Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only President worse than the First Frat Boy was James Buchanan.
No one could ever be worse than Buchanan,who let the Union fall apart without lifting a finger,not to mention let Virginia try John Brown for treason against a state,useless as taters on a bull he was,and more so
because of the pivotal time in U.S. history he served in.Thank goodness Honest Abe followed him.
Ulysses Grant while not the best of presidents, is certainly not the worst. He was not a politician, had no real understanding of the political game, and believed that he could effectively govern without involving himself in politics. He was also of the opinion that the executive branch should take a backseat to the legislative branch and acted accordingly. This set the tone for future presidents, most of whom were relatively weak until the turn of the 20th century.
The many corruption scandals during his administration have always cast a shadow on his presidency and legacy. Grant himself was never involved personally in any of them, nor did he ever benefit financially as a result of the unlawful actions undertaken by those in his administration. If anything, Grant's belief in personal loyalty to people who had helped him in the past made it easy for corrupt individuals to take advantage of the positions of power he gave them.
What Grant rarely, if ever, gets credit for is that he did more than any other president in the 19th century to protect the rights of African-Americans. He used the military and federal legislation to protect black citizens. He also actively worked for passage and ratification of the 15th Amendment. Grant was also the first president to be elected in part by African-Americans exercising their newly obtained voting rights.
During the Civil War, the government had issued excess amounts of paper money to finance the war; paper money that was backed by nothing but the full faith and credit of the federal government. When a depression gripped the U.S. in 1873, a bill was passed that would have put even more worthless money into the economy. Grant vetoed the bill because he viewed it as bad fiscal policy. In 1875, Grant signed the Specie Resumption Act, which put the United States back on the gold standard and also removed the unbacked money from circulation. These two actions are what really established the Republican Party's reputation as the party of economic conservatism.
There is no arguing that U.S. Grant was a natural when it came to being a military leader. This unfortunately did not translate into him being a highly effective president. I think, overall, he could be viewed as a mediocre president, but not the worst by a long shot.
Ulysses Grant while not the best of presidents, is certainly not the worst. He was not a politician, had no real understanding of the political game, and believed that he could effectively govern without involving himself in politics. He was also of the opinion that the executive branch should take a backseat to the legislative branch and acted accordingly. This set the tone for future presidents, most of whom were relatively weak until the turn of the 20th century.
The many corruption scandals during his administration have always cast a shadow on his presidency and legacy. Grant himself was never involved personally in any of them, nor did he ever benefit financially as a result of the unlawful actions undertaken by those in his administration. If anything, Grant's belief in personal loyalty to people who had helped him in the past made it easy for corrupt individuals to take advantage of the positions of power he gave them.
Thank you for explaining for everyone why he was the worst. What kind of man expects to govern without involving himself in politics. As for the scandals, most would not have happened if he would have put down the bottle and taken a more active role in the presidency. He was never one to be the brains behind something, he always looked for someone to tell him what to do, and then he got it done. The president is the one who is supposed to give the orders, not take them, unless demanded of him by congresss. In Grant's case, it was rarely congress telling him what to do, it was corrupt businessmen. I will give him one thing, he was good at getting things done once he was told to get them done.
Actually I don't think that what I wrote proves that Grant was the worst at all. If anything it shows that like many presidents through our history, his legacy is a mixed one.
He was extremely popular in his day, being the first president since Andrew Jackson to be elected to two full terms by a majority of those eligible to vote. The nation did not suffer under his presidency. He attempted to improve conditions for African-Americans in the post Civil War era. His actions regarding the economy did much to bring long term stability to our nation's finances.
Yes, there were scandals during his administration, but they were no worse than many that followed under later presidents. If he can be faulted, it is for not acting to remove those who were responsible for these embarrassments. But again, this is because his loyalty to those that served under him was greater than his concern for how his presidency would be viewed. He also failed to build political alliances that would have helped him greatly in his endeavors.
His belief that the Congress should lead, and the President only intervene when they attempt to subvert the good of the nation, can be questioned but shouldn't necessarily be seen as a negative. This idea he had was based in both his being a political novice, but also because he did not wish to follow in the footsteps of another general turned president, Andrew Jackson, who not only believed in the idea of an imperial presidency, but implemented one. It's interesting that Grant is faulted for exercising too little power while the current occupant of the presidency is accused of having too much power.
Grant described his presidency best when he said "Failures have been errors of judgment, not of intent". He tried, probably should have tried harder, but in the end he fell short. I don't fault the man for that, and for that reason am not willing to consign him to the role of worst president ever.
Actually I don't think that what I wrote proves that Grant was the worst at all. If anything it shows that like many presidents through our history, his legacy is a mixed one.
He was extremely popular in his day, being the first president since Andrew Jackson to be elected to two full terms by a majority of those eligible to vote. The nation did not suffer under his presidency. He attempted to improve conditions for African-Americans in the post Civil War era. His actions regarding the economy did much to bring long term stability to our nation's finances.
Yes, there were scandals during his administration, but they were no worse than many that followed under later presidents. If he can be faulted, it is for not acting to remove those who were responsible for these embarrassments. But again, this is because his loyalty to those that served under him was greater than his concern for how his presidency would be viewed. He also failed to build political alliances that would have helped him greatly in his endeavors.
His belief that the Congress should lead, and the President only intervene when they attempt to subvert the good of the nation, can be questioned but shouldn't necessarily be seen as a negative. This idea he had was based in both his being a political novice, but also because he did not wish to follow in the footsteps of another general turned president, Andrew Jackson, who not only believed in the idea of an imperial presidency, but implemented one. It's interesting that Grant is faulted for exercising too little power while the current occupant of the presidency is accused of having too much power.
Grant described his presidency best when he said "Failures have been errors of judgment, not of intent". He tried, probably should have tried harder, but in the end he fell short. I don't fault the man for that, and for that reason am not willing to consign him to the role of worst president ever.
Yet you do not deny that the man was nothing more than a puppet. A president must be able to formulate decisions based upon the opinions of the masses, not a few social leaders. I guarantee you that if Grant was to be elected president today he would not last more than a few months the way today's media airing all this political dirty laundry. We know there were a ton of scandals, but just imagine how many other scandals never got out. He was popular not because he did an acceptable job as president, he was popular because he was a good leader during the civil war.
You are of the opinion that he was a puppet. I don't agree. You say that a president must formulate decisions based on the opinions of the masses, not a few social leaders. Yet what the "masses" wanted was a leader that would soothe the country after the devastation of the Civil War, continue Reconstruction as originally set out by Abraham Lincoln, and put the debacle of the Andrew Johnson presidency in the past. And that is what they got.
If he was perceived as such a lousy president in his day, then he would not have been elected to two terms. But he was, by overwhelming majorities. Since this hadn't happened since Andrew Jackson, nearly forty years before, and didn't happen again until FDR, seems like Grant must have being doing something right in the eyes of the American voting public.
The problem with these types of "Best/Worst President" lists is that they are not based within the context of the era in which these presidents actually served. Rather, they are judged by historians using current day ideas about what we now believe makes a good president and what is or isn't acceptable performance as a leader of our country. There is also no doubt that personal bias on the part of many historians skews the make-up of such lists.
FDR is seen as the man who saved our country during the Depression and guided us through the Second World War. A true national hero. Yet, his decision to incarcerate Japanese Americans in internment camps was probably one of the most shameful and disgraceful acts ever undertaking by a U.S. president against American citizens; if he is judged by today's standards. Harry Truman left office as a highly unpopular president, yet today he is consistently listed among the best presidents. Andrew Jackson was an extremely polarizing political figure in his day. This is a president that defied a U.S. Supreme Court ruling favorable to the Cherokee Nation because he felt they should be removed from their sovereign lands regardless. But still, Jackson too receives high marks from historians as being a great president. And even though most still believe Abraham Lincoln to be one of the best presidents of all time, there are those today that are reassessing his legacy and casting his presidency in a less favorable light.
Yesterday's heroes are today's villains, and today's villains may well be tomorrow's heroes. Such are the vagaries of history.
After Washington, it's been pretty much a downhill slide.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
