Who Makes the Cut for the Worst Presidents Ever? (What a Question)

Townhall.com ^ | February 13, 2013 | Michael Medved

[Kaslin]

As President Obama prepares his State of the Union Address and the nation looks forward to a Presidents Day holiday, Americans should consider the warning examples of our worst chief executives.

While few of Washington and Lincoln's successors could hope to replicate their epic achievements, every president can — and must — focus on avoiding the appalling ineptitude of John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan and their feckless fellow travelers on the road to presidential perdition. The common elements that link our least successful leaders teach historical lessons at least as important as the shared traits of the Rushmore Four: Broken promises and gloomy temperaments lead inevitably to an alienated public.

All the chief executives unmistakably identified as failures displayed a self-destructive tendency to violate the core promises of their campaigns. Take Tyler, the unbending Virginia aristocrat who won election to the vice presidency in 1840 and assumed the highest office when his predecessor died just a month after inauguration. The new chief executive, dubbed "His Accidency" by critics, used 10 unpopular vetoes to block implementation of his own party's longstanding ledges. Most of his Cabinet resigned in protest, and eventually they all quit while the hostile Senate voted down four new Cabinet appointments — a record that stands to this day.

Between 1853 and 1861, Pierce and Buchanan completed back-to-back disastrous terms in which personal weakness and pro-Southern sympathies shattered confident promises of unifying leadership. Buchanan pledged to stop "agitation of the slavery question" and to "destroy sectional parties." By the end of his term, seven Southern states seceded from the union and the nation lunged toward the Civil War.

After that war and Lincoln's assassination, Andrew Johnson (Lincoln's vice president) defied members of the martyred president's Cabinet and congressional leaders, ignoring commitments to lead former slaves to dignity and full civil rights.

In the 20th century, Herbert Hoover's slogan promised "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage," but he presided over the beginning of the Great Depression. Similarly, Jimmy Carter's 1976 platform pledged to reduce unemployment to 3%, but Carter ran for re-election with more than twice that rate.

No wonder that Hoover and Carter, like other unsuccessful presidents, came across as gloomy, self-righteous sufferers. Hoover's secretary of State said that a meeting with him was "like sitting in a bath of ink." Carter staked his presidency on a notoriously sour televised address that became known as "The Malaise Speech," warning the appalled public of a "crisis of the American spirit."

None of our least successful presidents displayed the self-deprecatory humor of Lincoln or the sunny dispositions that powered the Roosevelts (Theodore and Franklin) and Ronald Reagan. A visitor described the Pierce White House as a "cold and cheerless place," noting the isolation of the invalid first lady, in deep mourning for three dead sons.

When Buchanan welcomed successor Lincoln, he plaintively declared: "My dear, sir, if you are as happy on entering the White House as I on leaving, you are a very happy man indeed."

The result of the depressing and erratic leadership of our six most conspicuous presidential failures is that all managed to estrange a once-admiring electorate within the space of a single term. Tyler,Pierce, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan all earned rejection by their own party, failed to win their own party's nominations, entering retirement as discredited figures. Hoover and Carter appeared on national tickets and campaigned vigorously but got wiped out in historic landslides, with each incumbent carrying a mere six states.

Democrats, who denounce George W. Bush as the worst president ever, along with Republicans who apply the same ugly title to Barack Obama, can't explain away the inconvenient fact that both of our most recent incumbents won re-election with 51% of the vote. Regardless of controversies blighting Bush's second term, or setbacks that might afflict Obama's, their legislative and electoral successes place them in a different category from the White House worst.

This baleful history should warn the current occupant and all successors against visibly disregarding commitments while encouraging voters to steer clear of presidential candidates with dour, inflexible temperaments. By selecting aspirants with clear, consistent agendas and cheerful, persuasive personalities, we'll face fewer shattered presidencies that leave reviled incumbents and a disillusioned electorate.

[central_va]

This web site claims that there were 36,000 Union soldiers and sailors from MD.

With over 36,000 records of soldiers, sailors and marines in the Union Army and Navy from 1861 to 1865, this database is of interest to anyone with ancestors from Maryland who served in the Civil War. The data was obtained from official records of the Adjutant-General office, the War Department, State histories, and other records. This first volume embraces all of the troops accredited to the quota of the State of Maryland.

Link here.

[BroJoeK]

the OlLine Rebel: "I’m proud of that, not ashamed, and it’s better we start calling our side rebels rather than avoiding the fact to make it somehow nicer.
Seems to me most think rebel is bad, so only Confeds get that nomenclature."

Why should anyone be ashamed of their Rebel?
I'd bet a lot of guys had their first, ahem, experience with a young lady in one of these... ;-)

the OlLine Rebel: "You seem to be justifying anything a gov does OK as long as everyone is represented."

Ah, no.
You must be reading just what you want to see, not what I actually wrote, FRiend.

the OlLine Rebel: "You cannot juxtapose Confederate rebels into British, when clearly it was all Brit territory prior and there was no such thing as a USA."

Yes you can, and should because, just like 1861 secessionists, Brits in 1776 were aggressors attacking and seizing American property, threatening violence if their demands were not met, and fighting to protect their "rights" to demand services from colonists, without just compensation or representation.

Yes, of course, my argument has always been that there is no serious comparison between 1776 and 1861.
But, since our pro-Confederates keep telling us there is, I'm simply pointing out that if you insist on making such a juxtaposition, then let's be accurate and call secessionists "British" and call the United States "colonists". ;-)

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "This web site claims that there were 36,000 Union soldiers and sailors from MD."

Estimates vary, depending on how or who they count, plus as with most Confederates, not all who served the Union can now be named.

This site shows the largest estimates -- 85,000 Union, 30,000 Confederates -- which I'd think is probably right, if you include everyone who served at any time, in any capacity.

This site shows more modest estimates -- 60,000 Union, 25,000 Confederates -- which might be accurate if you only include those who, for example, marched in certain units.
And please note that the ratio of Union to Confederate soldiers is roughly the same.

Your information corresponds more closely to this site, and may include only those whose names can be identified.

Add to these numbers the Maryland legislature's vote of 53-13 against secession on April 29, 1861, and it clearly suggests that Maryland's population was majority Unionists by a factor of two, three or even four to one.

And since this pretty well mirrors the secession votes in such Upper South states as Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas, we have to conclude that Border States like Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri can no more be called "Confederate" than Upper South states like Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas should be called "Union".

[the OlLine Rebel]

Uh, no. There was no “American” property, per se. They were the colonists and it WAS British property and territory. There is no way to call the colonies anything else, unless you want to say it really is property of the indigenous people’s. As it is, the white people there were mostly of British extraction and culture and were British subjects. No getting around that fact. No way to say Brits were invading their own territory.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Again you assume the wrong thing. Many MDers were pro-south, but many of them would not vote for secession for the reason they did not think they had proper authority to secede by legislative vote. They debated the issue much longer than that, and intended to convene again after another down vote IIRC, but before the leg convened, Southern types were arrested by the Feds. BTW, the Union leaders in the leg convened that assembly in Frederick in the West, fearing being in Annapolis would lean it too far to South. They hoped more Unionists and fewer Southerners would show up for the session. Real smooth!

[the OlLine Rebel]

BTW, how many of those MDers ran to VA or further to enlist? As opposed to trying in the contentious territory of MD? These kinds of things happened, so cannot be discounted, either.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Please note, too, that I am a native MDer with roots both in Baltimore and in Western MD. I have a bit of idea how sympathies went all over - including the far west, where although more Unionist as in most mountain regions, had more Southerners in spirit than anyone cares to admit. In fact, my ancestors from there were rebel types, while my German ancestor in Baltimore was conscripted into duty too late for the Union in 1865. Friends in the western region (my uncle moved there decades ago, returning to the place of his mother’s origin and in fact I visited them last week- our PA house next to them in fact has a Mason-Dixon marker on its corner) also hail from there and have rebel ancestors. I may not have all the book smarts on the CW but there is natural experience from living here and having deep roots back to the colonial days. Liberals here are embarrassed but it’s the truth. MD is not a pure Union state.

[central_va]

It is interesting looking at old newspapers in Maryland and seeing the Confederate Govt. paid for ads to “Join the Rebel Cavalry” Including info on where to go and who to report to. It is amazing that the feds let them print those ads. It was a different time.

[southernsunshine]

BroJo said: “On April 15, Lincoln responded by calling the military assault on Fort Sumter an insurrection and requesting 75,000 troops to restore federal properties.

By this time the Confederacy had already enrolled 60,000 men while the US Army was still just 16,000.”

Please provide the number of companies which were ready/recruiting for Union service on the same date - April 15.

[BroJoeK]

the OlLine Rebel: "There was no “American” property, per se.
They were the colonists and it WAS British property and territory...
No way to say Brits were invading their own territory."

I'm guessing you've forgotten some basic history, right?
The Declaration of Independence includes dozens of specific complaints against the Brits, chiefly that they wouldn't allow American colonists to govern themselves, but also including this:

"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."

Specifically, Revolutionary War itself began in April 1775, when Brits sent troops quartered in Boston to seize -- not their own property -- but rather American colonists' militia weapons and ammunition stored in Concord.

In short, just as in 1861, the war in 1775 began when the aggressors -- Brits in 1775, Secessionists in 1861 -- attempted to forcefully seize weapons and ammunition belonging to Americans.

Again, yes, I know that's a stretch, but since our pro-Confederates keep claiming the Civil War was actually a Second Revolutionary War, I think we should look at the facts to see just who in 1861 played which role.

[donmeaker]

The brokered peace was simple.

Stop the insurrection.

After the emancipation proclamation, acceptance of that was added.

Eventually, they even let Jeffy D. loose, as his particular form of insanity was not terribly catching. His wife eventually became best friends with Julia Grant. Don’t know if she ever got her shawl back.

[donmeaker]

The funny thing is the Neo-Confederates always assert that people were citizens of their states, and disregard the confederates positive hunger for people of other states to serve in their army. The advertisements for the cavalry show one aspect, the enrolling of John C. Pemberton (of Pennsylvania) and John C. Breckenridge (of Kentucky) as confederate generals.

[BroJoeK]

the OlLine Rebel: "Many MDers were pro-south..."

It's extremely important to remember that among Southern slave-states, only Delaware had fewer slave-holding families (%) than Maryland.
Compare: in Deep-South states like South Carolina and Mississippi, nearly half of all white families owned slaves.
Compare: in Upper South states like Virginia, for every slave-holding family, four families owned no slaves.

But in Maryland, the ratio was eight families with no slaves, for every one slave-holding.
Plus, nearly half the blacks in Maryland were free, not slaves.
So Maryland was far more like Unionist Delaware than other Confederate states.

the OlLine Rebel: " ...but many of them would not vote for secession for the reason they did not think they had proper authority to secede by legislative vote.
They debated the issue much longer than that, and intended to convene again after another down vote IIRC, but before the leg convened, Southern types were arrested by the Feds."

You misunderstand the situation.
The world changed on May 6, 1861: that was the date the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States.
That was the date the Constitution's definition of "treason" came into operation, for citizens of Union states like Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri.
After May 6, Union citizens support for the Confederacy became "levying War against [the US], or... adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort".

It means: the Maryland legislature's April 29 vote of 53 to 13 against secession came before May 6, while voting for secession was not yet treason.
It also came two weeks after Fort Sumter, and after Virginia's vote switch -- from 89-45 against secession on April 4 -- to 88-55 for secession on April 17.

So Marylanders knew exactly what they were doing.
And your argument: that moving the vote -- from Annapolis in the Secessionist-sympathetic southeast to Frederick in the Unionist-northwest -- effected the outcome, that argument is not supported by historical evidence.

For one thing, Annapolis was then occupied by Union troops, who could well have intimidated legislators voting there.
Indeed, that's exactly why the location was moved to Frederick.

For another, nobody has ever argued that enough Secessionist legislators didn't reach Frederick to have turned the vote from 53-13 against secession, to a majority of secessionists, as happened in Virginia.

[BroJoeK]

the OlLine Rebel: "how many of those MDers ran to VA or further to enlist?
As opposed to trying in the contentious territory of MD?"

There are several different estimates, using different methodologies, for how many Maryland soldiers & sailors served the Union versus Confederacy.
And the basic problem for all such estimates is that most Confederate and some Union service records have been lost, and the amount of hard data available is less than desired.

So I can't tell you which of the methodologies and resulting estimates is best, but I do note they all seem to produce numbers in the two or three Maryland Union soldiers for every Confederate.

And this makes sense, when you consider that for every slave-holding Maryland family, eight families owned no slaves.
Plus: when given the chance to more-or-less lawfully secede in April 1861, Maryland's legislature voted more than four to one against secession.

[BroJoeK]

the OlLine Rebel: "I have a bit of idea how sympathies went all over - including the far west, where although more Unionist as in most mountain regions, had more Southerners in spirit than anyone cares to admit."

It's important to remember that people's attitudes have changed over time, and there is today considerable more "romance" associated with the Rebel cause than with Unionism.
This is especially true as slavery itself -- as a gripping political-personal issue -- has faded from public consciousness.
Today slavery is consigned to history books (plus some overheated political rhetoric), and nobody but nobody will seriously defend it.

In 1861 the situation was much different.
In those days Western Maryland, like Delaware, Western Virginia, Eastern Tennessee, Western North Carolina, Northern Kentucky and Northern Missouri, were all populated by people who hated slavery, and saw no need to secede to protect it.
So when push came to shove, those people served the Union in overwhelming numbers -- well over 300,000 total, equivalent to the state contributions of, say, Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Today it's different.
Today we see the unlimited growth in Federal power, and it's easy to imagine: that's what started in 1861.
But in 1861 the issue was the Confederacy's war of aggression against the United States, for the purpose of protecting its "peculiar institution", slavery.
Many Southerners in non-slave-holding areas like Western Maryland did not support that cause.

[Pelham]

“Get help. Projection is a form of mental illness, if you can’t turn it off. There are treatments.”

If I were to act out and express the twisted anger that motivates you then I would indeed join you in whatever asylum it is that you post from.

So save up some of your thorazine in case that happens and I join you at Saint Abraham’s.

[BroJoeK]

southernsunshine: "Please provide the number of companies which were ready/recruiting for Union service on the same date - April 15."

The data I have shows that:

• In November 1860, before declaring secession, South Carolina began raising 10,000 troops -- at a time when the US Army totaled circa 16,000, most scattered in small posts out west.

• On March 3, 1861 Confederate President Davis ordered preparations for military assault on Fort Sumter, and on March 6 the Confederate Congress authorized raising a 100,000 man army.
  The information I have says all early calls for volunteers were soon over-filled.

• President Lincoln made no similar move to increase the Union army until after Fort Sumter, when he called for 75,000 men from various state militias, on April 15.
  By April 15 the Confederacy had already enrolled 60,000 men.
  The first five companies of Pennsylvania volunteers arrived to protect Washington on April 18.

• At this point I should mention that I've looked for, but not found, data on the sizes, increases and readiness of various state militias -- north or south.

• On April 17, Confederate Davis requested applications for letters of marque and reprisal, in response to which, Lincoln ordered a blockade on April 19.

• On April 23, Davis offered military aid to Confederate forces in the Union state of Missouri, and Texas treated captured US Army officers as POWs.

• On April 29, the Confederate Congress granted full war-powers to Davis.

• On May 3, Lincoln called for another 65,000 soldiers & sailors, bringing the Union total to 156,000.

• On May 6, Davis signed the Confederate declaration of war on the United States, on May 9 authorized another 400,000 Confederate troops, and on May 10 requested the purchase of six war ships for the Confederate navy.

• On June 10, 1861 at Big Bethel: the first battle resulting in Confederate soldiers' deaths.

  By war's end over two million served the Union and about one million the Confederacy, of whom all told circa 600,000 died.

  And that's the data I have on this subject.
  If you want more, you may need to look it up yourself, FRiend. ;-)

[Pelham]

clearly it was all Brit territory prior and there was no such thing as a USA. There was no such thing as a CSA before USA. We were the rebels as surely as the Southerners were.

The American revolutionaries were indeed called Rebels by those who remained loyal to the legitimate government of British North America. And you might be interested to learn that Lincoln wasn't the first ruler to offer emancipation; the Crown offered emancipation for all slaves who fought for the royal government against the American rebels. Look up 'Lord Dunmore's Proclamation' of Nov 7th, 1775

For modern neo-Yankees to be morally consistent they must side with King George III against the 'slave owning rebel traitors' led by George Washington, et al. But they are notably silent about this earlier emancipation, and this earlier rebellion against legitimate government when they begin stirring up hatred against the Confederacy. Which may tell you that they are afraid of alienating a larger audience by applying their arguments against the Founding Fathers, or that there is something else at work that includes more than a small dose of hypocrisy.

"Patriots (also known as Rebels, Revolutionaries, Congress-Men or American Whigs) were the colonists of the British Thirteen United Colonies who violently rebelled against British control during the American Revolution and in July 1776 declared the United States of America an independent nation. "

http://tinyurl.com/2ahe6t8

"Dunmore's Proclamation is a historical document signed on November 7, 1775, by John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, royal governor of the British Colony of Virginia. The Proclamation declared martial law and promised freedom for slaves of American Patriots who left their masters and joined the royal forces."

"In the official document, he declared martial law and adjudged all patriots as traitors to the crown. Furthermore, the document declared "all indentured servants, Negroes, or others...free that are able and willing to bear arms..." Dunmore expected such a revolt to have several effects. Primarily, it would bolster his own forces, which, cut off from reinforcements from British-held Boston, numbered only around 300. Secondarily, he hoped that such an action would create a fear of a general slave uprising amongst the colonists and would force them to abandon the revolution."

http://tinyurl.com/an8psvu

[BroJoeK]

donmeaker: "The brokered peace was simple. Stop the insurrection."

Of course, the Confederacy was not going to stop their insurrection.
War was their chosen path, and slavery was their bottom line, as demonstrated in their final negotiations with Lincoln in early 1865.
Even at that late date, Confederates could not "broker a peace" if it meant ending slavery.

We should also mention, again, that peaceful secession was still possible in 1861, if Southern representatives in Washington had gone to Congress and/or the Supreme Court to achieve lawful, mutual consent to their disunion.
Such a path would have been difficult, time-consuming and would not provide the sense of urgency and unity as a nation which the Confederates felt necessary.
But it would have saved many lives.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "And you might be interested to learn that Lincoln wasn't the first ruler to offer emancipation; the Crown offered emancipation for all slaves who fought for the royal government..."

Over many years, there were several plans to use Federal funds to purchase freedom for slaves, beginning with President Jefferson in early 1800s.
All such plans would have cost far less than the Civil War in treasure alone, to say nothing of blood and hard feelings for generations in the future.

All such plans, including President Lincoln's, were rejected by slave-holders themselves, for reasons which might be obvious: slave-holding was considered necessary and appropriate for farming in hot climates, and was profitable to the point of making average Southerners considerably wealthier than their northern cousins.

So none of those plans got anywhere.

Pelham: "For modern neo-Yankees to be morally consistent they must side with King George III against the 'slave owning rebel traitors' led by George Washington, et al.
But they are notably silent about this earlier emancipation, and this earlier rebellion against legitimate government when they begin stirring up hatred against the Confederacy..."

First of all, George Washington well knew that slavery was morally wrong, and freed his slaves in his will.
Thomas Jefferson also understood the evils of slavery, and indeed, included in his original Declaration of Independence a specific complaint against the Brits for imposing slavery on the colonies:

• "He [the king of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.

• "This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain.

• "Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce:
• "and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us,
• "and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

As President, Jefferson devised a plan for using Federal money to buy and free slaves, a plan which got nowhere.

But the final and key point to remember is: in 1775 (i.e., Lexington and Concord) war began when those slave-imposing Brits aggressed Americans to seize American militia arms and ammunition.
Just as, in 1861, war began when slave-holding secessionists aggressed American forts (i.e., Sumter), armories and arsenals to seize American militia arms, ammunition and other weapons of war.

So, bottom line: if you want to compare 1775 with 1861, then let's at least get the right people in their proper roles, FRiend.