Top 10 Outstanding US Presidents
- Published July 10, 2008 - 481 Comments
When we completed our Top 10 Worst US Presidents, we knew that we would eventually write a top 10 best presidents; fortunately for us Ro has done us the service of writing it himself. So, following on from our previous list of presidents, here are the ten best. As usual, name your preferences in the comments if you don’t agree.
John F. Kennedy was one charismatic president. He brought many teachers, writers, scientists and different intellectuals into the government. His inaugural speech was one of the modern greats as he called for service to his countrymen. He established the Peace Corps in order to help the undeveloped nations and was very devoted to working hard for new civil rights laws. He wanted to improve his country’s relation with the then Soviet Union but it was to no avail as the all powerful congress thought otherwise. This became further unrealistic when the Russians started to send missiles to Cuba. This brought the two countries to the verge of war but Kennedy was determined to avoid it at all cost and diffused all the tensions brilliantly. He had the power to inspire and considering that he only served as the president for a brief stint of about two years before being assassinated, he achieved a lot.
Andrew Jackson was a fearless president right from the beginning. He easily was the best president ever to serve the army – going well past the excellence of George Washington, smashing the British in the war of 1812 and then playing the paramount role in taking Florida from Spain. So during his presidency there was no shortage of courage as he demonstrated how great a role the president had to play, by undertaking the responsibility of getting people the laws they wanted instead of leaving everything up to the Congress. The Tariff act was passed in 1832, which would be significant to America’s economy forever. When North Carolina had other opinions about the act, Jackson made it clear that no state had the right to break national laws and threatened to use the army if necessary to save the union. He proved too strong and a compromise was worked out.
James Monroe’s presidency became known as the era of good feeling. He took trips around the country to know more about what was going on in the minds of people and what they wanted. He settled tensions between England and America by coming to an agreement of reducing the number of ships present in the great lakes which triggered a wave of friendly cooperation and peaceful negotiations which still exists today between the countries of America, England and France. He avoided war rather magnanimously and only wanted Florida and no more and took it effortlessly from Spain by using minimum force. The Missouri compromise was signed which allowed Missouri to be a slave state but make sure that all further states up north would be non slavery states. He also signed and ensured the Monroe Doctrine which forbade all European countries making new colonies in the Americas.
Thomas Jefferson cared passionately about his country and put the interests of the people before his. He cut down on the army and the navy as he thought that a country should be run cheaply as possible so there would always be money for bigger developments when the need came. He was successful in buying from France the whole Louisiana territory, stretching from the Mississippi river to the Rocky Mountains and henceforth doubled the size of his country. When there was a threat from the Barbary pirates based in Africa, he utilized his navy to attack these pirates which once again ensured the smooth flow of American ships through the Mediterranean Sea. He was on very good terms with the people and mostly likely would have been reelected; instead he stepped down as president, believing that no one should run for more than two terms for democracy to be sustained in the land of the free.
Grover Cleveland was a tremendously hard working president. He began to reform the federal government and at the same improved civil service to get better workers. He forced the railroads to return 81 million acres of government which they had taken illegally. He took care to scrutinize every bill the congress passed and vetoed many of them which he thought weren’t beneficial to his countrymen. As he worked so fervently he never turned a deaf ear to any one of the country’s problems and even boosted the navy by getting them the best ships. When a railroad strike in Chicago interfered with the mail he sent the federal troops at once to clear up the matter. He totally imbued his virtues of hard work and honesty into the federal government which indeed made it very efficient and also gained confidence from the people. Cleveland really is the most underrated president ever in United States history.
Theodore Roosevelt became the youngest ever president when he took the oath and he brought his exuberance into the office as expected. He controlled trusts so that small businesses and workers were not exploited. He wanted every one to have a square deal which was eponymous to his administration’s name. He got congress to pass laws which protected the people from impure food and drugs and forced the owners of the coal mines during that time to pay better wages to its laborers. He is recognized as having done more than any other president to save the natural resources of USA. Roosevelt established national parks and more than 125 million acres of national forests. A firm believer in having a strong navy, he also got congress to build new battleships and cruisers. It was for the objective that the navy could move easily from one ocean to the other and also for trade purposes that he built the Panama Canal.
James Polk was one of the few presidents who made his agenda clear and actually went on to accomplish every one of his preplanned goals. Under him the congress passed laws to set up a national treasury and to lower the tariff, just as he had said he wanted to. He avoided war with England and split the Oregon territory between the U.S and Canada which remains the present day border. Despite having settled the Oregon issue so peacefully, the same proved more difficult in the case of California. Mexicans wouldn’t sell their land and the revolutions he tried to stir up there all failed. But he couldn’t let this last promise of bringing California under the union fall apart so he persevered. Slowly over the course of the next few months he bullied Mexico in to a war it didn’t want to fight. America won and took not only California but what is now all of Nevada and parts of Utah, Arizona and New Mexico.
FDR was faced with the immediate problem of depression as soon as his arrival to the oval office. He declared bank holidays which closed all banks; they were then opened a few at a time with government help. He got congress to pass laws which helped farmers, small businesses and people who were about to lose their homes during that time. He kept moving on with his social reforms which changed the course of American government. Just when things started to return back to normal and the people grew in confidence, World War 2 commenced. He wanted the allies to win to protect democracy all over the world and kept sending more and more supplies to the British to overcome the forces which threatened freedom. America eventually joined in the war. He saw the USA through two grave crises and his last great achievement was to lay the foundation of what would later be the UN.
Woodrow Wilson was an admirable principled president. He got congress to lower the tariff and he reformed the national banking system. He also got the congress to declare that it wasn’t against the law for working men to go on strike. When world war one started his aim was clearly to stay out of it, he instead looked forward to help the warring countries to make peace. When German submarines bombed American ships in the Atlantic without warning, the USA was engaged in the war. More than anything else Wilson wanted this to be a war to end all the wars. Even at the time of fighting, he drew up his famous 14 Point Peace plan. The most important of these called for a League of Nations which would settle future rifts between nations. Germany had surrendered and the League of Nations was formed. But without the approval of the U.S senate America couldn’t join and without the USA the body was rendered useless. But Wilson kept traveling around the country making speeches in favor of the league. He left a legacy for peace which people still dream about.
Abraham Lincoln became the president when everything was going wrong for the USA. There were still a number of Border States which were left undecided on whether to stay in the Union or not, he wanted to hold on to these states if he possibly could. Secondly a lot of Northerners believed that neither the Union nor slavery was worth fighting about. Fighting a war at that time would mean a lot of people not supporting him. He had the gifted ability to make the people understand what he was doing and when Civil War broke out he made them understand that the USA was the only genuine democratic government in the world and his job was to hold the Union together. Since slavery had started this whole mess in the first place, he believed that it had to perish for the nation to live. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation and worked for the 13th amendment to ban slavery. Although these did not effectively ensure the end of slavery, it won sympathy for the North throughout the world which culminated into its victory in the end. He had no plans for revenge and just wanted to restore the union as soon as possible, bu, alas, he was assassinated. He is arguably the most mourned president ever.
Contributor: Ro





















July 11th, 2008 at 5:24 am
Most of these people I haven’t heard of before, but I’m sure they must’ve made a difference.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:32 am
Wheres George Dubya Bush??
Great list, Lincoln definitely deserves the top spot.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:37 am
I’ve never really though of JFK as a particularly good president, he is fondly remembered because he had such great charisma and because he was assasinated, he was a morally bankrupt person from a morally bankrupt family, there is plenty of reason to believe that had several election boxes in Chicago not “disappeared” that he never would have been president. Realistically he was not president long enough to have a truly historic impact expect for by those who fall into the cult of personality. Oh yeah and that whole Vietnam War thing? He was a big cause of the US being involved.
Replace him with Truman and the list works for me
Also all of the internet loons who rant and cry over the current administration curinb many of our civil liberties and all should know that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus as did FDR. Nothing we’re seeing now is new
July 11th, 2008 at 5:44 am
After the recent fireworks of gay marriage, children’s movies and William Shakespeare, a list that I’m sure everyone will agree about and we’ll all be happy little vegemites accepting and cherishing each others’ political opinions!
Or maybe not. Prove me wrong. I’m Australian. I’ll keep out of this.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:46 am
Wow i can tell this list will be very controversial. I don’t really know enough about the US presidents to have a say. However i did notice the lack of George Washington…any particular reason Ro?
July 11th, 2008 at 5:47 am
Yay for Theodore Roosevelt!
July 11th, 2008 at 5:51 am
Jackson might have been an effective leader, but he was a gigantic tool. The Indian removal policy alone should be enough to disqualify him from this list. When he wasn’t running the Indians off their land, (4000 Cherokees died in the trail of tears) he was picking fights with his enemies and beating the shit out of hecklers.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:53 am
And I’m sorry, but George Washington should be on this list. There isn’t a listing of great presidents out there that doesn’t put him in the top three, save this one.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:58 am
you have got to respect truman for having to step in to the middle of WWII and have the balls to make some tough decisions.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:01 am
I agree with MojoRisin (I use to be a big Morrison fan Mojo), where is George Washington. Perhaps you left him out because he is obviously the best president we had. The other’s are great but you cannot be serious about Washington. Shed some light please.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Name the list “effective” presidents and I’ll second Polk and Jackson. I cannot agree with some of their principles, but cannot disagree that they effected them. (I agree with Lincoln that the Mexican War was the most unjust ever perpetrated by a stronger nation against a weaker, and agree w/bucslim that Jackson’s Indian policy, though vastly popular with his contemporaries, cannot really stand moral scrutiny.)
July 11th, 2008 at 6:01 am
The Reagan omission is obvious – and impies this list is not bi-partisan.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Bucslim – what you about Jackson is true but I miss that way of leadership. Not arguing that the trail of tears was an aweful move, but he was strong and did not take sh*t from no one. A guy tried to shoot him twice and the gun misfired, Jackson himself beat the dude good, even before his goons could. Sometimes a heavy hand is good. Indian thing was his only downfall in my eyes, but a big downfall nonetheless. He has my respect though.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:06 am
i was shocked to find woodrow wilson as number two, honestly.
all of this comes from my college course in american history, but Woodrow wilson was not particularly liked for his 14-points. His own congress wouldn’t get behind him (which makes the newbie country look unorganised & weak)to give approval to join the League of Nations, something he himself invented. This sends a mixed message to the world & as my professor put it, Wilson’s failure to win U.S. entry into the League was the biggest mistake of his administration (and even as one of the largest failures of any American presidency).
nevermind the fact that he was apparently rude, disrespectful & “acted bored” when in meetings after the way in Europe, mainly inciting the French, whom he constantly mocked.
just sayin’. when i read this, everything from my history course came back & i just had to let you know what real historians (my professor is one of the TOP historians in the Southeast, with many acredited books to his name), such as my professor don’t agree with a completely wonderful review of Wilson.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:07 am
* in meetings after the war in Europe
July 11th, 2008 at 6:08 am
I KNEW this would cause sparks – just because Washington was first doesn’t make him best – important is the long term result of the administration. And I can’t believe we are going to get the whole “too left wing” or “too right wing” thing – the list was written by a non-American and edited by a non-American (me) – I don’t even know if these guys were republicans or democrats – or whether those parties even existed at the time of these people!!!
July 11th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Okay – I have worked it out (thanks to Wikipedia) – of this list, 5 were Democrats, 2 were republicans, and 3 were Democratic-Republicans – surely this is a fairly moderate mix of presidents! This isn’t a competition – it is about the best policies at the time.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Jamie – I don’t believe that the folks listed here were republican or democrat in the modern definitions of those terms – except Kennedy or maybe FDR.
Plenty of Republicans will decry the omission of Reagan, because in recent memory he stood for just about everything we believe in, less government, less regulation, less taxes, strong military, not to mention he was the most popular President of the era.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:23 am
No harry S Truman, the list fails
July 11th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Also the inclusion of W.Wilson, let alone him be #2, makes me go WTF!
Hmmm, I smell a democrat in Ro!!
July 11th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Apparently you need Harry S Truman. And where’s George Washington? Lol
July 11th, 2008 at 6:35 am
William McKinley Approves!
July 11th, 2008 at 6:35 am
Grover Cleveland:
“When a railroad strike in Chicago interfered with the mail he sent the federal troops at once to clear up the matter.”
Translation: he used American soldiers to attack and kill American workers. He intervened in a commercial dispute, the supposed free market, to unsure that worked could not do what owner did: organize.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Bucslim: Yes Reagan was popular. Too bad too, you’re still paying for his disastrous economic policies and the climate of greed he fostered. You have the second or third highest poverty rate in any developed country. The income disparity in the US between the haves and the have-nots is also one of the largest of any western nation. Again in no small part due to the me, me, me, Reagan philosophy.
An argument can also be made that his influence on the end of the cold war was marginal. They were imploding anyway.
He doesn’t belong on any list lauding presidential accomplishments.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Why is Lincoln on the list and Bush not?
Lincoln’s constitutional violations (such as the suspension of habeas corpus three times during his presidency) and the arrest and detainment without trial of many members of the Maryland state legislature for three years IIRC makes Bush look like a schoolboy when it comes to violations of civil rights.
Contrary to what people think, Lincoln had stated many times the civil war was not about slavery, it was about preservation of the union. In fact, one of the reasons why he was elected was because of his moderate stance on the slavery issue. If the civil war was about slavery, then explain why the Emancipation Proclamation was issues 3 years into the war? And legally it didn’t apply to those states who were no longer part of the union.
I will go as far as to say that one of the reasons Bush does what he does today is because of the precedence this awful, awful president set way back when.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Several official historical rankings of U.S. presidents have been done over the years.
Historical rankings of US presidents
*yawn* goodbye.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Sonuva– okay here it goes again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents
July 11th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Kennedy was such a horrible president that he would have easily lost re-election. Politically, the assassination saved his legacy. Jackson was almost impeached for monkeying around with the federal banking system and causing an economic collapse (plus he won the Battle of New Orleans AFTER the war was over, so his victory had no effect on the outcome of the war). What made Washington so great was not that he was the 1st president, but that he preserved our fragile democracy at a time when he could have easily been made king or at least dictator for life by limiting his presidency. Finally, if you’re actually serious about ranking them by the effectiveness, how can the accomplishments of half of these presidents compare to Ronald Reagan crushing the air traffic controllers strike, stopping the spread of communism in Central America, and the defeat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War?
July 11th, 2008 at 6:55 am
LincolnWasTheWorst: Because Bush is a lying manipulative scum-sucker and Lincoln was not. In a nut-shell.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:56 am
OK, I sorta agree on Washington. The thing is Washington was what we needed right then and there. Yes, he was a great president, yes he did a lot of good for the country. However lets not confuse the fact that just because he was the first president with greatness. There are a few people on this list that I do disagree with but this list IS written(and edited) by a disinterested third party. As for JFK, regardless of his scandalous family and the POSSIBILITY of voter fraud he did do a lot for this country in the short time that he was in office. At the time of his assassination he was trying to extricate our country from a war that we didnt want to fight. He also started NASA, The Peace Corps, and averted a serious problem with the Russians via Cuba (Cuban Missile Crisis).
July 11th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Jackson was a fucking monster.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:00 am
alf1369: And you think crushing the Air Traffic Controllers strike was a good thing? For whom? Organized labour? Travelers? Definitely not for the air traffic controllers.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:01 am
I didnt say it was a good thing.. I said it was EFFECTIVE. Please dont try and place words in my mouth.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Also Mom424.. if you check your stats, the reason you can say that the US has such a high poverty rate is because the US definition of poverty is so broad, it would encompass the middle class of most developed nations. Compare apples to apples, and you’ll see why most of the world wants to be HERE.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Mom24: Or we could have had four more years of Jimmy Carter, with huge inflation, huge interest rates, huge unemployment, and no economic growth. The US under Carter was an economic blight, and Reagan fixed that. What was Carter’s solution? Wear sweaters. To say Reagan doesn’t belong on any list of presidential accomplishments is dishonest.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:08 am
And what is a racist, Ku Klux Klan apologist doing on a list of “outstanding” presidents? Woodrow Wilson set back race relations in this county another ten years. Put him on a list of presidential accomplishments, not a list of outstanding presidents.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Mom424 – I disagree with you about Reagan, but you knew that.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:09 am
What no George Washington? Must be a Brittish site. There would be no America whithout old George.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Mom424 – It is against federal law for federal employees to strike. They struck and he fired them for breaking the law.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:11 am
ummm Andrew Jackson smashing the British in the War of 1812? There were more American fatalities then British, if you call that a good thing then you’re nuts.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Without Reagan, this particular list is an absolute farce.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Terrible list…but I’m not shocked. It’s pretty much on par with the Most Dangerous Places list that had the US at the top.
There should be a place on the list for Reagan and for Washington. I can’t fathom what ‘disastrous economic policies’ Reagan fostered. I’d love to hear exactly what that was. And Washington was a great president not because he was the first, but he was one of the best.
Insofar as Ronald Reagan goes, the fact of the matter is that taxes went down in the 80’s, revenue went up (it always does when you lower taxes) and the Soviet Union was defeated. America was in decline after the 70’s and he turned that all around.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:37 am
I personally would have Teddy Roosevelt at #1 with FDR at 2, but good list nonetheless
July 11th, 2008 at 7:39 am
I heard an interview with Michael R. Beschloss, a presidential historian, and he said something like it takes 20-25 years before we can determine what kind of legacy a president will leave. That being said, I think Reagan should be on this list. Whether or not you agree with Reagan’s politics, he helped turn America around and fostered optimism in our country. I don’t know much about Jackson, but I wonder about his inclusion on this list. I also wonder why George Washington is not on this list.
I would even suggest Truman should have a place on this list as well.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:45 am
If you’re fond of Theodore Roosevelt a good book to read is “Mornings on Horseback” which shows the history of himself and his family to just beyond death of his first wife. It gives a great background to his upbringing and early experiences.
Also of interest is researching his time in the Badlands after the death of Alice Lee. Only Theodore Roosevelt would tackle the Badlands the way he did….
And if Harry Truman isn’t on this list, surely he is #11, he was a good solid man in a tough job, following FDR…
July 11th, 2008 at 7:45 am
I agree with Washington and to a lesser extent on Reagan (his dealings with the U.S.S.R. alone should get him on the list).
What about Lyndon Johnson? JFK gets a lot of credit for the Civil Rights movement, but it was LBJ who pushed the legislation through and made it a reality. LBJ had a lot of influence in Congress (including dirt on just about every Senator) and he made JFK’s ideals a reality.
Fun list though!
July 11th, 2008 at 8:04 am
pictures not working for anyone else?
July 11th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Although Grover Cleveland had a very successful first term as president, his second term led to the Great Deppression. Therefore I’m not too positive he should be on this list. I also don’t know if Polk fits into the category as an “Outstanding President”. I’d say Washington, John Adams, Reagan and Truman should find a spot on here. And maybe even Jefferson Davis for kicks. Haha ;p
July 11th, 2008 at 8:07 am
What about our current president? Never before has a president been so charismatic or has made such great decisions that the near-whole of the country distrusts and hates him…
July 11th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Too early to tell about Reagan’s presidency.
I agree that Jackson should have lost points b/c of the Trail of Tears
JFK was a good president during his short term, but doesn’t stand up to the rest of the list.
Washington should have his spot
July 11th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Thumbs down to Lincoln.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Kennedy didn’t really do much during his short Presidency, except nearly plunge us into a nuclear World War III and escalate our presence in Vietnam. In fact, Kennedy was likely to have not won re-election in ‘64. He was an adulterer, a plagarist, and was only elected in the first place thanks to his father’s and the mob’s efforts.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:29 am
The United States didn’t defeated the Soviet Union (no less Reagan). The Soviet Union went down on their own.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Polk did not bully Mexico in to war. Mexico started the war by refusing to recgonize the Rio Grande as the boarder between Texas and Mexico.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Pah! You’re all wrong – what about…
Thomas J Whitmore
Bill Mitchell
James Marshall
McKenzie Allen
David Palmer
Wayne Palmer
Josiah Bartlett
July 11th, 2008 at 8:44 am
some code work is being done onsite atm…so may’ve been or could be some slight disruptions. please be patient.
thanx.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:49 am
…and there’ll be strong words if anyone tries to vote for Charles Logan, Allen Richmond or Merkin Muffley
July 11th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Ah, Reagan that cheeky SOB. The one that sold nukes to Iran to fund the contras in Nicaragua to take down the revolutionaries that just overthrew the old brutal regime. The very ineffective and costly War On Drugs, oo thats a good one.The image he has in Sout hand Central America, where hes supposedly stopped the spread of “evil” communism, doesnt have a very high image of him.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Ah, Reagan that cheeky SOB. The one that sold nukes to Iran to fund the contras in Nicaragua to take down the revolutionaries that just overthrew the old brutal regime. The very ineffective and costly War On Drugs, oo thats a good one.The image he has in Sout hand Central America, where hes supposedly stopped the spread of “evil” communism, doesnt have a very high image of him.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Omission of JFK and especially Woodrow Wilson would make the list decent.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:56 am
What a hornet’s nest you have stirred up! Quite interesting to seen an outsiders view of best presidents. Though I admit that I agree with some of them…
July 11th, 2008 at 9:13 am
who ever wrote this needs to read a history book. FDR set up presidents for future office holders that have screwed up our country in ways very few realize. He had the executive order stuff, judge appointment scandal, and mostly social security. Which is sending this country to hell real fast. Also the only reason we got out of the depression is couse of WWII, we weren’t getting slowly back to our feet, we were still in the depression till we got all up into the war
And i dont think that jackson can be considered a great president with the whole trail of tears thing and the amount of contradictions in his political agenda. No national bank but the president has a stupid amount of power. I missed that flow of logic.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Ummm, What were the interest rates for buying a house under Reagan? 18% I believe. Yeah. Reagan was one groovy guy. How many people covered for him about his Alzheimer’s?
July 11th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Jfrater Not to get WAY off topic, I heard the Gourdies Rd, Reporoa is one of the world’s fastest roads. True?
July 11th, 2008 at 9:33 am
“In the words of Abraham Lincoln, ‘If you’re a racist, I’ll attack you with the North.’”
-Michael Scott, The Office
July 11th, 2008 at 9:33 am
“Goudies”
July 11th, 2008 at 9:38 am
and what about what Jackson did to the Native Americans, yea, the press are responsible for his wife’s death, but its not the Native American’s fault.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Bucslim: Yes I did, just wanted to show both sides of the coin. With Randall somewhat absent of late, I just wanted to make sure it didn’t go altogether unchallenged. We’ve agreed to disagree on this before.
I did know about the illegality of the Air Traffic Controllers strike, but I have always sided with them in this particular instance. They have a high stress, high turnover job and were hugely undervalued at the time. There were many near misses due to the mass firings as well. Everyone was lucky that the consequences were not higher.
We too have “essential services” that are not allowed to strike. In our country I do believe that it is only police and firemen who are legislated as such. We have had the government step in and force binding arbitration with teachers, nurses and city workers. I might add because both sides of the issue were acting like spoiled babies and neither would compromise.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:02 am
George Washington acheived many great things and held the country together when it could have easily fallen apart. One reason above all makes him the greatest president and one of the greatest human beings ever to have lived. He voluntarily stepped down from a position which entailed an enormous amount of power and he could have held on to it forever. How many of the recent presidents you think would turn down all that power for the sake of their country?
July 11th, 2008 at 10:09 am
The Emancipation Proclamation only “freed” slaves in the Confederate States which were not under union control at that time. It specifically did NOT include border states or Confederate States (or portions thereof) under Union control (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Tennessee). This glaring hypocrisy always seems to be ignored by history. If Lincoln really wanted to end slavery for moral reasons I believe he might have included ending slavery in his OWN country first.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:11 am
hey, where the hell is Dubya?!!?
great list! and I totally agree with Lincoln being #1
July 11th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I would also add George Washington, without him, no USA, and as for Kennedy, I wouldn’t say he was one of the best, overrated in my opinion.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:47 am
While I wouldn’t call him an “outstanding President,” give Chester Alan Arthur some points for coming from a corrupt system, yet, after becoming President, he became “The Father of Civil Service” with the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. Even Mark Twain praised him, and that leads to my vote for Harry S Truman, another guy with ties to corrupt political machines, who inherited a crap job and did wonders with it. Sure, he was unpopular later on — funny how folks don’t learn from history about foreign entanglements — but his administration ended World War II, brought us the Marshall Plan, and yes, got the ball rolling on civil rights (after Truman was outraged about a black American serviceman’s having returned home in the South to be attacked by racists who gouged out his eyes). Don’t forget about “Dewey Defeats Truman.”
Plus, how can you go wrong with a guy who, after reading a bad review of his daughter’s singing (which was probably deserved, but hey, HST’s her father!), sends a letter to the reviewer, gives the guy both barrels, and says, in part:
“Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you’ll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!” http://www.trumanlibrary.org/trivia/letter.htm
You have to look pretty hard to see the feature on this at HST’s library — it’s hidden in the basement — but Truman later warmed up to the reviewer, and eventually wrote him [paraphrasing] “I hope you don’t mind all the fun I’ve had with you and Eisenhower over the years.”
July 11th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Bucslim and Beau Knerr: I totally agree, 100%. He’s the only one on this list I have a strong negative feeling about. He was a major asshat and I’ve always held him in contempt (well, at least since AP US History in my junior year of high school). I believe he attacked a would-be assassin and normally I would give him major props for being so kick ass, but he can rot in Hell for all I care. Jackson’s policies involving the Native Americans were atrocious. He was a dangerous strong-arm, and nothing more. His IQ was lower than our current…um…person in charge. Ever wonder where the term “O.K.” came from? Andrew Jackson. He would print “O.K.” on the forms that needed proofing, meaning “Oll Korect”.
I would put up, for consideration, John Adams. Nice, thought provoking list. I can see you put a lot of time into it, Ro.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:11 am
This makes me think that I, as an American, probably shouldn’t write a list of the greatest British Prime Ministers or the outstanding PMs of NZ. This is one bone-headed list (Jefferson at #7 and no Washington!?), but that in and of itself was not reason enough for me to wade into my first comments section after 8 months of avid Listverse reading. But Lincoln at number one is . . .
Nevermind the political opportunism and the violation of constitutional rights, and table for a moment the great lie that “Lincoln freed the slaves,” consider the outright imperialism of the Union troops invading a legally separate country! This is why it is error to refer to the conflict in question as a civil war. A civil war is a war between factions of the same country. The War of Northern Aggression was an industrial nation dominating and subduing an agrarian neighbor – Lincoln knew this and that is why he used the slavery issue for political spin. Sic semper tyrannus!
July 11th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Old “Trail of Tears” Jackson?!
July 11th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Ridiculous list. Faulty information.
“Since slavery had started this whole mess in the first place, he believed that it had to perish for the nation to live.”
The emancipation proclomation only freed slaves in the southern states, but did not free a single slave in the northern states (i.e. New Jersey , i.e. Ulysses Grant’s slaves). The war was started because the Northern states invaded the Southern states. Based on the Constitution, which Lincoln did a great job of butchering, it was legal for South Carolina to leave the Union. Thats what really happened.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:24 am
An American should’ve wrote this list… I would never think about compiling a list of the greatest Mexican leaders… crazy shit.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Post No. 25 nailed it.
Contributor needs to read a bit more.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Andrew Jackson would actually be on my top 10 list of worst presidents…
July 11th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Also all of the internet loons who rant and cry over the current administration curinb many of our civil liberties and all should know that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus as did FDR. Nothing we’re seeing now is new
pirate bob – not being new does not make it right.
And, as for those “internet loons”…well the US Supreme Court apparently supports those who “rant and cry” (ie. the judgement on GWB’s cute attempt to circumvent civil liberties by using Gitmo).
July 11th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I read a book on Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson … I can’t see pictures on the list.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I call Bullshit on this list. I’m not getting into all presidents, but:
-Kennedy opposed the civil right movement, even order wiretaps on MLK
-Wilson was an open rascist, actively segregated all branches of government.
-FDR tricked the USA into WW2. (He held a secret press conference announcing that Japan would attack Pearl Harbor. Anybody ever questioned the fact that a ultra rare (at the time) color camera was set up facing a hospital boat on a Sunday morning at 8am exactly on the day Japan attacked? Besides that, all the vessels still in Pearl Harbor were outdated, the modern ships were ordered away. And also, the commander at the time figured out Japan was gonna attack, so he order patrols and so forth, only to be ordered to order them back.)
-Jefferson only freed 8 slaves in his lifetime, and they were all relatives of his. Furthermore, he would sell badly tortured slaves to Southern slave owners so they would have to use their own slaves to set examples of what would happen when disobedient.
-The Civil War was most definitely fought over slavery, but not in the sense of injustice. Slavery was the driving force of American economy.
A great book to read is “The Lies My Teacher Told Me” by James Loewen. Surprisingly, this book is not a revisionist manifesto, rather, it’s a plea to change American High School History courses from a Nationalist/Patriotic pile of bullshit into actual fact.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:53 am
The USSR went bankrupt before we did – thanks in great part to Reagan’s military spending policies. The Soviets could not keep up with the Jones’s, as it were.
I love how so many people have such disparate opinions on which presidents were the best/greatest and which were simply effective – part of greatness IS effectiveness.
All I can say is that it’s sure a good thing this list has kept most of the presidents’ personal lives (and failings) out of the mix for inclusion criteria – we might only have 5 presidents who could even be condenders for the list…
July 11th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Didn’t Andrew Jackson ritualistically kill of or take away land from the Indians?
I really don’t feel like any of our presidents are great, but I do agree some have done better jobs than others.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:58 am
err… *contenders* I need more caffeine!
July 11th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Why is Teddy Roosevelt only on number 5?! He built the Panama Canal, Busted monopolies, and did a lot of stuff!!
July 11th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
This list blows chowder. I usually like Jfrater, but not this time. Only Lincoln, Jefferson, T. Roosevelt and MAYBE FDR belong on this list. The rest of it is a JOKE!…especially #10.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
This list is a farce. Wilson #2? Honestly?
July 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I forgot to mention in my earlier post.
Andrew Jackson is the greatest president ever, make that EVER, for one reason when an insane man (claiming to be King Richard III) attempted to assissinate Jackson and both pistols misfired Jackson beat the man with a cane and had to be restrained. Maybe not all of his policies were perfect but as far as bad asses go no tops Jackson or Teddy Roosevelt.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I have to say, though, that all the presidents were flawed, even the ones we really love. You can always nitpick and find problems with the country’s best presidents.
JFrater did not write this list, people, Ro did- I don’t know nationality, but he could be American.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Another vote for Jackson to be demoted. GAH! Okay, technically he belongs on this list because it’s OUTSTANDING presidents, and he sure does stand out. But here’s the ways he really, really screwed up.
1. He destroyed the national bank, equivalent to annihilating the Federal Reserve, because he didn’t understand it. This directly devalued all US currency and led to the first Depression the United States ever experienced.
2. He violated the separation of powers by defying the courts, which had declared that the Cherokee had full rights to remain on their land. He openly stated that, though it was the courts’ decision, they could try and force him to obey. He then found some members of the Cherokee tribe who wanted to leave, declared them the leaders of their people and ‘bought’ their land from them.
3. He was’t even that good of a general. The War of 1812 was a massive screw-up and his battle of New Orleans was a politically irrelevant stroke of luck. He had a good position and the weather changed to favor him mid-battle, stripping his opponents of the fog cover and preventing their auxiliaries from assaulting his flanks. The lessons learned in the battle he fought were then applied to many other battles – including some of those in the civil war, where generals emulating Jackson’s style wound up losing thousands of troops.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Andrew Jackson practically annihilated the Native Americans himself. As a Native American, I find it hurtful he is considered a great president. I would be a full-blooded Cherokee if it weren’t for him. =(
July 11th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Teddy R. also won the Nobel Peace Prize, lest we forget. Thinking about it, I would probably put him No.1 for all of his badassery in NY, Cuba, and elsewhere. He’s the man all Presidents should aspire to be- no nonsense, worldly, awesome mustache.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
fdr was a terrible president. if you study the great depression, you actually learn that his policies lengthened the depression. nothing really ever got better, and his policies might have actually caused the smaller depression around 1937. the war pulled us out of the depression, not fdr.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Great list, but you are wrong about the Civil War. It did NOT start because of slavery, it started because the northern states were making the southern states pay taxes in which they thought were unfair. Slavery didn’t become an issue until about a year or so into the war.
With that being said, Lincoln always had sympathy for the slaves and thought it was wrong, but he was not about to start a civil war over the matter.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Yes, Andrew Jackson was HORRIBLE for native americans, but he was a fairly decent president for American Citizens. I’m half Sioux so I don’t think to highly of Jackson, but I can recogonize that he did a decent job as president by looking out for American citizens and their interests.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Teddy Roosevelt was the only President to ever not say the word “I” in his inauguration speech.
Lincoln and FDR said “I” only once.
All great leaders.
Washington needs to be on this list… take Kennedy out, take Wilson at least to 10 spot or out, and also throw in Reagan.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Some of you guys are just complete nut jobs. The only thing missing is for someone to start screaming about how Warren G. Harding was the best ever.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Thought for sure Washington would be on the list,but still an awesome list
July 11th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
How can Reagan not be on this list!!! Under his administration he created 17 million new jobs, inflation dropped by 4.4%; while the family income rose by 12%, defeated the Soviets, no country fell to communism under his presidency, before his presidency we were on the way to a major recession, the military was refurbished and installed countless moral values in the heart of america
July 11th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Wow! I checked the comments this morning, went and did some work for a few hours, came back and checked the site again and saw that there was already some heated discussion about this list. I didn’t see any problems with it.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
(Smugly) So glad Britain doesn’t have presidents.
Suggestion: Avoid the 10 Best/Worst British Prime Ministers/ Monarchs lists, or is the latter already under partial discussion in the previous list, Shakespeare?
July 11th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Oh yea, minority unemployment was cut in half.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Washington wasn’t the #1 best president ever, but he DEFINITELY deserves to be in the Top 10! He set numerous precedents and set our country out on a proper path at a time when it was incredibly vulnerable and could have really been screwed up by a weak or incompetent leader. For the mere fact that the US didn’t fall apart during his administration he deserves recognition! And his unassailable character is internationally recognized and admired, both then and now.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I just had to reply to the comment above about Warren G. Harding: “In an attempt to give Harding his due, Dean points out that he did at least bring to an end President Wilson’s longstanding practice of excluding blacks from federal appointments. As well, in a speech of rare passion and boldness delivered in Birmingham, Ala., he called for political, economic and educational equity between the races. His most permanent domestic accomplishment, however, was as dull as it was necessary: the creation of the Bureau of the Budget. Dean (and Arthur Schlesinger’s American Presidents series) is not to be faulted for the fact that Harding’s life is a yawn-but a yawn it is.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.”
Truth be told, none of our presidents were truly terrible – just some better than others, and a few so well-loved as to be remembered by all who take a moment to care.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
to all the people asking for Dubya… I don’t think you can count puppets.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
REAGEN????????
July 11th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
In response to 96:
Again: slavery was US policy, North and South. It really all started with South Carolina insisting that it could force Free States to stop aiding escaped slaves. In addition they wanted to prevent Slave States from becoming Free States. Interesting, that a Southern state tried to impose upon state rights, huh?
The Civil War was not over the inhumanity of slavery. Nobody game a damn about that, not even Lincoln, who was a proven racist. It was fought over the economic aspects of slavery, and the North imposing on states rights in the South, and vice versa.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Kenndy_ Only really remember because he was shot.
Jackson was racist
Cleveland- By sending in federal troops to break a railroad strike he showed that he cared more for the rights of big business instead of the poor working man who had to suffer through horrible conditions.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Wot, no Richard Nixon?
of whom Adlai Stevenson once said,
“He is the sort of politician who would cut down a redwood tree and then mount the stump to make a speech for conservation.”
and who also garnered the following,
“he told us he would take crime off the streets. He did, he took it to the damn White House.”
July 11th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
yay presidents! i think there should be a counter list of top 10 worst presidents
July 11th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I could not disagree more with Lincoln and with Andrew Jackson. Jackson is responsible for the worst depression in US history next to the 1930s by eliminating the national bank, and oh yeah, he slaughtered thousands of native Americans. And Lincoln was a great politician, not a great President.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Wow… I (like others) have noticed no Washington. His farewell address alone should be enough to give him a spot. (Jacksons maybe). I’m sure most of the people here know the farewell adress opposed the creation of political parties on the fact that it would divide a nation. He helped in re-creating the Checks and Balances system.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
goof_ball: There already is a list like that.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Seriously? Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt? Oh yes, let’s honor the notoriously racist US Presidents who favored war and genocide. Of course, the list sounds like it was written by a fourth grade history student. Maybe no one will take it seriously. I sure didn’t.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Okay, so I give up on the list I was writing being secret. I’ve had about six people respond to me and two actually give me what I requested. No one seems interested in e-mailing to find out what my list is, so I’ll just go ahead and tell you in hopes that may persuade you to help out. (Sorry, Jamie, the cat’s out of the bag.)
I need frequent commentators to e-mail me (nerikasne@hotmail.com) with their listverse name, their favorite video (youtube or other) and their favorite listverse list. I’m hoping to compile this list by the end of the month.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
BTW, I never knew you had a wikipedia article for you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Frater
July 11th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
I agree with most of you in wondering why Lincoln, Kennedy, Wilson, and Jackson are on here. But I do think that you should look at John Adams. He was only pres for 1 term, but he kept us from going to war with France when the whole country was clammering for it. He sued for peace for as long as possible and succeeded despite being extremely unpopular with his own people. That alone is worthy of recognition, not to mention he was probably one of the only presidents to not be strongly influenced by parties. In fact, he pissed his own party off just as much as the other party just by standing for what he thought was right which is frickin awesome.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Killing bunches of Indians make you a great president! Yay! Adnrew Jackson should have been burnt at the stake.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
“Also all of the internet loons who rant and cry over the current administration curinb many of our civil liberties and all should know that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus as did FDR. Nothing we’re seeing now is new”
Lincoln did so during a time of Civil War, FDR did so during a time of World War. Bush is doing so during a time of imperialist bullshit.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I knew all the stuff about Lincoln. He also had a disease (not gigantism, but something like it where he kept growing) He would have died of it eventually. It was a death sentence
July 11th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Also, I forgot, wasn’t FDR responsible for Social Security? Was supposed to be temporary. Guess it’s not. Also Federal income tax. Same thing. Lord knows I hate taxes.
And what was the real story behind the Boston tea party?
July 11th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
In response to #30, according to Wikipedia, NASA was established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act on July 29, 1958, over two years before Kennedy became President; NASA even has a 50-year logo now. I don’t have any information about what role Senator Kennedy may have played, but if any President can be credited with starting NASA, it would have to be Eisenhower.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
There is an error in the Andrew Jackson portion. It was South Carolina that was apart of the Nullification Crisis not North Carolina.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
O.O Wow…we just can’t agree on anything, now can we?
I’m going to go against the flow here and say that I think this list was very well-written, particularly for a non-US citizen. Lincoln for number 1 was definitely correct.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I disagree with Woodrow Wilson inclusion in this list.
Woodrow Wilson was one of the most extreme proponents of idealistic school of thought in foreign policy, and in fact Idealistic foreign policy is often called Wilsonianism. His ideas led to some serious problems in the formation of the treaty of Versailles. He believed that all nations should have self-determination and that every ethnic group had the right to form their own nation (The Principle of Self-Determination). This created a lot of mishaps, most notably with Poland which had to be given a corridor to the Baltic Sea thus severing Germany into two unlandlocked areas. This humiliated Germany and was one of the reasons Hitler invaded Poland in order to reunite the two separate land pieces. Furthermore, his stubbornness to compromise with the Republican led congress led to the failure of American membership in the League of Nations, stripping it of effective power. This stubborn inability to compromise with congress and educate the United States public out of isolationism was a main factor of why the U.S. stood by as Hitler and Mussolini began gobbling land up. If the US was more involved it may have convinced the war weary French and British to intervene before Hitler gained the strength that he did. (Although this is not entirely his fault because he had a massive stroke while trying to persuade the American public to accept membership in the League of Nations that rendered him unable to do much). All in all, his foreign policy after WWI was a disaster and is one of the (many) factors that led to WWII.
Although Wilson meant well, his failure after WWI is more than enough to keep him out of the top ten. In fact, I would put George Washington in the number two spot for all the important precedents he made for the presidency (Only taking two terms being one).
July 11th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Wilson absolutely sucked. His wife was President toward the end of his term, after a stroke, or some such. He approved the formation of the Federal Reserve, and we’ve gone downhill ever since. What about Ike!!! No President did more in the army than Jackson? What was D-Day? The regimental picnic? Eisenhower presided over some of the greatest prosperity this country (or any other, ever) has ever seen. And it’s tremendously unfortunate that the nation chose not to heed his warning about the Military-Industrial Complex. How many Presidents graduated West Point? I few I’d wager.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Most of the men on this list were despicable psychopaths, but there is a theory that this is what makes a great president.
If I had a vote I’d cast it for Dwight Eisenhower, the last truly strong AND decent man to hold the office. (Carter and Ford were decent but not strong, Johnson and Reagan were strong but not were horrible pieces of human filth, Kennedy was vastly overrated, and Nixon was nuts. Clinton and the Bushes are not worth mentioning in the same breath as the rest.)
I say get replace Wilson with Eisenhower.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
GEORGE WASHINGTON! If ever a list lacked someone, it’s this one. Without George Washington, there wouldn’t have ever been a “President”. Everyone offered him the CROWN to the United States, but he refused.
No matter what political decisions he made there after, he should be recognized as one of the greatest for denying the temptation to create yet another monarchy. He refused to accept full power over a nation, and secure America’s freedom from that point onward!
July 11th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
BTW…Andrew Jackson killed thousands of Natives in his quest for land. I don’t think he should get a spot…pure greed.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
What? No George Dubya Bush??? That’s completely unacceptable. In his own words, this list is outragified. How can u make a list of great presodents withtout includifying the bestest ever. I bet he is very offensated.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
this is the worst list ever put on this site. Ever hear of this guy named George Washington? Yea…. leading the colonial army against ridiculious odds and certain death if captured. Not a big deal apparently.
Now Kennedy, truthfully the guy didn’t do that much. He made some speeches and then he got shot. He’s a likeable matyr and its the only reason he became a cultural icon. Not to mention his connections with the mafia and his infidelity. yea….great guy.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
WORSTLISTEVER: Thanks Lee Harvey Oswalt.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Worstlistever: Yes maybe, but at the time he united a country bruised by the civil rights movement/fiasco, he fostered a climate (at least publicly) that allowed for the I have a Dream moment and most importantly (and a more unfortunate demise imho) he got Bobby Kennedy in a position to effect change. He belongs.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Mom424: JFK also put us in a fiasco, when the Soviet Union started to put nuclear arms in Cuba. He did bail us out; but, the reason the Soviets tried to put them in Cuba was because the leaders in Moscow thought JFK was soft. In the deal with the Soviets he gave up missile sites in Turkey, and promised to respect the sovereignty of Cuba; thus, keeping Castro in power.
Also, MLK would have flourished with or without JFK. Martin Luther King was one of the greatest persons in our history. That’s like saying Teddy created an environment that allowed the e=mc2 theory.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Kennedy was just a face, he did not do anything of significant value. The only two things that are ever cited about him are founding the Peace Corps and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Although the Peace Corps is an admirable organization most historians debate Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In the end I would rather have seen Lyndon Johnson instead of Kennedy. The Vietnam War was a horrible mistake, but he was the only person with enough political clout to enact the Great Society and Civil Rights legislation.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Does anyone realise how insignificant a threat the Soviet Union was. If a war did begin in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Soviets might have done some damage, but they would have been completely wiped out by the US. At the time the Soviets had 9 nucleur silos trained on the States, while America had 480 pointed back at them. Those numbers alone speak of how much of a threat the Soviets really were. And
Woodrow Wilson may have been good for the US, but that crap about the 14 point peace plan, otherwise known as the Woodrow doctrine, has indirectly caused a vast number of deaths throughout the third world. This is because the Woodrow doctrine has provided the legal basis to allow the US to destabilise governments in developing countries. Often this has occured simply to protect financial interests, by pillaging their natural resources. In Guatemala alone, since the 50’s, about a million indiginous people have been slaughtered under CIA backed dictatorships. All thanks to Woodrow Wilson providing the legal impetus. So that guy sucked ass.
July 12th, 2008 at 5:56 am
If a serial killer is effective… it does’t make him great.
July 12th, 2008 at 6:26 am
This list and some of the commentary disappoints me.
First, Kennedy was not a great president- far from it. I whole-heartedly agree that his assasination saved his reputation and gave him a legacy. Beyond his image, what did he really do? He led us to complete disaster with the bay of pigs.
Secondly, in regards to Washington- he was an amazing president. Or rather, he was an incredibly influential leader. In case you’ve forgotten, he was the first (and still one of the few) world leader to refuse power. Despite our wishes to crown him, he shyed away from that type of control and authority. His focus was on running our nation- not becoming another monarch. This set the tone for all our future presidents. Not-to-mention his beliefs in isolationism and avoiding any foreign entangling aliances. This too influenced in the immediate and long-run. He wasn’t great because he was the first or what he did- it was rather what he didn’t do that made the most powerful statement of all.
July 12th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Lastly, lets be frank. Most other men on this list would not have made the same refusal that Washington did (AHEM FDR)
July 12th, 2008 at 8:12 am
I haven’t read through all of the comments, but I haven’t noticed any outrage about Jackson. Ever hear of the Trail of Tears? This along with slavery is one of the worst blemishes in American history. Interactions with the Native Americans has always been a horrible practices throughout history, but this is easily the peak of atrocities done to the Native population.
George Washington has to be in the top 10, just for the fact that he developed the basic outline of what the presidency should be. There is nothing in the constitution creating cabinet posts. Washington knew he alone couldn’t handle the job and realized he would need the expertise of others in running the young country. He held the young country together in a time where a strong leader was needed.
As for Abe Lincoln, he was a truly great leader, but like all of the “greats” he was there at the right time. Would he still be considered one of the best if the Civil War didn’t happen during his presidency. True this is all speculation, but I feel that a man that was able to lead America not only through the Great Depression, but also through World War II is a more deserving candidate for the top spot.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:50 am
I agree that Ronald Reagan and George Washington should be on the list.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Glad Reagan didn’t make the list, he doesn’t deserve the honor, appalled that George Washington wasn’t on the top.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Okay…….( takes a deep breath),
For the George Washington boys/girls,
You guys tell me why George Washington should be included? All his trademark American values were equally shared by other presidents too, for example Thomas Jefferson who is on this list. Plus, historians now say that he wasn’t all that great a general to begin with; in comparision Andrew Jackson was better and more skillful,who is again included in this list. So there you go, that justifies my exclusion of the 1st president of The United States of America. He wasn’t by any means average, way more accomplised than that, it’s just that he just was outdone by the others.
Some of you have just come here with stereotyped images of the Great George Wshington fixed in your mind. See for yourself and study every single president, then only will you
realize the fact that there were other presidents whose achievements surpass that of Mr.Washington. If you hold the opinion that setting the foundation for a nation is the most important thing, well then I can compredhend; that is your opinion, which you are rightly entitled to.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:40 am
144. YogiBarrister,
I’m glad you think that way about Reagan. He was one of the most popular , but his achievements during presidency don’t quite accord with his popularity.
About Mr.Washington, I’m still mystified.You guys just don’t get it do you? Being the first of the presidents got him a high stake in history but he simply wasn’t good enough to make it to the top 10. I had to be fair and consider every president( yes that’s correct,EVERY president)according to what they did, how well they did.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I left Egypt last December, and was amazed to find out they thought Carter was our best president.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Ro, again I don’t know your nationality, but it’s drilled into children’s heads in America that George Washington is some mythological god of a president. Him and Christopher Columbus. You could walk into any kindergarten class and hear “Who was our first president, boys and girls? George Washington! He chopped down a cherry tree and told the truth when his father asked him! He stood on a rowboat crossing the Patomic and posed for a painting! He holed up in a camp for a winter, surviving on nothing but flour-cakes!”, ad nauseum. (By the way, boys and girls, only the last one is true.) So discluding Washington is, to some, is like discluding the flag on a list of “most patriotic American items”.
It’s a knee-jerk reaction to Americans. They must have their George Washington on their list of best presidents! Of course, half of them aren’t even coming up with reasons WHY he should be number 1. It’s just, like, obvious, duh! (Or is it?)
July 12th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Knew I should have fact-checked: the river was the Deleware, not the Potomac (also spelled incorrectly).
July 12th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Yes Andrew Jackson was a bad man when it came to Indians and I apologize for the strong emotions I have evoked.
What I will not apologize for is him making it to this list.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:06 am
I don’t necessarily see George Washington as a good president considering he helped found this nation on a equal basis of equality…for white ppl only.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Goodness gracious!
So much controversy. I just finished reading all the comments and it feels terrible. Opinions- what to do with them?
July 12th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Oh, by the way I didn’t include Truman because he dropped the atom bomb. Now, don’t give me that talk about big decisions,what he did was wrong, playing God with people.
And consequentially, kennedy took his spot on #10.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Specter,
Carter WAS your best president. You in yours and his country just didn’t appreciate him.
Respectfully
July 12th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Good point, Ro- my dislike of Andrew Jackson as a person clouds my judgement of him as a president.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:32 am
74. Cedestra
Thank you Cedestra, it means a lot to me. The thing is I bid good riddance to all of the influences which could make me biased and started with a fresh mind. Then I tried to know all about each of the 43 presidents( using books and documentaries mostly)I could based upon how effective they were and came down to ten.
You surely are very astute looking through the list and into my mind.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:34 am
America LOST the war of 1812. The British actually sacked Washington DC.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:42 am
George Washington should be first on the list for so many historical reasons that have nothing to do with him being the first president.
JFK didn’t do anything. He’s a cultural icon like marylin monroe.
Whoever made this list just copied and pasted from wikipedia. You obviously don’t know your history.
Spanner in the worksj : your fucking stupid. What the fuck makes jimmy carter the best president? being a limpdick i guess
July 12th, 2008 at 11:44 am
You people have to understand that the occurances in the economy during a man’s presidency do not necessarily reflect his performance. Clinton was hailed as a great President because of the economical growth and prosperity that we were experiencing. And although he did cut Welfare, that was about the only good thing he did for the economy. The rest of it was delayed action from the Reagan era. It takes a few years for government policies to take effect, and by that time, the next president is taking all the credit for the one who preceded him. Reagan was a great president, but the lack of knowledge of economics in the U.S. results in misconception, not to mention an inordinate amount of people wanting the government to intervene in peoples’ property and “spread the wealth” equally among those who don’t work for it.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Professor Ro? How about the time George Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac? He knew how to make money go a long way.
In the case of being president, being the first is important. Washington had to get it right in order for the Republic to succeed.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
As an outsider, I don’t rate a direct opinion, just a few flippant remarks so far (to conceal a lot of admiration). Those of my fellow Brits who’ve considered kicking out our heriditary monarchy have realised that replacing it is not that easy. All things considered, you statesiders have made a pretty good job of it, and a lot better than some others.
Despite your own internal controversies here, I’d like to thank you all for opening up my vista of this subject, which was (and still is) scrappy to say the least. My father collected postage stamps fanatically, I did too for a while as a kid. Many American presidents were just names and faces on those stamps for me. Lately that has been directly replaced by the presidents’ pickled, talking heads in ‘Futurama’. School history lessons; the times I’ve lived through; and my own specialities, among others have brought a few to life and put odd scraps of flesh on some of those. This column (I’m still reading) is adding a lot to that.
At school primary level, we learned the received basics about Washington and Lincoln, as under heavy dispute here. As history became more detailed, the name of Wilson featured, along with the politics of isolationism. It’s interesting for me to find here someone expounding at length precisely what we we taught about Wilson’s idealistic and unrealistic role during and after the First World War. When I first entered the Listverse postings and wrote that in another context (Conspiracies), I was informed that was a mistaken view. Obviously, with Britain as a former European imperial power, the Monroe doctrine also became familiar, and has cropped up as recently as the Falklands War, with debates over whether it was less to do with anti-colonial idealism than geopolitical spheres of influence.
The ‘Special Relationship’ a phrase coined by Churchill and continuing through to Blair and Bush, has been a keystone of British interest, and arose during my first personal awareness. FDR and Churchill were the two heroes who saved me from Hitler (could never put the cold, mean-looking Uncle Joe up there with them). I was surprised to learn later that their relationship was not the total buddy-buddy I’d always supposed, and that Churchill had tried so endlessly and in vain up to Pearl Harbour to persuade FDR to help smash Hitler. I feel no one can say FDR precipitated America into that war. But we can at least be mightily thankful for the life-line of lease-lend his government set up. Ike was another hero of my youth, even though we (not least Churchill) were already recognising that the U.S.A. was taking over the reins from us in virtually every important aspect of the war and beyond, and this was inevitable. Then there was Truman and The Bomb. I invite those who critise their country for its use to take a time-trip back to the context. You’d be surprised how different your perspective would be.
After the war, and with ever more sophisticated news media systems, American presidential elections and presidential world politics became ever more like a detatched bit of our own that we were unable to influence by votes. We usually had those we shouted for and wanted to win, those we disliked. But Brits were as variable in their favours as Americans. I remember following Watergate on the radio as avidly as any soap opera, almost hour by hour in its final phase.
Finally there are one or two presidents, also known in a wider context, who’ve figured through my own interest in natural history. Teddy, the founder of Yellowstone (even if originally partly for hunting). Reagan for his idiotic statements about trees polluting the planet. And a special hero of mine, Thomas Jefferson, after whom a delightful small genus of plants is named, Jeffersonia. How appropriate!
July 12th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
WORST LIST EVER
What about my fucking stupid?
Or do you you mean you’re fucking stupid? In that case take an elementary English lesson, fucking stupid, and at the same time sharpen up you ability to detect a piece of obvious irony.
Hasta la vista, baby
July 12th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
But thanks for taking the trouble to respond.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Barky(Comment #157); And damn good thing too, otherwise I’d be an American.
July 12th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
WorstListEver; It is you’re (you are) fucking stupid. And the reason Jimmy Carter is actually respected elsewhere in the world is due to the man himself as much as his policies. He was honest, humble, intelligent, and realized that power and responsibility go hand in hand. He was concerned about the welfare of those affected by American foreign policy and not just in The United States. In other words a man of principle. He did not lie, cheat or manipulate the American public nor the rest of the world. A man in public service whose sole motivation was to actually serve the public. Not to accumulate power nor for personal aggrandizement. A decent, privately religious, (much more Christian than most who proclaim such) non-judgmental, and decent human being.
Is it any wonder that many Americans treat him with contempt?
July 12th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Mom424
Beautifully put. I didn’t do Jimmy justice because I was more interested in booting WORST LIST EVER. I might in fact have been more ironical still and said that Jimmy Carter was too good a man to be a president, or at least too honest a man. I’m sure you know that the worst thing a politician can do in public is to admit honest doubt or apologise. That’s a career killer and explains exactly the old dictum that people get the politicians they deserve.
As a human being, he’s up there with Jefferson for me.
July 12th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Spanner in the works: Thank you very much. One of my favorite politicians anywhere and of all time is Jimmy Carter. Did you know that he is one of (2nd I believe) the most intelligent presidents in the last 50 years? This should be taken with a grain of salt seeing as Bill Clinton has a documented IQ rating of 182. Goes to show you that intelligence can be overcome if you have the morals of a mongoose.
How is it that the current President of the United States, and arguably the most powerful man in the world, has an IQ level 40 points below a middle-aged, middle-class, pretty much average house-wife and mother in backwater Ontario? And damn-it-all-to hell, I’m not even the smartest person in my family. There is a definite problem here; how come so many can be fooled so easily? It is so much like a bad movie; the power brokers pick the face and put whatever words they want into his mouth. Generally the whatever the public wishes to hear in order to keep those same brokers in their positions of power. Geez, politics suck!
July 12th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
NO, NO, NO!! I don’t care if Andrew Jackson singly handedly saved Christmas, he was a mass murderer and a complete piece of shit. Reading the summaries of his presidential reign is nauseating. If people are going to criticize Bush for his unacceptable foreign policies regarding the ‘War on Terror’ as an obvious ploy for oil, try keeping in mind that Jackson up rooted tens of thousands of people from their homes, indirectly
killing over 4,000, partly because of pressure from southern states that discovered gold on Native American land. There is no excuse for that.
July 12th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Jackson didn’t smash the British. You need to reword that. If anyone smashed anyone in that, the Canadians/British did it to you.
And the reason the League of Nations failed was because they never wanted to act against any powerful countries. It was all fun and good when countries no one cared about needed help, but if it was Italy? The United States’ inolvement would have helped it greatly, but it was by no means neccessary.
July 12th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Mom424,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidents_IQ_hoax.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bliq-bush.htm
If that was what you were talking about I’d like to say you should check your facts.
Insulting someone without actually checking facts makes me think you are the real person that “has an IQ level 40 points below a middle-aged, middle-class, pretty much average house-wife and mother in backwater Ontario”
If this is not what you were talking about, then I’d like to see some solid facts that George Bush has indeed the iq level you said.
July 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
The absence of George Washington confirms
the absence of intelligence of the list compiler.
July 12th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Andrew Jackson and FDR do not deserve to be on this list. FDR got the US out of the depression, but he used a lot of quick fixes back then to get us out that we are now feeling the pain of today. He was also a dictator in the fact that he ruled for almost 12 years. I dont care if the president is incredible, they still dont deserve more than two consecutive terms. Andrew Jackson was a racist that kicked the cherokee indians out of Georgia and was solely responsible for the trail of tears which followed the cherokees being kicked out of Georgia and relocated to Oklahoma. This was also after the US supreme court ruled the indians could stay. Would you name Hideki Tojo a great leader for the Bataan Death March.
July 12th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Umm… Correct me if I’m wrong, but this list seems like blatant sarcasm to me.
“Slowly over the course of the next few months he bullied Mexico in to a war it didn’t want to fight. America won and took not only California but what is now all of Nevada and parts of Utah, Arizona and New Mexico.”
“The Tariff act was passed in 1832, which would be significant to America’s economy forever. When North Carolina had other opinions about the act, Jackson made it clear that no state had the right to break national laws and threatened to use the army if necessary to save the union.”
“He began to reform the federal government and at the same improved civil service to get better workers. He forced the railroads to return 81 million acres of government which they had taken illegally.”
That doesn’t sound like flattery to me…
July 12th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Ro- Great list. I applaud your decision NOT to put Washington at #1. If I were doing a list, I’d probably scribble him into the top spot and go about filling in the rest. I’m american, it’s what we’re taught and it’s ingrained to a shocking degree. To not see that is refreshing and, I think, bold of you. It could well be seen as attempting to ’stir’ controversy but the reasons you gave and your tone while giving them make me believe this is your true and honest conclusion.
I wish listversers could speak in more ‘me’ sentences. ‘I’d have put…’ instead of ‘You should have put…’. I mean really, each list is just the opinion of the author, usually, but not always, supported with facts. Comments are for dissent and rebuttal as well as agreement, but declaring something so subjective as ‘wrong’ always makes it harder for me to get to the point that person is trying to make.
July 12th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
its wrong if TR isnt first
thats my opnion
July 12th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Ok, seriously did you EVER take an American History class in High School? Andrew Jackson does not deserve to be on this list, in fact, he should have been on the other list of WORST presidents. Did we forget when writing this that HE FORCED NATIVE AMERICANS TO MARCH OUT OF THE KNOWN UNITED STATES IN WHAT CAME TO BE KNOWN AS THE TRAIL OF TEARS?!?!?! He was also opposed to Alexander Hamilton’s national bank proposal and in a cruel twist of irony was placed on the most used piece of currency in the world. Ever heard of the term “kitchen cabinet”? well Jackson was the reason for it. He used his own set of unofficial advisors that led to some the most destructive decisions in American history. (The Trail of Tears for one) And he was a major cause of the Civil War with the 1832 Tariff Act. OMFG U F-ING IDIOT READ A HISTORY BOOK FOR GOD’S SAKE!!!
July 12th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Oh, by the way, AMERICA LOST THE WAR OF 1812 AND THE BRITISH BURNED DOWN THE WHITE HOUSE YOU RETARD!!!!!
July 12th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
There is an error in the Andrew Jackson portion. It was South Carolina that was apart of the Nullification Crisis not North Carolina.
July 12th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Diamond Dragon: I am aware that the man is not a total idiot, and I am also aware of the hoax with the supposed institute in Scranton. There have been other, more reputable estimations since then – around 110 is the most current estimate I could find. So I exaggerated my own genius by a little
for effect, but the point still stands. Most Listverse regulars are heads and tails ahead of the Bushster, and at least a couple of them would make much better presidents. You’ve all been bamboozled by the political one-two punch of wealth and power. Twice.
July 12th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
t_man, you’re right about Andrew Jackson being a man of questionable morals but wrong about the United States losing The War of 1812. In fact Jackson won a battle in New Orleans to ice the victory. If we had lost that war, wouldn’t Americans be speaking English today?
July 12th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
This list is terrible, period. The author is obviously not a serious student of history and writes as if he’s still in eighth grade. When I saw Wilson had been listed second I actually laughed out loud. Please, get serious about these lists.
July 12th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Agree with the last post. I’m in love with US History, but this list is, to say the least, a load of bull. Not only is each entry written HORRIBLY, but you’re decisions on the top 10 presidents are terrible! Why is Grover Cleveland even on here? Why is POLK on here!? He was for the expansion of slavery into the west, and blundered his way through Mexico. His acquisition of California does not make him great. And Wilson?
Where the hell is George Washington?
July 12th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
And isn’t it strange that so many British think that the Americans LOST the War of 1812? We kicked you out of our front door step. The reason the White House was burnt was because American troops withdrew from DC to defend further up the Potomac.
And Andrew Jackson actually defeated the British in New Orleans one month after the war ended. The news about the treaty of ghent had yet to reach him.
July 12th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I must disagree with several entries on this list. Wilson is almost universally viewed by most historians as a weak and ineffective president – he ran on a campaign of peace, only to lead us into a horrible, senseless war. Then his League of Nations campaign failed miserably. Kennedy was not that effective of a president – the Bay of Pigs, his private escapades, and the fact that most of his ideas were actually not passed during his presidency but by Johnson after his death. While Roosevelt did help lead the country out the depression, many of the public entitlements enacted during his presidency have proven to do more harm than good socially, as well as fiscally. Also the inability to confront Hitler before World War II and the failure to foresee the attack on Pearl Harbor are still debated to this day. The omission of Ronald Reagan, who stood down the Soviets and ended the Cold War is glaring, as is the absence of our first president, Washington.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
One-hundred-eighty-four comments, and most of them all total BS and negativity from folks who are too afraid of receiving the very same shite they pour forth from their gorges to go and contribute anything noteworthy themselves.
Ro, I applaud you and everyone else who has stepped up and created a list here. While I may not agree with your choices; I will excercise my American Constitutionally guaranteed right to disagree. I’ll also use that same set of rights to keep my mouth shut about them.
Sometimes the most important part of having a right to do something – is in NOT excercising that right.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Hey “Spanner in the worksj,” who are you arguing with about Nixon? No one said he s/be on this list, yet you find reason NOT to put him here. We already know that. Get psychiatric help…NOW!! You need it.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
BTW,… if you love Jimmy Carter,… you hate the USA. There are NO exceptions to this rule. You’re not fooling ANYONE if you say otherwise.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
dave4248
Who pulled your wire?
Was I either arguing about or for Nixon? I think you’d better quote my text to prove that. I don’t believe for one minute I claimed he should be on the list, or gave that impression, or claimed that anyone said he should. Clear the blood from your eyes and read carefully, which I doubt you did any more than some others who blunder in on these lists. You may then notice that I was merely discussing the presidents we happen to know a bit about in Britain, and trying to give an idea how they appeared from our side of the Atlantic. If that seems to you to be wandering off the strict line of the topic, I suggest you put some fucking spectacles on and try reading some of the other lists to see just how far from the topic postings can get.
I don’t ‘love’ Jimmy Carter, I certainly don’t claim he was an effective president. I just happen to admire him as a human being: and I don’t hate the USA you stupid, warped-minded twat. Though if there were more in it like you, I might begin to have have second thoughts.
The way you’re ranting on like a rottweiler off the leash,, seems to me you’re the one who needs shrinking. Meannwhile, just creep back in your hole.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I some what agree with Shadow (#185). I live in a country where I can dis this prez or another. I can say what ever I want. No one will come and gather me and my family. We are free. We are all Free. To say, and do, and live, (exceopt for S_R on Gay Marriage; keep me out of that). I am blessed. Everyone wants to live here. Why? That question answers itself. WE. ARE. FREE.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
@ RO,
So you didnt include Truman because he dropped the Atomic bombs? You said he was playing god but do you have any idea how many lives he SAVED by doing that? Every estimate he was given about the casualties were absolutely horrible.”Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties. The ‘Los Angeles Times’ estimated that America would suffer up to 1 million casualties.” He made what was probably the hardest decision in history but it was the RIGHT decision. Yes, it was horrible, but it saved MILLIONS of lives on both sides. I dont know if he would be considered an outstanding president, but not including him just for that is just ignorant.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Also, the fact that it took 2 bombs for them to surrender should be evidence enough of the japanese intention to fight to the end. By doing it he ended the war earlier than anyone thought possible with a LOT less casualties.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Vera,
Haven’t seen it, and am just having it brought back by a friend from from the States right now as a DVD, but I understand the film, ‘For Love or Country: the Arturo Sandoval Story’, about the Cuban jazz player, deals with exactly what you are saying about America and freedon in a most moving fashion.
Cicero,
To back you up, not that you need it, Randall and I made precisely those points over on the Conspiracy Theory List some while back. As I put higher up to these holies-after-the-event, take a time-capsule back to the moment and you’ll be amazed how different it will all look. Even though a young kid, I was there and had the feel of events. I think the telling point I made was to ask how many here had fathers who fought in the Pacific theatre and survived. On the calculated losses (as you quote) had the war not been foreshortened by The Bombs (yes, both of them, don’t forget) many of you wouldn’t be here today.
America was reducing Japan by suoerfort fire-bombing. If you think nuclear injuries are vile, ever seen a civilian population during and after a fire raid? Overall it’s as bad or worse. That would have happened to every major industrial Japanese centre.
There is another facet that may make the use of The Bomb even more significant. People need the evidence of their eyes to believe something, and we sure got that from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Without that, is it not possible that the west and communism might have been much more inclined to use nuclear weapons? Don’t dismiss that.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Technically the War of 1812 ended as a draw. Ever hear of the Treaty of Ghent?
Treaty of Ghent
July 12th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
i think this list was a huge failure. i can’t agree with hardly any of it. especially andrew jackson’s inclusion – it’s like including hitler as one of germany’s best leaders. just because both hitler & jackson did a few good things for their respective countries doesn’t excuse them from the fact that they both committed genocide.
“Since slavery had started this whole mess in the first place” someone has not studied us history. anyone who paid attention to high school us history would know that slavery was actually one small problem out of many larger problems.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
erinlyne: this list was written by a non-American – schools outside of America don’t teach US history.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
My 188,
For owner and lovers of rottweilers, which in my experience have always been friendly, affectionate dogs, I should point out that my use was purely figurative.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
190. cicero
No Cicero, I believe there were other ways to end the war. It saved a hell lot of American lives but at what cost- you have to ask.
176. t_man
It was the war of 1812, in its fag end, the very last stages there was the Battle of New Orleans. This batttle had won it for the USA. So my information is CORRECT.
And it is precisely because you are too interested in learning high school history that you take your teachers’s every word for granted and make ignorant comments like that.
I’m not trying to belittle you here, but just try to get out of that mind state and actually research about presidents. Put behind everyhting else as in the thoughts that occupied your mind from your childhood ,what your parents might’ve drilled in to you with their party favorism etc.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I don’t think there is a single person that has posted that can be truly considered credible. Everyone has a right to his or her opinion, but once you start speaking about facts, you should check to make sure that you’re facts are indeed factual. For the second time, for the people who think the War of 1812 was won by either the U.S. or the British, it was a DRAW. The Treaty of Ghent was a peace treaty signed in the city of Ghent in Belgium in December of 1814 that concluded the war and returned U.S./British relations back to the status quo. All land taken by the British was returned to the U.S. and there were almost no geographical changes between pre and post war of 1812. Also the battle of New Orleans was fought and won by the U.S. AFTER the war had ended because of the state of communications at the time. So people can you atleast check you’re “facts” over at wikipedia before sharing them with the rest of us?
July 12th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
About Lincoln,
Yes slavery was not the only cause the civilwar but what Lincoln did was commendable beyond doubts. He made a vow to save the Union and at the same time made it his goal to end slavery. So he fought for both simultaneously in the form of the war and achieved both. What more do you want? Who cares what his real motivations were or tha fact that he contorted the constitution.He still kept The United States in one piece, didn’t he?
July 12th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
By the way, where is Randall?
Maybe he recognizes the genius and toil put behind this list.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Ro
Oh boy I’d love to take you back and put you in Truman’s shoes (yes, pun intended, I know shoes were his business). One mistake over inscrutable Japanese intentions and you’d have been condemning countless numbers of your own fighting countrymen and millions of Japanese women and children to death. You’re so sure you’d know what to do? Maybe you don’t have a father and/or other relatives who survived. Ask Randall. He does, and knows he might not be here today. He is grateful to Truman.
There’s another angle which I can vouch for from personal experience. We are still horrified, but all too familiar today with fundamentalist suicide terror attacks. We recognise them as being the result of a human culture which has a completely different mind-set to our own. We find it repulsive that a religious leader can offer an adolescent 60 virgins to screw from here to eternity in paradise if he will drive a vehicle-bomb into a bunch of unexpecting civilians. But we can still see some human reason behind that.
From October 1944 onwards, allied sailors in the Pacific theatre suddenly found swarms of piloted aircraft loaded with explosives being deliberately flown straight at them. These were not reckless acts of hot-blooded bravery in the heat of battle. These pilots had actually volunteered and were trained for the mission, had coolly sat in their planes receiving a ritual farewell ceremony and had then flown in disciplined formation to the kamikaze attack. And they were not just a small handful, they kept coming in their hundreds until the war ended. By that stage people were used to the conventional brutalities of war, by the nazis on the eastern front in particular. But nobody could get their minds around this. You have to accept that this act appeared to be conducted by aliens from another planet, not by human beings. And you are saying it would have been easy to negotiate a reasonable ending to the war?
July 13th, 2008 at 12:42 am
I don’t mean I was attacked by kamikazes! I was only a young kid on the home front, of course, but I remember very well the context and mood. The war was part of our lives, for a long time the major part.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:56 am
Whether Ro put Bush and Hoover up on the list 5 times each to get a top ten or not, I think it’s extremely uncalled for posters to question the intelligence of the contributor. Really, you can take that immature banter back to eBaumsworld.
Almost 200 comments later, not a single person has stepped up to plate to produce their own Top 10 presidents. I was once a History major and went to school to teach it, but still I don’t think I can put together my own. I’ll try, leaning heavily on Wikipedia:
(First, I will explain my criteria as those presidents who set in motion a good foundation and examples for future American presidents and those who pre- and post-presidential careers were marked with excellence.)
10. Bill Clinton- Carrot for the Brady Bill, foreign events, Stick for Whitewater and Lewinsky scandals.
9. Jimmy Carter- Carrot for Human Rights issues, his humanitarian work (post-presidency), his political work (post-presidency). Stick for the Iranian hostage crisis, the Panama Canal Treaty. (Jimmy Carter makes the list more for his legacy work than his presidential term work.)
8. John F Kennedy- Carrot for the Peace Corps, Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Civil Rights Act, Immigration laws. Stick for the Bay of Pigs, Viet Nam, family issues.
7. Franklin Delano Roosevelt- Carrot for his first 100 days (laissez-faire just doesn’t work, people), handling WWII, and minority rights (through the New Deal). Stick for cutting veteren’s benefits and creating internment camps for Japanese-, German-, and Italian-Americans.
6. Thomas Jefferson- Carrot for penning the Declaration of Independence, the Louisiana Purchase, keeping neutrality with England and France, and outlawing external slave trade and piracy. Stick for bickering in his party, caving to Congress, and lack of follow-through for the Embargo of 1807.
5. George Washington- Carrot for his military expertice, humble nature, laying foundations for later presidents, and keeping us out of war with Britain and France. Stick for the Jay Treaty (which heavily favored Britain), being weak-spined to his cabinet, and the Whiskey Rebellion.
4. Harry S Truman- Carrot for finishing WWII, the Fair Deal, creation/recognition of Israel, the creation of NATO. Stick for inactivity with civil rights (although he supported them), mishandling McCarthyism, and mishandling his scandals. Neutral on the call to drop the a-bombs.
3. Abraham Lincoln- Carrot for the Emancipation Proclamation, most of the handling of the Civil War, and Reconstruction. Stick for allowing army generals to attack civilians and suspending the writ of habeus corpus.
2. Theodore Roosevelt- Carrot for busting trusts, conservationism, his Nobel Peace Prize, and the Panama Canal. Big Stick (haha) for his views on so-called savage races.
1. John Adams- Carrot for his fervent patriotism, helping to establish cause for the Revolution, helping pen the Declaration of Independence, preserving the president’s authority, passing several Acts that protected the country’s rights. Stick for his foreign policies and his petty bickering and disgust of politic.
John Monroe would probably have to be the best moral example of how a president should be, but his presidency seemed to have been a failure. He did, however, govern over the country during the “Era of Good Feelings”.
Okay, the writing/research on this post took 2 hours (apologies if there have been any other posts in the meantime that pertain to my issue of not picking your best.) Again, have a little respect to the time put into this list- I’m so exhausted right now!
July 13th, 2008 at 1:06 am
To continue, Ro, our bone of contention seems to be Jackson. Here’s how I’d compare his rating:
Carrot for reduction of National Debt and surviving two assassination attempts (one fended of by himself with his cane).
Stick for trying to remove the electoral college, the Indian Removal Act, his previous interactions with Native Americans, shady dealings with the Cherokee and their unauthorized signing of the Treaty, and the Trail of Tears.
So, he gets a big stick from me. It wasn’t just his previous military career of killing Indians, it was a series of greedy, unjustified, and unsupported Treaties and dealings.
I think if you took the military workings of Custer, the political power of Jackson, and the writing power of L. Frank Baum, you’d have the Hitler of Native Americans.
July 13th, 2008 at 1:10 am
As an outsider, thank you, Cedestra, for a most thoughtful contribution that certainly makes sense to me in my capacity as outsider. (I recognise that as limiting the worth of my comments.)
And yes, I’ll vote for Ro too, even though we’ve crossed swords.
The purpose of these lists is surely to provoke discussion and even controversy and differences of opinion. Also for all of us to learn from one another, and to hone our critical faculties. (Hopefully all in an intelligent and reasonably respectful way.) I consider this list has succeeded admirably in those aims, and it’s clearly not dead yet either.
July 13th, 2008 at 1:29 am
Cedestra (204),
Relying on ‘Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee’ as a sole fount of information on Native American core history, one would be surprised how little negative (or any) mention of high level (presidential) politics there is. Jackson’s (Sharp Knife) military record is cited and with outline facts, likewise his subsequent political moves. This is profiled in little more than half a page, including the suggestion that his fairer policies were overwhelmed by the uncontrollable event of waves of settlers, (as in Brazil today). Lincoln is noted for having personally saved the lives of about three hundred who were condemned to hang. Grant is also given several pages for the Washington meeting.
Of course, ‘Bury’ isn’t a straight history book of those events (as, say, ‘Red Gold’ by Hemming is more so for Brazil), and I neither know or have read any such. Nor do I know how ‘Bury’ is generally regarded in America.
July 13th, 2008 at 2:40 am
203. Cedestra
No, why should I do that? If I had put Bush or Hoover than this list really would’ve sucked.I know you were making an example, but still ,don’t you forget that the deserved got the ten spots available. You could sue me for putting Bush or Hoover, that would justifiable. But I didn’t, becasue i know better.
Again all these astringent comments caught me by surprise, but now as I check with all these so called presidential rankings, both the tasteless ones of Wikipedia(conducted through votes from ordinary people) and the more scholarly ones( conducted by research from historians),I see that I’m right.
Jackson was included in top 10 for most of those lists.
So there, even though I made the decision not to look at any presidential rankings when I started on this list, it turns out that my judgment was accurate on what is the biggest controversey on this list.
Spanner in the worksj,
Thanks for your information.
Well yes I did insinuate earlier that Truman was a strong contender for the #10 spot. But I just believe Kennedy had an unfinished legacy. It’s amazing what a little charisma’s capable of doing.So he got lots of extra points for potentiality. And not just any potentiality, potentiality displayed during his presidency.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:32 am
34. alf1369
No we dont. You can keep your country. Perfectly happy on the other side of the world.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:33 am
Spartacus
Get your own name, and btw, you want credibility, see the comment above…
July 13th, 2008 at 4:16 am
Ro,
Interesting that you exclude Truman for dropping The Bomb, which had the avowed – and acknowledged – effect, of saving millions of lives on both sides, yet include Polk who
“Slowly over the course of the next few months he bullied Mexico in to a war it didn’t want to fight. America won and took not only California but what is now all of Nevada and parts of Utah, Arizona and New Mexico.”
And why, so that he could fulfill an election promise! And not only that stole more than he wanted afterwards.
Molly (#159)
Reagan had 8 years of his term for his policies to take effect AND 4 years of Pa Bush, before Clinton took office. More than enough time for his policies to have taken some sort of effect I would have thought.
Cheers
Lee
July 13th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Ro and K1W1taxi,
Just like to add the following on the Truman front.
A little charisma is a dangerous thing. Or perhaps the lack of it is. It blinds us to calm judgements and objective realities. Is Princess Di really the most effective and important member of the British Royal Family in the 20th C? Did she really do more for charity than Charles? You might think so. Why? The charisma factor. I have read more than once that nothing was expected of Truman and that he turned out to be one of the best, that he is grossly underrated.
The martys factor is something else. If Kennedy and Di had lived on, and lived on to ripe old ages, would they have achieved what is speculated for them? I have also read opinions that faced with Realpolitik, Kennedy would have become more and more bogged down and less and less popular. We can never know, but its a possibility. Surely you cannot elect on potential alone. Truman belongs.
July 13th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Sorry ‘martyr factor’, nothing to do with Marty McFly.
July 13th, 2008 at 11:35 am
there should be a list like this for british prime ministers and jfk should not be there
July 13th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Good list, but you’re gonna have to make a new list in November when Barrack Obama wins, cuz he’s gonna be the #1 greatest president!
My only real critisism is that Polk should not be on the list. Is is horrible that he started a war just to get some land! Wars are terrible and they should be avoided unless they are absolutely necessary, and a piece of land isn’t worth people’s lives.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Ro – I’m curious as to what sources you used?
July 13th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Yeah despite Lincoln’s family owning slaves and him not really wanting to abolish it. He was pressured by the split and this he did it. I am happy as he did it, but I wish it would have been his honest wish.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
All good choices but I would personally have FDR at #1. The systems of his administration were for the greatest benefit of the people, despite the fact that future presidents would shame them. The way FDR ran the country would still work today, and his administration was ahead of its time. FDR served the most terms of any president, and historically I believe he is the most beloved. Bottom Line: FDR governed us through more turmoil with absolute success than any other president.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Eisenhower is perhaps the most ‘outstanding’ President of the post-War era. Truman, Eisenhower, and Washington deserve placement over JFK, Cleveland, and Jackson.
July 13th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I’ve come to this list VERY late and haven’t had time to read any of the comments except a very few… but I have to say that I would never have included Andrew Jackson on a list of this nature; nor would I have included Woodrow Wilson.
But it’s the omission of George Washington that really destroys the credibility of this list.
No, it is not because Washington was the first… in and of itself… but because he WAS the first, it was HIS stamp that was placed on the presidency. We have to remember that when the office of the president was created, the role of the president wasn’t entirely clear; it was Washington who set the standards and traditions for the presidency, and who created the balanced role of the president in the affairs of the country. In the hands of a lesser man, the presidency could have been burdened, early on, with weakness (even though it’s the strongest of the three branches, in some sense) or, in the hands of a man of lower character, the presidency could have become despotic.
We owe, to Washington (as we owe many other things to him) what dignity and gravitas there is and has been to the presidency, even when the office is occupied by men like Harding, Nixon, or George W. Bush.
The exclusion of Washington was really a grievous error, and a list that includes Grover Cleveland (!) and not the father of our country—well, that list falls dangerous close to ludicrous territory.
July 13th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Randall,
Since you’re here (at last), I should let you know that I took your name in vain without permission at 201 above. Hope you don’t mind.
As I also observed earlier, Never mind the list, feel the discussion!
July 13th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Furthermore, if memory serves me, Polk was a racist (and certainly starting the war with Mexico is a bad thing–expanionism is something we criticized the Russians for) and Woodrow Wilson *certainly* was a racist.
Grover Cleveland’s record is hardly exemplary (no time to go into details just now)…
And again, leaving Washington off is just….silly.
July 13th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Spanner:
No problem… and yes, I’ll defend Truman any day (though I wouldn’t have included him on this list).
Hopefully I’ll have time to read through these comments.
July 13th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I’m not American, but seeing as America insists on sticking its nose in around the world, i feel qualified to comment. Just as a serial killer starts life as a bundle of joy to its mother, so every president starts with hopes and dreams. Perhaps a better list to compile would be “10 Worst Presidents” I wonder how many of the ones on your ‘10 Best” would also appear there
July 13th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
People outside of the US usually say that Carter was a great President because he helped out a lot of other countries; but, he was not a good president for the American people. When it comes down to it the President of the US should always looking be out for the American citizens.
July 13th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Well,
JFK became President because his father cut a deal with the Chicago Mafia.
FDR, in return for the New York Mafia to guard the waterfront let Lucky Luciano out of jail.
Harry Truman and LBJ also were on the take from the Mafia too.
Also FDR let Pearl harbor get bombed in order to rile Americans up to get us in the war.
Harry Truman had the nerve to use the Atomic bomb in Japan.
So, I don’t think there were any heros in this group.
July 13th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Yes, the mafia.
Am I not right in thinking that the Sicily invasion force was bogged down and in a terrible mess, and America did a desperate under-the-table deal with the local mob to get the situation off the hook? If I’m right, it saved lives and kept the vital momentum of the invasion going, but tied post-war anti-crime action in knots. You who live there will be able to confirm that or put me straight.
Lisette, dear,
We’ve done Truman and the Bomb. Go back and read carefully, please.
So it’s a good idea to lose a good part of your relevant major battle fleet, which then high-risks losing the remainder, and have a vital strategic base put out of action simply to get into the war, is it? Your presidents seem to be getting more stupid by the minute.
July 13th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
#226
I am not sure what you mean about the Sicilians….
July 13th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
#226
Yes, that is what FDR did–he knew about Pearl Harbor and let it happen. Because he had gotten elected that time by promising Mothers their sons would not go to war–he had to change the sentiment of the American people
Forgot to mention—-I love Jimmy Carter now and voted for him then.
July 13th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Carter was a great man. Camp David alone was a masterpiece. But he was nice. Reagan was cold and calculating. That’s why he was able to free the hostages. Someone above said that being a psychopath was instrumental to being president. Carter was a man. Reagan was a monster. I trusted one, never the other.
Reagans’ fave saying with Gorbachov (sp?) was, “Trust, but verify.” Too bad we as a people didn’t embrace the same philosophy. He was evil.
July 13th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
The racist factor was not considered.
I saw the word outstanding tantamount to great efficacy.
Also the claims of Polk and Wilson being racists are highly debatable and if one takes into account all the minor trivial details,then virtually half of the presdients are racists anyway.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
So tell me YogiBarrister (Comment 180) what language are American’s speaking today? Hmmmm? Could it be that we are speaking English LIKE WE HAVE BEEN FOR THE PAST 232 YEARS???
July 13th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Lisette (227),
The main branch of the Mob originated in Sicily as the Mafia.
Despite internecine rivalries the connection between the Old and New World branches remained strong and vigorous. Still does, for all I know.
Lisette (228),
Your point makes absolutely no sense. Are you saying that the Emperor of Japan, Yamamoto and the Japanese High Command were all American spies and rigged up a phoney attack on Pearl Harbour? Because if not, and it was coming anyway, like it or not, what more casus belli (reason for war) was needed? Why on earth lose an important part of your ability to defend and counter-attack when the enemy has already declared war on you? That’s totally absurd. In today’s terms, it’s like letting an enemy fire off his nuclear missiles at you and have them devastate your country simply to give you an excuse to hit back. Come on!
July 13th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
theSKin (224),
I’m not sure it’s worth bothering with your point, and there are plenty of good words here for Jimmy Carter, another chief to polarise people to extremes. But you do raise the interesting issue of the ‘purpose’ of a U.S. president’s role. Firstly, in this dangerous megadeath world, I would suggest that maintaining good and careful global relations, building alliances and damping down external enmities from a position of strength was exactly the best any president could do for his own citizens.
I suspect that what you are advocating is isolationism. Read up a bit about that.
Of course, now Britain has lost it’s empire and world influence, you’ve landed up being the major global power. You’ve also found out it’s not much fun. When you do nothing, you’re accused of abandoning the weak, or of moral cowardice, or of letting dangerous situations build up. When you intervene, everybody hates you, accuses you of imperialism and tells you to “Go home yanks (or gringos, where we happen to live).” And of course, you have pretty much the same disagreements internally.
You are in what is known as a classical ‘no-win situation’.
July 13th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Gosh Spanner in the worksj, you’re right. After reading your response I CAN’T IMAGINE why I thought you needed help.
July 13th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
jackson was a brute. stubborn to a fault. also, he had the indian removal act and ignored a supreme court ruling by forcing them to leave. that alone should have got him impeached. the battle that made his so famous also happened after the war was over and the peace treaties were signed. and spain held florida and it was their land when he forced them out. he was ordered to go down and keep an eye things but decided to kick them out instead. he was not a great man.
July 13th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
235. Mainly the reason why I didn’t include him on my list (#203). I respect that Ro believes Jackson did incredible work, but his actions before and during his tenure in regard to Native Americans is unforgivable. Now, I understand that it was the sentiment of the time, but I find any president supporting the actions of hurting, maiming, killing, and destorying people in his own country to be abominable.
I believe you are correct- if a president today went against the ruling of the Supreme Court, he would be impeached. I believe Taylor’s presidency was marred by an impeachment hearing, but he died before this could take place.
July 13th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Spanner in the worksj, Lisette was right. FDR had prior knowledge that Japan was launching an attack. They just didn’t have enough information and the channels weren’t properly used to warn bases in the Pacific.
July 13th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Spanner: How am I even close to suggesting isolationism. Yes, the US does intervene in external affairs; but, the only reason we do is because we are looking out for our own tail when everything is said and done. That is why Carter was a horrible president, his foreign policy was weak and we are still paying for it.
July 14th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Ehem, as far as I know, Mexico fought US, but Mexico did not lost those territories, some of them were sold by a very stupid self-called Emperor Antonio de Santa Ana, to cover his bills, and the others self-claimed independent, just to join to the US.
There are visitors of this page that can come from every place in the world, so i think that u need to analize a little bit more ur info, specially when talkin about History, even the American one.
And sorry if my english is not very good lookin.
Regards
July 14th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Ro:
Upon further consideration, I have to give this list an even lower mark than I originally gave it. It really is a godawful list.
A) I read a couple arguments from clearly numbskulled people as to how we play up Geo. Washington too much as a president. These people–and you–clearly are ignorant of history and have no understanding *themselves* why Washington was great. No, he wasn’t great simply because he was “the first,” of course… but there ARE valid historical reasons why he was one of the best, and to leave him off a list of this kind clearly indicates your own ignorance on the subject.
B) Your remark up above about Harry Truman is ridiculous, naive, and raging in stupidity (about how you excluded Truman for dropping the atom bombs, because he “played god” with human beings… yeah, okay, Ro) PARTICULARLY given your inclusion of Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk (!) (that one still floors me) and Woodrow Wilson. I have argued on behalf of Truman’s decision elsewhere on this site, and if you want me to instruct YOU on it, I’d be happy to do so. At any rate, I wouldn’t have included Truman here for OTHER reasons, but that’s beside the point. You’ve demonstrated no logic or understanding of history in selecting some of the presidents you’ve selected–rather, it looks like you were simply trying to “be different,” and show off some small measure of historical knowledge you’d gleaned somewhere (and yet your blurbs read like condensations of Wikipedia material if you ask me).
C) You remarked to me that “the racist factor was not considered”—further proof of your low-grade thinking in this regard; why should it be acceptable to consider ANY aspect of a president’s behavior and policies, if one discounts a vital and singular aspect of that president’s character? Why not consider Richard Nixon, then, for all the “accomplishments” he made in terms of foreign policy? Why bother to consider that he broke the law? You also said, “…the claims of Polk and Wilson being racists are highly debatable” They are? Tell me where there is “debate” about this? Wilson’s racism is well known–Polk’s only slightly less so as far as I can find. “…and if one takes into account all the minor trivial details,then virtually half of the presdients are racists anyway.”
Racism in context, perhaps, Ro? (I’ll leave off any criticism of your atrocious spelling). Well that’s for others to argue, I won’t trouble with that one. Yes, one might say that racism in a Woodrow Wilson (or for that matter a Richard Nixon or any more contemporary president) is more reprehensible than racism in a James K. Polk or what have you. But regardless, it is a perfectly valid argument to make that a president who merely harbored prejudiced views or views not consistent with our modern ideas of racial equality is different from a president who is actively and consciously *racist,* as certain presidents have been known to be.
“I saw the word outstanding tantamount to great efficacy.”
Why? The two words are unrelated and one does not, in my opinion, at all suggest the other.
Also the claims of Polk and Wilson being racists are highly debatable and if one takes into account all the minor trivial details,then virtually half of the presdients are racists anyway.
July 14th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Lisette:
The theory of Roosevelt knowing about Pearl Harbor before the fact, and acquiescing in the attack, is absurd in the extreme and is touted only by people who know absolute zilch about history–and perhaps reality.
A) Roosevelt was secretary of the navy prior to becoming president and a long-time supporter and lover of the navy. To imagine, therefore, that he would have taken a positive view of an attack on his Pacific fleet and the sinking of most of its battleships, along with the death of thousands of sailors, is RIDICULOUS in the extreme. Roosevelt was also well known as a man of the people, an individual who genuinely cared about the plight of his fellow Americans. It’s not only an insult to consider that this man could have been capable of allowing the murder of thousands of them by a foreign power (regardless of the ends) it’s just flat-out crazy talk. I always suggest people who make such claims go in for treatment and get some good meds. They’re needed.
B) There is absolutely no logic in the argument regarding WHY Roosevelt would have allowed the attack to occur. The bubbleheaded assumption is the overly-simplistic one, that Roosevelt wanted to coax a reluctant American public into WWII. But this fails in the logic arena even before it leaves the gate, and shows no knowledge of the actual details that were going on, historically, at the time. To begin with, the American public was growing less and less isolationist by the day. Sympathy for Great Britain, and displeasure with the Japanese to a lesser extent, were increasing. There is no doubt, given the thrust of this, that in time the US would have gone to war against Nazi Germany at least, with the support of the American people. Also, it makes little sense why Roosevelt should want to open up a two-front war if he could help it–his aim would have been to fight Nazi Germany, not Imperial Japan. Allowing an attack by Japan would not have clearly led to his goal, then (the fact that it did proves nothing, in any case, because it was *Hitler* who declared war on the US first, not vice versa. Our declaration occurred *in answer* to his… Roosevelt could not have known for a fact that Hitler would take that action). A two-front was is a risky, costly affair and would have placed the US at a disadvantage in any case–and in fact it did at first–and the fact that the Pacific fleet was sunk and/or heavily damaged only made the American disadvantage worse. Again, none of this makes any sense whatsoever.
C) Why a successful Japanese attack? If Roosevelt knew in advance that the Japanese were attacking, and wanted to allow the attack to happen, then why not lay a trap for the Japanese? If Roosevelt was somehow plotting to get America into the war via this attack (but again, I’ve already pointed out the illogic of that one, above) then it’s a simple matter to recognize that a SUCCESSFUL Japanese attack was not necessary for this goal—all that was needed was AN ATTACK, and that attack could have been foiled–the result would still have been a public clamoring for war against the Japanese. And far better to start said war with an American victory, instead of an American defeat–the morale boost would have only made it EASIER for Roosevelt to push through an additional war against Nazi Germany. But a defeat left America feeling vulnerable and sour, if angry. No, this makes zero sense. Far better would have been a rousing victory for the US right at the start, which would have not only placed us in a better position, militarily, but would have made us feel invincible and ready to kick Nazi ass in addition to crushing Japan.
D) there isn’t the slightest shred of evidence that Roosevelt or anyone else knew in advance of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese code that had been broken at that time was their diplomatic code–NOT their naval code (which was punctured only later). Japanese diplomats overseas were not given, nor would they have known of, information on this ultra-secret attack.
None of this says that the US couldn’t have been better prepared–that’s another matter. Army and Naval exercises had indicated that an attack on Pearl was not only possible but could have been disastrous for the US. These reports were not heeded because of the peacetime footing the country was on and because few assumed the Japanese would have the temerity or the ability to sail so far from their homeland to attack Hawaii–it was, in fact, a VERY risky maneuver which could have easily led to the disastrous sinking of a large part of the Japanese fleet. It was a wild gamble, not a safe play, and the Japanese knew it.
July 14th, 2008 at 7:47 am
I think Randall, begrudgingly, makes a decent point. If you set aside Watergate, and his subsequent resignation, then by your logic, Ro, Nixon deserves to be on this list. If you’ve set aside some of the atrocious behavior of the guys you listed, Jackson, Wilson, then you should have considered his astonshing foriegn policy record. First President in Maoist China was a pretty big goddamn deal.
And do we really need to go over the Truman thing again? Are you really that naive Ro?
My biggest problem with this list is Jackson being listed and Washington being left off. Any careful consideration of the history involved makes it obvious. I know some of you out there are athiests but thank God Washington was first. The new nation was like a bunch of grabastic teenagers at a kegger and without his leadership, modesty and savvy, we wouuld have never been taken seriously.
July 14th, 2008 at 7:47 am
#232
All of that Mafia stuff had nothing to do with what I was saying about the Chicago or New York Mafia. Many, many fo them in America were not Sicilian.
July 14th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Lisette:
I forgot to mention, in addition–documents and notes (copious in nature) of Roosevelt, Cordell Hull, and others within the administration from before Pearl Harbor show no indication whatsoever of any prior knowledge of the attack. Rather, these show clearly the gradual deterioration of the diplomatic situation and the clear indication that Roosevelt and his military intelligence people believed that if the Japanese WERE to attack, it would come somewhere in Southeast Asia—the Phillippines, perhaps, or in the Dutch East Indies. This would have made sense, given the nature of the diplomatic issues at hand.
July 14th, 2008 at 7:53 am
# 233 and #241
Well, it seems that it all did happen–didn’t it???
July 14th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Lisette:
Excuse me?
“Well it seems that it all did happen?”
And what is that supposed to mean?
Where is your PROOF, Lisette? I can draw you ANY ridiculous picture to say some chain of events occurred for another reason than we think–does that make it so?
I’ve made some clear points to you. Respond logically or admit that you were wrong. There’s no third option where you get to stand there and just say “well WWII happened, so I must be right in what I say, regardless of evidence to the contrary and a total lack of evidence on my part.”
July 14th, 2008 at 7:58 am
bucslim said it EXTREMELY eloquently. I agree wholeheartedly.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Good spart.. we still need people to make our shoes.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:13 am
“Ridiculous list. Faulty information.”
That’s putting it mildly. I about died laughing reading the Kennedy section.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:23 am
#244
FDR was sent a telegram.
If you need proof then you need to research it for yourself.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Lisette:
WHAT telegram? Don’t tell me I “need to research it” for myself… TELL ME WHAT TELEGRAM.
You can’t, because you have absolutely NO IDEA OF WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.
If you are referring to this nonsense idea of a telegram sent by Churchill to Roosevelt–then clearly you are one of these ignorant, gullible conspiracy idiots who will swallow whatever crap OTHER conspiracy theorists spew out on the web.
There has NEVER been evidence of such a telegram and there IS NO EVIDENCE of it.
Here’s just ONE link debunking it: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19980824/ai_n14180961
AGAIN, Lisette… either come up with some convincing evidence to present us here or ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:33 am
#251
I am not wrong—read on little boy
The Bombing of Pearl Harbor
On 7 December 1941 the greatest disaster in United States history occurred. Truly this was and is, “’A date which will live in infamy.’”(Costello 1), but not for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, rather for the deception and the mis-guidance used by the Government and Franklin D. Roosevelt. In a purely artificial chess game Roosevelt sacrificed over 2400 American Seamen’s lives, thanks to his power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. By over-looking the obvious facts of an attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt was able to control both the political and economic systems of the United States. Most of American society before the Pearl Harbor bombing believed in the idea of isolationism.
Franklin D. Roosevelt knew this, and knew the only way in which United States countrymen would take arms and fight in Europe’s War was to be an overt action against the United States by a member of the Axis Power. Roosevelt also believed Hitler would not declare war on the United States unless he knew they were beatable. There are numerous accounts of actions by Roosevelt and his top armed forces advisors, which reveal they were not only aware of an attack by Japan, but also they were planning on it, and instigating that attack. On 7 October 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote the eight-action memo.
This memo outlined eight different steps the United States could do that he predicted would lead to an attack by Japan on the United States. The day after this memo was giving to Franklin D. Roosevelt, he began to implement these steps. By the time that Japan finally attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, all eight steps had occurred (Willy 1). The eight steps consisted of two main subject areas; the first being a sign of United States military preparedness and threat of attack, the second being a forceful control on Japans trade and economy. The main subject area of the eight-action memo was the sign of United States military preparedness and threat of attack. McCollum called for the United States to make arrangements with both Britain (Action A) and Holland (Action B), for the use of military facilities and acquisition of supplies in both Singapore and Indonesia.
He also suggested for the deployment of a division of long-range heavy cruisers (Action D) and two divisions of submarines (Action E) to the Orient. The last key factor McCollum called for was to keep the United States Fleet in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands (Action F). Roosevelt personally took charge of Action’s D and E; these actions were called “pop up” cruises. Roosevelt had this to say about the cruises, “’I just want them to keep popping up here and there and keep the Japs guessing (Stinnett 9).’” With the fleet located around Hawaii and particularly in Pearl Harbor a double-sided sword was created; it allowed for quicker deployment times into South Pacific Water, but more importantly it lacked many fundamental military needs, and was vulnerable due to its geographic location. To understand the true vulnerability of Pearl Harbor one must look at Oahu, the Hawaiian Island that the military base is located. The North part of the island is all mountains, these mountains hinder the vision of military look out points, making an attack from the North virtually a surprise until the sound of fighter planes are over head.
There were many key military needs that were missing from Pearl Harbor, and they were; a lack of training facilities, lack of large-scale ammunition and fuel supplies, lack of support craft such as tugs and repair ships, and a lack of overhaul facilities such as dry-docking and machine shops. Commander in Chief, United States Fleet – Admiral James O. Richardson, was outraged when he was told by President Roosevelt of his plans on keeping the fleet in Hawaiian Waters. Richardson knew of the problems and vulnerability of Pearl Harbor, the safety of his men and warships was paramount. In a luncheon with Roosevelt, Richardson confronted the President, and by doing so ended his military career. Four months later Richardson was removed as commander-in-chief, and replaced by Rear Admiral Husband Kimmel (Stinnett 11).
Kimmel by many top Naval personal was looked down upon on, for taking orders from Roosevelt and not considering the immediate dangers he was putting the fleet in. The second part of McCollum’s eight-action memo was a forceful control on Japans trade and economy. He insisted that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for oil (Action G), and a complete embargo of all trade with Japan (Action H), by the United States. This embargo closely represented a similar embargo that was being imposed by the British Empire. McCollum also knew that if Japan controlled the Pacific, it would put a strain on America’s resources for copper, rubber, tin, and other valuable goods. These imports from the Pacific were all essential to America’s Economy, and to protect these trading routes McCollum insisted for all possible aid to be given to the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek (Action C).
Japan had some control over China due to a military operation, which took over part of the country. Thanks to the control, Japan took and used many raw goods from China that were not in abundance in their own homeland. The government of Chiang Kai-shek was completely against Japan, and with economic support from the United States, they were able to deny certain possessions from Japan. The United States Government and United States Navy by withholding important information about the bombing of Pearl Harbor have done everything they can do to protect the integrity of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the government. True nationalist believe this information is withheld from the general public in order to protect national security, and not to hide a conspiracy that was created by the United States Government some fifty years ago.
This school of thought asks people and wants them to think, “How in the world could the President of the United States sacrifice over 2400 American seamen’s life’s, horrific amounts of damages to the Fleet, and tremendous amounts of destruction to Army fighter planes?” This group also asks, “In the past fifty years why has there not be one single piece of hard evidence which links Roosevelt to Pearl Harbor, or why has there not been one person who had top security clearance to come out and say something about Roosevelt and his involvement with the bombing?”
On 5 December 1941 at a Cabinet meeting, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox said, “Well, you know Mr. President, we know where the Japanese fleet is?” “Yes, I know, …Well, you tell them what it is Frank,” said Roosevelt (Toland 294). Knox became extremely excited with the ok from Roosevelt, and he went to tell the group of where the Japanese were and where they were headed. Just as Knox was about to speak Roosevelt interrupted saying, “ We haven’t got anything like perfect information as to their apparent destination (Toland 294).” All Navy reports showed the Japanese were in Pacific Water, and were in a direction towards Hawaii and Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt knew this information, but one must wonder why in the world would he not want to tell his cabinet this information, unless he wanted to hide something? On 6 December 1941 at a White House dinner Roosevelt was given the first thirteen parts of a fifteen part decoded Japanese diplomatic declaration of war and said, “This means War (Toland 318).”
Later that night, Roosevelt along with top advisor Harry Hopkins, Henry Stimson, George Marshall, Secretary of the Navy Knox, with aides John McCrea and Frank Beatty deliberately sat through the night waiting for the Japanese to strike Pear Harbor (Toland 320). Not until the morning of 7 December 1941 at 7:55 Hawaii Time did Japan deliberately and forcefully attack the United States at Pearl Harbor, finally ending disillusioned isolationist ideas of an only European War. United States countrymen immediately ran to recruiting offices after the news of the attack, to join the armed forces and fight against the Japanese and Hitler.
Beyond a doubt Pearl Harbor was President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s back door into the European War. Roosevelt’s decisions and actions were very much so, deliberate and calculated, in order to lead a victorious Allied Powers in World War II. By provoking the Japanese and the foreknowledge of an attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt along with his top advisors and the Federal Government are truly to blame for the lost of American life’s and American property. 7 December 1941 shall be a day in American history, which will be remembered as “a day of deceit.”
Works Cited
Costello, John. Days of Infamy. New York: Pocket Books, 1994. Stinnett, Robert B. Day of Deceit. New York: The Free Press, 2000. Toland, John. Infamy. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc, 1982. Willey, Mark. “Pearl Harbor Mother of all Conspiracies.” 13 Mar. 2001. http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html. Works Consulted Larrabee, Eric. Commander in Chief. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. Prange, Gordon W. December 7, 1941 The Day the Japanese Attacked Pearl Harbor. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1988. The Roosevelt Years to United States Enters World War II. Videocassette. By Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. Flimic Achieves, 1995. 75 mins. Thompson, Robert S. A Time For War. New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1991.
http://www.essays.cc/free_essays/d3/bsw283.shtml
Why did Roosevelt want to enter into World War II? Was it to defeat the tyranny of Hitler? Stalin, who was our partner during the war, was even more vicious and tyrannical than Hitler. Was it to stop the aggression of the Japanese? Before the war, this country did everything it could to give Japan no choice and goad them into waging war.
Roosevelt was a 33rd degree mason. That is the highest level one can attain in the satanic Masonic order. One of objectives of the lucifer worshipping Masonic order is to establish a one world government. After World War I these people tried, and failed, to start a one world government organization, The League of Nations. Realizing they would need another world war to finally create such an organization, they manipulated world events, started and won World War II, and created the United Nations, the tool for the final phase of one world government.
More at: PEARL HARBOR ATTACK: THE GREAT DECEPTION
http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/PEARL.html
July 14th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Wow, that really changed my mind. Especially the part about worshiping Satan.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:46 am
So now apart from the surprise attack we have a religious motivation to go to war – the only way Satan can rule the world is to have his followers start a war thereby creating the UN and accomplishing his plans of world domination.
Lisette – I think the wards are banging on the door, your computer time is up and it’s time for you to go to arts and crafts.
If Satan was behind all this shit, how’s come FDR didn’t ask him to help him walk? I mean if he’s going to do his bidding, shouldn’t he get something in return like a fresh pair of legs? Maybe exchange that mudflap of a wife of his for Jessica Simpson!
July 14th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I have never been angered by any list on this site until now, and yes, I have read them ALL. I am furious at the lack in research and ignorance of Ro. Why in the world was this person given the task of making this list? You created this list from OTHER lists? Based on “key words” of biased writers? Books can’t explain the emotion and lasting consequences of rulers. You have to physically be there, for years, to understand the lasting effects of people’s decisions. You have no idea, Ro, of the lasting effects of past Presidents of the United States if you’ve never lived here for some time to see and feel the racism and prejudice and many other negative emotions the citizens still feel.
You include people like Washington because people had such a great respect for him, no rules about the position had to be created until the mid 1900s! You include people who hold universal truths and who’s flaws may show, but do not get in the way of their work. You can’t put people on this list like Andrew Jackson who engaged in genocide just because he whacked someone with a cane when he was old. I live in Florida. Do you have any idea how many old people I see every day dodging vehicles while crossing in the middle of a freeway and whacking cars as they honk and pass by? That doesn’t make them great leaders. It makes them idiots because they think the world owes them something – which is how Jackson was.
Ro: “Oh, by the way I didn’t include Truman because he dropped the atom bomb. Now, don’t give me that talk about big decisions,what he did was wrong, playing God with people.”
Based on this comment, ANY president who played with people’s lives shouldn’t have been considered!!!! ONE OF MANY REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED JACKSON!!!
“Jackson was included in top 10 for most of those lists.”
So because someone else who is also racist thought Jackson was good made you put him on this list? That’s like saying Hitler was a good leader and had charisma, so he should be included in a great leaders list because some book or website out there had him on their list. JACKSON DID THE SAME THING AS HITLER!!!! HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW THIS!!!! Just because some old white guy wrote a book or has a blog does not mean this country believes Jackson was a good President. Quite the opposite.
Thank you Randall for addressing all the errors with this list. I only have the energy to comment on Jackson, since that guy causes me the most anger for the negative affect his choices have had on my life.
I hope the List Universe gods take note of all the complaints and make sure Ro never writes a list as important as this again. I know this is just a list on the internet, but these past Presidents have had real affects on real, living people, and I do not want others misinformed that Americans think these guys are great leaders or people.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:23 am
And I guess Satan wanted FDR to go up against those three fundamentalist Jesus freaks Tojo, Hitler and Mussolini, right? Those guys were spreading the gospel, and doing miracles like rounding up the Jews and killing them, so it’s obvious that the followers of the Dark Lord like FDR would need to put a stop to that.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Randall; what atrocious spelling are you talking about? That bit really befuddled me as I went back to check, and yes there were typing errors, nothing more. So what?
Oh, I can tell you this: I most definitely didn’t abridge any wikipedia material. If my words made you cerebrate that way, than I rather think that makes a good compliment.
Just wanted to sort out the personal brickbats.
July 14th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Lisette:
“I am not wrong—read on little boy”
Two dead-wrong statements if there ever WERE any. A) you are very much wrong, Lisette–terribly and stupidly wrong… and B) I am no little boy. I was trained in History and know quite well the difference between outrageous conspiracy-theory nonsense and actual, valid, historical record. Clearly you do not.
“but not for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, rather for the deception and the mis-guidance used by the Government and Franklin D. Roosevelt. In a purely artificial chess game Roosevelt sacrificed over 2400 American Seamen’s lives, thanks to his power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.”
Quoting the unsupportable and ridiculous lies and insane ramblings of a conspiracy theorist does NOT validate his or YOUR opinions, Lisette. There is no proof whatsoever for this statement that Roosevelt “sacrificed over 2400 American…lives…” NONE.
“By over-looking the obvious facts of an attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt was able to control both the political and economic systems of the United States.”
What “obvious facts” were overlooked, Lisette? Pray tell.
“Most of American society before the Pearl Harbor bombing believed in the idea of isolationism.”
WRONG. This is a popular myth that has grown up over the years, but in fact it is only true to a point, for the period of the late 1930s. But as *I* pointed out, sympathy within the United States for embattled Great Britain was growing MARKEDLY in the year or two leading up to Pearl Harbor, and there was even increasing sympathy for taking some kind of military action against Japan should they continue with their aggressions in Asia and the Pacific.
“Franklin D. Roosevelt knew this, and knew the only way in which United States countrymen would take arms and fight in Europe’s War was to be an overt action against the United States by a member of the Axis Power.”
Again, WRONG… for reasons I’ve already pointed out.
“Roosevelt also believed Hitler would not declare war on the United States unless he knew they were beatable.”
And where does your source get this ridiculously unsupportable position? Merely SAYING something doesn’t make it SO, Lisette.
This is, in fact, a statement of OPINION for which the author you cite has ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT OR PROOF.
The FACT is that Hitler was very much prepared to go to war against the United States regardless of the circumstances because he DID feel the US was decadent and conquerable. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that shows Hitler feeling that the debacle at Pearl Harbor made his position vis a vis the US ANY DIFFERENT or brought him any more of an advantage. Hitler, in fact, had little understanding of actual naval power and would not have judged *anything* from Pearl Harbor except that it was a defeat for the United States. But as I say, there is no documentation or evidence that *I* am aware of which shows Hitler considered Pearl Harbor a “turning point” which would allow him to declare war on the US.
Hitler declared war on the US, in fact, because the US declared war on Japan. He had agreed to do so, in the agreement signed by all three nations (Germany, Japan, and Italy). They had agreed that if ONE of them was attacked by a nation they were not yet at war with then the others would declare war on that nation. Period.
Even so–there was never any CERTAINTY that Hitler would follow up on this and actually declare war. In fact many advisors to Hitler felt trepidatious about it and it’s even believed that Hitler himself had no particular sympathy with his Japanese allies on this point. In the end he honored the pact he had signed, but as always with Hitler, there was never any reliable means of judging if he would do what he said he would do.
“On 7 October 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote the eight-action memo.”
AGAIN… there is NO proof that the memo written by McCollum A) was meant as ANYTHING but an assessment, with opinions, of the situation then extant in the Pacific… or that B) Roosevelt ever even *read* it.
As is typical with conspiracy theories, a piece like this is blown entirely out of proportion and made hugely sinister when there is no supporting evidence around it to suggest anything of the sort.
YES, Lisette–there are those, including Roosevelt himself, who wanted to get into a war against Hitler. There’s no argument about that. And the reason they wanted to is because A) they felt such a war was inevitable and B) they recognized the horrible danger of Hitler and the threat he posed to the US down the road, should he either conquer Great Britain and/or the USSR, or even just be allowed to consolidate his holdings in occupied Europe.
But there is NO proof of ANY kind that the Roosevelt administration wanted to get into a war with Japan, or that they viewed such a move as a means of getting into war with Germany. In fact, diplomatic records–and they are extensive–indicate that right up to the end, the Roosevelt administration was doing everything it could to try to convince the Japanese to pull back from their positions and avoid a war in the Pacific–which Roosevelt and his people emphatically did not want–for reasons I’ve already given.
“The day after this memo was giving to Franklin D. Roosevelt,”
WRONG. There is UTTERLY no proof that Roosevelt ever even SAW or heard of that memo. NONE.
“The eight steps consisted of two main subject areas; the first being a sign of United States military preparedness and threat of attack,”
And what, exactly, would anyone expect, given the situation and the atmosphere of the time? AGAIN–the memo was meant as a course of military action in the Pacific as a RESPONSE to the growing air of hostility from Japan—and we would expect our military advisors to come up with such contingencies and plan for them.
The mere fact that an office of this nature comes up with contingencies does NOT mean that the government is therefore following some “scheme” or conspiritorial plan to secretly CAUSE a war to happen. It simply means that the military is PREPARING for such a war. Which it is their job to do.
Your conspiracy authors are assigning a sinister purpose to this document, therefore, that did not in fact exist–and moreover, there is NO PROOF for such a sinister purpose.
“the second being a forceful control on Japans trade and economy.”
WRONG. There is in fact a clear delineation of what happened in the years leading up to Pearl Harbor, which shows the progression in US official attitudes towards Japan. ALL of this is laid out in the book, “The Road to Pearl Harbor,” by Herbert Feis. The economic negotiations and back-and-forth on that issue, between the US and Japan, were going on WELL before this memo was ever even thought of, let alone written.
“The main subject area of the eight-action memo was the sign of United States military preparedness and threat of attack. McCollum called for the United States to make arrangements with both Britain (Action A) and Holland (Action B), for the use of military facilities and acquisition of supplies in both Singapore and Indonesia.”
Of course! And why shouldn’t they have done so, in the event of war?!
AGAIN–how does this prove a conspiracy, a secret plot? It DOESN’T.
“He also suggested for the deployment of a division of long-range heavy cruisers (Action D) and two divisions of submarines (Action E) to the Orient.”
AND AGAIN… WHAT OF IT? See my previous point.
“The last key factor McCollum called for was to keep the United States Fleet in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands (Action F).”
BECAUSE the presence of the US fleet there was viewed as a CHECK on Japan… NOT an invitation for Japan to attack. There is EVERY EVIDENCE for the former. The latter is ludicrous.
The fleet, by the way, was moved there, again, well before this memo was composed.
“Roosevelt personally took charge of Action’s D and E; these actions were called “pop up” cruises. Roosevelt had this to say about the cruises, “’I just want them to keep popping up here and there and keep the Japs guessing (Stinnett 9).’”
AND AGAIN.. YES. WHY THE HELL NOT? Roosevelt was trying to remind the Japanese NOT to attack the US or its interests. This is OBVIOUS. Such a move was a classic one to accomplish this.
You, and your crazed author, see conspiracy in this. It’s ABSURD.
“With the fleet located around Hawaii and particularly in Pearl Harbor a double-sided sword was created; it allowed for quicker deployment times into South Pacific Water, but more importantly it lacked many fundamental military needs, and was vulnerable due to its geographic location.”
And again–Hawaii was vulnerable to some, yes, but the PREVAILING military view–and it was held by MOST–was that Japan would NEVER risk coming so far out to attack Hawaii… in doing so they would risk attack by not only the fleet itself but by land-based aircraft.
Japan only managed to accomplish this by A) under-preparedness by the US, both governmentally and militarily–partly via the incompetence of Admiral Kimmel, and partly through the peace-time atmosphere prevalent in US mindsets of the time. People were simply acting lazily and slothfully because the US was not then at war. And we must also remember that at THAT TIME, the US was not the military-conscious nation that it is today. Even in government there was no understanding, at the time, of the exigencies and needs of being on a war footing. B) Japan also managed to make good their attack by making it a SURPRISE. Had it not been so they NEVER would have attempted it.
“To understand the true vulnerability of Pearl Harbor one must look at Oahu, the Hawaiian Island that the military base is located. The North part of the island is all mountains, these mountains hinder the vision of military look out points, making an attack from the North virtually a surprise until the sound of fighter planes are over head.”
Which is why RADAR installations were posted there. Granted, the understanding of the importance of radar was not universal at the time. See my comments above about the lack of war footing EVEN by those in the military.
“There were many key military needs that were missing from Pearl Harbor,”
AGAIN, this proves NOTHING.
The reason the fleet was stationed at Pearl Harbor–BEFORE the memo was written–was to A) send a signal to Japan to NOT attack American or allied interests in Asia, and B) to have the fleet closer to Asia should action need to be taken there quickly.
It’s as simple as that.
“He insisted that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for oil (Action G),”
This had already come up PRIOR to the memo in fact. And anyway, WHAT OF IT? It was sensible to not provide oil to Japan, given their increasingly hostile attitude. This proves absolutely NOTHING of what you are saying.
Neither you nor the authors you’ve cited have shown one SHRED of actual evidence that supports your ideas, Lisette. Not one.
“All Navy reports showed the Japanese were in Pacific Water, and were in a direction towards Hawaii and Pearl Harbor.”
That is a FLAT OUT LIE, an absolute FALSEHOOD.
NO Japanese naval code had been broken at the time, and in fact NO intelligence service, naval or otherwise, in the US, knew where the Japanese fleet was prior to Pearl Harbor. IN FACT the assumption was that they were in home waters or were steaming south, toward the Dutch East Indies, the natural place for a Japanese first move in the Pacific. And the Japanese were flooding the airwaves with false radio traffic indicating that their ships WERE in home waters.
“Roosevelt knew this information, but one must wonder why in the world would he not want to tell his cabinet this information, unless he wanted to hide something?”
Again, this is wrong and an utter falsehood and there is NO evidence to support it.
“On 6 December 1941 at a White House dinner Roosevelt was given the first thirteen parts of a fifteen part decoded Japanese diplomatic declaration of war and said, “This means War (Toland 318).”
AND AGAIN.. SO? Roosevelt and everyone else in his administration knew that Japan was on the road to hostilities. This proves NOTHING. ANYONE could see it, it was written in the cards.
But the attack was believed to come in Asia—not directly against the United States. There is EVERY evidence that this is what Roosevelt believed–and NO evidence that he believed otherwise. Or had reason to believe otherwise.
“Later that night, Roosevelt along with top advisor Harry Hopkins, Henry Stimson, George Marshall, Secretary of the Navy Knox, with aides John McCrea and Frank Beatty deliberately sat through the night waiting for the Japanese to strike Pear Harbor (Toland 320).”
WRONG, and a TOTAL FALSEHOOD. Where is the EVIDENCE for a claim like this?
Again… merely CLAIMING something does NOT make it so.
NO CREDIBLE HISTORIAN believes this bullshit you are peddling, Lisette. There is no logic to it, no support for it in terms of evidence, and it is built UTTERLY on a lot of false and stupid, incorrect assumptions and outright lies.
“this country did everything it could to give Japan no choice and goad them into waging war.”
Incorrect. The fact is that Roosevelt refused to back down in the face of continued Japanese demands–ridiculous and insufferable demands–which would have allowed them carte blanche in China, unopposed access to war resources, and greater control over the affairs of Asia. Japan was expansionist and threatening. Roosevelt simply responded. That this “goaded” Japan into war was Japanese propaganda of the time–but the truth is that Japan was an aggressor nation which had decided that going to war was the only way of accomplishing its goals.
Roosevelt was a 33rd degree mason. That is the highest level one can attain in the satanic Masonic order. One of objectives of the lucifer worshipping Masonic order is to establish a one world government.
And there goes ALL your credibility right there, Lisette–though in fact you had none to begin with.
I am sick to death of people like you trying to revise history and play the rest of us for fools. You can fool a small number of non-thinkers like yourself Lisette. But I am no “little boy” and I recognize the insanity you try to peddle. Get lost.
July 14th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Ro:
“If my words made you cerebrate that way…”
Who the hell talks like that?
Ro, poor spelling or poor typing–either way. They look very similar when one is reading your material. These things DO matter.
And no, I don’t consider associations with Wikipedia to be complimentary.
I’ve explained why I think your list is awful. In fact as time goes on I take more and more offense to it. But you’ve had your little say and that’s your right. As it is mine to call you on it.
July 14th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
MORE debunking of Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories HERE:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpearlharbor.html
I strongly suggest you read it, Lisette.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Guess What?
I don’t care what you guys think
You asked for proof and I gave it to you
I am not about convincing anyone of anything
July 14th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Lisette: I did see your “proof” that FDR had prior knowledge of Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. However, I did not see any proof that Masons are a satanic order of any kind. I don’t care about your views of WWII but I do take offense with your views of Masons. That is, as Randall has said, and outright lie. It would be far easier to prove that Masons worship Anheuser-Busch than Satan.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Whoa! Whoa! Hold everything!
…Did I just miss a conspiracy nut get the smack-down? Randall, you have *got* to stop charging in like a military black-ops commando and snuffing the life out of them in one blow. It’s much more fun when you drag it out and make it slow and painful.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Lisette:
OF COURSE you don’t care what we think. People like you NEVER care about the truth, because you DON’T THINK, yourself, in the first place.
You gave NO PROOF AT ALL, Lisette. Not a SHRED of it. I can debunk your nonsense with both hands tied behind my back.
If you believe nonsensical crap, Lisette, then you DO need to prove it, and DO need to convince others–if you’re going to go around shooting off your mouth about it, as you did here on this site.
Either admit you were wrong or shut up and go away and fester in your whacked-out little crazy world of conspiracies… whatever that does for you. I can only pity you… when I’m not feeling disgust.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Slick:
Oh man… you’re… sadistic. Me, I believe in making it quick and painless. I don’t like people, but all the same, I hate to see ‘em suffer.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
randall ftw. that was fun to read.
July 14th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Hey dummies
I really had you guys going…………….
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah
July 14th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Lisette: were you about to sneeze at the end of that laugh?
July 14th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
You guys were scrambeling to answer stuff I cut and pasted without even reading—ha choo
July 14th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Lisette: you are right then…that makes us the dummies.
July 14th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Randall: Down, boy! Down! I know, I know…I see it, too. But maybe you just let this one go, eh?
July 14th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Hey–I had fun too!
July 14th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Good Bye Little Canadians
July 14th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
This list is obviously missing George W. Bush, George H. Bush, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter.
July 14th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I tell ya I get no respect on this site. The Rodney Dangerfield of the Listverse.
My wife wanted to have sex in the back seat, she told me to drive. . . (rimshot)
July 14th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Booo!
July 14th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
bucslim
If you like to blog you should try Huffington Post. I blog there. It is a liberal site with mainly politics but also business and entertainment and more. Try it!
Lisette
July 14th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
I said: “I saw the word outstanding tantamount to great efficacy.”
Randall said: Why? The two words are unrelated and one does not, in my opinion, at all suggest the other.
Well Randall, my words were clear enough. This list was based upon efficacy. It was my decision and you as a reader shouldaccept that primarily and only then make any points if you have to. So this can’t be a point of argument.
I said: The racist factor was not considered.
Randall said: You remarked to me that “the racist factor was not considered”—further proof of your low-grade thinking in this regard; why should it be acceptable to consider ANY aspect of a president’s behavior and policies, if one discounts a vital and singular aspect of that president’s character?
Again,you are beating about the bush. I had said the thing wasn’t considered and you make it a impudent habit once more to sulk why racism should be considered.
Do you know that Jackson, Wilson and Polk are also featured in other well reputed top ten presidnetial rankings? Also the fact that Jackson and Wilson are branded by historians as near great presidents.( There are 8 great and near great presidents). And yet people keep on whining as why they shouldn’t be here. What part of it do you not understand that this list was based upon the best policies at the time? I went to school in Virginia,( arguabley America’s most historical state) so I know my fair share of American history, okay? Jackson was an racist. But Wilson’s writings are sometimes taken out of context. And during Polk’s time I’m not even sure that racism meant what it means today.
The bottom line is, all three of them were outstanding presidents for many reasons.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
i got FDR and Truman at number one and two by a long shot!
July 14th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Ro,
Sorry to add to the fray, but come on–no Washington? Grover Cleveland over Washington? And your reasons for Cleveland’s inclusion was an enhanced navy and successfully mediating a railroad strike? I could go on for pages, but, in short, Washington set the precedent for the office of the presidency, kept the country together, humbly represented the people, gracefully gave up power and peacefully transferred that power to his successor. His achievements may have been less tangible than others, but they were often more significant. I don’t think anyone would seriously argue he should be #1, but he should DEFINITELY be at least #10.
BTW, props for mentioning Polk. He was a cool dude who knew exactly what he wanted and didn’t let anything stop him. Very overlooked and underrated.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Phew,
Glad I was out today. Might have wasted an awful lot of time on a merry *TILl EulenSpEigEl-like FDR prank, especially if Randall had not been holding the fort.
*Those caps recombine as LISETE.
Shame though, Lisette, your conspiracy jape missed out on Britain deliberately collapsing instantly in Hong Kong to help bring the U.S. into the war, and all those big British guns in Singapore pointing out to sea when the Japanese invaded from inland. Not to mention the sinking of the odd few British capital ships and a duck-shoot of untrained British and Dutch pilots in clapped-out old warbirds by incompetent Japanese short-sighted pilots wearing glasses and flying aircraft manufactured from paper.
Well, all is revealed then, and the fun’s over, so you’ll have to find another site, another subject and another set of suckers ready for a pratfall, won’t you?
Sorry Lisette. A good laugh for you maybe, but some of the rest of us actually have lives to get on with besides Listverse. If you really were pisspulling, I suggest you think about that and show a bit of consideration. Remember what happened to Till Eulenspiegel.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
In case ya don’t know, he didn’t sneeze, he choked. Kind of terminally.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:52 am
252
You say,”Kimmel by many top Naval personal was looked down upon on, for taking orders from Roosevelt and not considering the immediate dangers he was putting the fleet in.” Please name one.
Regards,
Tom Kimmel
tkimmel@cfl.rr.com
http://www.pearlharbor911attacks.com
July 15th, 2008 at 5:33 am
Tom Kimmel (283),
I hope your – I am sure utterly unanticipated and unexpected – presence here may have instilled a bit of shame and responsibility into the poster who enters herself as Lisette. If you read on, you will realise she now claims this whole grotesque farago to have been a gigantic wind-up hoax with no more intention than draw serious and indignant comment from concerned folks like Randall and then laugh in their faces. Whether true, or whether she realised she was losing out the argument so badly she decided to change the goalposts and get out is anyone’s guess. Whichever, I am sure she will stick to the hoax explanation and you may be lucky to hear a word.
In my post 281, I suggested that people with her ’sense of humour’ were in danger of ending up on the gallows, like Till Eulenspiegel. I suspect you have just become her figurative hangman.
Anyone such as your grandfather who was part of the fight to protect democracy and freedom from evil-minded totaliritarian militarists when I was small, vulnerable child has my gratitude and respect.
Best wishes.
July 15th, 2008 at 6:31 am
May I just add that your Grandfather must be quite a man in your eyes for you to defend his reputation so far from the limelight.
One of my uncles was a cited war hero, and I am proud of his memory, even though no one would have reason to try to libel it.
Regards
July 15th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Ro:
Very sorry, I don’t wish to hurt your feelings… but you really are an atrocious writer. Or are you some adolescent trying to inject some gravitas into your textual style? Still wrong, but more forgivable.
In any event, Ro… ease back on the throttle a little. You’re shaking the car apart.
“Well Randall, my words were clear enough.”
No, in fact they weren’t. “Outstanding” does NOT equal “efficacy” (or, rather, “efficacious”) The two words are entirely different and one does NOT suggest the other in the slightest.
“This list was based upon efficacy. It was my decision and you as a reader shouldaccept that primarily and only then make any points if you have to. So this can’t be a point of argument.”
Please, Ro, let’s not resort to despotism. EVERYTHING is a point of argument. You called this a list of the top 10 Outstanding Presidents. And by the generally-understood meaning of “outstanding,” your list was highly debatable, in regards to your choices.
If you *meant* “efficacious” or “the presidents who got the most done” or the “most influential presidents” or what have you–then you should have said that.
“I said: The racist factor was not considered.”
I know very well what you said, Ro. You need to justify it. Because your logic frankly falls apart. As I pointed out… if you’re going to exclude such a huge part of president’s professional and personal character–then why not exclude a bunch of OTHER faults? Why did you decide it was okay to exclude racism but not other character items?
“Again,you are beating about the bush. I had said the thing wasn’t considered and you make it a impudent habit once more to sulk why racism should be considered.”
“impudent habit?” Who do you think *you* are, somebody’s schoolmaster from the 19th century? Again–who talks like that?
I wasn’t “sulking,” Ro—I was pointing out the *glaring* flaw in your logic. You, in response, are getting, shall we say, rather defensive about it.
“Do you know that Jackson, Wilson and Polk are also featured in other well reputed top ten presidnetial rankings?”
I have, frankly, never seen such a list that includes Polk. But regardless of this I have NEVER seen ANY such list that includes Jackson and Wilson–let alone POLK–and *excludes* Washington.
You have yet to justify this or explain it. You don’t seem to like having the gaping holes in your logic (or perhaps your knowledge?) pointed out to you.
“…And yet people keep on whining as why they shouldn’t be here.”
To begin with, appeals to authority are of little value. Don’t cite other lists—tell me why YOU chose them here OVER others—most notably George Washington.
People aren’t “whining,” Ro… they’re not agreeing with you. Are you such an egotist that you can’t allow for some challenges and criticisms? You have to belittle them as “whining?”
“What part of it do you not understand that this list was based upon the best policies at the time?”
Well perhaps the part where you *failed to mention that or explain it.* But nevertheless i still wouldn’t agree with your choices, as I would continue to see some glaring flaws.
“I went to school in Virginia,( arguabley America’s most historical state)”
What OF it, Ro? What, living in Virginia and going to school there somehow lends you some kind of overarching authority?
I was born, grew up in, live in, and went to school in New York. The greatest school system in the country. So you’re trumped. But what of it? I don’t fall back on that. Neither should you.
“so I know my fair share of American history, okay?”
As do I, seeing as I hold degrees and such. But again–it isn’t a contest between our credentials.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Dear Mr. Kimmel,
I did not write the article that said that about your Grandfather. Hopefully, you understand that I did not offend your Grandfather. Perhaps you can contact the authors of these articles to find out where they got their information.
Lisette
P.S.
Here is the web site:
More at: PEARL HARBOR ATTACK: THE GREAT DECEPTION
http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/PEARL.html
July 15th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Randall is now on my heros list. And jfrater better have something to say about this list! I’m still upset!
July 15th, 2008 at 11:42 am
And yes, I know that should be heroes w/ an E.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:46 am
In late 1995, the Department of Defense released what was meant to be (but probably will not be) the final word on the Kimmel-Short controversy: Memorandum for the Deputy Secretary of Defense: “Advancement of Rear Admiral Kimmel and Major General Short” (Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, 1 Dec. 1995). The report, prepared under the guidance of Edwin Dorn, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, concluded that advancement of Kimmel and Short on the retired list to their highest temporary grades of admiral and lieutenant general, respectively, was not warranted.
The findings of the Dorn study are summarized in five parts:
1. Responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster should not fall solely on the shoulders of Admiral Kimmel and General Short; it should be broadly shared.
2. To say that responsibility is broadly shared is not to absolve Admiral Kimmel and General Short of accountability.
3. The official treatment of Admiral Kimmel and General Short was substantially temperate and procedurally proper.
4. History has not been hostile to Admiral Kimmel and General Short.
5. There is not a compelling basis for advancing either officer to higher grade. [See review by Thomas B. Buell [CDR/USN (Ret.)], U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 122, no. 4 (Apr. 1996): 98-100.]
The debate was resumed in the U.S. Senate in May 1999, when an amendment to the defense spending bill brought a heated debate and a 52 to 47 vote “to exonerate [the] two American military commanders accused of dereliction of duty in the bombing of Pearl Harbor.” Washington Post, “Senators Exonerate Pearl Harbor Chiefs,” 26 May 1999.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Lisette,
You quoted those articles. If I were to write, “Fred Smith has described Lisette as a nasty, lying little creep” and used that to support the context of my argument, or otherwise did not explicitly or implicitly deny that statement clearly, I would be insulting you. It’s irrelevant whether I might sincerely believe what I quoted, or merely intend it to be malicious.
Don’t be a moral coward. Apologise to the gentleman or totally justify your own stance, as he requests, whether a serious point or a tasteless big laugh.
That the authors you cite may also have insulted or libelled the Admiral is a separate issue.
You have indeed replied, which might be admirable if it did not appear you were now merely trying to whine out an excuse and have everybody let you off the hook.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Spanner: I just got off the phone with Fred Smith…you were right!
July 15th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
modelpenguin:
Thanks, man…
July 15th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
The Skin (238),
If I’m around, I always try to reply (which not everyone does). So if you revisit sites (which not everyone does), and this one in particular, I hope this may answer yours to me:
You wrote,
“Carter … helped out a lot of other countries; but, he was not a good president for the American people. When it comes down to it the President of the US should always looking be out (sic) for the American citizens.”
It appears to me one possible interpretation of that comment as isolationism is not unreasonable, even if it could be open to other interpretations. I don’t know about anbody else. If you want a crystal clear reception of your point of view, you must argue with crystal clarity. Sometimes I can read three or four times through text I’ve written, and still stumble upon an ambivalent meaning I hadn’t intended.
I replied to you,
“I suspect that what you are advocating is isolationism.”
Please note the “I suspect” not a brutal “What you are advocating …” In other words I recognised the ambivalence and allowed for possible alternatives. I might better still have put “you may be advocating”, but did not expect such a reactive response. To simply state you did not in fact favour isolationism would have been sufficient.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Woodrow Wilson was a virulently racist asshat, who set race relations and civil rights back years. The effects of his policies are still being felt today. Additionally, he repeatedly sent our troops into Mexico, Central & Latin America for less than admirable reasons; this is a major reason why many of these countries eventually turned to Communism. Shame on you for including Wilson and not George Washington.
For more information, see “Lies My Teacher Told Me”.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Spanner: Sorry, that i misinterpreted your statement. The past few times that i have wrote on here, I have been in a hurry and the past two things I wrote really didn’t explain myself well enough; as well, I didn’t have proper grammar. I want to clarify myself, I do not favor isolationism and disagree with Jimmy Carter’s foreign policies.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
#291
I do not understand what you are saying–could you please explain. Read #290. How is it my fault, about the fact that there was a controversy surrounding Admiral Kimmel?
Lisette
July 15th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Lisette,
It may look as though I posted my 291 after you, but in fact I didn’t. Your 290 had not yet registered when I sent off mine. That’s the system. If I’d known about yours of course I wouldn’t have sent mine. No point apologising, because it wasn’t my fault, but I’m sorry it happened anyway.
As far as I can judge, you have explained your position in a proper and temperate manner. Thank you for facing up to the situation. It is now between you and the Admiral’s grandson, I guess.
You sound to be serious in your intentions, and that last posting looks to be considered. However, your earlier postings struck several of us wild and badly thought up, and it was difficult to judge what you intended. Joke? Wind-up? Serious debate? At all events, my personal (serious) stance is virtually if not identical to Randall’s, who is obviously better informed than I am. You can trust him, and if you care to read his arguments, you will they follow a sound logic that yours did not. The main point remains. No nation in history has ever deliberately allowed a vital part of their fighting forces and equipment to be destroyed by a powerful enemy as an excuse to go to war. It’s like goading Mike Tyson take a great swipe at your chin so you can get into a fight with him! The truth is that pearl Harbour was one of the boldest, best-planned and most remarkable surprise attacks in history. It was a Japanese victory, not a deliberate American defeat.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Trojan_man (292),
That was extremely kind of you to post, and much appreciated.
I’m embarrassed to say I have a problem though. I’ve posted so much junk hereabouts, I haven’t manged to identify which you are telling me Fred Smith confirmed is right yet. Sorry. (How tempting it was to say. “Of course, I’m always right.” How fantastic – for me – if only that were true!)
July 15th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
#298
Thank you for answering my post. I was serious in the beginning with my posts about Peatl Harbor. But if you go back and read #265 and #266, you will see that that is when I changed—because I thought they were winding me up. I grew up with a bunch of brothers so I know how guya can be. then that is when I said I had fun too. I did not mean harm only spoofing. If I offended anyone then I apoligize.
Lisette
July 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I keep seeing all this shit about the war of 1812 and Andy Jackson… The fact that he was a general doesn’t mean shit… The War of 1812 didnt happen during his presidency so it shouldn’t be an issue. The fact was that when he DID become president he was an ass.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Randall: I have, frankly, never seen such a list that includes Polk. But regardless of this I have NEVER seen ANY such list that includes Jackson and Wilson–let alone POLK–and *excludes* Washington.
I didn’t wish for this to continue, but here are some good lists( not the ones of Wikipedia which I had already said I don’t like as most of them are polls) that I have gathered from the internet which were done by intellects and historians alike. Needless to say as I have already mentioned, I didn’t look at any one of these when starting on this list. But to prove to you that the choices were not just arbitrary ……..
Great Presidents
(48 lectures, 30 minutes/lecture)
Course No. 8100
Taught by Allan J. Lichtman
American University
Ph.D., Harvard University
Now you can see how well this worked by examining the lives, the achievements, and the legacies of those generally considered our 12 greatest presidents:
* George Washington
* Thomas Jefferson
* Andrew Jackson
* James K. Polk
* Abraham Lincoln
* Theodore Roosevelt
* Woodrow Wilson
* Franklin Roosevelt
* Harry S Truman
* John F. Kennedy
* Lyndon B. Johnson
* Ronald Reagan.
I had already declared that Truman was very close making it into the list and I would give him the 11th spot, Washinton would come in #12. And if that happened; 10 out of my 12 choices would be correct.
How about another one?
Ten Great American Presidents
A Listmania! list by Wayne Chambers,the Best American Presidents According to Presidential Historians …
1. Washington: The Indispensable Man by James Thomas Flexner
2. Thomas Jefferson by R. B. Bernstein
3. The Life of Andrew Jackson (Perennial Classics) by Robert V. Remini
4. James K. Polk and the Expansionist Impulse (2nd Edition) (Library of American Biography) by Sam W. Haynes
5. With Malice Toward None: A Life of Abraham Lincoln by Stephen B. Oates
6. Theodore Roosevelt: A Life by Nathan Miller
7. Woodrow Wilson (Profiles in Power Series) by J.A. Thompson
8. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom by Conrad Black
9. An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963 by Robert Dallek
10. Ronald Reagan: A Life In Politics by Lou Cannon
Again you see, I’m getting a 8 out 10.
Another one?
How the presidents rank, from a survey of 78 scholars by the
Federalist Society and The Wall Street Journal
Great
1. George Washington
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Franklin Roosevelt
Near Great
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. Andrew Jackson
7. Harry Truman
8. Ronald Reagan
9. Dwight Eisenhower
10. James Polk
11. Woodrow Wilson
Again as I would’ve picked Truman for #11, I’m getting a 8 out of 11.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Lisette,
If you’d asked me to analyse your responses, I’d have come up with something similar to what you have just told us.
But no, you don’t have to take it personally. We are not attacking you as such at all, but defending one whom we see as a great and good man overall (not perfect, who is?), and one who positively affected our own lives. See how others share that view in the posting just above (302). We are also defending what we are quite convinced is the correct view of history (Pearl Harbour). To some extent I, at least, have had the advantage of living through that era.
Also to prove that it is not directed against you, go over to this same Listverse, and look through the list ‘Top 10 Conspiracy Theories’ and you will find exactly the same issue already covered earlier, including by Randall and me.
Best wishes
July 15th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
#303
I too grew up in that era, having been born in 1940. And although you make sense about Pearl Harbor being a surprise attack, I have to say that the US was so powerful that they with all their resources could not have been taken by surprise. Also, I would like to know what country you are from, because everyone I know here believes FDR let this happen. Many Americans also believe Bush [who we all but 20% of us loathe] let 911 happen. Laugh, maybe we are hopelss here.
Lisette
July 16th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Lisette,
At the time of Pearl Harbour America was indeed potentially powerful, but not actually so in terms of armed strength and preparedness. So many have described your country then as a ‘Sleeping Giant’. Yamomoto didn’t want to attack. As well as being pro-American, he warned that this was a provocation to a war that would inevitably be lost in the long run. But Japan at least hoped to do enough damage to force considerable advantage for herself, if not outright victory with the other axis powers.
I’m not a military historian, but from what I’ve seen, and the results of the early battles, the two fleets were probably not that different to start with.
Aircraft have been an interest of mine almost since I was born. At that point America had all too few front-line machines that equalled the best of those possessed by the Japanese, and much that was close to useless. Numbers alone mean little. Again, the conventional land-based bomber forces were probably fairly evenly matched. But Japan had what is widely regarded as one of the four or five finest fighters of World War Two. At that point America had nothing to touch the Zero. It cleared many skies of opposition early on. It was often carrier borne, the critical weaponry of the early stage of the Pacific war. And the Japanese airmen were superbly battle trained and hardened, thanks to their experience over China, just as their Luftwaffe equivalents had been in the Spanish Civil War. Even had the Curtis Hawks and older machines been properly dispersed and scrambled from Pearl (i.e. had the radar warnings been understood, taken seriously and acted on), it is doubtful whether they would have much impeded the attack, only made the Japanese losses less absurdly light than they were.
You cannot blame politicians at the outbreak of war for inadequate, obsolescent and obsolete equipment. That has to be considered, ordered, put into production, delivered, put into service and brought up to battle state long beforehand, something that can be hastened amazingly in the heat of war (and was), but never is in peace time. Your Billy Mitchell tried ringing alarm bells, but he mostly ended up annoying people. So did Churchill in England, and no one really took him seriously until the show had started and they appreciated he was the best war leader they had because only he, of those in power, had seen it was coming and inevitable.
If you think America was a big, powerful, industrial nation that couldn’t or shouldn’t have been taken by surprise, consider mighty Russia and Operation Barbarossa. That makes Pearl Harbour look like a flea-bite!
Oh, sorry, I’m from England and live in South America.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:33 am
That should have read ‘Churchill in Britain’
July 16th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Thank god i live in Australia, the only risk for our Prime Ministers are drownig and over drinking, at least with OUR right to free speech we can tell the Prime Minister straight to his face that he’s a complete idiot, from what i’ve heard in the states if you even wore a anti-bush t shirt to a rally, you’d probably be arrested for disturbing the peace or some shit like that.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:04 am
FDR and Churchill were very close-so I have to think that whatever Churchill knew, FDR knew. Also we gave England some ships, so we had some readiness and I am going to ask a cousin of mine who knows a lot of this stuff and I will let you know what Anthony says. He is very intelligent and knowledgeable [not as smart as my late husband though]. I will contact him tomorrow and let you know tomorrow. What country in South America do you live in. I live in a suburb about 30 minutes west of downtown Chicago, Illinois. I am a Barack Obama supporter. What do people think of him where you live?
If you like politics, ttry blogging on the Huffington Post. It is a leberal news group, founded by a Greel American woman named Arianna Huffington. I blog there all the time.
Check it out.
Lisette
July 16th, 2008 at 5:34 am
CRSN: I think you have been given some bad information. I have never heard of someone being arrested for only wearing an anti-Bush shirt. In fact, I have seen some “Buck Fush” t-shirts at political gatherings.
Lisette: When you said “because everyone I know here believes FDR let this happen. Many Americans also believe Bush [who we all but 20% of us loathe] let 911 happen”, were you talking about people who live in and around Chicago. I don’t know if I know anyone who believes that. Where do these people get their information? And the 20% loathing is misleading…I assume (correct me if I’m wrong) you are speaking of Bush’s approval rating. Disapproval and loathing are not one in the same.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Ro:
AGAIN.. *none* of the lists you cited *included* Jackson, Polk, etc. and *excluded* Washington. Get it?
The judgement, historically, lies in whose presidency played a greater importance in what America is, as a country, and to argue that POLK had a larger and more important role than Washington is simply pure bilge.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Spanner:
We share an interest in aircraft. As you know, my dad was a pilot (and a bomber pilot during WWII).
July 16th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Lisette:
You clearly know absolute ZILCH about history, Lisette. I strongly suggest you stop posting your opinions on this topic, therefore, before you make yourself look even more the fool than you already do.
A) FDR and Churchill were NOT “very close” PRIOR to WWII. In fact Roosevelt distrusted Churchill before the war, and Churchill felt Roosevelt was something of a double dealer. Notes and personal statements made by both men at the time confirm this. Only *after* the war had begun and they began working together did the two men develop a friendship. So your statement is not only wrong, but as with many of your other statements, is based on simple “folksy knowledge” that is, as always, in error on the important details. They were close LATER. Not when Pearl Harbor happened.
B) We did not “give” England ships, it was part of the Lend Lease program, and those 50 old destroyers (WWI vintage) were paid for by England in various ways. In particular, we gained the right to several British bases.
C) Don’t bother going to your “cousin Anthony,” unless he’s in fact a true scholar and knows what he’s talking about. Your information is too faulty, and you need, instead, to consult actual historians. In fact, I’m here at your disposal, but you seem unwilling to break free of your nonsensical prejudices in regards to history and listen to me. I counsel you to do so.
D) One of the most absurd statements you have EVER made–and one that shows your blind ignorance on this topic, is this one about “America having been so powerful, it couldn’t have been taken by surprise.” This one is wrong on so many counts I don’t know where to begin.
Firstly, it is utterly ridiculous to assume that a nation, no matter how powerful, could NOT be taken by surprise. Were you living under a rock when 9/11 happened? Or do you believe that that too was a conspiracy? (ah, I bet you do… so easy to see conspiracies everywhere rather than admit that sometimes even we who think we are strong and protected can in fact be vulnerable. This is why people can’t accept JFK having been killed by a simple nutcase—no no! It must have been some grand conspiracy! We can’t possibly be so vulnerable to a single madman! Just as we can’t possibly so vulnerable to a bunch of suicidal Arabs, or to the Japanese… because insecurity is a terrible feeling, and some people just aren’t emotionally strong enough to face it. But you see, Lisette, we AREN’T always secure, and can’t always be secure. We are and have been vulnerable). The fact is, though, that the Japanese gambit at Pearl Harbor was, while highly risky, likely to succeed because the US was not adequately prepared, nor could it have been unless the country had been on a high-alert war footing–and even then it might have worked. Radar was in its infancy and there was little understanding of it, and the aircraft were simply NOT available in numbers to man adequate patrols of the Pacific west of Hawaii–do you have any idea what a VAST swath of water that is? In fact, almost NO long-range aircraft were available to Pearl at the time of the attack because up to that point the country was not producing them in great numbers–and what few there were were being relegated to possible future action in Europe. On the DAY of the attack, a squadron of B-17s were flying into Pearl (some got badly shot up) as they had been assigned there in part to take place in patrols. These were one of the few craft capable of the long distance flights needed for this purpose. But supply being what it was, only a single squadron was really available. At this time the US was tooling up for war, but it was not yet producing the materiel and aircraft in the vast quantities it later would.
At any rate, this kind of VISUAL inspection of the area around Hawaii was the only real way of keeping a watch on the approach to the islands. As pointed out earlier, the Japanese naval codes had not yet been broken, and there was only so much intelligence beyond that available to the US in regards to the location and activities of the Japanese fleet.
So this idea of the US being “too powerful” to be surprised is ludicrous.
Moreover, as Spanner pointed out to you, the US was NOT “powerful” at the time of Pearl Harbor. Only a short time before had the country got around to finally building up its forces–it still had a very small army with antiquated equipment in small numbers–and its aircraft, while good, were as yet inferior to Japanese and German aircraft of the time. They would later become much better of course–but that was LATER.
You are used to having grown up in a military-industrial complex America, as was I. You clearly have no clue as to what America’s military capabilities were like PRIOR to that time. The potential was there, yes. But potential and actuality are two entirely different things.
E) Everyone you know here believes FDR let Pearl Harbor happen? And just where are YOU from, Lisette, that everyone around you believes such nonsense? I can state categorically that not everyone around ME believes such garbage. But perhaps New Yorkers are generally better educated than whatever god forsaken spot YOU call home.
I fully realize you’ll find this post insulting. Well it was meant to be that way. One of the things that irks me *badly* is when people go shooting their mouths off about historical matters like this when they haven’t the SLIGHTEST INKLING of what they’re talking about–and worse, they have the gall, given their lack of knowledge and insight (or wit) to actually parade around these ridiculous and unsupportable conspiracy theories. Having not taken the time to study the truth, the ACTUAL HISTORY of events, they nevertheless charge in and credulously accept the ravings and distortions of conspiracy authors (and/or other conspiracy nuts) without a second thought.
And that’s your problem Lisette. You and other conspiracy people are LAZY THINKERS who don’t wish to take the time to just seek out information—you start out with ill-informed, vague opinions (such as FDR “must” have known about Pearl Harbor beforehand) and then only make enough effort to seek out the opinions of others who will BACK UP your wrongheaded ideas. Because of course it takes real effort and time to sift through information for yourself, so you can make up your OWN mind.
I suggest you take this to heart rather than taking simple offense at it. You are a citizen of the United States and as such you have a responsibility to ACT like one and seek out information FULLY so you can make informed decisions about your country–not just look for vindication of your ridiculous prejudices and ideas.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Yes Randall, all of them had Jackson, Polk and Wilson, and also Washington, yes. I suggest you look over.
I have learned my lesson: Don’t ever exclude Washington from top 10 American presidents lists.
But what about the censure I received from you and the others because of the inclusion of the other three. One even went on to call me a racist. You are probably way senior to me, but you see I had a valid case when I included Jackson, Polk and Wilson.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:45 am
I have a question. Why was this list written by someone who is not American?
Ro: Neither i nor my parents belong to any political party thank you very much. Also my Advanced Placement American History teacher had total recall so i’m fairly sure everything he told me was correct. And don’t EVER include Jackson in a list of top presidents
July 16th, 2008 at 10:07 am
t_man, Jackson is also included in almost all lists published by scholars on the subject.
See post #302.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Ro:
To begin with, appeals to authority aren’t really valid. (But yes, I did look the lists over, Ro… that’s why I commented on them). You want to make an argument, then you tell me why YOU felt it right to include Jackson, Polk, and Wilson. Frankly, I’m willing to concede points on them, but this business of ignoring Wilson’s racism (you haven’t given a convincing argument that his racism has been blown out of proportion or misunderstood) is, I think, a piece of very flawed reasoning on your part.
But yes, let’s leave all that aside for the moment. It is mainly the *exclusion* of Washington–to make room for presidents like Polk–that I find particularly bizarre. I still have yet to hear your reasoning for this–how it is Grover Cleveland, for example, was a more “outstanding” president than George Washington.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:42 am
#312
Well, you are rude enough to be a New Yorker
But, too naive……………
AMERICANS believe FDR sure as hell did let Pearl Harbor happen. And JFK was killed by the Mafia and Bush let 911 happen. But you are entitled to your opinions and I am entitled to mine.
Lisette
July 16th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Randall,
Thank God Disney is a marginal side issue we can have fun over, and which also ‘proves’ we are not ‘buddies in conspiracy’!
Seriously, what scares shit out of me in any democracy context is that you and Lisette, both having a very proper right to vote, have a vote of precisely the same weight. I do realse there is no answer. I think Churchill said, and I’m paraphrasing, that democracy is a simply terrible system, but the best we have avaiable and the only decent one.
The flip side of the vulnerability coin: I’m sure I’m not the first to have noted or commented on the long and continuing string of fictional American Superheroes who, single-handed or very few, save their country or the planet from ‘evil’ or destruction. They may be individuals with supernatural powers, or a small bunch of intrepid humans launched into space to liquidate an oncoming meteorite. Whatever, they all offer false comfort to that growing sense of vulnerability and insecurity. Interesting subject for a thesis, if as likely, it hasn’t already been done?
I’m working on an aircraft list for Listverse.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Churchill said democracy is the worst form of government accept all others that have been tried.
July 16th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Craig,
Thanks for the exact words. At least I got the correct source! And it’s ‘except’, not ‘accept’, which with slightly different punctuation would turn the sense inside-out!
July 16th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift
July 16th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
trojan_man – we hear all kinds of weird bull shit about the US in Australia, just goes to show it goes both ways, i have heard some of the funniest shit come out of americans about what they know about Oz.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Lisette,
PLEASE tell me you’re joking. Just by the sheer number of people required to pull off any of those attacks SOMEBODY would’ve squealed and we’d all believe it. It just amazes me what people are willing to accept based on little or no evidence other that some crackpot’s theories that are usually easily explained. I find it hard to believe that wherever you live most people actually believe that bull.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
By the way, if you really want to start a controversy you should write a list about the actual facts of the vietnam war.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
At least people in Australia know where the USA is. For some reason many overseas people (not just Americans), think that Australia is next to Germany.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Lisette,
When you employ quotations in support of a viewpoint, you don’t have to take out your own brain and hang it in the cupboard.
Suppose I stood on a soapbox in the middle of a crowd and shouted, “Ghandi was an evil man who wanted to take over the world by force.” or “Pigs can fly. I know. I’ve seen them.” Would that make those who didn’t believe me (I assume all sane people) a confederation of dunces? And me a genius?
In other words, while it’s true that a genius may be rejected by his own country and times, the converse is not true. The converse being that anyone who is rejected is a genius.
Lisette, since you have told us when you were born, I will tell you that I am four years older than you are. Which does not mean or prove a thing. If I cannot make the experience and knowledge I have acquired over those years tell by mental flexibility, intelligence and open-mindedness, their only value is to deprive me of my youth. I had a wonderful old German postcard (alas lost along life’s highway), with the legend, “Alter schütz von Torheit nicht” (Age does not protect us from folly). It showed an old buffer in an hotel room using his walking stick to lift up the skirt of the young chambermaid who was bending over while cleaning his room. Such a chance would be fine folly for me! Physical strength is irrelevant. All that matters is a healthy, functioning brain and the ability to use it. Two examples: Stephen Hawking and Monty Burns of the Simpsons (one a hero, the other an anti-hero hero of mine).
When I was young, age was synonymous with wisdom. One did not argue with, or question elders and betters. Enough said. Or how to stifle progress, if you prefer. The view of the repressed young of those days was that age almost inevitably brings on narrow-mindedness, intolerance, prejudice against youth and an ability to absorb ‘the new’. More bollocks. Look around. You’ll find both the blistering intolerance of the young and the elitist intolerance of the old. You’ll also find splendid examples of intergenerational tolerance, not least in these lists, which is the only attitude of value. Of course there are many layers of cultural differences through the generations, although even those mix to a degree. In the same way there is universal culture which knows no age bounds, such as this site. None of this should deprive us of exercising proper criticism or choosing our personal tastes (which are, however, personal).
You also complain about Randall’s so-called rudeness. I had a very outspoken friend who once told me I just always wanted to be ‘Mr Nice Guy’, liked by everyone, while he preferred to speak his mind. Not entirely true. Politeness seems to me to be a sine qua non when nothing is at stake. But if someone kicks me where it hurts; insults Anita; cheats me; abuses me personally in these lists, etc., then politeness gets slipped back in the holster and sarcasm, anger or abuse are likely to take its place. That will also apply to stupid opinions on matters that I truly care about, such as the natural world or the reputations of people who matter to me. Without doubt, that’s how Randall sees it. There comes a point when politeness is merely a form of weakness.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Dear Spammer,
I would rather believe pigs could fly than that you would lie to me.
Lisette
July 16th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
See my above.
Sorry On para. 5, l.4 it should read ‘inability’, not ‘ability’. I’m missing peer reviewing!
July 16th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Lisette,
Kind words. But you have my assurance that I’m better at lying than pigs are at flying.
P.S. I dearly trust ‘Spammer’ was a misprint and not a supposition of antisocial actions on the internet by me! Or I’ll accept it as me being a dedicated fan of the unforgettable Monty Python ‘Spam’ song,
Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam …
July 16th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Love Monty Python
July 16th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Lisette,
You can’t be all bad then. ‘Fawlty Towers’ too, I trust?
Although not to forget the sensitive British politician who said the Nazis couldn’t be all that bad, because when they’d finished gassing Jews for the day (he didn’t actually put it like that), they went home and listened to Schubert.
(Just joking, referring the above to you, that is)
July 16th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Hmmm…I’ve said my list and it probably wasn’t written well. I will, however, say that my comment it support of Lisette on FDR’s intelligence on Pearl Harbor was probably something I read on wiki. I took it as fact and not conspiracy theory. Shame on me. I recind.
I would love to see Randall’s Top 10 list.
P.s. Randall, where in New York do you live? I thought you once said “upstate”, which frightens me because I will be moving to upstate in a couple of weeks. I have nightmares about unknowingly entering in debates with you, only to have my ass handed to me. Even worse, I wonder if you could be my new landlord. You don’t happen to winter in Arizona, do you? County would be fine.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
P.p.s. I just submitted a Top 25 Monty Python Moments list.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Cadestra – yay, another Python fan, i hope you included the Dead Parrott Skit and the Cheese shop one.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Cedestra,
That is a great, big-hearted public change of mind. It deserves all the applause it can get. It also proves the value of this forum, however opinions line up on list quality. We can all learn from one another and also influence one another by our knowledge and perceptions.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Spanner – well said, i started a forum on a similar idea, if anyone with an idea about a new subject that wont attract the “know alls” please feel free to interject.
But my idea to start the forum might not be everyones idea of a nice cuppa tea.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Hey, Cedestra,
How on earth could you keep it down to 25 moments? Unless you included the movies among them! My first wife and I had the sheer, unbelievable luck of hitting the very first ever Monty Python episode by chance on our TV (black and white then for us).
… and the Canadian Lumberjack Song. Oh, and FGS don’t leave out The Ministry of Silly Walks. Cleese doesn’t even need to open his mouth, just moving is enough!
July 16th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
‘Whatever you do, don’t mention the war’
‘You started it you invaded Poland’
My kisa and I were addicted and to this day still quote
Monty Python and Fawlty Yowers. ‘Oh I know, I know [telephone scene with his wife].
July 16th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I forgot how the shop owner tried to tell him the bird wasn’t dead
And what is the cheese shop one, I don’t remember that one
July 17th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Cedestra: There is a “top 25 Monty Python moments” list on this site already – no author credited so I assume it’s by Jamie.
To anyone considering writing a list – check out “View all lists” just above “Recent Comments” in the right hand panel.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:36 am
astraya,
Right on,
I’ve printed out all the lists and it’s on my new list of ‘25 Top Lists I Haven’t Yet Had Time To Visit’.
Suitably modified, “I mentioned the war, and I think I got away with it” became a household favourite of ours for various situations.
My first wife also claims that I caught my habit of furiously kicking various recalcitrant pieces of machinery such as dysfunctional lawnmowers from Basil. Given the fact that I usually accompanied that by shaking my fist and threatening, “I’ve warned you. I’ll give you one last chance!”, she was probably right.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Because I’ve got too much time on my hands and should be doing other things, I’ve seen most of the lists by now, though haven’t read all of the items, seen all the videos and read all of the comments of those lists.
Are you going to submit your list for publication?
About 5 years ago I was in a deep (non-work-related) conversation with a work colleague. After some time, I said “How did this conversation get started?”. He said “Well, you started it”. I said “No, you started it. You invaded Poland.”. There was a moment when I thought “Oh no, he doesn’t recognise the reference”, then he cracked up laughing, and I thought “phew!”. Can we adapt this to the current topic: “You started it. You bombed Pearl Harbour.” (or “You ended it. You bombed Hiroshima.”)?
FWIW I’m surprised that Washington isn’t on this list, but then again I’m surprised that King Lear isn’t on the Shakespeare list and I like Queen, so what would I know? I’m obviously an ignorant douchebag.
Isn’t this site wonderful? You in S America and me in Korea?
July 17th, 2008 at 2:28 am
Hey, don’t forget me in Chicago, Illinois
just because my name is Manuel and “I know not-ting”
July 17th, 2008 at 5:24 am
Lisette:
Harping on my “rudeness” is a convenient way of not answering *any* of my points, isn’t it Lisette?
Americans do NOT believe that FDR was responsible for Pearl Harbor. I’ve never seen a legitimate poll that indicates this. And no one–but NO ONE–that I have ever spoken to believes this.
Typical of the sort of conspiracy nut you are, you believe what you want to believe regardless of the facts, and arguments to the contrary–with *proof,* mean nothing to you. You ignore challenges and steam right ahead believing what you want.
That’s a small and pointless way of living your life, if you ask me. But how important it must make people like you feel, to “know” that you’ve got the “truth” and have blown the lid on the powerful and deceptive who’ve misled the rest of us for so long! You’re benighted, and you know it.
And yes, I’m a rude New Yorker. Proud of it. This is my goddamned country too, and I frankly get very angry when I find myself lumped in with people who believe the nonsense you believe.
July 17th, 2008 at 5:40 am
Cedestra:
Contrary to the opinion of many an offended soul on this site, I am not some freakin’ ogre who bites people’s heads off in real life. And contrary to the pissed-off kids over at the rockers list, I have a nice full life at home with kids and friends and sailboats and neighbors all of whom seem to be rather fond of me. (Yes, even the boats).
Anyway, forgive me for sticking up for myself for a second there.
Now… as to my locale… uh, sorry, but I protect my privacy. I’ve mentioned that I currently live upstate, and so I can’t deny that. I’ve also spoke of lakes and the fact that I live on one, and I’ve mentioned some nearby places… so I guess I can admit that at present I live in the Finger Lakes region. But sorry, more than that, I won’t say.
Where are you moving to? If you don’t wish to share, given *my* reticence, I understand. You can be as vague as me, if you like. And where abouts are you moving *from?* Are you used to winter? Winters here are dreadful. Depending on where you live, they can be worse than dreadful–downright arctic. But in spots–many spots–upstate is also beautiful, particularly the lakes and the Adirondacks. And the people are decent.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:47 am
The intrusion of the Pythons and Fawlties into this weighty site?
Displacement activity. Submissive withdrawal. Deflective pacification. Anyone who knows their biology will understand my meaning. Human biologists would have a field day in these lists! So too would the Pythons. They’d take one of these spats, blow it up beyond its most absurd limits and turn it into Sublime comedy. Stan and Ollie could end up destroying cars and houses from the tiniest initial disagreement.
By the way, when people claim that ‘everyone in so-and-so (locality, country, the world) knows (or believes) that’, what’s their basis? Do they go around the entire area in question doing door to door polls? I can state some general facts that can be verified by personal observation or reliable statistics, but nothing else. For instance, that all but about 7% of people where I live say they believe in God, and most of those are catholic. Roughly what ratio own vehicles. I know by our regular visits which foods most of the people round here commonly buy in supermarkets. I knew most people where I lived in England voted conservative.
Beyond than that I can also draw what I hope are intelligent conclusions, but without supportive data. Finally I might speculate. But given the surprising fact that something like half the young people in Britain who were polled recently didn’t know who Winston Churchill was, and many who did thought he was American, I suggest that trying to guess what goes on in peoples’ minds is best left to sybils (or sibyls).
Which brings us nicely back to the Fawlties, doesn’t it?
“BASIL!!! BASIL!!!!” “Yes, just coming, dear (sotto voce -when I’ve finished sharpening the pointed stakes in the pit I’ve just dug for you).”
July 17th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Oh, shoot- I should have checked before spending all that time. Ah, well, it was fun to make. Actually, I like the Cheese Shop but I felt that one skit with John Cleese listing a bunch of stuff in slowly building anger was enought (I did have the Dead Parrot sketch).
Lisette, among many reasons, the shop owner told the guy (he has a name, I forgot it) that he was “pining for the fjords” and “resting from being shagged out”.
Yeah, I’m more or less giving you a hard time, Randall. I actually respect your willingness to stick to your guns. I’m moving from Western Mass, so I’m definately used to the weather- I grew up in Central Mass. I would be moving near the capital, so I think we have some mileage between us. My friend went to school at Paul Smith’s, so I’ve heard all about the winters of throwing water outside and watching it freeze before it hits the ground.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:35 am
OMG, I just looked through that list and Jamie forgot “Spanish Inquisition”. My list was a lot more subjective- I left off some of the more obvious ones I didn’t really like, such as the Musical Mice, Cheese Shop, and Woody and Tinny words.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Cedestra:
Well Albany isn’t so bad, no worse than central Mass. But if you were getting anywhere near Lake Ontario or Lake Erie, I’d say be prepared for REAL winter. You only need to know three words there: Lake Effect Snow. So be thankful it’s Albany and not Syracuse, Rochester, or Buffalo… or worse, Watertown and the Tug Hill Plateau. Ten feet of snow is not uncommon.
Albany isn’t hit so bad though. I have a good friend there, teaching at SUNY Alb. Though I must confess… I’m not nuts about the town.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:44 am
oh and Cedestra: Thank you.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Actually everybody, go take a look at that rockers list. Nothing but respectable, intelligent adults with coherent, well thought out comments plus one pretentious know-it-all going crazy. Sorry to say but those “pissed off kids” completely owned you over there.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I remember hearing and seeing the snow out in western New York. That’s some nasty stuff. Yeah, Albany isn’t bad, but it’s my husband’s hometown and where he works, so we need to stay nearby. I like that they hold festivals for flowers
And I got to see “They Might Be Giants” for free at TulipFest, so it has a few points in my book.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Lightning:
Hardly, you asshole.
If you read carefully within that thread, you’ll find a number of people who agreed with me. Some didn’t agree with my method, but not everyone disagreed with that, either. And I find it quite telling that some little prick like you would come *following* me to another thread, just to goad me some more. Not only childish, but further proof that people like you have no argument against what I said—all you can do is toss insults around. Coherent, well-thought out comments, eh? And I’m just a pretentious know-it-all? Then why follow me here to pester me? Makes you feel special does it?
Nobody “owned” me, moron. I ended my commentary on that thread because I’m a long-termer on this site and don’t like seeing threads hijacked any more than anyone else does. All it was becoming was an excuse for piss-ants like you to come after me because they couldn’t take having their noses rubbed in their own prejudices–people never do.
Now this kind of shit, following me around to other threads… IS the kind of thing that *I* will report to the site administrators. So fuck off.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Cedestra:
I love They Might Be Giants.. never seen them live.
Rochester has a Lilac Festival in May, too… very nice.
But at least you’ll be close to Lake George and the Hudson… pretty.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Contrary to the opinion of many an offended soul on this site, I am not some freakin’ ogre who bites people’s heads off in real life. And contrary to the pissed-off kids over at the rockers list, I have a nice full life at home with kids and friends and sailboats and neighbors all of whom seem to be rather fond of me. (Yes, even the boats).
No wifey Randall? Or at least not one more important than neighbors and sailboats.
…shocker.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Oh and I’m not following you. I’m actually kind of certain I have the right to read and comment on any list in the listverse universe.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Christ, my first post after lurking around here for a while and you give me that comeback? Nobody is following you anywhere no matter how much you might wish that be the case you lunatic. From what I read, everyone did “agree” with you to an extent but your overall argument blown beyond proportion.
Why the F bombs? When someone cusses like you it’s cause they have nothing intelligent to say. If anyone hijacked that list it was you son. You are the piss-ant that couldn’t have your nose rubbed in your own crap. See, what you’re doing now is projection bias, putting all of that on everyone else as a defense mechanism. It’s ok, everyone does it some some degree.
Wow, report to the site administrators huh? From the way you talk I would think you were the site administrator. From the bullying I read from some of the other lists from you, I would say that you are the one that would get banned.
Peace.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Okay – enough of the insults and fighting guys! We can all get along – just kiss and make up (well okay – no need to kiss). We are seeing personal attacks becoming more regular these days and it needs to stop – so let’s begin with this list
And remember – when you attack a person and not an issue, you lose.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Lisette: I prefer not to ban anything especially – it is better to deal with problems as they arise
Unfortunately this is one I have had to deal with!
July 17th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Jfr,
People should perhaps also be advised to be careful to separate themselves from their issues. You know, the love, me, love my dog thing. Too many dig their own personalities into their issues, so locked horns then become inevitable.
What we need is passion without violence, degrading insult and repulsive obscenity. A clever quip will get everyone on your side. Bear that in mind.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
People also need to learn the gentle art of climbing down a bit and giving the opponent a graceful way out. This is not weakness, it’s the oil of the machinery of civilisation.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
For the records, Randall, who has contributed valuably to this topic, first brought over the rockers list in a broad context(345). Lightning (351) then responded without any reference to presidents either then, before or since, so far as I can make out.
Perhaps, ‘A plague on both your houses’ might seem to be the obvious response. But, since one is clearly far more unwelcome and irrelevant here than the other, my wish is for Lightning to go away and play somewhere else, and for Randall to be more careful about not trailing any sour list tailcoats.
And since I’m being so bloody pompous and confession is good for the soul, I’ll eat a bit of humble pie. I regret that I compared the value of Randall’s vote with Lisette’s directly. That was uncalled for. Sorry, Lisette. To have said that it scares me that an informed person like Randall only has the same ‘weight’ of vote as people who lack his mental application, quality of thought, concern and intellectual responsibility would not only have avoided a personal put-down, but would actually created the wider context I intended.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I think, nowadays, people take the institution of anonymity on the internet for granted. In person, I’m polite, amiable, and rarely rock the boat. (Oh, but I will if I think it needs to be rocked.) I rarely ever shout obscenities and ad hominen attacks to their face, and rarely behind their backs (I am human, afterall).
A good chunk of people who post once and leave, especially after giving their opinion and not backing it up, are those who are downtrodden in life. School bully take your lunch money today? Ruin someone else’s by calling them stupid. Boss yell at you for doing a bad job? Insult someone else’s work in a purely anonymous fashion. Unless you’re Jay and Silent Bob, these people don’t get tracked down and punched in the face. They know they can get away with it.
For the longest time, this bothered me to the point of retaliation. It still bugs me, but at least know I say, “He probably got shit on today” and laugh at a mental picture of a horse taking a gigantic steaming pile on some idiot’s head. “You can’t change someone else, only yourself.”
July 17th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Cedresta,
Nice philosophical touch.
Perhaps it is possible to change someone’s viewpoint though, but only by careful explanation and logic, never by shouting, bullying, effing and blinding, etc. Any semantic aggression will only succeed in driving you apart rationally, and drawing you together irrationally. I.e. you will end up have the e-quivalent of a street or bar punch-up here. If that’s what you’re looking for, fine. Lots of us enjoy standing around watching one too!
If you don’t want a rumble, why keep going at a lost cause? For the hubris of having the last word? Haven’t you got a more profitable, positive way to spend the little time we’re afforded on earth? If someone pesters you, just post on as though they don’t exist. It’s as simple as that. It takes two to make an e-rgument here.
Lets keep our perspective. Unless by a miracle we influence the one extra person who tips a major vote somewhere, nothing we post here is going to change the world or make a scrap of difference to macro human affairs. So hassle simply isn’t worth the hassle.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:24 am
You appear to be unaware that the “Era of Good Feelings” was named ironically-it was actually a period of post-war depression and political division.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
oh no someone has insulted randall…
July 18th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
RANDALL I just saw They Might Be Giants live, they were great!
July 18th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Thank you Gee Gee,
Fresh intellectual input is always appreciated.
Woah, boy!
Don’t worry, Jackie, I don’t think Randall is going to take as insult the fact that someone has just shat on his own foot.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Sorry, hoof.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Hey, Randall, no one’s rushing to our defence!
July 18th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Gee Gee,
Is that it? Have you thundered you mighty earth-shaking message for Mankind across List Universe? Or are we to expect yet more exquisite pearls of intellectual wisdom?
July 18th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Wow, it talks.
And in clever clichés.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Gee Gee,
Ever appreciated a pig has SLIGHTLY more brains and intelligence than an oyster?
Down, bivalve!
July 19th, 2008 at 4:32 am
Gee Gee (174),
I was about to reply that we had not solicited any opinion from you, and were extremely unlikely to. However, since you were rash enough to ask, perhaps you might offer us something, anything, the least clue, as to why you are worthy of the most miniscular peer respect by those who post regularly and intelligently on LV.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:13 am
Spanner: you seem to be quite capable of defending yourself. Randall has been strangely quiet, though.
July 19th, 2008 at 4:16 am
Jackson Monroe Cleveland Polk FDR and Wilson should be taken off this list. Bush Jr. (Who is becoming a very good president), Eisenhower, Truman, and Clinton
July 19th, 2008 at 4:18 am
They should be added 2 the list
July 19th, 2008 at 4:19 am
Reagan and Washington 2.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:53 am
Gee Gee,
Time for some home truths, assuming you are still logging in here. You are a silly, abusive, egotisitical creature, whose personal insults are not of the slightest relevance or importance. If we knew what your actual opinions were they might be. But only if they happened to be a tiny additional drop to anything collective of an obnoxious, deceptive or dangerous nature. You probably vainly deceive yourself that a large chunk of the many millions of English speakers who involve themselves in the internet are hanging on your every word. Sorry to disabuse you, but this is a rather intimate forum where a rather small number of people comes to appreciate, discuss, dispute and inform on a very wide range of topics. It broadly takes place in a civilised and respectful fashion, although occasional strong differences of opinion may lead to loss of temper. However, that nearly always happens after an exchange of intelligible viewpoints. Should matters get out of hand, participants are brought to order, and in extremes the situation is acted upon, since those who run this show don’t appreciate the kind of attitude you are toting. To deflate your aspirations even further, Listverse is a volatile set-up which presents a new topic almost every day. These topics are hugely varied and regular members flock to the very latest. This often leaves earlier topics virtually dead in the water, and always with far fewer visitors and commentators all the time. So by the ‘age’ this particulat topic has now reached, you are probably venting your spleen to fewer eyes than would be watching in your local supermarket. Don’t waste your time or anybody else’s. Whatever your age, grow up.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:59 am
Gee Gee,
Don’t you mean Bush jr. is an ignorant, misinformed idiot?
July 19th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Gee Gee:
This “poorly educated slob” comes from New York, with a background in various sciences as well as History and Literature, and holds a nice trio of degrees granted by highly-prestigious and long-accredited, major degree-granting institutions in the Northeast of this fair country of ours.
And… your trailer park is located where?
Pinhead.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Hey Randall and Spanner didnt anyone ever tell you that its not nice to pick on retards. That guy is hardly worth the time it takes for you to leave him a comment. As my grandfather used to tell me “When a horse farts do you blame him or just accept that its in his nature?”.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Armystrong (387),
Didn’t anyone warn you? Randall and I are bullies and sadists. We can’t resist beating people up, but we don’t like practising on the innocent.
Besides, I was just about to give Gee Gee a nice pat on the back (or is it on the nose or the rump?) He inspired me to think of ‘pea-brain’ last night, and that was a term which came in useful for something I am writing elsewhere.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Armystrong,
In slightly more serious vein, I also considered that my 384 is useful point of reference to direct future gee gees to instantly, without having the need to draft it all out again.
Indeed, without more ado.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:25 am
to draft-horse it all out again, of course.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Spanner (384)
Sorry to disabuse you, but this is a rather intimate forum where a rather small number of people comes to appreciate, discuss, dispute and inform on a very wide range of topics.
So what are you saying? Listverse is/should be a çlosed shop’? New opinions are not welcome?
It broadly takes place in a civilised and respectful fashion, although occasional strong differences of opinion may lead to loss of temper. However, that nearly always happens after an exchange of intelligible viewpoints.
Yes, you and Randall in particular have shown great civility and respect before flying off the handle after about two words that disagree with your respective viewpoints.
Cheers
Lee
July 19th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
kiwitaxi,
You are putting words into my mouth (or post), and if you can’t see that, then I pity you. Use your brain. Realise that ‘where a small number of people comes’ is not remotely saying ‘where ONLY a small number of people WILL BE PERMITTED to come’. (Site managers: the caps are not shouting or abusing, they indicating the difference of meaning.)
I suggest you read postings 367, 391, 392, 393 and 395 to appreciate what you are sticking up for. Why, it even abuses you for your support (395). By the company they keep you shall know them.
Well enough. I’m tired of this and so, without doubt, is Randall. We’ll you in company with your iron-pumping friend, whose winner of every argument would of course be Mike Tyson, because he would beat to a pulp anyone else who disagreed with him. That’s the only way to settle arguments isn’t it?
Goodnight and goodbye.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Jfrater,
Do you think this enhances LV? Three names, one crass, clever idiot. Were you aware of the connection, or fooled by a set of completely different electronic addresses? I think sincere communicators need some kind of protection. Clearly this one is prepared to spend a lot of time carefully drawing others into its web, wasting our time and mental energy before we either quit or get the pratfall message. I’m going away indefinitely now to get some neglected work done and also to think seriously about whether LV is worth my candle. I’ll keep reading.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Just a final thought for you. Theft of time is as serious as theft of money or any other possession.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Spanner -
i noticed.
a troll is a troll is a troll. not worth your time or effort. nor should ‘it’ dissuade you from LV.
for that matter trollz should not dissuade anyone from LV. fact of life online. damn shame but true.
still you are entitled to report anything that disturbs you to JFrater.
hopefully this idiot..er..troll…will wander off to find some other shit…er..mud to roll in.
tah tah troll!
July 20th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Wow, some peoples children….. Just ignore them they arent worth being bothered by. Besides there are SO many more lists and things to read here lol.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Cyn,
Thanks for taking the trouble to reply. Of course, part of the answer is to register and stick with those you know to be bona fide LVers: who are known to be worth discussing or disputing with. And to avoid anything moronic, personal or suspicious. Caveat emptor. Keep the posting tight. To a degree Randall and I have both failed to do that, and so have only ourselves to blame (ditto loads of others all the time; e.g. over at Top 10 Conspiracies right now).
When we were in the upper school, we’d have been able to form a group with the capacity to pull off this sort of ‘lark’ with ease. We’d also then have had the puerile adolescent mentality to find it hilarious. What does concern me rather is that we also had sufficient incipient knowledge and nous to kid people for a good while they were dealing with an adult who knew a thing or two and had serious intent. What is posted under the name Gee Gee is one thing, and fool’s fodder. Take a look at the Lisette scam above and I think you’ll find something else.
Of course there is nothing you ‘controllers’ can do, at least until it’s out in the open, but it is something those who spend time posting in good faith might have to worry about. I am.
Where next, Lisette, and under what pseudonym?
July 20th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Hey JFrater, is there any way you can just ban this guys IP address, or would that negate the free flow of ideas and opinions that we have grown to love on this site?
July 20th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Whoever you are, however many you are, and whatever your intention is, hear this.
For me LV is neither a war or a deliberate mind-game, as it clearly is for you. Of course I haven’t got the ‘weapons’ whatever those might be, and I neither want nor need them.
I have a full and happy life. Have you, nerd or nerds? I appear also to have two ‘weapons’ which are completely missing from your ‘armoury’, repect for others who deserve it and maturity.
If your aim was expel me from List Universe, you have succeeded handsomely and 100%, so give yourself a big cheer and a pat on the back. So sorry you won’t by able to have fun with me any more, you’ll have to try to goad Randall again, or find someone else.
You are no longer my problem, you are Listverse’s.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
The Shadow and his/her many other aliases from CA and Spanner -
apparently ya’ll have some melodrama to work thru that has nothing to do w/ Listverse or this list. i would suggest you exchange emails and hash it out between yourselves offsite.
as has been stated in FAQ and comment netiquette for this site… personal exchanges are more appropriate at forums or IMHO ..offsite.
i would hope anyone who has enjoyed this site would continue to do so regardless of any what should be considered off topic/off site personal squabbles.
thanx.
July 20th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
The Shadow: Do you feel better now? Somehow superior? By publicly showing your obvious mental instability? By illustrating to us all just how silly and juvenile you are?
I pity the smallness of your victories.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
WHOA!
6. Can I carry on personal chats in the comments?
No – this becomes very tedious for other readers – please take it to the forums.
http://listverse.com/comment-faq/
speaking as a person who loves LV and not as an admin..i’ve become quite weary of people using OUR comment section to carry on personal conversations that have NOTHING TO DO w/ the list at hand or LV. take it to forums or offsite.
and for myself…i am not anyone’s referee. you have an issue w/ someone here that is personal in nature i strongly recommend you handle it yourself offsite or in forums and NOT call upon admins to referee your fight.
issues dealing w/ LV will be dealt w/ by LV admins or J.
as for personal issues…man up and deal w/ that yourselves… somewhere else.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Listverse Forums Dispute section
if anyone is interested in dealing w/ disputes in forums. one for LV related disputes. one for personal disputes. and yes, its an experiment subject to change w/out notice. for now..its an option.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I have removed a bunch of the comments here from gee gee and the joker as they were posted by Lisette. I won’t tolerate this abuse – it is against the rules.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Armystrong: yes – done.
July 20th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I’m sad.
The dolts start it.
The dolts keep fanning the flames.
The dolts win.
You have to wonder why Spanner and Randall, both of whom are, by far, the most intelligent, insightful, well spoken, well read, well rounded of anyone on this site were singled out by these dolts?
They were singled out *before* it all began. That much is obvious. They just waited for the perfect opportunity, and when they found it, they sprung.
July 20th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
segue-
‘the dolts’ got deleted and banned. so i hardly think they won.
now it’d be nice to get back on topic.
July 20th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Cyn, I absolutely agree!
And to that end, I’d say that Eisenhower, while not one of the *Greats* as a President, certainly led us into and through one of the most peaceful, happy eras we’d experienced in a long time…of course, there was Korea, but it didn’t affect the way people felt about the country.
I know this isn’t a deeply thought out, philosophical essay (of which I can be capable), but my mind is full of other things and I did want to give Ike a nod.
July 20th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Please, everyone.
If you are convinced of another commenter’s mental insufficiency, you demean yourself by engaging in personal invective with them. “Never wrestle with a pig; you get dirty and the pig enjoys it.” I enjoy a good digression as much as everyone else. I don’t enjoy a bad digression.
Spanner: if your last post means that you won’t be coming back, please, please come back, and soon. We need you. (There’s a certain paradox in saying that.) (If he doesn’t come back and if anyone’s in contact with him otherwise (eg segue) could you please pass this on.)
Now, where were we? Ah yes, outstanding US presidents.
The two steps in any discussion such as this (or rockers or Shakespeare plays etc) is defining the terms, then deciding who or what best fits those terms. I have noticed a number of lists which are very vague in their terms. I suggest that all submitters of lists very carefully set out their terms in the introduction to their list.
“Outstanding” can equally mean “outstandingly bad” as well as “outstandingly good”. There’s a scene in “Yes, Minister”:
Jim: (reading from paper) “the egregious Jim Hacker” … What does ‘egregious’ mean, [Humphrey or Bernard]?
[Humphrey or Bernard]: It means ‘outstanding’, minister.
Jim: Oh, that’s nice of them to say so.
[Humphrey or Bernard]: I’m glad you think so, minister.
How about “great fictional presidents and prime ministers”?
July 20th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
I doubt Randall is coming back to check this list, but you’re welcome and I’m a lady – not a man.
Also, next time that cart comes by, I’m throwing Ro on it.
*CLANG* “Bring out your dead!”
July 21st, 2008 at 6:01 am
Carter’s real achievements came AFTER he left the Presidency, with such things as the Carters involvement with Habitat for Humanity http://www.habitat.org/how/default_jcwp.aspx
and winning the Nobel Peace prize in 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize
I don’t think it is possible to evaluate the current presidency yet. A president always gets blamed for everything everybody is unhappy with, during their time in office. It isn’t until much later that the passage of time enables history to slice away the chaff to reveal the truth of what a president accomplished and the value of those accomplishments. It is also true that what a president does, usually doesn’t come to fruition until after his term as president has ended, and then whoever happens to be in office when the positive actions of the earlier president bear their fruit, the current office holder gets the praise for the harvest.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:19 am
Modelpenguin,
You are being outrageously subjective. I know very well what Jackson did to the Cherokees and I’m sorry for your race.I even read the novel “Cherokee Tears” the author of which is my dad’s friend’s mother. So I do know about it, mind you.
But Jackson was still an outstandingly efficient president for the reasons summarised on this list. And I’m not the first person to include him in a top 10 presidents list, nor will I be the last.
See post # 302.
July 21st, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Ro,
No matter how many old, white guys think Jackson was a badass, it’s still not going to bring any Native Americans who were slaughtered back. There was nothing of his presidency that someone else at that time could not have done, and yet let the Native Americans and African Americans live. And again, you cannot justify his actions and forget what he did. I still use the same example of Hitler – you can’t put him on a list such as this and conveniently ignore his outrageous inhumanity.
I’m not commenting believing I’ll change your mind, but you have to understand you’re also not going to sway me. I’m here to speak out for those who never got the chance against Jackson and those like him who practice genocide. We just have to agree to disagree.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:31 am
MY LIST
1. Franklin D Roosevelt
2. Ronald Reagan
3. Thomas Jefferson
4. Theodore Roosevelt
5. George Washington
6. John F Kennedy
7. Harry S Truman
8. Bill Clinton
9. George H W Bush (Senior and former)
10. Lyndon Baines Johnson
July 24th, 2008 at 2:34 am
Jackson does not deserve anything but contempt and disrespect. His life had been personally saved by a Cherokee in battle (Junaluska) against the Creeks. Jackson is reported as saying “As long as the sun shines and the grass grows, there shall be friendship between us, and the feet of the Cherokee shall be toward the east.”
How was Janaluska rewarded by Jackson during his presidency? With genocide and the mass removal of the Cherokee from their homes.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Oh yeah! I totally agree Waynooski!
July 26th, 2008 at 2:49 am
R u people correctly reading this list?!, the majority of these presidents were percieved well, but take the initiative and actually conduct some reaserch 4 yourself, many folks above me have pointed out some but there is still a load 2 be named
July 31st, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Lincoln was a war criminal. He sent the army into states that were trying to leave the Union. By the laws of the Federal Government a state that wishes to leave the Union has every right to do so without reproach from the rest of the Union. Its only Northern dogma that was forced upon the nation after the war was finished that made Lincoln a hero.
August 1st, 2008 at 7:48 am
****
413. wrong
Lincoln was a war criminal. He sent the army into states that were trying to leave the Union.
****
All depends on which side of that particular bed you are lying in.
According to my family history I had 500+ soldiers on the side of the Confederacy, and 250+ on the Union side…don’t even get me started on the Revolutionary War!
If you’re spouting “Union dogma” it’s pretty easy it know where your sympathies lie, and under what misinformation you are laboring.
You can’t be blamed directly, as you are a product of your environment, but if you are going to start quoting Federal law, you had better be darned sure of yourself.
That war, horrible as it was, as costly in both lives and property, was not illegal.
August 2nd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
@ Segue
The south had every right to leave the Union. The laws laid in place at the conception of the Union assured that. It was a fail safe laid by the founding fathers incase the Central government became oppressive (example: England). I am not a Southern loyalist at ALL, in fact im glad the south was brought back into the union, even if it was by force, because it was better for the country in the long run.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:39 am
dont like any of them a dont like americans at all they are dick heads they are such a bunch of mongs!
August 16th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Good list, but you’re gonna have to make a new list in November when Barrack Obama wins, cuz he’s gonna be the #1 greatest president!
My only real critisism is that Polk should not be on the list. Is is horrible that he started a war just to get some land! Wars are terrible and they should be avoided unless they are absolutely necessary, and a piece of land isn’t worth people’s lives.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
thank goodness they do not have Reagan on here! yes I agree Obama could be one of the greats not b/c of himself, but because his advisers are all smart people and that’s all that matters that’s why JFK was so great b/c of his huge cabinet consisting of republicans and democrats not just republicans like with George W. also, I think McCain is better than Bush but he would still be terrible. I think Reagan and Bush should be added to the worst list. anyone who thinks Bush is a good president or that McCain would make a good president is a complete douchebag.
October 10th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
This list is not very exhaustive;
I’m surprise. Are modern US presidents too bad when they must lead a country like America ?
October 10th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
The aggressive rudeness of the French is amusing.Second rate in all matters,militarily a joke,what do they really contribute to the world save a constant,steady supply of vitrolic hot air?
October 11th, 2008 at 5:18 am
419. French viewer: It only seems that way.
October 17th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Jimmy Carter was awful. Watch “American Experience” on PBS and learn how he was overseas working on his “legacy” while Americans were fighting in the streets for gasoline. He pathetically lied to get elected as Governor, so the idea of him never lying is wrong.
Look for parallels between Carter and Obama while you watch.
October 19th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Andrew Jackson tried to exterminate a race of people. Nothing he did could make up for this fact.
October 20th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
i sure hope no one actually thinks george bush should be on the list
November 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
It’s nice to see Ronald Reagan not on the list for once.
November 2nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
My List:
1.Abraham Lincoln
2.Franklin D. Roosevelt
3.George Washington
4.Teddy Roosevelt
5.Thomas Jefferson
6.James Monroe
7.Woodrow Wilson
8.John F. Kennedy
9.James K. Polk
10.Dwight Eisenhower
November 15th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
#413: you couldn’t be anymore wrong. by switching from the Article of Confederations to the Constitution, the U.S. had formed a ‘more perfect union’ in which the secession of any state is ‘null’ or ILLEGAL and any legislation passed within the seceding states are ‘null’ as well. this was even brought to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1869 in Texas vs White. 5-3 decision was made that Texas, and furthermore any other states, had remained part of U.S. from it’s first joining of the union and would continue to be part of the union despite seceding to the Confederacy. next time you want to talk shit choose a subject you actually know something about.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
i am glad to see smby finally saying that we shud have kept the AOC…it wud have worked if the same effort was poured into it as the US constitution…it wuz a total rush to gain CONTROL over the citizens…and as far as the list goes…where is reagan? and why is jackson up there…first of all when he won the most famous battle of the war of 1812 (new orleans) the war was over and where you speak about him gaining land for us, HE STARTED THE TRAIL OF TEARS THAT KILLED 4000 NATIVE AMERICANS…and he vetoed basically everything that congress asked for…hes prolly a top 5 worst president…JFK is nothing more than bush with the ability to speak…he basically planted the reperation and affirmative action theories and couldnt even get along with his own VP…this list sucks osama ass
December 19th, 2008 at 3:06 am
The list, upon close scrutiny, clearly devalues moral principle in favor of cleverness and moral weakness veiled by a cowardly enthusiasm for “diplomacy” (or talking things out like girls). All of the “great diplomats” didn’t have the courage of their convictions, which is manifested by their lack of courage to engage in brutal but necessary warfare when the enemy is fiarly obviously not someone worth speaking to. President Bush the second has fallen out of favor, but he cannot be accused of weak diplomacy. Perhaps it is true that he shies away from such events on account of a linguistic deficiency. But he is no wishy washy, do-nothing talker that attempts to appease with words that can only be resolved with bombs. I am sure this will be unpopular, but the more confident a president is, the better he is. The content of his beliefs is not of primary importance. Using this criterion, President Bush will be judged as one of the finest, if not the single finest, president in the history of the world.
January 17th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Can I just say there are a few misconceptions about Reagan.
1. He did not end the cold war. The people of Berlin and Eastern Europe ended the cold war.
2. What is the real difference between him and Bush? Bush invaded Iraq. Reagan supported rebels in Nicaragua which led to the pointless deaths of many.
3. He was Anti-democracy I f he didn’t like a government he had it overthrown.
Ill never understand how he is regarded as one of the great American presidents.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
FDR was best, not Lincoln (although he deserves to be on the list). So does George Washington – he set the precident (pun).
January 26th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Where’s Ronald Reagan?
Why is FDR above Theodore?
What exactly has JFK accomplished?
Where is George W. Bush?
Fail
January 26th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Wtf=Republican
For Ronald Reagan see comment 430
FDR took the US out of the worst god dam mess (caused by republicans I might add) that the world economy has ever seen. He did more than his cousin teddy did.
Agree with that one he sadly died before he had the chance to leave a lasting impact on the world. One thing I can think of though is the Cuban missile crisis that he not only averted a nuclear war but he also made the U.S. look good because of it.
Are you serious? George Bush? Where have you been for the last 8 years? The Iraq disaster. Guantanamo Bay. + He’s an idiot.
This List does not fail; you fail because you say these people yet don’t offer a scrap of anything to say why you think this.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Reagans accomplishments:
1. President Reagan’s economic policies stimulated the economy, creating 17 million new jobs. One-fourth of the new jobs were created in 68 consecutive months. Black unemployment was cut in half.
2. We were given incentives to save our money, to work, and to invest because of Reagan’s tax reforms.
3. The inflation rate decreased to less than 4.4%. Family income rose 12%.
4. We are now experiencing the longest and strongest peacetime prosperity in the history of the nation.
5. We are experiencing the best peacetime relationship with the Soviet Union in our history. We have also seen the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.
6. We are now keeping the peace. We drew the line in Grenada, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf, and no countries have fallen to communism during the Reagan era.
7. The U.S. military was refurbished and strengthened.
8. There is now a call for prayer in schools. The Republican adminstration has been lobbying to give this deserved religious freedom.
9. We have seen a return to traditional values. Under Reagan, we have seen a cut in federal funding of abortions; emphasis on a strong family unit; and the development of family-oriented public policy.
10. Educational leaders are now working to sustain moral values and reestablish a clear understanding of right and wrong. The need for values in the curriculum has been trumpeted by the Reagan administration.
11. People from other nations are flocking to America to follow our example. Our principles of civil and economic freedom are now being copied all over the world.
Saying the Depression was caused by republicans is sheer ignorance, he was good but not great. Roosevelt was great, read up on him for yourself.
George Bush has kept us from another attack hasn’t he? Since we’ve been at war we dont have to worry and yet PEOPLE COMPLAIN!? Id like to add he had a congress that refuses to work with him. And he’s an idiot? Have you graduated Hardvard University? Have you been a successfull buisness tycoon? Have you lead the free world?
January 26th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Reagons accomplishments lol
1. Fair enough if he gave more people jobs thats good.
2. Again good. But realy these two are basic aims all presidents should aim for. Doesent make him fantastic.
3. Good.
4. Im going to assume you mean you WERE experiencing the longest peace time prosperty.
5. The Soviet union doesent exsit any more. and you claim reagon caused the with drwl of soviet troops from afganistan. Well he did fund the taliban insergents fighting russia but saying he made them leave is like saying russia made the US leave vietnam. They left for the same reasons the US left Vietnam.
6. You kept the line by encouraging right wing authoritairian govements to spring up all over the world, heck you still are!
7. You really think that is good. Surley you want peace not war!
8. Pray in school and you say this is religios intolerence to not have it!! Your indoctrinating children let them make thier own minds up about god.
9. So your saying women shouldent have the right to have jobs and choose not to have children? Thanks a lot Reagon(!)
10. My god america realy is backward. Moral values should be taught by thier parents not by the state.
11. Civil freedom! Are you having a laugth? You not heard of Guantanamo Bay. Thats the very essence of non freedom.
Really how was the depression not caused by the republicans. Read up on hoover. Hoover (a republican) was president in 1928 to 1933. His failure to prevent and treat the crisis lead to his defeat in 1932 to roosevelt. Oh and i might add hoover ordered america soldgiers to shoot at a group of ex soldgiers demenstrating for more pay. Its called the bonus march look that up you right wing reactionist!!
George bush coudent prevent the 9/11 attacks despite the CIA and the FBI were tracking the people behind 9/11. He also failed to do anything about the katrina dissaster and he has done little to prevent this reccsion (wich is also americas fault). A buisness tycoon in oil wich is easy. It is one simple formula. Oil=expensive=money. Someone with an IQ of one could do that!!!! Also you dont need to be smart to lead the free world. Harry Truman did not go to colledge he was a farm worker. And also just becauce he went to a university doesent make him a smart guy. Just look at Albert Einstein he tryed to get into a colledge and failed the acceptence exam. And hes one of the smartest people ever to have lived!!!!!!!!
Im not convinced you right wing republican reactionary bush lover.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Sorry about spelling mistakes
1. Reagan’s accomplishments lol
1. Fair enough if he gave more people jobs that’s good.
2. Again good. But really these two are basic aims all presidents should aim for. Doesn’t make him fantastic.
3. Good.
4. I’m going to assume you mean you WERE experiencing the longest peace time prosperity.
5. The Soviet Union doesn’t exist any more. And you claim Reagan caused the withdrawal of soviet troops from Afghanistan. Well he did fund the Taliban insurgents fighting Russia but saying he made them leave is like saying Russia made the US leave Vietnam. They left for the same reasons the US left Vietnam.
6. You kept the line by encouraging right wing authoritarian governments to spring up all over the world, heck you still are!
7. You really think that is good. Surely you want peace not war!
8. Pray in school and you say this is religious intolerance to not have it!! Your indoctrinating children let them make their own minds up about god.
9. So you’re saying women shouldn’t have the right to have jobs and choose not to have children? Thanks a lot Reagan (!)
10. My god America really is backward. Moral values should be taught by their parents not by the state.
11. Civil freedom! Are you having a laugh? You not heard of Guantanamo Bay. That’s the very essence of non freedom.
12. Really how was the depression not caused by the republicans? Read up on Hoover. Hoover (a republican) was president in 1928 to 1933. His failure to prevent and treat the crisis leads to his defeat in 1932 to Roosevelt. Oh and I might add Hoover ordered America soldiers to shoot at a group of ex soldiers demonstrating for more pay. It’s called the bonus March look that up you right wing reactionist!!
George bush couldn’t prevent the 9/11 attacks despite the CIA and the FBI were tracking the people behind 9/11. He also failed to do anything about the Katrina disaster and he has done little to prevent this recession (which is also Americas fault). A business in oil which is easy. It is one simple formula. Oil=expensive=money. Someone with an IQ of one could do that!!!! Also you don’t need to be smart to lead the free world. Harry Truman did not go to college he was a farm worker. And also just because he went to a university doesn’t make him a smart guy. Just look at Albert Einstein, he tried to get into a college and failed the acceptance exam. And he’s one of the smartest people ever to have lived!!!!!!!!
I’m not convinced you right wing republican reactionary bush lover.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
432. wtf : I am going to assume you are too young to understand the question.
If you aren’t too young, then there’s no use explaining.
January 26th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
wtf9434) where did you get the info for your cut and paste job on Reagan? It is obvious that it is not original thought from (as if a Republican can have an original thought
) as all the references are in current tense when the reality is they are 20 years out of date.
Re Wubya He is not on the list because he DOES NOT BELONG!!
George Bush has kept us from another attack hasn’t he? Has he? Can you prove that he has definitely thwarted another attack?
Since we’ve been at war we dont have to worry and yet PEOPLE COMPLAIN!?
So if you have no worries why it it so bloody difficult flying anywhere? Why are there so many restrictions on what you can take on a plane? If there is so little to worry about why did he feel the need to ride roughshod over so much of the constitution in the name of Homeland Security? If his war is such a good thing then yes why do people complain to such an extent that he was the least popular President since polling began?
Id like to add he had a congress that refuses to work with him.
Nice mixing of tenses there. However the Republicans controlled Congress for the majority of his term so why would his own party not work with him?
And he’s an idiot?
Yes!
Have you graduated Hardvard University?
No, nor Harvard even. However what did Big George have to bequeath to get said degree?
Have you been a successfull buisness tycoon?
No, but then nor has Dubya as he has lost money in most businesses he was left to control.
Have you lead the free world?
Many would dispute that Dubya LED it either.
Cheers
Lee
February 21st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I think the top Ten are 1. Lincoln, 2. Washington 3. FDR,
4. Jefferson, 5. Wilson, 6. Teddy Roosevelt, 7. Kennedy,
8. Truman, 9. Jackson, 10. Polk.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:18 pm
439. steelers: I was just skimming through posts and when I came to yours, I read the last Presidents as Jackson Pollock!
Now there’s a scary thought.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:02 pm
wheres taft?!?!
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:32 am
441. ben winston: wheres taft?!?!
****
He’s dead; slipped in his bathtub and hit his head on the rim.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
segue, funny
February 27th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
i change mine now as lincoln, fdr, washington, jefferson, teddy, wilson, truman, jackson, carter, eisenhower polk tie
March 6th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Come on, she\’s so much better than Taylor Swift!
March 7th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
taylor swift can bj me.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Sorry to be a downner but this list sucks, it is WAY to partisan. Regan or Washinton not there but JFK is? No way. PS, kwitaxi you need to get some facts. Regan saved the country from the mess that liberal fool Carter cased. Kwitaxi, you are a clown, and you probabally just like liberals because they keep your welfare checks coming
March 12th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
First of all our most outstanding president was Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was the man that saw our country through its greatest peril. Number two would have to be George Washington, because in terms of influence and precedent Washington is probably the leading; the whole two term thing started with him and as many forget he was the President who made our country work. If you don’t know what I mean by that look up the Articles of Confederation and the “presidents” that ran our country under our first form of government. FDR would probably be number three, followed by Teddy Roosevelt, Jefferson, Jackson, Kennedy, Truman, Cleveland and Polk. And Polk does deserve a spot on this or any list simply for Manifest Destiny a concept which changed our country forever.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
And to respond to all, the outcries of partisanship involved in this list are ridiculous. There is no reason a list of the best presidents should be required to represent both parties equally. Second it is too early to tell the impact of Reagan’s presidency, because we still feel the impact of some of his decisions today. The current economics troubles can be linked to Reagan, and his economic policies are some of the sketchiest if not worst in history. That being said he was a extremely fearless leader and foreign policy wise he may be one of our best presidents. Still it is too early to accurately tell the full scope of influence of his administration.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Uh, Woodrow Wilson sorta sold us all out to the bankers that now, thanks to the federal reserve act which he passed, rule the country, and eventualy the world. By the fact that he sold out our country to private european intrrests moving us every so closer, slowly but surely, to a police state and full on one world totalitarian government, id say wilson aside from the NWO Puppets Bush and Obama, is the worst president. Dude gave us all to the bankers, and didnt even know it.
April 10th, 2009 at 7:15 am
Long live Cleveland !
Oh my, he’s already dead.
Anyway, the one who wrote Cleveland’s article was right : He truly is the most underrated president.
But where is Washington ?
April 27th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Where’s Truman?
and wtf, Kennedy? Bay Of Pigs, anyone?
May 5th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
This person actually knows what they’re talking about. Thank you whoever wrote this. I’ve never seen anyone put people in that high that deserve it.
Cleveland
Jackson
Polk
Monroe
Only a few changes, I would put Jackson farther down he was one of the best. I also would put Wilson back to the back. He made good decisions and I like him, but WWI was a disaster. Cleveland and Monroe never get enough credit. FDR would be my top, he did the most for our country.
This is the most accurate list i’ve seen on the internet. Heres mine using who you have listed.
1. Franklin Roosevelt
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Andrew Jackson
4. James K. Polk
5. Thomas Jefferson
6. Grover Cleveland
7. Theodore Roosevelt
8. John F. Kennedy
9. James Monroe
10. Woodrow Wilson
May 6th, 2009 at 7:59 am
My list:
1. Franklin Roosevelt
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Thomas Jefferson
4. Theodore Roosevelt
5. George Washington
6. Harry S. Truman
7. Andrew Jackson
8. Woodrow Wilson
9. John F. Kennedy
10. James K. Polk
Not even close:
Ronald Reagan
May 6th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Good List Brando
May 21st, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Sorry to say, factually speaking, that list is garbage brando, FDR is way too overrated, economically speaking, he used deficit spending which in the end aided the Great Depression plunging the country into worse economic times. On top of that, he used virtual concentration camps for Japanese immigrants in the U.S… Some president. Its a no brainer that Washington was superior to any president both in his administration and in every other aspect of his life.
May 25th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I disagree with multiple rankings, but the two that stand out in my mind the most include the absence of President Reagan (who is responsible for a 25 year economic boom and defeating the Soviet Union)and the inclusion of, hold your breath, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Ideally, Roosevelt should have two rankings, one on domestic policy from 1933-1941 and the second on the handling of the war from 1942-1944. For his handling of the war, he should be in the top 10, but his handling of the Great Depression, put him (along with Herbert Hoover) in the list of the 10 WORST Presidents. As an economist, I can tell you that both Hoover and FDR did horrible jobs at handling the Great Depression. Both were government activists that greatly prolonged the Depression. Hoover (along with the extremely inept Federal Reserve) turned a recession into a depression and FDR keep the recession going until WWII. FDR was nothing more than Hoover on steroids. Both are complete domestic disgraces that set in place policies who’s destruction we continue to live with today whether we choose to see it or not.
I also think that President Coolage should be higher up on the ranking. He is not one of the worst presidents. I’d probably rank him as #10. Kick President Kennedy off the top 10 list. It is more so by the grace of his suave personality and the fact that we feel sorry for him because he got assassinated that he gets that honor. From the standpoint of his “legacy,” it is to his benefit that he got killed. It left much of what would have happened in the following years to be a blank slate. We assume he would have bee a great President, much better than Johnson. I also think that President Martin Van Buren is grossly underrated.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:39 am
Wilson #2? He wasn’t the worst but… seriously… Jefferson and Jackson I think had great accomplishments but I don’t think they were good presidents. Don’t know much about Cleveland. Everyone else can stay. My top 10 would be Madison, Washington, Lincoln, The Roosevelts, Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan and Kennedy.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Go to this survey and express your own opinion
http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=r0j0rfdj6655kiu605947
June 13th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Jackson?! Are you serious?
The Jackson that forced his entire cabinet to resign?
The Jackson that forced the removal of Native Americans in Georgia (thus disobeying the Supreme Court Order)?
The Jackson who threatened to kill every man, woman, and child in South Carolina?
The Jackson whose economic policies threw the country into one of it’s worst panics (during Van Buren’s presidency)?
Jackson was a nutjob. FDR nearly became our first dictator. Wilson was a racist. Lincoln violated the Constitution several times over (though he’s still one of my favorites too).
July 4th, 2009 at 5:13 am
I would have put JFK higher. He oversaw an economic upturn, in which the GDP expanded by an average of 5.5% from early 1961 to late 1963, while inflation remained steady at around 1% and unemployment began to ease; industrial production rose by 15% and motor vehicle sales leapt by 40%. This rate of growth in GDP and industry continued until around 1966, and has yet to be repeated for such a sustained period of time.
July 5th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
TOP TEN PRESIDENTS
FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
ANDREW JACKSON
THOMAS JEFFERSON
JAMES K. POLK
THEODORE ROOSEVELT
HARRY S. TRUMAN
JOHN F. KENNEDY
BILL CLINTON
GEORGE WASHINGTON
July 8th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Hhhmmm… I have to disagree on this because Abe Lincoln is not number one.
Here’s my list
1. George Washington
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. James Monroe
7. Andrew Jackson
8. James Knox Polk
9. Woodrow Wilson
10. Ronald Reagan
Honorable mention- John F. Kennedy, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, and possibly William McKinley.
Every good President had increased the power of the executive branch by the time they are done and some notable ones are Abe Lincoln and FDR. I picked George Washington because he started it all, His members in cabinet are regarded the best cabinet ever seen. He warned us of external affairs and now in today’s world we face these problems.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Badmouthing Ronald Reagan should be grounds for you to be exiled out of America haha.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
And can everyone stop bashing Jackson? We cry our hearts out for the Seminoles and then go to Florida to enjoy our vacations. A more advanced group of people defeated a less advanced group of people and forced them to move out. It has been going on since the beginning of time.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
@Norman (461): Wow, nice numbers. But it’s poor logic that makes you assume that they were his doing. Is the GFC Obama’s fault? Did he cause it? No, but is he going to be remembered as the President that oversaw a drop of X% in Y etc etc? Of course he is. Is that fair? Not really.
July 25th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Here is my personal ranking list. Keep in mind that I am a moderate, not a liberal or conservative.
Top Tier:
Abraham Lincoln
Very High Tier:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
Harry Truman
High Tier:
Ronald Reagan
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Dwight Eisenhower
John F. Kennedy
Middle Tier:
James Polk
Calvin Coolidge
James Monroe
Jimmy Carter
William McKinley
John Adams
William Taft
William Clinton
Quincy Adams
James Madison
George H.W. Bush
Low Tier:
Chester Arthur
Benjamin Harrison
Grover Cleveland
Richard Nixon
Herbert Hoover
Warren Harding
Ulysses S. Grant
Andrew Jackson
George W. Bush
Very Low Tier:
Gerald Ford
Lyndon Johnson
Martin Van Buren
Millard Fillmore
Franklin Pierce
John Tyler
Rutherford Hayes
Woodrow Wilson
Bottom Tier:
James Buchanan
Andrew Johnson
Unranked (Served under 2 years):
Barack Obama
Zachary Taylor
James Garfield
William Harrison
July 25th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
All of the above tiers are unordered, by the way.
July 25th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
It’s amazing how ignorant people are.
July 27th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Yes, it truly is.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
This top ten list is ridiculous.
Monroe, Jackson, Polk, and Jefferson all owned many slaves.
Kennedy was a good speaker no doubt and said many great things, but he lacked the political experience and his weakness in foreign policy allowed the Soviet Union to grow too powerful.
Grover Cleveland was not a bad president, but I’m sure he wasn’t the 6th best.
People criticize Bush for provoking entry into a war which killed 4,500 Americans. Wilson provoked entry into a war which killed 100,000 Americans, when the U.S. was not even in danger.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Prince, you can’t entirely blame those guys for being slave owners. In the time and place they lived, it was as normal as owning a car is today.
August 14th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Though I agree with the majority of this list, I can’t get my head around why George Washington isn’t on here. He was one of the founders of the U.S. and set many standards for the office of presidency in the future.
August 15th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
How did Woodrow Wilson make it to number 2?! He was such a white supremacist. He supported Jim Crow. When all those race riots happened, hundreds of blacks tortured and killed, what did he do? Nothing!
August 20th, 2009 at 10:10 am
I made my own list. The results were…..
10. Harry S. Truman
9. James Polk
8. James Monroe
7. Grover Cleveland
6. Andrew Jackson
5. Ronald Wilson Reagan
4. Thomas Jefferson
3. Martin Van Buren
2. Abraham Lincoln
1. George Washington
Honorable Mentions: John Adams, James Madison, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and John F. Kennedy
My detailed youtube video explanation of my top 10 best Presidents is listed below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAw6KeX2Aco&feature=channel_page
August 31st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
This list is terribly flawed. Cleveland, Wilson and Monroe are all suspect. Monroe had some good accomplishments but there are more deserving Presidents you left off. Cleveland was honest, but he did very little to end the depression of 1893. Woodrow Wilson’s stubborness caused the nation to reject his own League of Nations, and he jailed those who criticized the war, such as Eugene Debs.
More deserving choices on the list would be George Washington, Harry Truman, and James K. Polk (Polk, by the way is the ONLY President to have accomplished everything he said he would. He only made four campaign promises and he accomplished all four).
October 24th, 2009 at 6:29 am
Since almost every president has made a major mistake during their term(s), it was easy for me to judge the worst presidents, on the other list, but I find it incredibly hard to judge the best presidents.
The founding fathers did little to control the slavery issue and they even owned slaves.
Thomas Jefferson is known for his agnostic and limited government ideals rather than his leadership. His Embargo Act destroyed the economy.
Woodrow Wilson was a terrible president for a multitude of reasons. Mainly the violation of his neutrality policy by sending an armed ship in a warzone. During the war, taxes skyrocketed, the debt swelled, 100000 Americans died, free speech against the war was not allowed, and the war ended with a demobilization recession. The idealist’s plan for peace unsurprisingly failed. All of that sacrifice, with no benefit at all.
John Kennedy invaded Cuba, which caused the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Calvin Coolidge is often praised by libertarians, even though he basically did nothing during his term, which was okay for the economy at the time, but not for the issue of human rights.
Ronald Reagan is very overrated as well. Despite his promises to cut the size of government, he did not. The government increased the taxes to the same amount just after decreasing them and the government spent just as much. The economy and energy crisis basically recovered on its own, without Reagan’s help, and during his second term, he faced almost no challenges.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
:O?? i think jackson should be first BECAUSE..HE BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF A MAN WITH HIS BADASS STICK HE BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF THE MAN WHO WAS TRYING TO ASSASINATE HIM!
now THATS what i call…BADASS.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
x] in a website called cracked.com put this :
When the 1828 election rolled around, a lot of people were terrified when they heard Andrew “Old Hickory” Jackson was running. If you’re wondering how a guy we’re calling a bad ass got such a lame nickname, it’s because he used to carry a hickory cane around and beat people senseless with it, and if you’re wondering why he did that, it’s because he was a fucking lunatic.
when he said ” because he was a fucking lunatic” im like ROFLMFAO. BAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH
November 16th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
On what planet is Wilson considered a better president than FDR? That’s just asinine. Also, where the hell are my boys LBJ and Washington? Last point is that JFK was whack as hell and does not deserve to be on the top 10 presidents of all time. That’s just silly.