Random History Thread
- Thread starter Perun
- Start date
I have some problems with your initial rundown. A lot of your good and above-average presidents are rated based on one or maybe two categories, but not all of them. And indeed, in those missing categories we sometimes find points of contention. Now, to be sure, I'm no expert in US history. I never formally studied it (unlike Canadian history) and at least for the 19th century, my knowledge is patchy at best. But I'll still go through this with my layman's opinions. I won't do this in one go either, so for now I'll just take your good presidents.
Washington governed under exceptional circumstances, but he did a good job. I think he should be outside the competition, but I know I'm in a minority on that. So having said that, no objections.
Jefferson's confrontation with the British was a gamble - a lucky one, but a gamble nevertheless. He actively supported Napoleon, something which was not a very nice thing to do in the eyes of many Europeans. Without the Louisiana purchase (which Jefferson himself had no hand in, however), the Napoleonic Wars may have ended earlier. On the other hand, those wars brought masses of European refugees to the US who contributed significantly to the shaping of America, so from a purely American perspective, you could argue that was a good thing. Overall, I'm okay with him on this half of the list.
How can someone get good leadership marks with bad crisis management? Arguably Madison's greatest achievement was making the people believe the US won the War of 1812. Those are high legacy marks though, no doubt, and he was probably the first president to have a lasting impact on US civil society.
Monroe did more than the Monroe Doctrine, though. He oversaw the Missouri Compromise - now whether that was a good or bad thing is a difficult debate - he fought the first imperialist war of expansion in US history and tried to influence Congress beyond his constitutional powers. He can't get marks on crisis management in the Panic of 1819 because, as you said, "Economy is not on this list because the president has very little control over the economy. The state of the economy is a function of Congress, and wrangling Congress is under the "executive leadership" tab. " -- more on this later. The Monroe Doctrine was proven a good thing by history, but overall, I'm not sold on him.
Polk provoked and started the Mexican-American War, so he shouldn't be judged for winning it as if he had been imposed with that burden. He vetoed Congress decisions for internal development funding and re-established the Independent Treasury, so what was that "control over the economy" thing again? He oversaw the biggest territorial expansion of the US, which is undoubtedly a success. Not sold on Polk, like, at all.
Like Washington, Lincoln governed under unusual circumstances, so I always feel he shouldn't be in the competition. But again - I'm in the minority with this opinion, so I have no objections.
I'm largely okay with Roosevelt, but those two are hardly proper criteria.
A great case of why you should judge the presidents by all aforementioned criteria and not just by one. Foreign Policy was okay. I don't think it's fair to say he "won" WW1, but he significantly contributed to its shortening. Executive leadership - he was certainly an executive, for better or worse. His antitrust laws are fine, but you don't have to don a tinfoil hat to consider the Revenue Act and Federal Reserve Act controversial. Civil Society - Wilson absolutely supported segregation and screened Birth of a Nation in the White House and as a historian inspired the re-formation of the KKK. Yeah, fuck that, man. Not opposing women's suffrage when it had already become unstoppable is not an achievement compared to that. Crisis management - He handled the coal strike rather well, I guess. Completely failed with the Spanish Flu and saw the US plunge into depression, though. He was a terrible leader during the First Red Scare. Legacy - League of Nations failed, Wilson had zero authority over post-WW1 structures, the US suffered from economic depression, pandemic, racial rioting and anti-Communist witch hunts. His expansion of the federal government is one of the main roots of the irreconcilable partisanship the US is suffering from today. Wilson was a bad president.
No objections.
I thought the president has very little control over the economy. But yeah, the shift from total war to peace economy is difficult and the US handled it well enough. Truman was also anti-segregation. But he did absolutely nothing to de-escalate tensions with the USSR. The Korean War was a shit-fest and Truman's politics were the breeding ground for McCarthy. Not sold on Truman.
Ike was probably the best president the US ever had, and certainly the best in the 20th century.
Loses points for imperialist policy and playing risk with the Cuban Missile Crisis, though.
Loses points for Vietnam. Big time.
Loses point for Iran-Contra, national debt, voodoo economics (aka "Reaganomics" or "Trickle Down"), risking nuclear war. Bad president.
The Clinton administration saw the American trade balance plummet and it hasn't seen any sustainable recovery since. This is one of the factors that have set the stage for MAGA.
I don't know if it's already time to evaluate Obama's presidency historically, but he failed to reconcile the people and his presidency has not made the recovery of American economy or foreign political reputation bulletproof. I don't know how much of that is his fault and how much is thanks to the Great Recession and Agent Orange, though. I think it's too early to say if he was a good or a bad president.
Washington governed under exceptional circumstances, but he did a good job. I think he should be outside the competition, but I know I'm in a minority on that. So having said that, no objections.
Jefferson's confrontation with the British was a gamble - a lucky one, but a gamble nevertheless. He actively supported Napoleon, something which was not a very nice thing to do in the eyes of many Europeans. Without the Louisiana purchase (which Jefferson himself had no hand in, however), the Napoleonic Wars may have ended earlier. On the other hand, those wars brought masses of European refugees to the US who contributed significantly to the shaping of America, so from a purely American perspective, you could argue that was a good thing. Overall, I'm okay with him on this half of the list.
How can someone get good leadership marks with bad crisis management? Arguably Madison's greatest achievement was making the people believe the US won the War of 1812. Those are high legacy marks though, no doubt, and he was probably the first president to have a lasting impact on US civil society.
Monroe did more than the Monroe Doctrine, though. He oversaw the Missouri Compromise - now whether that was a good or bad thing is a difficult debate - he fought the first imperialist war of expansion in US history and tried to influence Congress beyond his constitutional powers. He can't get marks on crisis management in the Panic of 1819 because, as you said, "Economy is not on this list because the president has very little control over the economy. The state of the economy is a function of Congress, and wrangling Congress is under the "executive leadership" tab. " -- more on this later. The Monroe Doctrine was proven a good thing by history, but overall, I'm not sold on him.
Polk provoked and started the Mexican-American War, so he shouldn't be judged for winning it as if he had been imposed with that burden. He vetoed Congress decisions for internal development funding and re-established the Independent Treasury, so what was that "control over the economy" thing again? He oversaw the biggest territorial expansion of the US, which is undoubtedly a success. Not sold on Polk, like, at all.
Like Washington, Lincoln governed under unusual circumstances, so I always feel he shouldn't be in the competition. But again - I'm in the minority with this opinion, so I have no objections.
I'm largely okay with Roosevelt, but those two are hardly proper criteria.
A great case of why you should judge the presidents by all aforementioned criteria and not just by one. Foreign Policy was okay. I don't think it's fair to say he "won" WW1, but he significantly contributed to its shortening. Executive leadership - he was certainly an executive, for better or worse. His antitrust laws are fine, but you don't have to don a tinfoil hat to consider the Revenue Act and Federal Reserve Act controversial. Civil Society - Wilson absolutely supported segregation and screened Birth of a Nation in the White House and as a historian inspired the re-formation of the KKK. Yeah, fuck that, man. Not opposing women's suffrage when it had already become unstoppable is not an achievement compared to that. Crisis management - He handled the coal strike rather well, I guess. Completely failed with the Spanish Flu and saw the US plunge into depression, though. He was a terrible leader during the First Red Scare. Legacy - League of Nations failed, Wilson had zero authority over post-WW1 structures, the US suffered from economic depression, pandemic, racial rioting and anti-Communist witch hunts. His expansion of the federal government is one of the main roots of the irreconcilable partisanship the US is suffering from today. Wilson was a bad president.
No objections.
I thought the president has very little control over the economy. But yeah, the shift from total war to peace economy is difficult and the US handled it well enough. Truman was also anti-segregation. But he did absolutely nothing to de-escalate tensions with the USSR. The Korean War was a shit-fest and Truman's politics were the breeding ground for McCarthy. Not sold on Truman.
Ike was probably the best president the US ever had, and certainly the best in the 20th century.
Loses points for imperialist policy and playing risk with the Cuban Missile Crisis, though.
Loses points for Vietnam. Big time.
Loses point for Iran-Contra, national debt, voodoo economics (aka "Reaganomics" or "Trickle Down"), risking nuclear war. Bad president.
The Clinton administration saw the American trade balance plummet and it hasn't seen any sustainable recovery since. This is one of the factors that have set the stage for MAGA.
I don't know if it's already time to evaluate Obama's presidency historically, but he failed to reconcile the people and his presidency has not made the recovery of American economy or foreign political reputation bulletproof. I don't know how much of that is his fault and how much is thanks to the Great Recession and Agent Orange, though. I think it's too early to say if he was a good or a bad president.
Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
It's gotta suck being the second president. I agree, he was okay.
Jackson absolutely tanked the economy. The Panic of 1837 was Jackson's doing for crushing the Second Bank and deregulation measures. He also signed the Indian Removal Act. He was anti-abolitionist and that was the only reason he could keep South Carolina in the Union. His populist demands are all over the place, from "reasonable" to "retarded". Bad president.
Van Buren wasn't at fault for the Panic of 1837 (see above), but he proved to be bad at crisis management. He didn't reverse any of Jackson's bad politics and the only reason he can't be called dreadful is because he was a good foreign politician. So maybe he was okay, but in the lower half of "okay".
The corruption scandals were unfortunate. Without them, Grant would probably be considered a good president. He handled some immense difficulties rather well and successfully navigated the US through the Panic of 1873. He made genuine attempts to reconcile with Southerners, Blacks and Natives. Not sure I like his activity in the Caribbean. But I'd probably want to see him in the lower half of "good".
He could have become a good president.
Probably the perfect "okay" president. Nothing about his presidency seems remarkable in either way.
Some of his domestic measures were pretty nasty, but he had to manage a fiscal crisis, so I guess people should be glad he wasn't worse. Overall, meh.
Like Cleveland, he was an administrator. Personally, I think that's what a president should be. He was also the first imperialist president after the war, which makes me dislike him.
He was a good president because he did everything right. It's kind of sad that presidents who were simply good at their job of administering the country get pushed back because they didn't do anything sexy. Taft is the sort of president that should be taken as exemplary.
Coolidge has the historical benefit of presiding over a period of economic prosperity, which allowed for a policy of deregulation. So looking at his administration in isolation, it looks like a successful, "okay" presidency. His policy was directly responsible for Black Friday though, even if he wasn't in office anymore. He laid the groundwork for one of the seminal crisis periods of the 20th centuries, which ultimately saw the rise of Hitler and mass poverty in the US. Why he isn't generally put on one level with Buchanan is beyond me.
Probably the last American representative of something like "humane" conservatism. He was lucky, profiting from the collapse of the Soviet Union, not having to take responsibility for the 1987 Black Monday and being able to exploit the Gulf Crisis. He was an "okay" president because he governed under favourable circumstances.
His tariffs policy was certainly a stepping stone towards the Civil War.
He wanted to be a civil rights president, but he was too weak. I guess being unable to go enforce what is meant to be good policy technically makes you a bad president.
Ford was a pretty bad president. The economic crisis wasn't his fault, but he failed at handling it completely. He had no foreign political authority and NATO nearly fell apart under him; the only reason this didn't have dire consequences was because the USSR was ruled by zombies by that time.
Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
Like Angela Merkel?
The only president Bush looks good next to is Trump. There was very little he could have done wrong after 9/11, and he eventually fucked that up too, by turning over unprecedented international support with his Iraq War, which was probably the worst political decision possible at that time.
So I think it's fair to say that I didn't intend all of the above points to be taken entirely as serious at face value, but if we want, we can go through them one by one and discuss merits. We could even do polls and let Maidenfans decide.
Well, that's what I started doing, isn't it?
Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
Currently there are five of them, including the incumbent ... but Carter is getting really old. I suspect out of the five, Obama will last the longest.
No, it's a Referendum.
OK, let's agree on the criteria, then, and start at the beginning.
Carter will outlive us all.
Presidential survivor should be a round robin head to head that ensures every president faces every other president. Also should be some sort of historic context blurb + recommended reading/viewing. Just as we encourage people not to vote in survivors for music they haven’t listened to, people should try to read up on lesser known presidents.
Presidential survivor should be a round robin head to head that ensures every president faces every other president. Also should be some sort of historic context blurb + recommended reading/viewing. Just as we encourage people not to vote in survivors for music they haven’t listened to, people should try to read up on lesser known presidents.
Your list of criteria at the beginning is fine, although we may want to decide how we judge what is "good" and what is "bad". I mean, some people would think a pro-segregation agenda is something good.
I also have to admit that I don't have the knowledge to do a thorough check for each and every president. Maybe we want to start with the big ones.
We could do a calibration check.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
I was about to rebuke the Polk stuff, but Perun beat me to it lol. I was also a tad confused as it started all serious and some of the "achievements" are clearly not serious. The only thing I would state, kinda echoing Perun, something less... baised? while not a full scale analysis, at least as objective as possible. I would much prefer terms like, "oversaw" the Mexican-American invasion War, versus "Won."
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
Honestly, I'd be into an American presidents discussion/game. We should do it. It'd be difficult for everyone to read up on lesser known presidents so it'd have to be taken with a grain of salt, but it'd be fun.
Don't know enough about Taft specifically, but I stand by this sentiment wholeheartedly. So many political leaders who are "interesting" are interesting for all the wrong reasons. I remember Garry Kasparov ridiculing the reputation of Putin as a "strong leader" saying "Putin is a strong leader in the same way arsenic is a strong drink."
Don't know enough about Taft specifically, but I stand by this sentiment wholeheartedly. So many political leaders who are "interesting" are interesting for all the wrong reasons. I remember Garry Kasparov ridiculing the reputation of Putin as a "strong leader" saying "Putin is a strong leader in the same way arsenic is a strong drink."
Last edited:
JudasMyGuide
The resident reactionary recalcitrant
The sweetest dreams are made of this!
Bless your heart.
Yeah, especially Taft often seems to be remembered mostly because he was fat and because he was the last POTUS to have any kind of facial hair.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
I didn't see Carter on the assessment... did I miss him? Americans HATED him for being "weak" and only lasted 1 term, but with time has become somewhat of a folk hero and his presidency is seen in a much better light with hindsight and the other presidents to compare him to. Much like the deification of Reagan isn't a fargone conclusion anymore.
Carter was on the below average or worse list so he hasn’t been evaluated yet.
He has definitely become a hero for his humanitarian efforts and activities after his term, but I don’t know if anyone is reassessing his presidency because of that. He was pretty ineffectual and conflicts with his own party largely prevented him from any major successes.
He has definitely become a hero for his humanitarian efforts and activities after his term, but I don’t know if anyone is reassessing his presidency because of that. He was pretty ineffectual and conflicts with his own party largely prevented him from any major successes.