Who is your all time favorite President of the U.S. (not a poll)

[J.T.B.]

About Lincoln. I don't mean to contradict you, but I've heard the other side of the Lincoln medallion too.

He inherited a crisis from Buchanan, but didn't he worsen it by using the military against states that had every right to leave the Union?

There had been some level of crisis for years, but the main event to trigger the secession was simply Lincoln being elected. The Republicans were clearly an anti-slavery party, and the South saw writing on the wall. Lame duck Buchanan did sit by passively.

Did the states have the right to leave the Union? Lincoln didn't think so. His position was that the states owe their existence to the formation of the nation, and thus can't leave the union without the consent or agreement of the national government. Was he right? That will be debated endlessly. But as Lincoln said, secession was "an issue which can only be tried by war and decided by victory." The war largely settled the question as a practical matter. Not to say that might makes right, but the Union's was effort would not have been successful without the support of most of the US population, and the vast majority of Americans since have considered the nation to be preeminent over the states.

And overwhelmingly right? Wasn't his use of the military proven unconstitutional?

By "right" I was referring mostly to his decisions for winning the war, which I didn't make clear. But the war began with secessionist military forces attacking Federal installations and seizing Federal property, that is, property that belonged to all the states. So its pretty easy to justify using the military constitutionally under the powers of commander-in-chief.

Truman ignored what was going on in China, and didn't put a lot of pressure on Chiang. Truman threw money at the problem but didn't get involved.

Put pressure on Chiang to do what? The numbers were clearly against him, and experience in the war had proved the KMT almost hopelessly corrupt. And how would you suggest Truman "get involved?" The US had just finished fighting a huge and costly war, and a new war against China would probably have been worse than Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Truman's containment policy was followed to one degree or another by all successive presidents, Republican and Democrat. "Truman lost China" was more a McCarthy-ite slogan than a realistic political criticism.

Wilson sent a huge army force into Russia to free the Czechs. They nearly succeeded in overthrowing the Reds but by the time they got that close, WWI was coming to an end and Wilson gave up.

The US forces in Russia (Siberia and Archangel) numbered less than 20,000 and had about a zero chance of overthrowing anything, and that was not their mission anyway. The logistics issues were atrocious, as were the Siberian operating conditions. And if you're suggesting large-scale US involvement in Russia, I would say that would have been disastrous: (A) Fighting for one side of a civil war historically doesn't work out too well for a third party, and (b) Russia has a home-field advantage that you don't want to mess with.

--Justin

 

[Azure]

George W. Bush.

A man after my own heart.

 

[ManOnTheWave]

Bill Clinton.

 

[Mysterion]

Gerald Ford.

Ford never expected or wanted to be Vice President much less President, I suspect. He probably was aiming at maybe being Speaker of the House at some point. But he was thrust into the White House, and I think he handled his lot better than most other folks would have in similar circumstances. He caught a lot of flak for the Nixon pardon, but I think his reaosning for doing so was sound. He may have ended up being somewhat ineffective, but I don't think it was for a lack of effort on his part. I believe Ford was someone who sincerely tried to to the best he could for his country, and he always struck me as a good person who did the best he could with grace and civility.

I'm 47 years old.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

George W. Bush.

A man after my own heart.

I will say this about W. Think what you like about his policies, and his performance as President, but you gotta admit that strictly *as a person*, he's basically a nice guy. I remember last year when the Nationals opened their new ballpark, he was in the booth with the commentators for an inning or two. He sounded very natural and relaxed, talking about baseball with the guys (he knows his stuff - he used to co-own the Rangers). Contrast this with this Orioles game I saw on TV once when *Joe Biden* was in the booth. My God, I've never heard a bigger load of douchebaggery in my LIFE. This man should never be allowed in the Oval Office for the rest of his natural life. He'd bore us all to death inside ten seconds.

 

[Michael Chris]

James Madison or Grover Cleveland
(21)

 

[The Grim Ghost]

George Washington.

He could have been King, but resisted it. How many people could do that?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

George Washington.

He could have been King

Not literally...after going through all that trouble with the Revolution there's no way we'd have a King over here.

 

[darthvincor]

There had been some level of crisis for years, but the main event to trigger the secession was simply Lincoln being elected. The Republicans were clearly an anti-slavery party, and the South saw writing on the wall. Lame duck Buchanan did sit by passively.

Did the states have the right to leave the Union? Lincoln didn't think so. His position was that the states owe their existence to the formation of the nation, and thus can't leave the union without the consent or agreement of the national government. Was he right? That will be debated endlessly. But as Lincoln said, secession was "an issue which can only be tried by war and decided by victory." The war largely settled the question as a practical matter. Not to say that might makes right, but the Union's was effort would not have been successful without the support of most of the US population, and the vast majority of Americans since have considered the nation to be preeminent over the states.

I see. The way I always understood it is that states are more important than the federal nation. So, if for example, California feels it's being dragged down by the other states and proclaims itself a Republic, can it do that? Just like that. No approval from congress or the president. Just an internal vote, and off they go.

By "right" I was referring mostly to his decisions for winning the war, which I didn't make clear. But the war began with secessionist military forces attacking Federal installations and seizing Federal property, that is, property that belonged to all the states. So its pretty easy to justify using the military constitutionally under the powers of commander-in-chief.

Very true, I forgot about that for a moment. The attack on Fort Sumter.
But, constitutional would have been up to the point of reclaiming Union land and property. Lincoln went well beyond that and seized Confederate land and property.

I just wonder if it was really worth putting the nation through one of its most difficult periods, a civil war within just a few decades of its formation. Would it have been so horrible if today you'd have the USA and the CSA. And isn't a Union better if it consists of happy and voluntary members, rather than disgruntled members who were militarily forced back in.
Like you say, apparently Lincoln felt so. Union above all. But that's what I dislike about him.

 

[darthvincor]

Lincoln's primary goal was to preserve the Union, not end slavery; in that, he obviously failed. Not that he didn't want to end slavery, but he did say that given a choice between preserving the Union and ending slavery, he'd take preserving the Union. And there was nothing in the Constitution prohibiting States from leaving the Union, so they did have the Right to do so by default.

I see. I just asked that very question in another post, if they were allowed to leave. I hadn't read your's yet.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

George Washington.

He could have been King

Not literally...after going through all that trouble with the Revolution there's no way we'd have a King over here.

There have long been stories that Washington was actually offered a crown, but as far as I'm aware, that's never been proven.

This article is interesting to read, bearing that in mind:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162914

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

Put pressure on Chiang to do what? The numbers were clearly against him, and experience in the war had proved the KMT almost hopelessly corrupt. And how would you suggest Truman "get involved?" The US had just finished fighting a huge and costly war, and a new war against China would probably have been worse than Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Truman's containment policy was followed to one degree or another by all successive presidents, Republican and Democrat. "Truman lost China" was more a McCarthy-ite slogan than a realistic political criticism.
The US forces in Russia (Siberia and Archangel) numbered less than 20,000 and had about a zero chance of overthrowing anything, and that was not their mission anyway. The logistics issues were atrocious, as were the Siberian operating conditions. And if you're suggesting large-scale US involvement in Russia, I would say that would have been disastrous: (A) Fighting for one side of a civil war historically doesn't work out too well for a third party, and (b) Russia has a home-field advantage that you don't want to mess with.

--Justin

the first part is false. Mao's forces were in disarray after World War II (and strangely enough friendly to the US forces during the War). They were on the ropes until they got a hold of a lot of Japanese supplies left over from the War.

Truman's involvement in China was null. Marshall Plan is something they followed almost to the letter and totally ignored what was happening in China.

There are some interesting scenarios that could have played out, including a split China if Truman had gotten more involved and not just thrown money to Chiang, who was notoriously corrupt.

Not just discussing an all out war.

With Russian, the Czechs and White Russians had actually succeeded in taking over both sides of the Trans-Siberian Railroad but unfortunately at the wrong times.

I believe the White Russians had pushed all the way to Moscow, up to 50 miles outside of Moscow before giving up. The Civil War didn't end up until the 1920s.

The Reds were in completely unorganized as shown with the Czechs and White Russians taking over parts of Siberia.

We also had French and British soldiers in Russia.

It was doable but the US wanted no more wars after the treaty was signed.q

 

[Captain Gandalf]

In this order :

John Adams
Franklin D. Roosevelt (he saved our European butts in WWII)
Abraham Lincoln
John F. Kennedy (he might have prevented WWIII during the Cuban Missile Crisis; if Nixon had won the election, Earth might have become a lifeless radioactive wasteland)

Edit to add : I'm 47

 

[Kira Nerys]

Abraham Lincoln ,JFK ,FDR and Clinton

 

[Cicero]

1. Theodore Roosevelt
2. George Washington
3. Franklin Roosevelt
4. Abraham Lincoln
5. John Kennedy
6. William Clinton

Honorable mentions: John Adams, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, Benjamin Harrison, Calvin Coolidge

Worst:

1. James Buchanan
2. Andrew Johnson
2. Franklin Pierce
4. Martin Van Buren
5. Richard Nixon
6. Woodrow Wilson
7. George W. Bush (ameliorated by his late performance, which was generally excellent)

Dishonorable mentions: Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Millard Fillmore, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan (he may be personally entirely blameless, given his mental health at the time)

 

[Vanyel]

FDR and Lincoln tie. Extraordinary times, extraordinary men.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

Ronald Reagan.

And while his administration was during my lifetime, I was actually opposed to him at the time. It was only after I outgrew the idiocy of my youth and acquired at least some small measure of wisdom that I've been able to truly appreciate his greatness.

 

[SPOCKED]

It was only after I outgrew the idiocy of my youth and acquired at least some small measure of wisdom that I've been able to truly appreciate his greatness.

Amazing how that works, isn't it?

 

[Lanzman]

Teddy Roosevelt.

After him, probably Ronald Reagan.

And the badly under-appreciated second President, John Adams.

 

[darthvincor]

Slightly on topic, what do you guys think of the Frost-Nixon movie/recordings?

I'd never seen the actual recordings, and I think the movie was great. The actual recordings may have proven Nixon did some wrong things, but for me, it also cast him in a more favourable light.
He simply believed it was within his right to cover it up. And as he said himself, he could easily have covered up the cover up, but chose not.
If he was guilty of anything, it was of a misperception of the powers and privileges of a head of government.