timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (5 Viewers)

John Quincy Adams might move around. Here is how I envision my second set of scoring to augment the raw scores:

The raw scores are meant to be as objective as possible in something that is completely subjective. They aren't perfect. I've tried to be as level headed and fair to each President as I could be, my own particular political leanings aside. I think I've done that, but I don't doubt that my own perceptions have clouded them. And this is why I wanted to start with raw scores. Also, it should be apinfully obvious that I enjoy the Office of President about as much as John Gruden enjoys quarterbacks. I'm going to find something to like with almost all of them when I try to be as objective as possible. This is another reason why I didn't do negative numbers or focus solely on the awful and bad things they did - the scoring system is designed to give them credit when they deserve credit, not to particularly hit them and just hit them. So, my own subjectiveity there defines the language used for the scoring.

But once the raw scoring is done, I am going to break them into tiers. The tiers are raw scores of 7-14 ; 15-21 ; 22-28 ; 29-35 ; 36-42 ; 43-49 ; 50-56 ; 57-63 ; 64-70. 9 total tiers. In those 9 tiers there are multiple guys. I am then going to match the guys in the tiers against each other, taking into account their original raw score, to see if they should move up or down in the tier. This is entiretly subjective at this point and is based on several factors - the initial raw score, what I feel was more or less important, and such things. It's at this point that I will get the tiers of guys set. Once the tiers are set I am going to look at the bubble guys - the 2 or 3 guys right at the turn of the tier above and below, and see if anyone deserves to move up or down a tier. Again, wholly subjective. I might lose some integrity there. Maybe not. It's what my plan is. And then once that list is complete and I am satisfied with that, I am going to take the entire list and go through to see if it just looks right. A few small movements will be done there maybe. Once that is complete I will havae my final list with a blurb or two about each guy. That's the list I'll go with.

Just for gits and shiggles, the bottom tier of 7-14 Presidents (not saying that one of the final 5 won't end up there and not saying one of them will) is as follows:

William Henry Harrison 12

James Buchanan 11

Franklin Pierce 10

Andrew Johnson 8

Initially one of these doesn't belong as competing for "worst" president. William Henry Harrison didn't do anything so you can't claim he is the worst. He just doesn't have anything in his arsenal to give him credit for and with that it's hard to grade him in a system designed to give credit. He stays in the bottom tier most likely, but in doing that he stays on the bubble of the tier, and given some guys in the next tier up, he might actually move up a spot.

But then the bottom 3. Buchanan, Pierce and Johnson are by far our worst Presidents. Ranking one above the other isn't really necessary. My personal hatred of Johnson was probably fairly obvious, but I have no more love by any definition for Franklin Pierce. They should all be tied for worst. None of them would move into the next tier. They only got positive points because I wasn't using negative points. And to group another President with them the guy had to be really really bad or, like Harrison, simply have no record of any kind to go off of. I might, though, say that Pierce should end up at 43 and not Johnson because the ultimate blame for the Civil War is, to me, Pierce's. Johnson's failures were across the board but at least he didn't start the Civil War, he just was incomeptent and unable to rebuild the nation after it was fought. So they might move a little but the three of them aren't going anywhere in the grand scheme.

Similarly, the top tier of 64-70 only has two guys in it - Washington at 64 and Lincoln at 67. I doubt any of the last 5 score with them. And at this point, the actual score isn't really important. In our history there were no two greater men to be in that office. Whether you put Washington ahead or Lincoln ahead you are hard pressed to put anyone in between or on their level. They are the pinnicle. My personal feeling is that Lincoln should be ahead of Washington, but I don't fault people fo doing it the other way. So there will be little work here to do.

It's all the guys between these tiers that hard to do. I would say though that in the end the score isn't an important as the tier. I think. When I start playing with it I might change my mind. But looking at the overall list now and how it breaks down, there aren't too many guys that need to move a massive amount to me, which also tells me that I am staying as consistent as is possible with this thing, at least to my own biases. Who knows. I've enjoyed this way too much.

68. George C. Patton

The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other ******* die for his.

General George Patton was not, especially, a good man. He infamously slapped two soldiers who were afflicted with shell shock. He was a white supremacist who believed that African-Americans were mentally inferior and deserved to be segregated. He was a fierce anti-Semite who seemingly had no objection to Hitler's persecution of the Jews. In fact, Patton was an admirer of Hitler and of fascism in general. He was contemptuous of our democratic system, and thought it was "weak and lily-livered." (Prior to World War II, Patton was probably best known for his ousting of the Bonus Marchers in 1932.)

None of this matter. George Patton is ranked on this list of 100 greatest Americans because he was, as Eisenhower put it, "one helluva soldier". Actually military historians regard him as one of our very best. Much like Rommel for the Germans, Patton combined energy with tactical brilliance on the field. He was one tough son of a #####, and his performance as the commander of the Third Army, especially during the Battle of the Bulge and the advance into Nazi Germany, rank among the greatest achievements of the American military.

Patton famously said that Americans don't know the meaning of the word "surrender", but this was ironic, because he was southerner, the grandson of a general who served with Jubal Early and actually did surrender. Patton was originally a cadet at VMI, but transferred to West Point. There he was selected for the Olympic games, competing in the Pentathlon in 1912. Patton also was a well known steeplechase rider and designed his own military sword. His pistols had ivory handles. Patton would hands down be our most flamboyant modern military leader, somewhat in the legacy of Jeb Stuart, if not for another guy I will get to later on this list who was even more showy than George.

Despite his fierce prejudices, Patton could be endearing. Speaking of Jews and blacks, he wrote:

I don't give a damn who the man is. He can be an (n-word) or a Jew, but if he has the stuff and does his duty, he can have anything I've got. By God, I love him!

Comments like this brought great loyalty from his troops, despite the fact that, like Grant, Patton never turned away from a fight. He was a legend, made more so by the George C. Scott portrayal in 1969. One of our greatest folk heroes.

Up next: the most trusted man in America...

Yankee23Fan said:

We've come to the end of the next 50 year period of American history as defined by our Presidents. From the revolution to James Moroe we had our founders, from John Quincy Adams to Ulysses Grant we had our civil war. From Rutherford Hayes to Woodrow Wilson he dealt with the coming of the 20th century and World War I. And from Warren Harding to Jimmy Carter we dealt with depression, World War, Cold War, economic crisis and corruption that would forever change our nation and the world. The next 50 years isn't fully written yet. From Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, the United States is going to again change and the world with it. We will see the greatest devestation from an attack on our mainland since the burning of Washington DC in the War of 1812; we will see the fall of communism, the rise of islamic fundamentalism, and massive global backlash for American foreign policy in the '50's, '60's and '70's and the ultimate election of the first black man as President of the United States - something that was supposed to signal a new beginning in race relations that has been anything but.

At this point, I am going to pause from tackling the final 5 guys that have held the office in recent history. Their grading is very difficult given that we are dealing with recent history that almost all of us lived through in formative years. The final chapter of the Reagan presidency is close to being written, but is' not there yet. The Bush presidency is still being written because of the actions of his son and the current President. It will take decades more to figure out the final standing of Bill Clinton, it will take longer to figure out how George W. Bush is ultimately remembered - and it might very well take a century to figure out Barak Obama. So, for now a pause.

The current rankings of Presidents with raw totals sits at:

Lincoln 67

Washington 64

T. Roosevelt 60

F. Roosevelt 60

Monroe 59

Eisenhower 57

Polk 55

McKinley 52

Wilson 52

Jefferson 50

Adams 49

L. Johnson 48

Truman 46

Kennedy 45

Jackson 44

Grant 44

Madison 39

Cleveland 37

Nixon 37

Coolidge 36

Taft 35

Carter 33

B. Harrison 32

Van Buren 29

Tyler 29

Hayes 28

Harding 28

Q. Adams 27

Hoover 26

Ford 25

Arthur 20

Taylor 19

Garfield 19

Fillmore 18

WH Harrison 12

Buchanan 11

Pierce 10

A. Johnson 8

The raw scores have created a very interesting list, in many respects far different than I would have expected as I was attacking tim's list. I haven't checked to see how mine differentiats from him, but I have to think it does substantially. The next few posts will concern the electoral college results and campaigns that were fought and how the office of Vice President has existed in our history. And maybe a few other things. It's been fun so far.

Click to expand...

My "Historic Presidents" fantasy league has its draft tomorrow night...can you point me to any "sleepers" you expect to significantly outperform these ADPs? TIA.

(No seriously, great work. Very educational reading and being reminded of the more obscure crises of American history. Looking forward to the next round of VP and election analysis!)

Tim/Yankee. Have you guys read this

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/02/american-presidents-johnson-mckinley.html

Arodin said:

Yankee23Fan said:

We've come to the end of the next 50 year period of American history as defined by our Presidents. From the revolution to James Moroe we had our founders, from John Quincy Adams to Ulysses Grant we had our civil war. From Rutherford Hayes to Woodrow Wilson he dealt with the coming of the 20th century and World War I. And from Warren Harding to Jimmy Carter we dealt with depression, World War, Cold War, economic crisis and corruption that would forever change our nation and the world. The next 50 years isn't fully written yet. From Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, the United States is going to again change and the world with it. We will see the greatest devestation from an attack on our mainland since the burning of Washington DC in the War of 1812; we will see the fall of communism, the rise of islamic fundamentalism, and massive global backlash for American foreign policy in the '50's, '60's and '70's and the ultimate election of the first black man as President of the United States - something that was supposed to signal a new beginning in race relations that has been anything but.

At this point, I am going to pause from tackling the final 5 guys that have held the office in recent history. Their grading is very difficult given that we are dealing with recent history that almost all of us lived through in formative years. The final chapter of the Reagan presidency is close to being written, but is' not there yet. The Bush presidency is still being written because of the actions of his son and the current President. It will take decades more to figure out the final standing of Bill Clinton, it will take longer to figure out how George W. Bush is ultimately remembered - and it might very well take a century to figure out Barak Obama. So, for now a pause.

The current rankings of Presidents with raw totals sits at:

Lincoln 67

Washington 64

T. Roosevelt 60

F. Roosevelt 60

Monroe 59

Eisenhower 57

Polk 55

McKinley 52

Wilson 52

Jefferson 50

Adams 49

L. Johnson 48

Truman 46

Kennedy 45

Jackson 44

Grant 44

Madison 39

Cleveland 37

Nixon 37

Coolidge 36

Taft 35

Carter 33

B. Harrison 32

Van Buren 29

Tyler 29

Hayes 28

Harding 28

Q. Adams 27

Hoover 26

Ford 25

Arthur 20

Taylor 19

Garfield 19

Fillmore 18

WH Harrison 12

Buchanan 11

Pierce 10

A. Johnson 8

The raw scores have created a very interesting list, in many respects far different than I would have expected as I was attacking tim's list. I haven't checked to see how mine differentiats from him, but I have to think it does substantially. The next few posts will concern the electoral college results and campaigns that were fought and how the office of Vice President has existed in our history. And maybe a few other things. It's been fun so far.

Click to expand...

My "Historic Presidents" fantasy league has its draft tomorrow night...can you point me to any "sleepers" you expect to significantly outperform these ADPs? TIA.

(No seriously, great work. Very educational reading and being reminded of the more obscure crises of American history. Looking forward to the next round of VP and election analysis!)

Click to expand...

I think Reagan had the reputation of sleeping in staff meetings. So he could be a huge sleeper.

Yankee23Fan said:

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)

Click to expand...

Since you enjoy all this-

Can I ask for your opinions on:

1) Carter's lame duck presidency. Maybe it wasn't anything unusual, but back in 1980 it seemed to so strange to final achieve legislative victories and to produce so much last minute regulation. Was it seemingly unusual because of the way it was presented as "sadly desperate" by the press? Or was it special and enduring?

ETA: And, Was contrary to the Carter "micromanaging" perception the autonomy Carter gave to his department heads made possible the regulatory output?

2) Afghanistan- Do you buy the Gates/Brzezinski claims that they "baited" the USSR into Afghanistan? Or at the very least made intervention by the USSR a greater probability? If you do was it a good thing? Or, despite the results too dangerous and reckless of a game?

3) Dissidents- How important was this ? How true?

"He was the first president during the Cold War to challenge publicly and consistently the legitimacy of Soviet rule at home. Carter's human rights policy ... by the testimony of countless Soviet and East European dissidents and future democratic leaders challenged the moral authority of the Soviet government and gave American sanction and support to those resisting that government.

"Whether isolated and little-known Soviet dissident or world-famous Soviet scientist, Carter's policy encouraged them to press on."

4) The answer was yes, though most didn't know it then and most still don't know.

67. Walter Cronkite

And that's the way it is.

Walter Cronkite began reporting news in 1937 and continued until 1981 when he retired. During the last 19 years of that time, beginning in 1962, he was the nightly anchorman at CBS news. As such, he occupied a role in American society not encountered either prior or since: the most trusted dispenser of information for close to a majority of Americans.

Cronkite's 20 year window of domination must be seen as temporary situation of technological advancement. In the early 1960s when he took over, the nightly news was still a relatively new format. By the 80s when he retired, cable television and the expansion of channels was just beginning, which would result in the end of the 3 network control of the news. Thus, a Walter Cronkite is only possible somewhere between 1960 and 1980. During any other period in our history, he simply does not have the ability to be THE voice that America listened to.

As it happened, the years between 1960 and 1980 is one of the most significant periods of social change in American history. Civil rights, woman's rights, the Vietnam War, JFK's assassination, the flight to the moon, Watergate, etc- these all happened during Cronkite's watch, with incredible impact on our society. Therefore, he takes on even more importance.

Millions of Americans perceived all of the above listed events with Cronkite as their narrator. It was Cronkite whom they stayed up with all night after JFK was shot, Cronkite whom they listened to when Apollo landed safety, Cronkite whom they turned on for all of the protests, student marches, riots, scandals, etc. Cronkite was like another member of the family, far more so than any politician or celebrity of the time, a guy they were comfortable and familiar with in their living rooms.

He was not neutral. He was opposed to LBJ's management of the Vietnam War and many historians believe that it was Cronkite's pessimistic reporting, along with film of the body bags, that changed American public opinion about that war. Again, this is a circumstance of technology: we have certainly fought bloodier wars than Vietnam. There were periods during both World War II and Korea in which the body bags flowed and the outlook looked just as bleak. Yet neither of those struggles resulted in public protests; this is because the public wasn't able to watch the carnage on their television sets every night. Cronkite brought it home to them, with effect.

After Cronkite spoke out against Vietnam, LBJ reportedly said, "if I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America." This was generally accurate. Cronkite was trustworthy in part because he seemed to represent traditional American centrist values. Although willing from time to time to express an opinion, he was careful never to veer away from moderate analysis, always disdaining the voices from the far left or right. Progressive critics believed that Cronkite was part of the "corporate establishment". Conservatives saw him as the beginning of the "liberal media" which they believed controlled American culture at least until the advent of talk radio and Fox News.

In comparing Cronkite's time to today, the question must be asked if we are better off. Yes there are far more sources of news, which should in theory be a good thing, but the effective result has been that people watch whatever news shows meet their pre-held convictions. Thus, rather than learn anything new, they simply re-affirm their POV. Is this an improvement over Cronkite's time? I'm skeptical that it is.

Next up: A California and Latino icon...

66. Cesar Chavez

Preservation of one's own culture does not require contempt or disrespect for other cultures.

Cesar Chavez is widely regarded by most Latino Americans as their Martin Luther King. Born in Arizona to Mexican-Americans, he was a civil rights activist, a labor leader, and a believer in nonviolence. The Latino farm workers in California and Florida were basically ignored by the American labor movement until Chavez organized them.

Chavez, along with Dolores Huerta, was the founder of the National Farm Workers Association. later called the United Farm Workers (UFW). Under his leadership, the produce workers conducted a series of strikes which were largely successful in improving wages and conditions. Chavez also organized protests over the use of pesticides. Influenced by Gandhi, Chavez engaged in long days of fasting as a non-violent form of civil disobedience. Chavez, a vegan, also promoted animal rights long before it was popular.

Somewhat ironically, given the prevailing attitudes of Latino Americans today, Chavez was fiercely opposed to immigration from Mexico, especially illegal immigration, as he believed it would weaken his union- in fact, he accused Mexico of deliberately sending people over the border as strike breakers. Despite this seeming contradiction, Chavez was highly sympathetic to the undocumented who had already made it across the border, and repeatedly argued for compassion, understanding, and a path to citizenship.

Since his death in 1983, Chavez's stature has only risen among the Hispanic community, particularly in California, where his birthday is a state holiday. He has become iconic, a folk hero, probably the most well known Mexican American, larger than life.

Next up: If she had grown up in the late 60s, she might have been a pinball wizard...

what happened to 66?

Sweet J said:

what happened to 66?

Click to expand...

Sorry, Cesar is 66. Thanks

I would be nice if the original post had the running list of those already ranked, even nicer would be a hyperlink to each write up but that is probably asking for too much.

I would think Tim has Hillary in the top 10 if not top 5

Baloney Sandwich said:

I would be nice if the original post had the running list of those already ranked, even nicer would be a hyperlink to each write up but that is probably asking for too much.

I would think Tim has Hillary in the top 10 if not top 5

Click to expand...

wow asking for a lot of work! We'll see. Oh and you would think wrong. Yankee would have Hillary in his top 100. I would not. I considered 3 First Ladies and she was among them. But only one got in and it wasn't her. No room.

timschochet said:

Baloney Sandwich said:

I would be nice if the original post had the running list of those already ranked, even nicer would be a hyperlink to each write up but that is probably asking for too much.

I would think Tim has Hillary in the top 10 if not top 5

Click to expand...

wow asking for a lot of work! We'll see.Oh and you would think wrong. Yankee would have Hillary in his top 100. I would not. I considered 3 First Ladies and she was among them. But only one got in and it wasn't her. No room.

Click to expand...

I assume Eleanor Roosevelt is the one you included on the list. Who is the other you considered? Betty Ford? Dolly Madison?

Dolly.

timschochet said:

Dolly.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry this Dolly Madison should have made the list. Dolley on the other hand...

65. Helen Keller

The only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision.

Helen Keller was a prominent left wing activist for most of her life, a member of the Socialist Party and the IWW (Wobblies). But of course, she is famous not for that but because she was a deaf, dumb and blind woman who somehow managed to break through these barriers and earn a bachelor's degree. Her story is known to most Americans due to the play and movie The Miracle Worker, which was about her teacher, Anne Sullivan, and how she got Helen to understand language.

Keller's politics were considered extreme throughout her lifetime but now would be considered conventional, along the lines of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. As a woman from Alabama, she was attacked in the press for her support of labor rights, civil rights for African-Americans, and restrictions on free market capitalism. Despite this, Keller was consistently listed among the most admired Americans throughout her lifetime. In the years before Eleanor Roosevelt, Helen Keller was the most well known and widely respected American woman who was not a movie star.

Growing up, the only things I knew about Helen Keller were The Miracle Worker (and I didn't even see the original movie; I watched the TV version with Laura from Little House on the Prairie.) along with a bunch of very tasteless jokes which I'm betting anybody who reads this has heard. That's too bad; she really was a remarkable woman and obviously deserves her place on this list.

Up next: The first of two Purdue graduates on this list...

Here's a tip Tim, the things that make the most impact are technological or religious.

dparker713 said:

Here's a tip Tim, the things that make the most impact are technological or religious.

Click to expand...

I have plenty of both in my list. (Well, not that many religious people because by the time America was founded, religion was well-established. However there ARE a few.) And I would add that statesmen, businessmen, and even some artists can have great impact as well.

But impact is only one item to consider on this list, as I pointed out before. There is also individual greatness. Helen Keller was not particularly impactful in the greater scheme of things, but she is clearly one of our greatest Americans.

The Who's Tommy was more influential in American History than Helen Keller.

Honestly Olaf I believe the only people that want to discuss black on white violence are white racists. The subject doesn't interest me at all, sorry.

timschochet said:

Honestly Olaf I believe the only people that want to discuss black on white violence are white racists. The subject doesn't interest me at all, sorry.

Click to expand...

It is posts like these why people want you to stay in your own thread. Geez, just horrible. As if that is the only possibility for wanting to discuss that topic.

Righetti said:

Tim/Yankee. Have you guys read this

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/02/american-presidents-johnson-mckinley.html

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Honestly Olaf I believe the only people that want to discuss black on white violence are white racists. The subject doesn't interest me at all, sorry.

Click to expand...

You're a nut job.

Righetti said:

Righetti said:

Tim/Yankee. Have you guys read thishttp://waitbutwhy.com/2015/02/american-presidents-johnson-mckinley.html

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Very cool. I think he stole some stuff from me though.

jon_mx said:

timschochet said:

Honestly Olaf I believe the only people that want to discuss black on white violence are white racists. The subject doesn't interest me at all, sorry.

Click to expand...

It is posts like these why people want you to stay in your own thread. Geez, just horrible. As if that is the only possibility for wanting to discuss that topic.

Click to expand...

I would not have offered an opinion on this subject except that it was asked for in my thread. As I wrote, the subject doesn't interest me. If you or Olaf or anyone want to start a thread on it, be my guest. I won't participate.

timschochet said:

jon_mx said:

timschochet said:

Honestly Olaf I believe the only people that want to discuss black on white violence are white racists. The subject doesn't interest me at all, sorry.

Click to expand...

It is posts like these why people want you to stay in your own thread. Geez, just horrible. As if that is the only possibility for wanting to discuss that topic.

Click to expand...

I would not have offered an opinion on this subject except that it was asked for in my thread. As I wrote, the subject doesn't interest me. If you or Olaf or anyone want to start a thread on it, be my guest. I won't participate.

Click to expand...

That is fine when you offer an opinion on a topic. But to blamketly project racism on any one who discusses such topic is too much. You need to be a little more diplomatic in the way you phrase things. You want to cast yourself as this moderate, but much of your rhetoric is that of an over the top leftist. It is weird because at times you can speak intelligently and respectfully.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

64. John Wooden

Things turn out the best for people who make the best of the way things turn out.

The great "Wizard of Westwood", who won an extraordinary 10 national championships in men's basketball over a 12 year period, is IMO the greatest American sports coach of all time. As such, I have selected him on this list not only for his own accomplishments, but for what he represents: the greatness of the American sports coach, which is an iconic and exalted position in our society. In honoring John Wooden, I am also honoring Bear Bryant, Vince Lombardi, Pat Summit, and all those who are regarded at the pinnacle of this particular profession.

Wooden is the best of them not simply because of his amazing accomplishments, but also because he was such a grand, wise, and classy individual, seemingly worshipped by all those who knew him. He is not, of course, without controversy- no coach ever is. Wooden was accused of turning a blind eye while UCLA boosters- notably Sam Gilbert- gave jobs, money, and Lakers tickets to players such as Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) and Bill Walton. But Wooden was not considered one of the "abusive" coaches; unlike Bob Knight, he never felt the need to be heavy-handed with his players. Nor was he hostile with the media, rude to other coaches or fans, etc. He was always the perfect gentleman. And of course his success was, even in those years of limited competition, extraordinary.

Wooden is also known for his Pyramid of Success, at the top of which was the motto:

Perform at your best when your best is required. Your best is required each day.

A devout religious Christian who never swore (his strongest words were "Goodness gracious, sakes alive!"), a liberal Democrat who often voted Republican, John Wooden was a throwback to another age when honesty and decency were not regarded with cynicism. Throughout his long life he lived by a 7 point creed which was given to him by his father during grammar school:

1. Be true to yourself.

2. Make each day your masterpiece.

3. Help others.

4. Drink deeply from good books, especially the Bible.

5. Make friendship a fine art.

6. Build a shelter against a rainy day.

7. Pray for guidance and give thanks to your blessings every day.

Though not a religious person myself, these are creeds I've always tried to live by. Wooden was truly one of our greatest men.

Up next: one of the most hated men in American history, particularly in the lower states...

I suspected the temptation of Wooden would be too much for Tim, but I thought his views on race might trump this. In the end, of course, this is a cop out. its not just Wooden, but all coaches. Well then why not all unattractive athletic lesbians instead of just Billy Jean King, why not all singing pop sluts instead of Madonna? Why not have certain industrialists represent all robber barons or one inventor represent all.

Your list, but of course it is out here to invite comment, so there you have one. I think you should hone your criteria.

I wish Yankee's president rankings/ratings were it its own thread so I didn't have to see the baffling greatest Americans list.

Is there an epidemic of black on white violence that we need to be educated about? Who are all the non-white people talking about it? Olaf is such a weirdo.

Leeroy Jenkins said:

I wish Yankee's president rankings/ratings were it its own thread so I didn't have to see the baffling greatest Americans list.

Click to expand...

I'm really not that much of a fan of starting threads. Too much responsibility.

63. William T. Sherman

War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.

William Tecumsah Sherman began the American Civil War as a colonel in the United States Army. When the war ended he was a general, second in command overall, and the leading player in the destruction of the Confederacy. He accomplished said destruction through a scheme which revolutionized warfare for the modern age: the infamous (in the South at least) "scorched earth" policy. The other name for it was "Total War."

Sherman was no hater of the South, but he did believe that the quickest way to victory was to seize all assets, free all the slaves, and starve the populace. Thus his men destroyed all industry and agriculture in their march across the southern states. For these acts, Sherman is the most hated northerner from that era, beyond Lincoln, beyond Grant. Even in today's southern states, the name of William T. Sherman is regarded with about the same emotion as eastern Europeans might think of Josef Stalin.

Beyond this, Sherman was a man a great military brilliance, as the battles of Shiloh and Atlanta demonstrated. His seizure of Atlanta was also fortuitous for Abraham Lincoln's re-election. One of the great historical "what-ifs" of the Civil War is what might have happened if Sherman's conquest had been delayed by a few weeks (as almost surely would have happened if Jefferson Davis hadn't replaced the cautious Joseph Johnston with the aggressive John Bell Hood). Upon taking Atlanta, Sherman ordered the evacuation of it's citizens. The leaders of Atlanta complained that this would be a great hardship on the elderly, on women and children who could not be held responsible for the war. It was in reply to this complaint that Sherman expressed his true feelings:

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war [...] I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success. But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for anything. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.

With regard to the bolded, Sherman would prove that he meant every word; however, his various acts of kindness were not remembered after his death, when for decades his name continued to be excoriated by the South.

Another group of people who hated Sherman, with much justification, were native Americans. As commander of the US Army under President Grant, Sherman was ruthless in exterminating Indians who attempted to oppose, with force, the expansion of American settlers into the west. It was Sherman who first proposed destroying large numbers of buffaloes in order to starve the tribes into submission, much as he had done by destroying in food in the South. In both cases, Sherman's cold-blooded actions obtained the desired effects.

General Sherman was one of the few men in public life who, with the very real chance to be President, did not desire the job in any way. In fact, he famously said, "I will not accept if nominated and not serve if elected." Take note future politicians: that' the way to let people know you're truly not interested.

Up next: Henry Clay's rival as the most important politician during the first half of the 19th century...

Yankee23Fan said:

Click to expand...

OK now what? You've really got a problem with General Sherman?

62. Daniel Webster

Inconsistencies of opinion, arising from changes of circumstances, are often justifiable.

Not an expert on ol' Daniel, though I recognize his importance to American history, so I'll just offer the Wiki short bio here:

Daniel Webster (January 18, 1782 – October 24, 1852) was a leading American senator and statesman during the era of the Second Party System. He was the outstanding spokesman for American nationalism with powerful oratory that made him a key Whig leader. He spoke for conservatives, and led the opposition to Democrat Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party. He was a spokesman for modernization, banking, and industry, but not for the common people who composed the base of his opponents in Jacksonian Democracy. "He was a thoroughgoing elitist, and he reveled in it," says biographer Robert Remini. During his 40 years in national politics, Webster served in the House of Representatives for 10 years (representing New Hampshire) and in the Senate for 19 years (representing Massachusetts), and was appointed the United States Secretary of State under three presidents.

One of the highest-regarded courtroom lawyers of the era, Webster shaped several key U.S. Supreme Court cases that established important constitutional precedents that bolstered the authority of the federal government. As a diplomat he is best known for negotiating the Webster-Ashburton Treaty with Great Britain; it established the definitive eastern border between the United States and Canada. Chiefly recognized for his Senate tenure, Webster was a key figure in the institution's "Golden days". Webster was the Northern member of the "Great Triumvirate", with his colleagues Henry Clay from the West (Kentucky) and John C. Calhoun from the South (South Carolina). His "Reply to Hayne" in 1830 has been regarded as one of the greatest speeches in the senate's history.

As with his fellow Whig Henry Clay, Webster wanted to see the Union preserved and civil war averted. They both worked for compromises to stave off the sectionalism that threatened war between the North and the South. Webster tried and failed three times to become President of the United States. In 1957, a Senate Committee selected Webster as one of the five greatest U.S. Senators with Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, Robert La Follette, and Robert A. Taft.

A portion of the "Reply to Hayne" speech:

I must now beg to ask, Sir, Whence is this supposed right of the States derived? Where do they find the power to interfere with the laws of the Union? Sir the opinion which the honorable gentleman maintains is a notion founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this governemnt, and of the foundation on which it stands. I hold it to be a popular government, erected by the people; those whoa dminister it, responsibile to the people; and itself capable of being ammended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be. It is as popular, just as truly emanating from the people, as the State governments. It is created for one purpuse; the State governments for another. It has its own powers; they have theirs. There is no more authority with them to arrest the operation of a law of Congress, than with Congress to arrest the operation of their laws. We are here to administer a Constitution emanating immediately from the people, and trusted by them to our administration. It is not the creature of the State governments. It is of no moment to the argument, that certain acts of the State legislatures are necessary to fill our seats in this body. That is not one of their original State powers, a part of the sovereignty of the State. It is a duty which the people, by the Constitution itself, have imposed on the State legislatures; and which they might have left toe performed elsewhere, if they had seen fit. So they have left the choice of President with electors; but all this does not affect the proposition that this whole government, President, Senate, and House of Representatives, is a popular government. It leaves it still all its popular character. The governor of a State (in some of the States) is chosen, not directly by the people, but by those who are chosen by the people, for the purpose of performing, among other duties, that of electing a governor. Is the government of the State, on that account, not a popular government? This government, Sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. It is not the creature of State legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on State sovereignties. The States cannot now make war; they cannot contract alliances; they cannot make, each for itself, separate regulations of commerce; they cannot lay imposts; they cannot coin money. If this Constitution, Sir, be the creatur of State legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtained a strange control over the volitions of its creators.

Sounds much like Abe Lincoln.

Up next: He shaped the American system of public education...

Criminey - I spend the week on the beach with a beer in my hand the entire time and this thread ceases to move forward - and it isn't even my thread. You're slipping tim.

Yankee23Fan said:

Criminey - I spend the week on the beach with a beer in my hand the entire time and this thread ceases to move forward - and it isn't even my thread. You're slipping tim.

Click to expand...

I took the weekend off. It's progressing.

The Electoral College and History of Presidential Elections - Part 1

The first part is fairly easy to get through. In the first election for President it was a foregone conclusion that George Washington was going to be the President. And he was unanimously chosen by every elector. Each elector needed to vote for two people because the person that came in second was the Vice President. John Adams was by far the second best choice receiving more electoral votes than every other person that was named combined. The most interesting thing about this election was that three states didn't vote at all - New York was such a mess that they didn't name their electors in time, and North Carolina and Rhode Island hasn't formally ratified the Constution yet. And of course there was no real party system in place for this one.

Washington received 69 electoral votes, Adams 34 and everyone else combined for less than Adams.

In the next election, Washington was giving hints that he wanted to retire but he allowed himself to be nominated again. Again, Washington pretty much unanimously elected this time receiving 132 electoral votes as all states had ratified the Constitution, New York got their act together and we had some new votes to add to the mix. Adams was again selected as the Vice President. Thus ended the easy Presidential campaign system in this country. Washington would not stand for a third term, Thomas Jefferson was growing in power, John Adams was thought of as a natural successor but not universally supported and the party system in American politics was formed on the backs of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson - both of them having able assists from the top names of the time.

1796

The first truly contested election in our history. The Federalists nominated John Adams as their Presidential candidate with Thomas Pickney as their second. The Democratic Republicans in Congress met and they nominated Thomas Jefferson with Aaron Burr as their second. Of the four men, only Aaron Burr actually campaigned - even though it was clear to everyone that he was supposed to be the Vice President, Burr wasn't about to let that stop him.

The Federalists went to war with Jefferson's party accusing Jefferson of being a slave to the french (true), called him a coward duing the revolution (coward is a strong word but he wasn't a rock) and an athiest (not really a total athiest - more a convenient agnostic but that isn't the point here). Meanwhile, Jefferson's guys did the same to Adams, calling him a lover of England (comically untrue) a monarchist (this going back to the time he wanted the President to be addresses as, his Majesty the President of the United States) and hell bent on creating a republican monarchy staying in power long enough for his son, John Quincy to take over (not true but it kinda worked out a little like that). The press, controlled by the parties played their part and tore the two men apart, and not even George Washington was safe from the attacks.

Alexander Hamilton didn't like Adams and secretly tried to make moves to get Pickney more electoral votes. All of this foreshadowed the next election. In the end, Adams received the most total votes by 3 over Thomas Jefferson. Since Adams was still Vice President and therefore the presiding officer of the Senate, it was his job to tally the votes in the Senate. He called out the final tally giving him the currently being built White House. Jefferson took the entire south, Adams the entire north. The election fell, basically, to two specific electors - one from Virginia from a north county who hated the plantation class voted for Adams instead of Jefferson, and the same happened with one elector in North Carolina from the shore shipping community. The country would have a President and Vice President from different parties, who were political enemies. The next election was going to be fun. But for now, Adams won 71-68

1800

The same election would occur again. Attacks on Adams and Jefferson from their respective enemies were worse. But this time, the Federalists were split in their support for Adams mainly based on the decision to send a peace envoy to France. The Federalists specifically nominated Adams and Charles Pickney ( who was on the peace envoy) but refused to desigate who was the choice for President, directing the electors to decide who they wanted. The DR's again chose Jefferson and Burr, naming Jefferson as the choice for President.

This time Alexander Hamilton went public with his hatred of Adams, publishing a pamphlet attacking his mental state. The pamphlet ended up destroying Hamilton's reputation in the end, and it began a series of events that led to Hamilton meeting Burr on the New Jersey cost with pistols. Meanwhile, Adams' peace delegation did a masterful job in France, but it was too late as news of the treaty didn't reach America until the voting began and was being counted.

In the end, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr recieved more votes that John Adams. The Federalists ended up splitting their ticket even more in the votes cast weakening their already weak party. Jefferson carried the entire south, Pennsylvania and New York. His total vote count was 73-65 against Adams. Thomas Jefferson would be the third President of the United States. The ultimate change in the map though was New York. A state where Adams won in the last election, the DR's made it a point to begin a ground game there for four years, and by the time of the 1800 election they controlled the state legislature. Several states also wen to an at-large policy with electoral votes changing their system from just four years ago - those rebellious electors gave John the White House once but cost him another chance. It's likely that Adams would have snagged a few votes in the south again but with the at large system in place in several states, Jefferson swept them.

But that is just the start of the story because Jefferson and Burr were tied in the college. After 35 ballots in the House there was no movement. Burr refused to step aside even though he was supposed to be the VP. Alexander Hamilton tried to force the federalists to vote for Jefferson, but they thought Burr would be better to handle than Jefferson. In the end, the federalists approached both men with a deal that as long as they kept some of Adams' policies and didn't wipe the government clean of all federalists they would support whoever took the deal. Burr refused. Jefferson always fought any allegation that he accepted, but on the 36th ballot the House gave the office to Jefferson. The midnight appointment of judges by Adams led to the Marbury v. Madison fight in the Supreme Court, but ultimately the change of power from one "party" to the next was done as the founders had envisioned - without a war.

The Constitution worked. Albeit, that office of the Vice President was a problem that needed to be fixed so none of that happened again.

1804

It wasn't so much an election as a coronation of Jefferson. The federalists were in shambles. The DR's held the first political convention and renominated Jefferson, with a new VP since Aaron Burr murdered Alexander Hamilton. The federalists were so broken that they didn't even bother with a formal nominating process and simply named Charles Pickney again as their choice. The fact that he ended up getting 14 electoral votes and two states is a miracle. Jefferson obliterated his opponent with 162 electoral votes. Jefferson saw it as a reclaiming of national unity and an end to party politics. Always naive was Jefferson.

Tim - thoughts on Brett Hundley? I thought he looked great vs the Eagles. I think the Packers have another long term valuable backup.

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Tim - thoughts on Brett Hundley? I thought he looked great vs the Eagles. I think the Packers have another long term valuable backup.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen him in preseason. He was the best QB the Bruins had in years, but I think he has a lot to learn before he's good at the next level. He tried to run too much, led his passes, poor decisions in traffic, etc. but a very smart guy and I think he can improve. He'll

Have the same advantage Aaron Rodgers had: sitting on the bench behind a great pro.

61. John Dewey

Education is not a preperation for life; education is life itself.

With all apologies to my heroine Ayn Rand (who was his opposite in most ways) John Dewey was probably America's greatest philosophical mind, and the man most key to the formation of our modern education system. He was also, perhaps, our most prominent psychologist, the founder of the New School (progressive education) and one of our greatest believers in democracy and civil society.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the key to a free society was for the voters to be well-informed. That's certainly an arguable point, but Dewey took it and expanded it beyond politics: for him, the key to a civil society was for everyone to be well-informed, and not just on political and civic issues. Dewey dreamed of an America in which every child received a well-rounded education before specializing in a certain field. He wanted everybody as smart as possible, believing that it would guarantee democracy and civility. John Dewey was a firm believer that evil (he didn't like to you the word) was synonymous with ignorance; all the world's ills could be solved through the great power of education.

John Dewey was perhaps America's greatest liberal. How distraught he would be, over 60 years after his death, to realize that his dreams have failed. The American education system that he created has failed to achieve the well-rounded citizens he desired; it has failed to live up to even minimum standards. Worse, there is in fact no historical correlation between greater ediucation and less crime, as Dewey and his cohorts automatically assumed. In politics, John Dewey would be horrified to watch the advance of populism on both sides of the political aisle: exactly 180 degrees from what he (and Jefferson before him) predicted what would happen.

Nonetheless, his influence and achievements are great. Dewey may have been a naive dreamer, but he succeeded in making many aspects of his dream a reality. He certainly belongs on this list as one of the greatest Americans.

Next up: The last prophet...

I'm in a state of shock right now.

For the past year I've been working on a major restaurant chain deal. The franchisee was just about to sign leases. Big commission for me, the other brokers. Very complicated deal, took lots of negotiation (which I'm good at- not like Trump, but I'm OK).

My client just called me. His wife just hit him with divorce papers. His lawyer advised him not to do any new deals. Everything we were working on is dead.

Un####ingbelievable.

Ouch. Sorry, Tim.

Yeah, that sucks. Also passing along well-wishes.

Shoot. That sucks

That sucks Tim. Hopefully just put on hold for a while and will get sorted out.

I'm usually the attorney that wrote the papers so..... um.... sorry?

Yankee23Fan said:

I'm usually the attorney that wrote the papers so..... um.... sorry?

Click to expand...

well that figures. ####### attorneys ruining the world. Oh well more time to post I guess.