The Best and Worst of the Presidency

[themuzicman]

Best:
Washington
Lincoln
Jefferson
Reagan
T Roosevelt

Worst:
Taft
Harding
Carter
(Too many tied for 4th worst)

FDR is a mixed bag. He prolonged the Great Depression, but did conduct the war very well.

I put both Bushes and Clinton in about the same spot, a little below average.

Michael

[Augustine2004]

Best:
Washington
Lincoln - why so high?
Jefferson
Reagan
T Roosevelt - why so high?

Worst:
Taft
Harding
Carter
(Too many tied for 4th worst)

FDR is a mixed bag. He prolonged the Great Depression, but did conduct the war very well. - why 'very well'? His unconditional surrender policy prolonged the war in Europe, did it not?

see above red comments.

[themuzicman]

see above red comments.

Best:
Washington
Lincoln - why so high?

He preserved the union, something that is very hard to do in a civil war.

Jefferson
Reagan
T Roosevelt - why so high?

His persona and the way he conducted himself provide the nation with a self-image upgrade.

Worst:
Taft
Harding
Carter
(Too many tied for 4th worst)

FDR is a mixed bag. He prolonged the Great Depression, but did conduct the war very well. - why 'very well'? His unconditional surrender policy prolonged the war in Europe, did it not?

Possibly some,but given the nature of the Nazis, negotiating with them was simply not an option, since the destruction of that governmental system was the only way to really deal with it. He knew that if we left that government in power, we'd be back in a few years to clean it up again.

Michael

[Augustine2004]

He preserved the union, something that is very hard to do in a civil war.

However hard that may have been, was union worth 620,000 lives lost and countless other lives ruined (rape, for example)?

His persona and the way he conducted himself provide the nation with a self-image upgrade.

Ha, bully.

Possibly some,but given the nature of the Nazis, negotiating with them was simply not an option, since the destruction of that governmental system was the only way to really deal with it. He knew that if we left that government in power, we'd be back in a few years to clean it up again.

Hitler fought on until the Soviets were about to capture him. When military people tried to surrender to the Allies without Hitler's express permission they were rebuffed. "Unconditional surrender to ALL the Allied powers" they were told, IIRC (emphasis mine).

[sj48182]

There was never a good reason for F.D. Roosevelt to drag us into that horror in the first place--especially after the Battle of Britain was won and Hitler failed to take out the Soviets. He was a duplicitous warmonger and barbarian, as were his buddies Churchill, Stalin and Chiang.

[Augustine2004]

I wonder how much FDR knew about all the rapes that the Soviet armed forces committed as they fought their way to Berlin? Shoot, if I were President, I'd let Patton loose. I'd not order him to take out his best men just to guard railroad cars. I'd see to that he got good maps (he either didn't get any maps or got poor ones in actuality).

[sj48182]

FDR and Churchill burned whole cities off the map, for crying out loud. If there was anyone with less moral credibility vis a vis preventing Soviet rape, it was them.

[Augustine2004]

FDR and Churchill burned whole cities off the map, for crying out loud. If there was anyone with less moral credibility vis a vis preventing Soviet rape, it was them.

I'm not sure what you're saying. I agree that those folks murdered plenty of people. However it seems as though you're saying that because they did so, they therefore had no moral standing to prevent the Soviet rapes.

[sj48182]

I'm not sure what you're saying. I agree that those folks murdered plenty of people. However it seems as though you're saying that because they did so, they therefore had no moral standing to prevent the Soviet rapes.

I'm saying that starting a war with the USSR (I assume that's what you meant by "let Patton loose") would've had considerably worse consequences than not doing so, including more cities burned off the map. I'm also saying that whatever deference or benefit of the doubt as to motives in making such a decision, that one might be willing to allow leaders with clean hands, could not be given to brutes and hypocrites like Roosevelt and Churchill.

[Augustine2004]

sj48182, FDR actually took measures to slow down Patton, such as ordering his best men to guard railroad trains, and giving him no or poor maps. Also, when German military people offered to surrender without Hitler's express permission, they were told, unconditional surrender to ALL the allied powers, including Russia.

[sj48182]

OK, I see where you're coming from. And yes, I agree.

[themuzicman]

However hard that may have been, was union worth 620,000 lives lost and countless other lives ruined (rape, for example)?

Well, had the south not started the war, there might have been another way. But there wasn't.

Ha, bully.

Depends on your POV.

Hitler fought on until the Soviets were about to capture him. When military people tried to surrender to the Allies without Hitler's express permission they were rebuffed. "Unconditional surrender to ALL the Allied powers" they were told, IIRC (emphasis mine).

And that's as it should be. If they wanted to surrender, they needed to arrest Hitler and his gang of thugs, and put them in a paddy wagon headed for the front lines.

Michael

[Augustine2004]

Well, had the south not started the war, there might have been another way. But there wasn't.

The South did fire the first shot, yes. However, the North could have left the South alone. The South never meant to invade and capture the North. Do you really think so? Consider the aftermath of the first Bull Run battle.

And that's as [something about unconditional surrender to all the allied powers] should be. If they wanted to surrender, they needed to arrest Hitler and his gang of thugs, and put them in a paddy wagon headed for the front lines.

But we could have accepted the 'unofficial' surrenders and continued to drive on to Berlin to arrest Hitler, could we?

[Augustine2004]

Human Smoke by Nicholson Baker offers documentation gleaned through voluminous research of FDR’s anti-Semitism, willingness to sacrifice American lives, and manipulativeness. Here’s a review that provides some of the book’s details: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo142.html

I’m told that the Amazon.com interview
http://www.amazon.com/Human-Smoke-Be...4/lewrockwell/
contains the following paragraph:

I've [the author of the book] had interesting reactions from historians, who seem to understand (for the most part) that I'm not trying to write a comprehensive history of the beginnings of the war. I've had some very good reviews and some very bad ones. The bad ones seem to follow the teeter-totter school: that if a dictator and the nation he controls is evil, then the leader of the nation who opposes the evil dictator must be good. Life isn't that way, of course. There is in fact no "moral equivalence" created by examining coterminous violent and repulsive acts. The notion of moral equivalence is a mistake, because it undermines our notions of personal responsibility and law. Each act of killing is its own act, not something to be heaped like produce on a balancing scale. One person, as Roosevelt said, must not be punished for the deed of another--though he didn't follow his own precept.

[themuzicman]

The South did fire the first shot, yes. However, the North could have left the South alone.

After being fired upon? Are you serious?

The South never meant to invade and capture the North. Do you really think so?

No, I suspect that they wanted to ensure that the rest of the territories added to the US would have slavery, and Lincoln made sure that would not happen. That ticked them off, so they came out shooting.

Consider the aftermath of the first Bull Run battle.But we could have accepted the 'unofficial' surrenders and continued to drive on to Berlin to arrest Hitler, could we?

Dunno. I'm guessing that the political cost of doing do wouldn't have justified doing that.

Michael