

National Guard to enforce the integration of Central High in Little Rock. The ball was rolling before JFK became president.

[Rex Ferine]

82. Exactly. LBJ gets my vote too.

But he barely edges out Jimmy Carter IMNTBHO.

[American Tragedy]

101. I'm on the verge of agreeing on LBJ, at least for modern Dems

I've done many hours of research on Johnson for college, and I credit him with so much. He was a very colorful personality, and perhaps the most effective Democratic legislator of the century. He was personally committed to combating racism and poverty, even more so than his predecessor. He changed American social policy forever.

He would be my hero if it weren't for Vietnam. That series of catastrophic decisions, which devastated an entire generation, was enough to virtually obliterate the things for which I admire him. He may just be the worst Democratic president because he was so close to being the best.

[mitchum]

107. I will still take LBJ's failings over the centrists Carter and Clinton

However, I do understand what you mean by "He may just be the worst Democratic president because he was so close to being the best"

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbieinok]

119. way I remember it....I was very disappointed in JFK on civil rights

he just couldn't seem to get anything thru congress.....Taylor Branch in the first volume of The King Years implies that JFK was not all that interested in pushing civil rights......he begged King to slow down the push in Birmingham in the spring of 63 (Bull Connor with fire hoses blasting little kids and dogs attacking)

I had been fascinated by JFK ever since his name was put in nomination for vice president in 56 (Kerr from OK, a so bapt, was a leader in blocking this)....I avidly read his Profiles in Courage.....I hated it that I was not yet 21 in 1960 so I could vote for JFK.....

BUT I was very disappointed in his record on civil rights and was thinking that if the republicans put up a half way decent candidate in 64 I would seriously have to consider NOT voting for JFK

[Arkana]

31. I don't agree with the Jackson nomination

Jackson was a racist, but so was more than half the country at the time. The man was extremely devoted to the Constitution, and he was the only President to completely erase the national debt.

I'll replace him with Franklin Pierce. THAT fellow was a terrible President.

[fujiyama]

38. Andrew Johnson was pretty shitty

I'm not a fan of Wilson. One of the reasons I'm so fuckin sick of the New Republic is their recent praise of Wilson. He was like a neo con in some ways.

I don't like Jackson either.

I don't really have any problems with the post Wilson Dems...There are certain things I dislike about all presidents, but for the most part, I would take most post FDR Dems over any repuke that has occupied the office.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. What did Andrew Johnson do wrong?

He was destroyed by the Republican congress who created an excuse (the tenure of office act) to impeach him. In a way, his situation was much similar to that of Clinton's, congress disliking him and finding a lame excuse for impeachment.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Those who say Clinton need to study some nineteenth century history

You may disagree with almost every one of Clinton's policies, but trust me, there have been Democrats who have done things FAR worse than Clinton.

[KSAtheist]

50. Everything.

Let's not dance around this. He basically attempted to rebuild slavery after the Civil War was over. He passed the Black Codes, and attempted to veto the Freedmen's Bureau Bill and the Civil Rights Bill. He fought tooth and nail against the fourteenth amendment. This did not endear him to the radical republicans; he's lucky that a Kansan had the guts to refuse to cast the final vote, thus saving the presidential institution.

[Disturbed]

52. Thanks for the brief History lessons

I have been reading about build up to WW1 and I cast my vote for Woodrow.

1916 to 1919 have a lot of similariteis to the present day situation.

[Hippo_Tron]

62. Lincoln wouldn't have done anything differently

Not to mention that there were very few people, even Republicans, who were actually interested in helping freed slaves. They were soley interested in using black people for their votes.

-Black codes were passed by southern state governments, not the federal government.

-Most civil rights legislation was struck down by the conservative supreme court.

-When the radical Republicans were in charge, they basically left the south in a state of what Iraq is now. The Ku Klux Klan was the equivalent of the insurgents and they intimidated black people from voting, thus all of the reconstruction regimes controlled by African Americans fell back to white supremecists allowing them to suppress the vote. The Republicans left the south with no measure to prevent this, thus they were the ones who allowed the south back into white supremecist control, not Andrew Johnson who had long been out of office.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. And, Lincoln would have been equally wrong.

Johnson started the ball rolling to allow the southern master class to be seen as "brothers" rather than as traitors. The Radical Republicans fought against the proposal to de-militarize the south and lost to the "moderates" in the Republican Party and the Democrats. Thus giving the green light to the defeated south to re-enslave the freedmen in all but name.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. Again, the radicals only gave a shit about their power

There were VERY VERY few, that actually cared about blacks. Then they all got tired of "black issues" and allowed the troops to be pulled out of the south so that Hayes could become president. I'm not saying that Andrew Johnson was a great president by any means and certainly wasn't pro civil rights, but I don't think that he's nearly as bad as the likes of Woodrow Wilson, Jackson, or Van Buren, none of which were pro civil rights.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. Worse than you make out.

Johnson vetoed the Freedmen's Bureau and Civil Rights bills that protected the freed slaves from the KKK and their allies and granted them civil rights.

To say that the Radical Republicans didn't care about blacks is more than an exaggeration. That's just what differentiated them from the Democrats and "moderate" Republicans. The Radical Republicans pushed for the enlistment of black soldiers, the supported immediate emancipation during the war (more so than Lincoln did), they led the fight for the 13th amendment. After the war, they passed the "harsh" reconstruction laws that were aimed at giving freedmen equal rights, suffrage, and protection before the southerners would be allowed the same rights. They also fought for the 8 hour workday for all.

Benjamin Butler, Thaddeus Stevens, Benjamin Wade, Horace Greeley, Charles Sumner and Frederick Douglass were hardly lacking in their sympathy for the blacks.

Also, it was the "moderate" Republicans that compromised away the progress that had been made. Not the Radicals.

[Hippo_Tron]

83. My point is that people like Thaddeus Stevens, etc...

Were a small minority in the Republican party, even the radical wing.

[KSAtheist]

115. The question is...

How does this make Johnson a better president?

The radical republicans had their flaws, but they did a hell of a lot more for black civil rights than did Johnson, who actively impeded them at every turn. By the end of his turn, he alienated everyone. Even William Tecumseh Sherman--one of the most lenient of union generals towards the south, and certainly not an abolitionist--grew to despise him.

[Hippo_Tron]

132. I'm defending Johnson's case that he isn't the WORST dem president

Was he a good President? Absolutely not. But he didn't slaughter thousands of Native Americans like Jackson or Van Buren. I also think that his impeachment was by no means justified.

[coda]

93. Not just Black Codes passed by southern states

People & Events
Race-based legislation in the North
1807 - 1850


Before 1800, free African American men had nominal rights of citizenship. In some places they could vote, serve on juries, and work in skilled trades. But as the need to justify slavery grew stronger, and racism started solidifying, free blacks gradually lost the rights that they did have. Through intimidation, changing laws and mob violence, whites claimed racial supremacy, and increasingly denied blacks their citizenship. And in 1857 the Dred Scott decision formally declared that blacks were not citizens of the United States.

In the northeastern states, blacks faced discrimination in many forms. Segregation was rampant, especially in Philadelphia, where African Americans were excluded from concert halls, public transportation, schools, churches, orphanages, and other places. Blacks were also forced out of the skilled professions in which they had been working. And soon after the turn of the century, African American men began to lose the right to vote -- a right that many states had granted following the Revolutionary War. Simultaneously, voting rights were being expanded for whites.


New Jersey took the black vote away in 1807; in 1818, Connecticut took it away from black men who had not voted previously; in 1821, New York took away property requirements for white men to vote, but kept them for blacks. This meant that only a tiny percentage of black men could vote in that state. In 1838, Pennsylvania took the vote away entirely. The only states in which black men never lost the right to vote were Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts.


The situation in what was then the northwest region of the country was even worse. In Ohio, the state constitution of 1802 deprived blacks of the right to vote, to hold public office, and to testify against whites in court. Over the next five years, more restrictions were placed on African Americans. They could not live in Ohio without a certificate proving their free status, they had to post a $500 bond "to pay for their support in case of want," and they were prohibited from joining the state militia. In 1831 blacks were excluded from serving on juries and were not allowed admittance to state poorhouses, insane asylums, and other institutions. Fortunately, some of these laws were not stringently enforced, or it would have been virtually impossible for any African American to emigrate to Ohio.


In Illinois there were severe restrictions on free blacks entering the state, and Indiana barred them altogether. Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin were no friendlier. Because of this, the black populations of the northwestern states never exceeded 1 percent.



FROM:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2957.html

People & Events
Race-based legislation in the North
1807 - 1850

[RoyGBiv]

131. Black Codes

Black Codes were passed by Southern state governments using a model of how Northern state governments controlled the free black population. (See _The Strange Career of Jim Crow_) That said, most black codes were simply slave codes re-written with different words. In some cases, the only change was replacing the word "slave" with "negro."

And Johnson supported every bit of this in his reconstruction plan. It was simply delayed a bit by the radicals going toe-to-toe with him over which branch of government would control reconstruction.

On that note, prior to Congressional Reconstruction, Johnson had gone about doing everything he could to institute the same state governments that had been in place prior to the war, with the only exception being leaving out the planter class from some of the more notable positions of power. One of his greatest errors -- and the thing that finally riled up the radicals to the point they did something about it -- was granting full political rights to former rebels who were then running soley on a platform of controlling the free-black population. Think of it. With Johnson's plan, less than a year after the war was over, the governments of the states formerly in rebellion would have been controlled by the very people who had been trying to split the nation over the issue of slavery.

Finally, to some extent you are confusing what happened to the Republicans in the late 1870's with the radicals of the 1860's who were responsible for instituting so-called radical reconstruction. Over time, hampered to some degree by their own success, the radicals lost control, and the party was taken over by more business oritented interests. Many radicals did have a genuine concern for the freedmen, but they had less and less influence, particularly after Grant took office.

[David Zephyr]

89. Yep!

Johnson set in motion the early resistance to the Radicals in Congress. Shitty president.

[jswill]

54. Carter

Double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, stagnant economy, the Iran debacle, the loss to Reagan. Hard to top that.

[Midlodemocrat]

58. Welcome to DU!

[jswill]

67. Thanks.

Hoping this is some refuge from the insanity.

[depakid]

71. I'd have to say Carter too

His micromanagement style could have served someone like Clinton well- who had more energy & aptitude- but Carter would have done better to delegate more authority. Also- he and his Georgia mafia proved incapable of dealing within the beltway, even though he enjoyed Democratic majorities in both houses and comparatively reasonable Republicans to deal with. Mismanagement might be a better way to describe it.

He needn't have played the ZBB budgeting game- that's for sure- it wasn't right for the time (although it sure works well today in many agencies- but that's another story).

The macroeconomics I fault him less for; he played the hand he'd been dealt- and it it was a harsh hand that had built up and was mostly beyond anyone's control (I won't belabor the details- they could be the subject of several threads).

His crowning acheivement at Camp David is something few can fault- but the question has to be asked at what cost? Arguably, his ineptitude and his problem with delivery (both verbal and non-verbal communication- e.g. smiling inappropriately or soul searching in publi- or projectiong onto the public- simply show dysfunctional leadership skills).

And there's no arguing with the results- Reagan- and an effective end to the American enlightenment.

[coda]

85. LOL! All this rises to the level of worst President?

Some kind of sliding scale, right?

[jaysunb]

95. have you ever heard of

the " WIN " campaign ? that's Whip Inflation Now.....I still have my little button. It was initiated by Gerald Ford(R)....Carter inherited this little disaster. He didn't have very much success controlling it, but the things you mentioned were already in play when he took office.

The energy crisis were also beyond his control in an ever changing world. Carter did not help himself by trying to get his party (dems) to confront the tough issues of the day. His defeat was as much the responsibility of his own party as was Reagan's limited appeal.

[Blue Wally]

118. In fairness to Carter

He is like Herbert Hoover, the guy who was in the position when the wheels came off. Everything in the LBJ Great society wasn't workable and Carter was the one on who's watch they self-destructed.

What is amazing is that Carter and Hoover were two of the smartest men ever to hold the office. They were also very compassionate men and served the country well long after their terms of office.

[Cuban_Liberal]

59. Buchannan.

Weak, shameless ninny.

[bemildred]

61. Wilson, hands down.

The instigator of the imperial security state.

[David Zephyr]

91. He was a lousy president.

The Palmer Raids and WWI really make him one of the worst Democrats for sure.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. Andrew Johnson. Should have been impeached. LBJ for Vietnam.

Both of them pretty awful.

[MrModerate]

70. Johnson WAS impeached (or nearly) . . .

Because he wasn't hard enough on the Southrons to satisfy the radical anti-southerners ("fire-eaters" the nickname? -- I'm not sure) in Congress

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. Yeah. Missed by one vote...too bad.

The "fire eaters" were the southerners who wanted to secede. You're thinking of the "Radical Republicans" who wanted protection and civil rights for the freed slaves.

Johnson vetoed the Freedmen's Bureau and Civil Rights bills. Thereby withdrawing support and protection for the freed slaves.

[KSAtheist]

116. While he was a horrible president...

He shouldn't have been impeached. Had it been successful, it would have destroyed the presidential institution.

[SteveIrving1]

68. In Andrew Jacksons Defense

He did help to promote at least in small ways the rights of African Americans and although he owned slaves, they considered Andrew Jackson a very kind and good man who also reopened trade and diplomatic ties with England after the war of 1812.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. Welcome to DU, interesting little fact there

I find the Jackson administration to be one of the most interesting in US history.

[jaysunb]

86. All of them prior to

FDR

[David Zephyr]

90. Interesting Thread. Proves That There Were Too Many To Choose From.

n/t

[pinto]

92. Andrew Jackson. n/t

[doc03]

99. Clinton

I would vote vote for him as one of the best and also the worst. He disgraced the office and gave the wingnuts the license to say "I Told You So".

[trotcop]

128. Clinton

His moving to the right hurt working people and may have destroyed the Party. Liberal/Progressives may need to leave and join the Green Party. They aren't wanted except for their votes in the Dem. Party.

[Moloch]

102. Andrew Jackson...

2nd would be Woodrow Wilson, the racist warmonger.

[roughandtumble]

103. LBJ.

Vietwrong, the lies and giving the south to the Repugs.

[Moloch]

105. I agree with you on Vietnam...

Are you saying he SHOULDN'T have signed the civil rights act?

I think some things are more important than winning elections, and standing up for basic principles like civil rights is one of them.

[sakabatou]

104. Taft

Sure he added to TR's resume, but he really didn't put anything new into the picture.

[Lenape85]

108. Taft was a puke

[Hippo_Tron]

111. Taft was a Republican

n/t

[sakabatou]

120. True

but he was still progressive.

[kostya]

109. LBJ - liar extraordinaire and war monger and ballot stuffer, and ...

[RedTail Wolf]

127. Hate to say it but Clinton

He lost the Congress, the respect of the people, and we are still suffering for his terms. He did some good things, he did many right wing things. He started the slide and until it stops he has to be held responsible. I mean we lost to an idiot, nose picker from , a rich family who can barely speak the language. TWICE
I like Clinton as a person, but his "triangulation" crap was just that .....crap. He was a liberal and then a moderate and then a Repugnican....Sorry Bill but you hurt the party bad!


RedTail Wolf

[Hippo_Tron]

133. All of that is worse than the slaughter of thousands of Native Americans?

I'm sorry, but those who say Clinton or Carter REALLY need to look at some 19th century history.

[NRAGUY]

138. Evil

Wilson

[Joe Power]

139. Zell Miller

Does he still count?