Pierce & Buchanan, Worst in US history

[Peach]

Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan are considered by historians to be the worst Presidents in US history; both paved the way for the Civil war by inaction and wrong actions. The extremist right wants to label FDR a bad leader; historians of course rate him among the best; brought out of the Great Depression, led us to victory over the Axis.

 

[Pogo]

Buchanan usually is ranked at the bottom, and rightly so. Pierce, who preceded him, isn't usually next to him in the bottom of the list -- that's usually occupied by Harding (though I think that's unfair).

As the POTUSes who failed to deal with the Slavery issue, or failed to deal with it adequately, they're all guilty of setting up the inevitable confrontation, right back to the beginning where slaveholding was accommodated to form the country..

My personal worst since 1900, in order of appearance, would be Wilson, Hoover, Truman and Bush II.

 

[Picaro]

Absolute worst was Abraham Lincoln, hands down. Second worst is Obama, though we have yet to suffer the full consequences of our first Muslim President and his Party's sell out to the Red Chinese.

Buchanan was merely President a ta particularly bad time in the U.S., with the usual political instability that comes with mass unrestricted immigration, major decline in standard of living, and the blooming influence of organized crime and gangsters in the major cities from criminal immigrants. He did the right thing in avoiding an illegal war, one that killed over hundreds of thousands of Americans as well as hundreds of thousands of slaves, a mass murder unmatched on American soil before or since, and led directly to open corruption in Congress, the Supreme Court, and Party politics for the next 50 years.

 

[whitehall]

"Buchanan paved the way for the Civil War" but Lincoln gets a pass? Why are historians so afraid of Lincoln? If he was such a great statesmen Lincoln should have been able to preserve the Union without bloodshed.

 

[Picaro]

"Buchanan paved the way for the Civil War" but Lincoln gets a pass? Why are historians so afraid of Lincoln? If he was such a great statesmen Lincoln should have been able to preserve the Union without bloodshed.

'Great Statesmen' don't create a private army of 75,000 troops loyal only to themselves, seize the ballot boxes in 8 states and maintain their power via control of those ballot boxes, and deliberately launch a war on a false premise without taking that premise to the Supreme Court first, where it would have been laughed out of the place.

 

[Unkotare]

Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan are considered by historians to be the worst Presidents in US history; both paved the way for the Civil war by inaction and wrong actions. The extremist right wants to label FDR a bad leader; historians of course rate him among the best; brought out of the Great Depression, led us to victory over the Axis.

fdr was the worst scumbag POS to ever lie his way to the presidency. The scumbag fdr prolonged the Great Depression. American fighting men won the war.

 

[Pogo]

"Buchanan paved the way for the Civil War" but Lincoln gets a pass? Why are historians so afraid of Lincoln? If he was such a great statesmen Lincoln should have been able to preserve the Union without bloodshed.

'Great Statesmen' don't create a private army of 75,000 troops loyal only to themselves, seize the ballot boxes in 8 states and maintain their power via control of those ballot boxes, and deliberately launch a war on a false premise without taking that premise to the Supreme Court first, where it would have been laughed out of the place.

No idea what this inchoate babble is supposed to be about but I do know this --- the Supreme Court does not declare wars.

 

[Unkotare]

Lincoln preserved the Union.

 

[Picaro]

"Buchanan paved the way for the Civil War" but Lincoln gets a pass? Why are historians so afraid of Lincoln? If he was such a great statesmen Lincoln should have been able to preserve the Union without bloodshed.

'Great Statesmen' don't create a private army of 75,000 troops loyal only to themselves, seize the ballot boxes in 8 states and maintain their power via control of those ballot boxes, and deliberately launch a war on a false premise without taking that premise to the Supreme Court first, where it would have been laughed out of the place.

No idea what this inchoate babble is supposed to be about but I do know this --- the Supreme Court does not declare wars.

Nobody is going to dispute you don't know squat and are just babbling whatever is fashionable with your uneducated ignorant peer group.

 

[Pogo]

"Buchanan paved the way for the Civil War" but Lincoln gets a pass? Why are historians so afraid of Lincoln? If he was such a great statesmen Lincoln should have been able to preserve the Union without bloodshed.

'Great Statesmen' don't create a private army of 75,000 troops loyal only to themselves, seize the ballot boxes in 8 states and maintain their power via control of those ballot boxes, and deliberately launch a war on a false premise without taking that premise to the Supreme Court first, where it would have been laughed out of the place.

No idea what this inchoate babble is supposed to be about but I do know this --- the Supreme Court does not declare wars.

Nobody is going to dispute you don't know squat and are just babbling whatever is fashionable with your uneducated ignorant peer group.

Sooooooooooo you can't explain it either.

What a surprise.