timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Truman, continued.

The Good

3. Against the advice of several high level State Department "experts", Truman chose to adopt the writings of a young genius named George Kennan as the basis for his foreign policy. The strategy, known as "containment", provided the gist for victory in the Cold War. Let's look at how it worked specifically:

A. Truman supplied military and financial aid to Greece, which allowed the government there to fight off and eventually defeat Communist insurgents.

B. Truman instigated the Marshall Plan, and pushed it through against the opposition of conservatives who were ideologically opposed to a financial giveaway. The Marshall Plan revived the economies of England, France, and West Germany.

C. When Berlin was surrounded and cutoff in 1948, Truman was advised again by the State Department and most of the military to simply surrender Berlin in exchange for concessions elsewhere. Only the newly formed USAF believed that Berlin could be supplied by air. Truman chose to overrule his advisors once more, accepted the air force plan, and the Berlin Airlift that followed saved Berlin.

D. When North Korea invaded South Korea, Truman, through the United Nations, committed the US to the defense of South Korea. (Though troubles began when MacArthur chose to ignore the containment strategy and invaded North Korea.)

As a result of these actions, specifically the first 3, Harry Truman effectively won the Cold War. This would not be realized for several decades. But the Soviet plan to dominate the world with Communism was destroyed with Truman's presidency. For this, the world and this country owes Truman a tremendous amount of gratitude.

4. Truman, against the advice of the State Department, chose to recognize the State of Israel.

5. Truman, against the advice of the US military, ordered it's racial integration. As opposed to Obama ending Don't Ask Don't Tell, Truman didn't wait until public polling favored such a move. He simply went ahead and did it because he believed it was right.

6. Against the will of most of the American public, Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur. He did so because MacArthur invaded North Korea without any plan of victory and then asked to use nuclear weapons against China. Truman against made the tough but right decision, for which he was excoriated.

The Bad

Truman was contemptuous of Republicans and didn't work well with them. He refused to accept that Algier Hiss was a communist spy (he was) and defended him and turned the whole matter into a partisan crisis. Truman didn't handle the media well, threatening to bust a reporter's nose who ripped his daughter's singing debut. Truman also seized the steel industries during a strike; this did resolve the issue quickly, but it was an unconstitutional act.

Analysis

When Truman left office, he had an approval rating of 22%! That's the lowest in history, lower than Nixon even when he resigned. It has taken many years for people's opinions to rise regarding Truman's presidency. For the life of me, I have no idea why. I look at the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and the Berlin Airlift, and that's enough. He saved America, he saved Europe, he saved the World. The integration of the Army is simply icing on the cake IMO. If not for the top 2 guys, Harry S. Truman would clearly be our greatest President.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The usual justification I've heard for Nagasaki & Hiroshima is that they saved thousands of American lives. Not saying I personally believe that justifies it, but that's what I've often heard/read when folks back Truman on this one.

That's high school textbook claptrap.

And yet it is a far stronger arguement than anything you raised. I can see an arguement against the second bomb, but regardless the bombs ended the war much sooner and thus with at least a lot less American casualties than without dropping them.

Totally reasonable and appreciated for anyone who knew or met any vets from WW2. They were all going into Japan and they were looking at war through 1948-50. Million US dead and wounded was possible, millions more Japanese dead almost certain. In Saipan women with their babies and children were jumping off cliffs rather than surrender, in Okinawa the men fought with bamboo spears. It would have been true hell on earth. And oh joy the Soviets would have likely joined in, Truman was staring at the real likelihood of horror upon horror.

 

[timschochet]

4. Theodore Roosevelt

The Good

...

Agreed, love Teddy in the Top 4, he belongs.

However as an historical footnote - I give you, the President that never was - President Garret Hobart:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garret_Hobart

Hobart was McKinley's VP but he was taken ill and died. The VP slot was vacant for like two years before Teddy came in but Hobart was destined for something if fate had not intervened.

I know very little about Hobart.

However, I know a lot about Henry Wallace. He was the progressives' darling, the Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren of his day. He got into a squabble with FDR and so wasn't retained as VP.

Progressives disliked Truman intensely. They regarded him as a corporate tool (does this sound familiar?) In 1948, Wallace ran for President as a progressive alternative to Truman. He got big crowds wherever he went. Folkies like Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger wrote songs. Wallace, of course, would have been a disaster as President.

At the same time, the South was so pissed off at Truman's integration of the army that Strom Thurmond quit the Democratic party and formed the Dixiecrats. This is why all the experts assumed that Truman had no chance against Dewey. They figured that Wallace and Thurmond combined would peel off so many votes from Truman that Dewey would be a shoo-in. But it didn't work out that way.

 

[General Tso]

Tim - great write up on Truman. In many respects he's the most important President of the 20th century. He shaped the postwar world and we are still living with some off he decisions he made. He transformed America from reluctant participant in WWII, to active world power and Cold War foil to the Soviets.

His creation of Israel, and the displacement of Palestinians, has never gotten enough attention. That's obviously a highly charged debate, and I'm not sure you'll ever get a fair vetting of that in this country, even today. But if you look at the Middle East the last 70 years, I'm not sure you can call it an overall success.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

4. Theodore Roosevelt

The Good

...

Agreed, love Teddy in the Top 4, he belongs.

However as an historical footnote - I give you, the President that never was - President Garret Hobart:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garret_Hobart

Hobart was McKinley's VP but he was taken ill and died. The VP slot was vacant for like two years before Teddy came in but Hobart was destined for something if fate had not intervened.

I know very little about Hobart.

However, I know a lot about Henry Wallace. He was the progressives' darling, the Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren of his day. He got into a squabble with FDR and so wasn't retained as VP.

Progressives disliked Truman intensely. They regarded him as a corporate tool (does this sound familiar?) In 1948, Wallace ran for President as a progressive alternative to Truman. He got big crowds wherever he went. Folkies like Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger wrote songs. Wallace, of course, would have been a disaster as President.

At the same time, the South was so pissed off at Truman's integration of the army that Strom Thurmond quit the Democratic party and formed the Dixiecrats. This is why all the experts assumed that Truman had no chance against Dewey. They figured that Wallace and Thurmond combined would peel off so many votes from Truman that Dewey would be a shoo-in. But it didn't work out that way.

Pretty crazy when you realize that the Demos faced revolts from Wallace on the left and Thurmond on the right, and faced a GOP tradition returning after the war and somehow Truman still won. Amazing.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

1948 election Truman got 303 EV to Dewey's 189. (Thurmond had 39).

These were the difference makers:

- CA 25 (Truman) - 47.57-47.13

- OH 25 (Truman) - 49.48-49.24

- IL 28 (Truman) - 50.07-49.22

 

[timschochet]

His creation of Israel, and the displacement of Palestinians, has never gotten enough attention.

OK, this is false, and it needs to be corrected.

Truman recognized the state of Israel; he did nothing to create it. In fact, he not only instructed his diplomats not to pressure the vote for partition in the United Nations, but he also refused to sell any arms to the fledgling Haganah (Israeli Defense Forces) at the same time that all the Arab states were purchasing weapons from all over the world.

The displacement of the Palestinians was not caused by the United States; it was caused by the Arab- Israeli war of 1948 and a combination of Palestinians voluntarily choosing to leave at the urging of the Mufti of Jerusalem, and Israeli forces kicking them out. But neither Truman nor the USA played any part. Unfortunately in the years since this series of events, there has been a lot of false propaganda, the crux being that the United States implanted the State of Israel onto the Arab world. It didn't come close to happening that way.

 

[timschochet]

4. Theodore Roosevelt

The Good

...

Agreed, love Teddy in the Top 4, he belongs.

However as an historical footnote - I give you, the President that never was - President Garret Hobart:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garret_Hobart

Hobart was McKinley's VP but he was taken ill and died. The VP slot was vacant for like two years before Teddy came in but Hobart was destined for something if fate had not intervened.

I know very little about Hobart.

However, I know a lot about Henry Wallace. He was the progressives' darling, the Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren of his day. He got into a squabble with FDR and so wasn't retained as VP.

Progressives disliked Truman intensely. They regarded him as a corporate tool (does this sound familiar?) In 1948, Wallace ran for President as a progressive alternative to Truman. He got big crowds wherever he went. Folkies like Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger wrote songs. Wallace, of course, would have been a disaster as President.

At the same time, the South was so pissed off at Truman's integration of the army that Strom Thurmond quit the Democratic party and formed the Dixiecrats. This is why all the experts assumed that Truman had no chance against Dewey. They figured that Wallace and Thurmond combined would peel off so many votes from Truman that Dewey would be a shoo-in. But it didn't work out that way.

Pretty crazy when you realize that the Demos faced revolts from Wallace on the left and Thurmond on the right, and faced a GOP tradition returning after the war and somehow Truman still won. Amazing.

Truman also faced a revolt from the establishment within his own party. The Democratic party leadership wanted to replace Truman and they had the guy in mind: Dwight Eisenhower! The leaders of the DNC traveled to Europe to offer the Presidency to Ike but he turned it down, and revealed to them that he wasn't a Democrat. Despondent, certain they had lost, the party reluctantly nominated Truman for a 2nd term.

 

[NREC34]

Little trivia about Truman. He was the last President to have facial hair and he would only grow that on vacation. A far cry from those 19th century guys and their huge beards.

 

[timschochet]

1948 election Truman got 303 EV to Dewey's 189. (Thurmond had 39).

These were the difference makers:

- CA 25 (Truman) - 47.57-47.13

- OH 25 (Truman) - 49.48-49.24

- IL 28 (Truman) - 50.07-49.22

Back in a statistics class in college I learned that this election caused the statistics people to re-examine and change their formats, and the result is the modern day statistical sampling we have now.

One of the errors that George Gallup made was that from March through late September 1948, the numbers were so consistent that he simply stopped polling. Apparently the Truman surge took place in October.

 

[General Tso]

His creation of Israel, and the displacement of Palestinians, has never gotten enough attention.

OK, this is false, and it needs to be corrected.Truman recognized the state of Israel; he did nothing to create it. In fact, he not only instructed his diplomats not to pressure the vote for partition in the United Nations, but he also refused to sell any arms to the fledgling Haganah (Israeli Defense Forces) at the same time that all the Arab states were purchasing weapons from all over the world.

The displacement of the Palestinians was not caused by the United States; it was caused by the Arab- Israeli war of 1948 and a combination of Palestinians voluntarily choosing to leave at the urging of the Mufti of Jerusalem, and Israeli forces kicking them out. But neither Truman nor the USA played any part. Unfortunately in the years since this series of events, there has been a lot of false propaganda, the crux being that the United States implanted the State of Israel onto the Arab world. It didn't come close to happening that way.

Overstated on my part. Was multitasking at the time and worded that poorly. But he did have a role in Israel. It came to life during his Presidency, at a time when the U.S. and Russia were undisputed world powers and were making all decisions on the world stage. The buck stops here, right? And the Middle East has been on fire ever since. My general point is that it was a hugely historical event, one that has shaped geopolitics for the last 70 years, and a fair case can be made that the results have not been all that great, especially for the Palestinians. What I'm not sure of is if anyone could have done anything to have made it any better.

 

[msommer]

You are setting an awfully low bar when saying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no less moral than hideous war crimes like the firebombing of Dresden and more than 60 Japanese cities like Tokyo.

The firebombings had absolutely no measurable effect. None. Curtis LeMay and the other responsible for these atrocities hsould have stood trial at Nuremberg (or elsewhere, don't really care about where).

 

[General Tso]

Truman's role in the creation of Israel - http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116215/was-harry-truman-zionist

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You are setting an awfully low bar when saying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no less moral than hideous war crimes like the firebombing of Dresden and more than 60 Japanese cities like Tokyo.

The firebombings had absolutely no measurable effect. None. Curtis LeMay and the other responsible for these atrocities hsould have stood trial at Nuremberg (or elsewhere, don't really care about where).

Tim:

First, let me note that the use of atomic weapons in World War II were no less moral than the firebombing of cities such as Tokyo, Berlin, and Dresden. In all of these cases, civilians were targeted and killed as an attempt to terrify the population of the enemy in order to get them to surrender quickly (which is the object of war.)

I'm sorry guys because I respect you both but do you have any idea what we were dealing with back then? The UK called the Dresden bombing, and we the US helped, but Germany just needed to surrender. Every day that war went on, the more people got executed, the more people got killed on the front. I hear you, I do, but for a second put yourself in the shoes of decision makers who knew that. Put yourself in the shoes of a father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, friend, of someone on the line and what's your call? You think the men making those calls were not making the mental calculus that you do now in retrospect? These are people who actually saw London firebombed (and it was). They experienced the pain, they knew what it mean, first hand, intimately. In fact at that moment that Dresden was being bombed Germans were planning to kill English and Americans and they were doing it. You can personally make the call better than the people actually involved who saw the death and mayhem in front of them, now 70 years later? Good luck taking an honest shot at truly, honestly putting yourself in the shoes, in the eyes and skin, of someone making that call and you know, then, in 1944 or whatever, that maybe something you can do will end that war one day quicker.

 

[timschochet]

You are setting an awfully low bar when saying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no less moral than hideous war crimes like the firebombing of Dresden and more than 60 Japanese cities like Tokyo.

The firebombings had absolutely no measurable effect. None. Curtis LeMay and the other responsible for these atrocities hsould have stood trial at Nuremberg (or elsewhere, don't really care about where).

Tim:

First, let me note that the use of atomic weapons in World War II were no less moral than the firebombing of cities such as Tokyo, Berlin, and Dresden. In all of these cases, civilians were targeted and killed as an attempt to terrify the population of the enemy in order to get them to surrender quickly (which is the object of war.)

I'm sorry guys because I respect you both but do you have any idea what we were dealing with back then? The UK called the Dresden bombing, and we the US helped, but Germany just needed to surrender. Every day that war went on, the more people got executed, the more people got killed on the front. I hear you, I do, but for a second put yourself in the shoes of decision makers who knew that. Put yourself in the shoes of a father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, friend, of someone on the line and what's your call? You think the men making those calls were not making the mental calculus that you do now in retrospect? These are people who actually saw London firebombed (and it was). They experienced the pain, they knew what it mean, first hand, intimately. In fact at that moment that Dresden was being bombed Germans were planning to kill English and Americans and they were doing it. You can personally make the call better than the people actually involved who saw the death and mayhem in front of them, now 70 years later? Good luck taking an honest shot at truly, honestly putting yourself in the shoes, in the eyes and skin, of someone making that call and you know, then, in 1944 or whatever, that maybe something you can do will end that war one day quicker.

I agree with your post. Not sure why you think you're contradicting me here.

 

[timschochet]

2. George Washington

1. Abraham Lincoln

I was starting to do write ups and both of these guys but I stopped. How can I possibly write anything that would do justice, given the billions of words that have been written by great historians and essayists over the years? I'm not going to bother to try. Frankly I'm not good enough. A few notes, and that will have to suffice.

1. George Washington could have turned this country into a dictatorship, or declared himself emperor like his contemporary, Napoleon Bonaparte. That would have ended the United States within a few decades after it's start. Instead, he was President for two terms and then quit. That's an amazing thing. How many other world leaders, before or after, weren't willing to cling to power with their last dying breath? The decision of Washington not to run after two terms is the single greatest decision in the history of the Presidency.

2. If Abe Lincoln had not been the President of the United States in 1860, chances are the Confederacy would have successfully left the union. Maybe there would have been a war, maybe not, but history would have changed dramatically, Lincoln is our greatest President because he saved the United States of America in it's darkest hour and created the country that we all live in today.

 

[timschochet]

Damn that was more work than I thought it would be. Hope everybody enjoyed it.

 

[Jack White]

The usual justification I've heard for Nagasaki & Hiroshima is that they saved thousands of American lives. Not saying I personally believe that justifies it, but that's what I've often heard/read when folks back Truman on this one.

That's high school textbook claptrap.

Just relating what I most often see used to justify it. It's certainly not from my memory of HS textbooks, as that was almost 40 years ago and I'm lucky if I can recall what I did yesterday.

I didn't intend to call you out.

I merely wanted to point out that it's a fallacy, something apologists claim to justify what was a barbaric, despicable, indefensible act of mass murder.

 

[General Tso]

Nice job Tim. Appreciate what you bring to this place. Was surprised as hell to see FDR and Nixon where they were, and Polk certainly generated a lot of controversy. Interesting stuff, and a lot of good discussions. Wish I had paid more attention to it earlier.

 

[Uwe Blab]

2. George Washington

1. Abraham Lincoln

.

I liked it better when they each had their own holiday. That they combined it to some generic President's Day is complete bull####.

 

[psychobillies]

Damn that was more work than I thought it would be. Hope everybody enjoyed it.

I enjoyed it. Great discussion to have, regardless of how you feel about the actual rankings. Great perspectives from you, Saints and Yankee. We should probably get back to college football pretty soon though.

 

[Abraham]

Good job Tim. Any chance you could make a pdf of all your commentary? (Seriousky. J would even pay for it)

 

[rockaction]

Tons of work, tim. Kudos. As for me, if nothing else, I learned how to throw fruit at a stage, and for that I am grateful.

 

[General Tso]

Tons of work, tim. Kudos. As for me, if nothing else, I learned how to throw fruit at a stage, and for that I am grateful.

LOL!! I think we all learned it. Easy to be a critic in this place isn't it? Nobody takes a fruiting better than Tim.

 

[bentley]

. It is the most wondrous, the most beautiful. I have traveled around the world and found no rival to the sheer awesomeness of Yosemite Valley, no city that sparkles like the San Francisco bay at night, no drive that is as splendid as driving through the Napa Valley, and few beaches that can match Southern California

I have said this before. You need to get out more

Yeah, I love San Francisco but there are definitely other places that sparkle more at night.And I'm drunk and in no mood to expound but Chicago is definitely an answer to the follow up question.

 

[technicaldifficulties]

The usual justification I've heard for Nagasaki & Hiroshima is that they saved thousands of American lives. Not saying I personally believe that justifies it, but that's what I've often heard/read when folks back Truman on this one.

That's high school textbook claptrap.

Just relating what I most often see used to justify it. It's certainly not from my memory of HS textbooks, as that was almost 40 years ago and I'm lucky if I can recall what I did yesterday.

Ya know, I would love to have this argument. I have no problem with us dropping the bomb. Even the oldest members of this board cannot remember what it was like. We had no real idea of radiation; the US had sailors on boats inspecting the atoll test when the radiation was still really hot. Japan had caused mass damages throughout Asia, all as the aggressor; they sucker punched us; Okinawa was a terribly ferocious battle and landing on the main 4 islands would have been worse. We, and our allies, had done as much damage through conventional bombings, like in the Tokyo air raids. It took TWO bombs for them to finally surrender. And, there is a persuasive argument that the bombing was actually good for Japan. If the Soviets had landed in Hokkaido, there would have been another serious flashpoint existing after the war. Yes, the Japanese lost some islands and half of Sakhalin, but it would have been nothing like having Sapporo be a border town. Yes, people died, but it was war. There is a good chance that if nukes weren't used here, they would have been used some times later. Showing the world how ####ty they are early probably saved more lives than saving it for later.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Damn that was more work than I thought it would be. Hope everybody enjoyed it.

I think it was the single best topic I've read on these boards, especially when combining your writeups with the responses and constructive criticism from others. I think it was a daunting if not impossible task to attempt to rank Presidents that span multiple generations over 200+ years of history. Trying to establish criteria and the importance of it is also difficult and could easily be totally different than other peoples criteria, as we witnessed in this thread.

I appreciate you taking on this challenge and also appreciate everyone that offered quality responses and the debates that followed.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I was going to suggest you put them together because of the exact reason you did.

Hey you got the top 2 right.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Damn that was more work than I thought it would be. Hope everybody enjoyed it.

Applauso! Really thanks Tim, and you did a great job, that was a real labor and you took the lobbed fruit and slinged arrows really well, not to mention sending some right back. Great work.

Now. On to the Vice Presidents...

 

[facook]

Thanks for this Tim. It's been very enjoyable to read your rankings and the responses (well most of them) from others as well.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

So, who should be on Mt. Rushmore?

 

[skol asylum]

So, who should be on Mt. Rushmore?

Washington, Lincoln, Truman, and Gorbachev

 

[Uruk-Hai]

So, who should be on Mt. Rushmore?

Elvis, Chuck Berry, Ray Charles, and Hank Sr

 

[Shankopotamus]

So, who should be on Mt. Rushmore?

Mt Rushmore? Of course it should be Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, and Emmitt Smith.

Jokes aside, good job Tim. I enjoyed reading it and learned a few things. Disagree on a few, but that's what opinions are for.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I think it would be cool to read a biography of each president and their presidency.

I read Founding Brothers recently and found it had a great style and was very interesting, even if it went into only a few very specific events that joined certain founders together.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I think it would be cool to read a biography of each president and their presidency.

I read Founding Brothers recently and found it had a great style and was very interesting, even if it went into only a few very specific events that joined certain founders together.

Phenominal book. It might just the best book on the subject(s) ever written.

Bios on every President is tough because some of them really don't have one. There was a book series of American Presidents some time ago that tried to do a book on each of them but they were small books so a lot of the nuance and longer stories that should be told for a person that hits that office weren't great. Many times you will find that you can capture the essence of certain presidents by either reading the bios of the guys around them or about the times in particular.

 

[Don Quixote]

I think it would be cool to read a biography of each president and their presidency.

I read Founding Brothers recently and found it had a great style and was very interesting, even if it went into only a few very specific events that joined certain founders together.

Old thread in which posters were listing best biographies by President. Been a few years since last post, and OP stopped updating the list. I could add some I've read since then.

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?/topic/390812-best-book-on-each-president/

 

[Yankee23Fan]

tim - so now that you are done, can you provide your ranking requirements / scoring system / whatever it is you used to come up with the list. I've been thinking about how I would do it to be as fair as possible without my personal bias coming in and I have a few ideas but there are still gaps.

 

[Arodin]

I haven't posted here, but have very much enjoyed reading the rankings and commentary, and learned a few things about US history that I'm glad I was exposed to here.

Appreciate the effort and thought Tim put in, and that of the many commenters who supported or critiqued the rankings. Probably the most informative bit I've read in the FFA!

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Eh, I really don't feel like doing anymore work today.

When I've been in time wasting mode thinking about the list of President's I came up with a list of categories that I think captures the office of President in order to rank them:

Public Acumen / Pursuasion - basically, the ability to lead "the people" and be seen as a leader. This is something that we always give to guys like Reagan and Clinton in recent times, FDR last century, and Washington to start out. Can the President move the public or bring the public along with his vision. The problem of this particular point though is that for much of our history this wasn't a calling card of the President the way it is now. But we can address that in another part of the list.

War & Crisis - how was the leadership of the President during these kind of things. Washington had small rebellions. MAdison had the War of 1812. Lincoln the civil war, FDR had WWII and our current guys have terrorism. But there are other flare points where the Commander in Chief is also the ultimate leader and face of the "fixing things." Those other crisis' would be things like the social revolution at home. Riots and civil unrest in various parts of the country in modern times and even 19th century. Economic panics, recession and depression. If a president manages these times well he will usually be at the top of the overall rankings.

Economy - this one is impossible to really do well, except that you don't need to focus on every specific. Is the economy after the President leaves office better than what it was when he took office. That is the basic measurement. Many of the presidents will get hits here, and some a ton of hits that can't overcome anything else. There is also a little curve for the first few guys becuase the economy was still being built and the office didn't exactly control it or invade it the way it does now.

Foreign Policy - this would be different than war, but not completely removed from it. Treaties, international relations and the like are things that can lead to or stop a war, but they are also important things to consider for themselves.

Executive Skills & Working with Congress - how did the President actually do being the CEO of the country. This isn't so much what was the result of the policy we like or don't like but could the President identify an agenda, work with that agenda, work with Congress to get that agenda through and manage the operations of the government during his time in office.

Equal Justice / Civil Rights - we have to consider it. The President's oath requires him to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States - a document written in the language of civil rights and how government works with its people. But with this topic, many if not the overwhelming majority of Presidents, even the "great" ones are going to take a hit here.

Awareness of the Time Served - How did the President deal with everything above within the context of the times he served. If he was a victim of the times, he is going to most likely end up on the bottom of the list. If he rose above the times and changed some basic understanding or institution he is probably higher. If he managed the times with the power available but ensured that future generations could build on it, that is a plus as well.

I think those 7 points are going to give you a general sense of the time that these guys served/are serving in and allow you to measure them against each other. The Presidential VBD if you will. But in using these it takes a lot more than mere perusing of the internet for a quick list. There is many times when a more in depth expression of the guy in the office is warranted.

In starting a list from this standpoint, it looks massively different than yours, tim. I think. I'm not done with it yet. And I stole many of these categories from one study or another online. There are more but I think these are the best. I also define or allow for information inside some of the categories that is different from the original spot I saw them in.

 

[jon_mx]

tim - so now that you are done, can you provide your ranking requirements / scoring system / whatever it is you used to come up with the list. I've been thinking about how I would do it to be as fair as possible without my personal bias coming in and I have a few ideas but there are still gaps.

I don't get the impression Tim was that systematic in his rankings.

 

[timschochet]

Yankee I admire your systematic formula and are eager to see how things shape up. I didn't do it that way myself. I studied each man and formed impressions.

 

[dickey moe]

Damn that was more work than I thought it would be. Hope everybody enjoyed it.

You did a good job.

 

[krista4]

Good job Tim. Any chance you could make a pdf of all your commentary? (Seriousky. J would even pay for it)

I would like to read it all in one place as well.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Here is what my categories/rankings posts would look like as it relates to George Washington. A quick note. As I'm going through the raw score at the end it is not set in stone but a place marker for the initial ranking to work off of:

George Washington (1789-1797)

Public Acumen/Persuasion

Washington is hard/easy/hard to rank in this manner because he was first – and that is a commonality in all the sub-categories for him. He was first because he was pretty much universally trusted by large groups of people in every walk of life in the new country. But we know this – because of that almost universal trust, his power of persuasion was pretty much the best you can have in a ranking system. At least for his first term. By his second term, his cabinet broke into factions for good, the country was still going through changes from colonies to a country, and there was blowback and criticism that thought impossible just a few years prior.

But for the most part – when Washington talked, people listened. And when he commanded something it got done. His ability to persuade was basically the power of his presence. It was a towering presence. The greatest minds/leaders of the time submitted to Washington as did the people for the most part and in that he gets about as close to a perfect score here as you can possibly get.

War & Crisis

I would submit that you have to view Washington’s entire presidency as crisis management. The government was barely formed and it was his task to actually form one. So out of the ashes of a bloody revolution, he had to create the government that the Constitution envisioned. With his leadership and trust in Alexander Hamilton a national economy was formed. Jefferson assisted him when he created the Secretary of State. And on and on. Washington’s crisis of creating something out of nothing cannot be brushed aside. And he did a remarkable job.

But he also had to deal with violent issues. The Northwest Indian War continued through the revolution and into his Presidency. 7 indian tribes in the northwest made ongoing war with the new country in roughly present day Ohio and Indiana. After a few hiccups Washington finally commissioned a force so powerful that it destroyed the Indian tribes there. In 1796 he signed a treaty with the tribes for America to gain that territory.

Washington also had to deal with ongoing hostilities with England. When he sent John Jay overseas to try to forge a true peace beyond the end of the revolution it wasn’t easy. Jay’s Treaty resulted in Washington being attacked by the people of the country for the first time, but it did allow peace with England while the country was forming. The treaty also finally had England give up any claim to the lands Washington just won with the Indian tribes and America took all that land that became Ohio, Indiana and the surrounding states.

Washington also had to deal with the Whiskey Rebellion. A loose riot/minor insurrection in Pennsylvania over taxes, it became bloody and problematic. In the first real test of his power as Commander in Chief within the confines of the country itself, Washington put together a force larger than his revolutionary army, and personally led the force to Pennsylvania to put down the rebellion. It worked. The sight of George Washington himself leading tens of thousands of men into the woods of Pennsylvania to protect government authority quickly stopped everything in its tracks.

Finally, to be noted here was how Washington managed his cabinet. It is discussed below, but it was also a form of crisis management. Almost immediately the federalists and democrats formed along party lines and the two party system that we know and love now was formed (it was already formed but we see it in practical application here). Because Washington was Washington he managed to keep the sides working together as best as anyone could. But there were chinks in the armor. Jefferson eventually broke away completely and some of the grossest political infighting we’ve ever had in our history occurred over the next decade. But Washington himself, during his time in office, managed it well and deserves top accolades for it.

Economy

He created one. Well, Alexander Hamilton did, but Washington gave him the tools (namely Washington’s support) to do it. If our measure is “was the economy better when he left office from when he started,” the answer is a simple yes because there was no economy when he started. There were other hands in the deal to be sure, but during Washington’s administration a national economy was formed.

Looking at his time projected out, future presidents ended up fighting over the economy he created, the national bank, taxes, duties, etc. but Washington started the process of having an actual national economy. The finances of the country were a disaster when he took office. When he left, there was an economy to build a nation. If we can hit Washington here the hit would be that the economy he helped to create created very much the breakdown in civility between the north and the south because of the nature of the system. The assumption of state debts was one of the main things that was fought over for the next 60 years leading to civil war, and the power of the national economy and then the national bank and how it worked within the economy was part and parcel of several economic panics well after he left office. But overall, for his time, and his economic legacy you can’t really do much better than what Washington did.

Foreign Policy

Washington had no desire to get the new country into a war with anyone. He successfully ended hostilities with England as best he could with the Jay Treaty. He remained as neutral as possible with the French Revolution and how it affected North America. He did support French armies in a rebellion in Haiti when slaves massacred their owners but it was done as a payment for war debts from the revolution. But as the French Revolution was getting worse more and more Americans(Jefferson their lead political head) wanted to support France in that revolution and its entanglement with a war on England. Washington wanted no part of it and issued the Proclamation of Neutrality stating that the United States would not take sides in any war between France and England. France tried to subvert him with a diplomatic mission by “Citizen Genet” but that backfired horribly and by the time Washington was ready to arrest and deport Genet news from France was that the revolution was so bloody that Genet would have been executed when he returned. So like any good diplomat Washington let him stay in America showing an honor that everyone knew he had.

Washington also had to deal with Barbary Pirates, and settled a dispute there by paying them off because we had no navy to deal with them. He managed several agreements with Spain. These agreements don’t get enough love when we talk about Washington. Spain waived any interest in the Mississippi valley allowing American expansion west without having to deal with Spanish claims. But overall because of the weak state of the fledgling country, we basically lived through a few years of cold/hot/cold war with France and England that wasn’t resolved until well after Washington left office.

His final act was his Farewell Address whereby he begged his country to remain neutral in the affairs of Europe so that his country could grow. He envisioned an America that would be a world power by the turn of the 19th/20th century and he was right. His ideal of neutrality was the backbone of how we dealt with foreign affairs for decades. In short, his foreign policy was both ideological, practical and successful.

Executive Skills/Congress

It’s hard to give Washington a grade here because he usually got what he wanted because he was Washington. His executive skills are top notch simple because he was the first to exercise them. In everything he did he set the precedent for how all future president’s acted and with that his actions define how we define the rest of the guys in the office.

He also worked well with Congress. He got treaty’s passed, economic plans passed and his overall vision and plan for the country was pushed through Congress without too much pain. If you want to see a successful CEO president, there is maybe 1 or 2 others as good as Washington.

Justice/Rights

Washington signed the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 banning slavery in the territory. He signed the Naturalization Act which set up an immigration policy for people to become citizens – but it was limited to freed white persons. He signed the Fugitive Slave Act which we see in other administrations was a poison pill that was one of many causes of the civil war. If we look at him through the eyes of 2015 he was an awful President here. Almost all of them will be. And of course he was a slave owner. Though, to his credit he did free his slaves upon his death. For what that is worth. His Indian policy if you want to call it that was something tim would object to most likely.

And we also have to give credit here for him stepping down. He could have been a republican king. But gave away power so that the idea of America could live on. In that single act we have the ideal that the people do truly lead this nation. We go back and forth in spheres of power in that ideal, but without Washington doing what he did in stepping down we don’t have the country we have now.

Context

Washington was the first President and with it every single thing he did set the precedent for how future men in the office would act, be measured, and be remembered. He came to power at the end of a revolution that ultimately changed the world. He was greater than his times in many ways and still in some ways greater than our times now. His failings, if we define them with our ideals today, were not failings at the time he served. He was a slave owner like many were. He never championed the right to vote for women or black people, and never dealt with any issue we deal with now. It’s likely that any true slave revolt during his time would have been put down in the bloodiest way possible if necessary. But he created and nurtured the systems that allowed for these changes in our country over the next 200 years. In the context of his times, George Washington was a great man by every single measure you can possibly use. And in that, he was also a great President.

Conclusion

Washington gets highest marks in almost every category save civil rights. For Persuasion he gets a 10, for crisis he gets a 10, for economy he gets a 10, for foreign policy he gets a 10, for CEO/Congress he gets a 9, for civil rights he gets a 5 and for context he gets a 10. With a top score of 70, Washington clocks in at 64. But with that all of his rankings/scores are skewed in that he was the first. That he was also one of if not the best also tells you that in the end, he was without question one of our greatest presidents. Every country, every people, should have their own George Washington. A man who was born to be a natural leader, who had a basic ethos that he pretty much never wavered from, who could stand against his enemies and his friends when they did something wrong, who could bring together rival factions in his own cabinet to help create a nation and who could stand against negative press, rise above it and do what he thought was right. That history has basically proven him to be right only bolsters his legacy.

 

[Uwe Blab]

Wow, Y23F, that was a great read and would be amazing for multiple presidents.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yank, great Zeus man! Great read!

 

[timschochet]

I bow to the master.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

John Adams (1797-1801)

Public Acumen/Persuasion

John Adams would get a 10 in this category if you included all the time before and after he was President. In fact, he would get the top spot. There was no better man in our history that John Adams in making an argument with passion and facts and fighting for it until people agreed. His power of persuasion led the Continental Congress and led to the Lee Resolution. His arguments were the main arguments that Thomas Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence. And his speaking on the floor led to the vote for independence. But we aren’t scoring that here.

As President, John wasn’t that great in this department. He was a firebrand for sure and fought for what he believed in. He fought for what he believed in when it cost him dearly. It cost him reelection. But the people didn’t follow him in that fight obviously. He didn’t work well with Congress because he tried to stay above the party fighting that Washington managed to stay above, and he had even worse problems with his cabinet – which was Washington’s to start.

But, he also wrote numerous public letters during the XYZ affair that is referenced below. Those letters helped to shape the arguments during the quasi war with France and in that he gets good marks there. But John Adams was never someone that a group of people would follow through a brick wall – while President. Unfortunately for him, his 4 years in office don’t give him high marks here. I would submit that the history of this nation is better told through Adams’ words then Jefferson’s, yet Jefferson has the memorial. John’s greatest gift here though was trying to stand above the political infighting that was going on and while he tried to keep the country away from it, he lost reelection because of it.

War & Crisis

Like Washington, I submit again that his entire presidency was an exercise in crisis management. And that is because John Adams is the most unique leader in our history. Because he followed Washington. The greatest leader of a nation who helped build the nation and was respected by all stepped down and there was an election. The people, as defined at the time, had a say moreso than any probably thought possible. And Adams was chosen. Washington leaving was more important, but John’s election was just as important because it signaled the bloodless coup of democracy that we have enjoyed since 1797.

Upon taking office John’s main problem was France. He believed everything President Washington wrote in his Fairwell Address and he was not going to get involved in a foreign war. The country was split more and more with the war between France and England. And that split defined his entire time in office. It destroyed his relationship with Thomas Jefferson, it ultimately killed Alexander Hamilton and it eventually ended up with the War of 1812 that President Madison had to deal with.

But John remained as neutral as was humanly possible. Called a monarch and a lover of Britain he tried desperately to handle the whole mess without going to war. He made a huge massive blunder in forming an army with Hamilton’s persistent demands to deal with English and French issues in the territories, but when he did it, Jefferson and his side were appalled as they saw it as an armed beginning to war with France, not Britain. He chose George Washington to lead the force so that it appeared to have greatness behind it. But as Jefferson feared, Washington was too ill to really be its leader and he left the daily operation of the army up to his closest advisor – Alexander Hamilton. That was the final straw with Jefferson and much of his side of the country.

But at the same time Adams was working to stay out of any armed conflict and France eventually helped him. A peace negotiation was to take place with, France sent emissaries to America to begin talks. Jefferson wanted those talks to lead to an alliance. Adams wanted peace with France and Britain. Before the talks could begin, Adams ended them and the French delegation left, blaming Adams’ love of Britain. Jeffersonians went ballistic. And in an act of pure genius, Adams allowed to be published the documents that told the true story. Now know as the XYZ Affair, Adams showed the people of the country that France demanded massive amounts of bribes before they would even talk to America and showed themselves to be criminals of the highest order, bent not on their war with Britain but the diplomatic take over of the United States. The Jeffersonians were shamed and the public backed Adams after the event. This resulted in the Quasi-War with France, not all out war with Britain. A massive sea change in policy in the country took place.

The intervention into domestic politics by France led the Federalists in Congress to write the Alien and Sedition Acts. Adams signed them and he gets a hit for that as we will see later. But in the times, against we see later, they seemed to be very necessary. Not wanting the Quasi War to begin all out war, and against every single person in his own party, John commissioned a peace delegation to France to speak with Napoleon. That delegation eventually made peace with France. However, Jefferson took that time to make public opinion again change, the people feared all out war with France and the ultimate result was that voting for Adams and Jefferson in the election started before word came back that peace with France was ultimately achieved. Adams was right, Jefferson was wrong, and the people would have likely supported Adams again had word of that peace come weeks earlier. But it didn’t, and John lost reelection to Jefferson.

He also had to deal with a minor revolt – again in Pennsylvania – when he raised taxes for foreign policy issues. Friey’s Rebellion was quickly put down when they attacked federal tax collectors and the leaders were tried, convicted and sentenced to death. Adams, always the diplomat, pardoned all of them before he left office.

Economy

When it comes to the economy, Adams basically let Congress deal with it and all of domestic policy. He supported and continued Washington’s policies for the most part. With that, and given the fact that the economy was being tugged on by France and England for his full 4 years, the economy was relatively strong during his time in office. He allowed taxes and duties to be raised to deal with a new army and the build up of a real navy, and had to deal with the rebellion referenced above. But overall, the system remained relatively strong.

Foreign Policy

Like Washington, John gets a 10 here. Fighting against public opinion, his rivals and his friends, John stayed the course to support Washington’s prayer for ultimate neutrality and he stuck to that, to his own eventual defeat, and history must judge his acts as President as they relate to England and France and pretty impressive. The fact that he was probably our greatest diplomat in history (the only close second would be his own son) certainly helped his ability to deal with this. John managed to not have America become a conduit for France and England and kept the peace that lasted until 1812.

Executive Skills/Congress

He doesn’t get great marks here. Congress respected and disliked him at the same time. He let them run the country on a daily basis focusing on foreign affairs, so if you want to give him high marks for delegation, you have to give him low marks for actual leadership. He allowed them to write and then he signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. He tried to balance Hamilton and Jefferson as best he could but it resulted in the cabinet hating him and him not really using them, and Congress bemoaning the fact that he was no Washington. It’s ironic that the greatest Continental Congressmen really didn’t work all that well with the Congress he fought for so hard.

Justice/Rights

Slavery and Indian rights went really nowhere under John. His signing of the Alien and Sedition Acts is a negative. The prosecutions that occurred because of it are dark marks on our civil rights ledger as a nation. But I think you can temper this with the context of the times discussed below. Still, if Washington gets a 5 here, Adams can do no better than a 4.

Context

He followed Washington. He tried to keep Hamilton and Jefferson together. He tried to stay neutral and stay away from England and France. He raised an army when they gave him no choice but focused on a navy for defense instead of doing what he really didn’t want to do and start all out war. As a measure of the times, he was the perfect successor to Washington because he had the same independent streak that Washington had, and had Jefferson followed instead of John, we would have been at war with England quicker than 1812, would have hitched our star to Napoleon and would have likely suffered an awful fate as a nation. John Adams tried to stand above his times when he was President the way he did when he was a leader of the revolution. But the same zeal and power he had in the 1770’s and 1780’s had no place in the 1790’s when he tried to lead the nation he helped build.

He is one of our greatest leaders when you look at his entire body of work. I could argue and have that he is our greatest. But as President, he suffers too many hits to be considered one of the truly greats there. Still, for his time, for his life, for his exercise of the power of the president, he was a truly good man who suffered personal flaws that ended up most likely costing him what he always wanted which was to be remembered and honored the way that we remember and honor Thomas Jefferson.

Conclusion

John gets a 7 for persuasion, a 10 for crisis, a 5 for the economy, a 10 for foreign policy, a 4 for civil rights and a 10 for context. Raw score of 46. Almost 20 points lower than Washington to start out. One of the truly great untold stories of our history is what would have happened had he beat Jefferson. In their letters together as their lives were closing they both came to realize that they were a part of the same coin. Heads and tails. Our history isn’t written without both of them together. As a President, John wasn’t the greatest of the greats, but as a leader we needed at the time even if we didn’t know it, he was everything you probably want – stubborn to a fault to be sure, but always focused on the most important thing as he saw it. In as much as every nation needs a George Washington, every nation also deserves a John Adams. And we are a better people a better nation, because of him.

 

[tom22406]

Tremendous stuff Y23F