Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
jesus...you have a hard on for Tim. Stalking and tracking down in his own thread.
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Zachary Taylor (1849-1850)
Public Acumen/Persuasion
Taylor was one of if not the only president to run for office with no platform. Whigs assumed he supported them and in reality he didn’t necessarily align with Democrats on most issues. He opposed Jackson’s economic plans and his attack on the Bank of the United States. And he was a fierce defender of the Union in the face of the growing sectional fights that would lead to civil war. He was a war hero and the political bosses hoped that that would be enough. Given his short time in office we don’t know how he would have handled much of the issues that faced in the nation in the coming years but we know he tried everything he could to balance slave states and free states and challenged Congress to do whatever it took to keep that balance and avert war. His work there eventually led to the Compromise of 1850 but he didn’t support the plan. His successor got it through and it marked what would be a decade of problems leading to war. Taylor probably could have held the country together a little longer but we will never know.
War & Crisis
The growing sectional issues dominated his short time in office. With the Oregon Territory settled and the Mexican War complete, the country had a ton of land and states were going to be formed. Taylor tried to get California and New Mexico to apply for statehood immediately, as free states, and allow Texas to balance them out, as well as some of the other territories. He tried to force Congress to grant the statehood without mention of slavery at all hoping and knowing that those states would right their own constitutions outlawing it. California did just that and it upset the balance of power. It was here that southern leaders began openly calling for secession. Taylor threatened to hang the leaders of the south who dare try. But the fight ended with the Compromise of 1850, which he opposed and died before it was formally complete.
He tried to use federal power to assist in disease outbreaks in New York and Louisiana that killed thousands. He tried to stay on top of Indian issues in Florida and Texas but Texas was becoming more and more of a mess because of the slavery issue. And using his cabinet more like a war council he appointed people not based on party but skill and let them do a lot of the work in these crisis’ while not working very well directly with Congress.
Economy
Taylor didn’t agree with all Whig tariffs but didn’t support Jacksonian plans either. The economy was the last thing on his mind really anyway because of the growing sectional issues and he let his cabinet and Congress run daily economic policy. Was the economy better than when he left office? At best it was the same.
Foreign Policy
Domestic issues dwarfed his time in office but the one thing that he did was to get a treaty with England over a canal in Nicaragua. It averted a crisis with England in South America and was a fairly strong foundation in the coming political power increase that America enjoyed in that part of the world.
Executive Skills/Congress
As a President he had very little. He didn’t work with Congress and delegated almost everything to his cabinet and Congress. He tried to stay above party actions on the daily stuff by doing so. But in doing that Congress had no clear lead to follow and Clay, Calhoun, Webster and the host of the rest of the power players ended up running the country into the Compromise of 1850, and eventually civil war. He should have been more forceful here. His hero status could have helped.
Justice/Rights
Slavery and its coming bloody war dominated his time in office and his political inexperience hurt his ability to do anything and led to a decade of stress in the country culminating in war. He might have been able to avert it had he served a full term or two he might have. But we will never know.
Context
Taylor was nominated because of his status as a war hero, not any political acumen. He tried to stave off the coming civil war as best he could but he didn’t have the skills to do it. He was married to the union though, which does help him from that time period. He was just too weak and unable to do anything about it in any great way before he died.
Conclusion
Taylor might have been a very good President given his experience in war had he been able to serve a full term. His foreign policy success is a solid plus. But he gets weak scores everywhere else because of his lack of political influence and inability to stop what was happening in his own country. HE did try, but he didn’t get very far. On persuasion he gets a 2, on crisis he gets a 3, on economy 2, foreign policy 6, Congress 1, civil rights 2 and context 3. 19 total points. I might be a little harder on him than most, but the only lasting good legacy Taylor really had was the Nicaragua issue. Domestically, he failure to lead ultimately resulted in failures across the board and we were in for 10 years of acrimony that culminated in the Civil War.
Public Acumen/Persuasion
Taylor was one of if not the only president to run for office with no platform. Whigs assumed he supported them and in reality he didn’t necessarily align with Democrats on most issues. He opposed Jackson’s economic plans and his attack on the Bank of the United States. And he was a fierce defender of the Union in the face of the growing sectional fights that would lead to civil war. He was a war hero and the political bosses hoped that that would be enough. Given his short time in office we don’t know how he would have handled much of the issues that faced in the nation in the coming years but we know he tried everything he could to balance slave states and free states and challenged Congress to do whatever it took to keep that balance and avert war. His work there eventually led to the Compromise of 1850 but he didn’t support the plan. His successor got it through and it marked what would be a decade of problems leading to war. Taylor probably could have held the country together a little longer but we will never know.
War & Crisis
The growing sectional issues dominated his short time in office. With the Oregon Territory settled and the Mexican War complete, the country had a ton of land and states were going to be formed. Taylor tried to get California and New Mexico to apply for statehood immediately, as free states, and allow Texas to balance them out, as well as some of the other territories. He tried to force Congress to grant the statehood without mention of slavery at all hoping and knowing that those states would right their own constitutions outlawing it. California did just that and it upset the balance of power. It was here that southern leaders began openly calling for secession. Taylor threatened to hang the leaders of the south who dare try. But the fight ended with the Compromise of 1850, which he opposed and died before it was formally complete.
He tried to use federal power to assist in disease outbreaks in New York and Louisiana that killed thousands. He tried to stay on top of Indian issues in Florida and Texas but Texas was becoming more and more of a mess because of the slavery issue. And using his cabinet more like a war council he appointed people not based on party but skill and let them do a lot of the work in these crisis’ while not working very well directly with Congress.
Economy
Taylor didn’t agree with all Whig tariffs but didn’t support Jacksonian plans either. The economy was the last thing on his mind really anyway because of the growing sectional issues and he let his cabinet and Congress run daily economic policy. Was the economy better than when he left office? At best it was the same.
Foreign Policy
Domestic issues dwarfed his time in office but the one thing that he did was to get a treaty with England over a canal in Nicaragua. It averted a crisis with England in South America and was a fairly strong foundation in the coming political power increase that America enjoyed in that part of the world.
Executive Skills/Congress
As a President he had very little. He didn’t work with Congress and delegated almost everything to his cabinet and Congress. He tried to stay above party actions on the daily stuff by doing so. But in doing that Congress had no clear lead to follow and Clay, Calhoun, Webster and the host of the rest of the power players ended up running the country into the Compromise of 1850, and eventually civil war. He should have been more forceful here. His hero status could have helped.
Justice/Rights
Slavery and its coming bloody war dominated his time in office and his political inexperience hurt his ability to do anything and led to a decade of stress in the country culminating in war. He might have been able to avert it had he served a full term or two he might have. But we will never know.
Context
Taylor was nominated because of his status as a war hero, not any political acumen. He tried to stave off the coming civil war as best he could but he didn’t have the skills to do it. He was married to the union though, which does help him from that time period. He was just too weak and unable to do anything about it in any great way before he died.
Conclusion
Taylor might have been a very good President given his experience in war had he been able to serve a full term. His foreign policy success is a solid plus. But he gets weak scores everywhere else because of his lack of political influence and inability to stop what was happening in his own country. HE did try, but he didn’t get very far. On persuasion he gets a 2, on crisis he gets a 3, on economy 2, foreign policy 6, Congress 1, civil rights 2 and context 3. 19 total points. I might be a little harder on him than most, but the only lasting good legacy Taylor really had was the Nicaragua issue. Domestically, he failure to lead ultimately resulted in failures across the board and we were in for 10 years of acrimony that culminated in the Civil War.
I'd argue that the terms aren't remotely interchangeable. To me, "greatest" means the person caused significant improvements to the country, the citizens, quality of life, "happiness", etc. "Most influential" just means the person caused significant changes, good or ill.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
psychobillies
Footballguy
You're in his thread telling him to shut up. You know you're not obligated to come in here right? I disagree with him quite a bit, but this is a great thread, and Tim bashers should just avoid it. This time YOU are ruining a thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
93. Madonna
I'm tough, ambitious, and I know exactly what I want. If that makes me a #####, okay.
No, Madonna, that doesn't make you a #####. Rude behavior does. Back in the 1980s, during her "Material Girl", I worked one of her concerts- Pacific Amphitheater in Costa Mesa, I poured beer. We had to be there 90 minutes before the show started, and I got to watch her lambast her dancers during their last rehearsal- she was rude, crude, screaming at them. That's what made her a #####- then. But that was 30 years ago, so she may have changed her personality some (though I doubt it.)
Madonna's musical output was never particularly original, though I would say she certainly did it well. But her persona was original- she broke all of the stereotypes that the American public associated with women celebrities and turned them on their heads. She was a new kind of female superstar celebrity, dominating the news whenever she appeared for nearly two decades, constantly trying to shock and offend until it became obvious to everyone that this was exactly what she was trying to do, at which point it became boring. In a sense, Madonna was the epitome of Andy Warhol's notion of how everyone gets 15 minutes of fame- except that Madonna somehow turned it into 20 years of fame.
Beyond that, of course, she is the best selling female recording artist of all time. Billboard ranked her #2 behind only the Beatles, so she was a money making machine. She is also the top touring artist of all time. Today we are flooded with pop superstars: P!nk, Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, etc. etc,, whose careers would have been impossible without Madonna. (Whether or not this is such a great thing I'll leave to others to decide.)
She continues to earn tons of money on tour. And yet, whenever I see clips of Madonna, who is now 57, I can't help feeling there's a sense of desperation there. Unlike some other performers who can keep going on and on for years based on the strength of their music, Madonna, for all her hits, relies on youth and energy as part of her overall appeal. Thus there is a bit of Norma Desmond about her. That makes me a little sad.
Next up: he organized the relationship between business and labor that would change the nature of the American economy.
I'm tough, ambitious, and I know exactly what I want. If that makes me a #####, okay.
No, Madonna, that doesn't make you a #####. Rude behavior does. Back in the 1980s, during her "Material Girl", I worked one of her concerts- Pacific Amphitheater in Costa Mesa, I poured beer. We had to be there 90 minutes before the show started, and I got to watch her lambast her dancers during their last rehearsal- she was rude, crude, screaming at them. That's what made her a #####- then. But that was 30 years ago, so she may have changed her personality some (though I doubt it.)
Madonna's musical output was never particularly original, though I would say she certainly did it well. But her persona was original- she broke all of the stereotypes that the American public associated with women celebrities and turned them on their heads. She was a new kind of female superstar celebrity, dominating the news whenever she appeared for nearly two decades, constantly trying to shock and offend until it became obvious to everyone that this was exactly what she was trying to do, at which point it became boring. In a sense, Madonna was the epitome of Andy Warhol's notion of how everyone gets 15 minutes of fame- except that Madonna somehow turned it into 20 years of fame.
Beyond that, of course, she is the best selling female recording artist of all time. Billboard ranked her #2 behind only the Beatles, so she was a money making machine. She is also the top touring artist of all time. Today we are flooded with pop superstars: P!nk, Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, etc. etc,, whose careers would have been impossible without Madonna. (Whether or not this is such a great thing I'll leave to others to decide.)
She continues to earn tons of money on tour. And yet, whenever I see clips of Madonna, who is now 57, I can't help feeling there's a sense of desperation there. Unlike some other performers who can keep going on and on for years based on the strength of their music, Madonna, for all her hits, relies on youth and energy as part of her overall appeal. Thus there is a bit of Norma Desmond about her. That makes me a little sad.
Next up: he organized the relationship between business and labor that would change the nature of the American economy.
rockaction
Footballguy
Oh dear. If he'd have left it alone, we'd have a radically different...
Go on.
Go on.
You ask some interesting questions here, but you skipped the obvious follow-up to "Would we effectively have become a parliament?" That would be "If so, would that have been a bad thing?" I'm not sure on the answer to that.
timschochet
Footballguy
Yankee, I don't think it's fair to evaluate Presidents on civil rights before 1865. What standard do you base this on? Zachary Taylor was raised by slaveowners, he came from a slaveowner society, he was a slaveowner himself. I'm guessing he believed that blacks were inherently inferior and that slavery was a moral good, because that's what people of his class generally believed.
During my ratings of the Presidents, I made the distinction that, in order to blame someone for an evil act, the person in question has to be conscious of the evilness of the act. That is why I was willing to criticize certain Presidents, like Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR, while exonerating others. (It's also the crux of my disagreement with Jayrod about how to evaluate the Confederacy and its leaders.) I believe in applying our moral standards to past acts (I know some don't) but ONLY if the past actors are aware of those standards and generally agree with them.
During my ratings of the Presidents, I made the distinction that, in order to blame someone for an evil act, the person in question has to be conscious of the evilness of the act. That is why I was willing to criticize certain Presidents, like Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR, while exonerating others. (It's also the crux of my disagreement with Jayrod about how to evaluate the Confederacy and its leaders.) I believe in applying our moral standards to past acts (I know some don't) but ONLY if the past actors are aware of those standards and generally agree with them.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
It is and would have been a bad thing especially at that time in our history. Had Tyler allowed Congress to rule the country and become nothing more than a figurehead, the civil war shakes out a lot differently and most likely worse.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Civil rights is the shorthand for the topic, which is: 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.
It is very much important to grade them on that part. What you are arguing for is not an attack on this topic necessarily but that we should also take into account the context of the time in which the President's served. And lucky for me/you, I've been doing that as well. That is why the context portion of the discussion is tremendously important and how I've used it to balance out bad scores in other areas. And I'm keeping rather close to my foundation definition - most of our Presidents are going to not get great scores here for the most part. It takes a lot of different forms and there is nuance all over. And I'm also trying not to turn every post into 50 pages of argument on every little detail but instead basically bullet pointing the general nature of each subsection unless its vitally important to go into detaill.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
We Americans instituted a new form of government for the age in which it was introduced (re-introduced). We have expanded across a continent, fought several wars, and invented the concept of rebuilding our concurred enemies rather than subjugating them. We have invented marvelous technologies and industries, and have made incredible advances in science, medicine, technologies and the arts. We have Franklin, Whitman, Thoreau, Henry Miller, Edison, Darrow, Bryant, John Glenn, Updike, Vonnegut, Poe, Capote. We have over 350 Nobel prize winners. We have artists of substance in uniquely American forms, and artists of substance in art forms into which we interjected new and uniquely American paradigms. We have Chaplin, Hitchcock, Scorsese, The Coen Bros., Eastwood and Spike Lee, not to mention Welles and Tarantino. We have examples of excellence and forward thinking that defy how folks might categorize their lives, folks like Jackie Robinson, Vince Lombardi, Jesse Owens, Muhammad Ali. We have humorists who are among the most pithy philosophers and social commentators in history, Twain, Will Rodgers and others. We have statesmen, civil rights giants, and persons who have devoted their lives to the service of humanity and you list some vacuous, narcissistic slut, with no discernible talent into the conversation simply because she grabbed the attention of idiots for a time. Given that, I expect Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton to make your list as well. Likely they will preclude your inclusion of the Harper Lees, the 3400 Congressional Medal of Honor winners, and those often unrecognized great Americans from the Indian nations. Sorry Sitting Bull, Flying Cloud, Geronimo, Tecumseh and Crazy Horse, but if you could just understand that Madonna showed us her bra I am sure you will understand your non-inclusion on the list. Sgt. York, Gen Omar Bradley, Patton, Mac Arthur, Eisenhower, you all may have made the list but Madonna would touch herself through her clothing in videos meant to excite prepubescent boys, surely you can see the greatness in that.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've found your evaluations to be very well done. It will be interesting to see how you rank more current leaders without the benefit of as many years for their policies to play out.
timschochet
Footballguy
DW I appreciate your criticism more than you know, because in many ways I agree with you. It's something I really wrestled with in compiling this list.
Marshall McLuhan and Edward R Murrow, two very different observers of the impact of television upon American society, predicted the future sociological importance of celebrities to our modern age of communications, of which Madonna is arguably the ultimate example. But I believe they both underestimated that importance. Simply put, more Americans have been affected and influenced by Madonna than by some of the people you mentioned (though not all.) And most of that has to do with technology. It's a sad fact but it's true. I have to acknowledge that truth and thus Madonna gets ranked on the list.
That being said it's a low ranking. I'd ask that after the list is completed for you to assess whether you think I've been fair overall despite your objection to this choice. (Though please by all means don't wait until then to give more comment.)
Marshall McLuhan and Edward R Murrow, two very different observers of the impact of television upon American society, predicted the future sociological importance of celebrities to our modern age of communications, of which Madonna is arguably the ultimate example. But I believe they both underestimated that importance. Simply put, more Americans have been affected and influenced by Madonna than by some of the people you mentioned (though not all.) And most of that has to do with technology. It's a sad fact but it's true. I have to acknowledge that truth and thus Madonna gets ranked on the list.
That being said it's a low ranking. I'd ask that after the list is completed for you to assess whether you think I've been fair overall despite your objection to this choice. (Though please by all means don't wait until then to give more comment.)
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Nope, no more comments. This is your list, not mine. It reflects your evaluation of impact and direction. If I wanted to do my own list I can do it in my own thread. My opinions are not correct or inherently more valuable than yours. I had my say, I did it once, you are gracious enough to take it well, the stage is yours. This is as it should be.
That I had to speak up was not necessarily that you are wrong, just that I wish it were so, for if you are right I believe we are doomed.
psychobillies
Footballguy
The power of celebrity in this country is undeniable, and very strong. Arnold was a two term Republican governor in California for Christ's sake. Also explains Trump's popularity right now. I've often said that if Britney Spears/whoever is today's pop idol ran for president, we'd be in serious trouble.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
We know she beat out Miles Davis and The Duke. I get it, but it I don't know if I agree.
timschochet
Footballguy
Well she may not have beaten out every "Duke"...
Don't believe the rookie hype. Duke Johnson isn't quite ready yet for inclusion in a Top 100 Great Americans list. Let him start at least one game first.
Tim, I don't remember what thread it was in that someone accused you of relentlessly defending Obama, leading you to point out a bunch of things you've criticized him for, but then concluding that he's been on a real hot streak lately, so you really are more positive about him now.
Anyway, here's something you can add to his list of recent good decisions: Citing Adam Smith And Milton Friedman, Obama's Economic Advisors Back Occupational Licensing Reform.
That's the kind of thing Republicans should be leading the way on...
Anyway, here's something you can add to his list of recent good decisions: Citing Adam Smith And Milton Friedman, Obama's Economic Advisors Back Occupational Licensing Reform.
That's the kind of thing Republicans should be leading the way on...
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
No mention of Angus Black?
from the review:
and there aren't enough doctors because the A.M.A. has the gall to restrict licenses to graduates of ""approved medical schools."" (Who says we all ""need, or even want, highly qualified medical practitioners""?)
cstu
Footballguy
Good for him, but someone tell him to leave real estate appraising alone. I plan to have a long, lucrative career based on a high barrier to entry.
Presidential totals so far, some definite tiers emerging:
[SIZE=medium]Washington 64[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Monroe 59[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Polk 55[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Jefferson 50[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Adams 49[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Jackson 44[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Madison 39[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Van Buren 29[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Tyler 29[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]J.Q. Adams 27[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Taylor 19[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]W.H. Harrison 12[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Washington 64[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Monroe 59[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Polk 55[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Jefferson 50[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Adams 49[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Jackson 44[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Madison 39[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Van Buren 29[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Tyler 29[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]J.Q. Adams 27[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Taylor 19[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]W.H. Harrison 12[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
Last edited by a moderator:
Uruk-Hai
Footballguy
I'm expecting YF to use VBD (divided by party affiliation, so we have a flex option in play) and am wondering how he's gonna set his baseline
I am planning on getting Harrison late. Hasn't shown much yet, but A TON of upside potentiomal.
Uruk-Hai
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Interesting article Maurile, thanks for posting it. It reminded me I have to get my real estate brokers license renewed before the end of the year...
Watermelon is overrated. Ever have a watermelon pie? Or order a glass of watermelon juice? Least versatile fruit ever.
And the SEEDS get more recreational play than the fruit itself. That has to be a red flag...Watermelon is overrated. Ever have a watermelon pie? Or order a glass of watermelon juice? Least versatile fruit ever.
NREC34
Footballguy
I had watermelon beer at the baseball park in CincinnatiWatermelon is overrated. Ever have a watermelon pie? Or order a glass of watermelon juice? Least versatile fruit ever.
That is racist.I had watermelon beer at the baseball park in CincinnatiWatermelon is overrated. Ever have a watermelon pie? Or order a glass of watermelon juice? Least versatile fruit ever.
timschochet
Footballguy
92. John L. Lewis
"The future of Labor is the future of America".
John L. Lewis served as the president of the United Mine Workers from 1920 to 1960. But his most important years were the 1930s, in which he formed the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), which later merged with the American Federation of Labor (AFL), of which Lewis was also heavily involved. Without getting into too much detail, here are the facts: Lewis was behind several bloody strikes in the mid-1930s, by coal workers, auto workers, and steel workers. At the end of these battles, the relationship between industry and organized labor in this country was forever altered, and we basically have the system that we have now. Although there have been other colorful heads of labor, such as Jimmy Hoffa and Walter Reuther, most historians give Lewis the major responsibility for the victories that labor achieved. Lewis was a brilliant, ruthless general of troops, knowing when to compromise and when to fight, at least during his heyday. His luster faded a bit during World War II when he tried to interfere with the war effort.
Lewis was a fascinating character, a well-read man who loved to quote Shakespeare, and tended to use erudite language (sometimes to the bewilderment of the blue collar workers who followed him faithfully.) He is a highly controversial figure because many economists believe that the fixtures he essentially created have been harmful to the American economy of our modern age: the argument is that with the decline in centralized manufacturing and industry that has occurred in the late 20th and early 21st century, unions have lost a lot of their reason for being. But because Lewis and a few other organizers were so successful, unions have not lost their power. Thus the transitions that this country needs to go through are much more difficult than they could be.
It's a compelling argument, but it doesn't mean that Lewis didn't fight the good fight for much of his career, particularly in the early days. The condition of labor before Lewis was terribly bad, especially in the coal mining industry which was Lewis' major concern. There is no doubt that he brought labor into the modern age. It might also be argued that by negotiating wages and conditions good enough to turn laborers into consumers of the American economy, Lewis helped created the boom that defined so much of the 2nd half of the 20th century and turned the United States into the world's most powerful nation.
Next up: She started a movement that captured the attention of the entire world.
"The future of Labor is the future of America".
John L. Lewis served as the president of the United Mine Workers from 1920 to 1960. But his most important years were the 1930s, in which he formed the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), which later merged with the American Federation of Labor (AFL), of which Lewis was also heavily involved. Without getting into too much detail, here are the facts: Lewis was behind several bloody strikes in the mid-1930s, by coal workers, auto workers, and steel workers. At the end of these battles, the relationship between industry and organized labor in this country was forever altered, and we basically have the system that we have now. Although there have been other colorful heads of labor, such as Jimmy Hoffa and Walter Reuther, most historians give Lewis the major responsibility for the victories that labor achieved. Lewis was a brilliant, ruthless general of troops, knowing when to compromise and when to fight, at least during his heyday. His luster faded a bit during World War II when he tried to interfere with the war effort.
Lewis was a fascinating character, a well-read man who loved to quote Shakespeare, and tended to use erudite language (sometimes to the bewilderment of the blue collar workers who followed him faithfully.) He is a highly controversial figure because many economists believe that the fixtures he essentially created have been harmful to the American economy of our modern age: the argument is that with the decline in centralized manufacturing and industry that has occurred in the late 20th and early 21st century, unions have lost a lot of their reason for being. But because Lewis and a few other organizers were so successful, unions have not lost their power. Thus the transitions that this country needs to go through are much more difficult than they could be.
It's a compelling argument, but it doesn't mean that Lewis didn't fight the good fight for much of his career, particularly in the early days. The condition of labor before Lewis was terribly bad, especially in the coal mining industry which was Lewis' major concern. There is no doubt that he brought labor into the modern age. It might also be argued that by negotiating wages and conditions good enough to turn laborers into consumers of the American economy, Lewis helped created the boom that defined so much of the 2nd half of the 20th century and turned the United States into the world's most powerful nation.
Next up: She started a movement that captured the attention of the entire world.
THANK YOU.
I find it disturbing how quickly people talk against the war on drugs, as if there's nothing at all wrong with the drugs themselves. The war might be lost or a waste of time, but the drugs and those who sell them remain a serious problem and simply legalizing them is a piss-poor answer IMHO.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Millard Fillmore (1850-1853)
Public Acumen/Persuasion
Fillmore is an interesting case study on the effects of trying to make peace with everyone and as a result making peace with no one. The rising stakes of the coming civil war proved too much for him to be able to wade through. The one domestic policy success – if you want to call it that – of his administration was the brain child of Stephan Douglas in the Senate, not Fillmore’s. Fillmore tried to keep the south from moving further towards differences that ultimate led to war and in doing so he annoyed the north greatly. When he tried to appease the north the south went after him. Unable to chart a course on his terms, his presidency was weak at best. But to call it an absolute failure wouldn’t be fair either. To an extent. In the end, though, he ended up having the south hate him and the north not like him. It fractured his party and as a result he wasn’t even nominated for re-election.
War & Crisis
Fillmore can’t get a good grade here. Upon taking office the Compromise of 1850 was the major problem. Prior to Taylor’s death Fillmore made it clear to his President that if the Compromise came to a vote in the Senate and he was the tie breaking vote he was going to vote for it. Knowing this to be the case, shortly after Taylor died and Fillmore was sworn in the cabinet resigned in mass. He filled his cabinet with Whigs who were in support of the Compromise. Trying to help the situation, just a month after Taylor died Henry Clay reintroduced a much weaker version of the Compromise. Fillmore balked at it and demanded that Congress pass the original one. It started a war inside Congress that had pro slavery and anti-slavery forces fighting over the new version of the bill line by line and resulted in the bill ultimate collapsing. Henry Clay was done, reaching an age where he didn’t have anything left to give and he left the Senate, putting leadership in the hands of Stephen Douglas.
With Douglas running the Senate and Fillmore trying to get the original Compromise back on the rolls, Douglas broke the entire thing into five separate bills. With Douglas running the Senate and the debate, Fillmore went along for the ride to try to get everyone to work together. And each of the five passed. The Texas – New Mexico border dispute was settled, California was admitted as a free state, New Mexico was given territory status with no mention of slavery, Utah the same, and the Fugitive Slave Law was passed. Each bill had just enough support by itself to pass, but the collection only ended up making everything worse.
The north refused to comply with the Fugitive Slave Law. The south demanded that Fillmore do something about it. When he tried northern governments and courts worked around him. The south wasn’t happy about it and started making more and more overtures about civil war. In response, Fillmore empowered General Winfield Scott to refortify the garrisons in South Carolina in order to stop the south from acting on their threats. It only made matters worse. And by failing to lead his party and make it work together and then work with the Democrats, the Whig Party collapsed unable to stem the tide of growing discontent.
Economy
Fillmore gets solid grades here for what he started but didn’t see until completion. With slavery dominating the domestic front, his foreign policy was steady. Fillmore commissioned Admiral Perry to open a trade agreement with Japan. He didn’t see it done during his time though but beginning the process was a plus on his ledger.
Foreign Policy
Fillmore began the process of opening trade with Japan. How it ended up going though wasn’t great at first. He stood up to France and their moving towards trying to take Hawaii and got them to back off. Fillmore had the navy protect South America from British war ships. Fillmore tried to stop two separate American backed revolutions in Cuba but the attempts were made without his support and ultimate failed. It was a Bay of Pigs incident a century earlier and Fillmore was blamed for the failure of the revolutions even though he didn’t do much either way. England and France sent warships to Cuba to protect Spanish claims there but Fillmore stood strong against them and averted a Cuban war with three world powers in the process.
When the Austrian Hungarian civil war began, Austria claimed Fillmore was taking part on Hungary’s side. Fillmore detailed a renewed resolve that all people in the world should be able to choose their own government. When the leaders of Hungary were invited to a state dinner, Fillmore made it clear that they were on their own which meant he wasn’t going to back up his words. Overall though he kept America out of foreign wars during his time and his reach into the pacific led to more trade with Asia.
Executive Skills/Congress
He lost his cabinet before he started and the infighting in the Congress was impossible for him to control. His inability to lead his own party fractured and ultimately killed that party. He did sign off on the five bills that Douglas got through Congress but he didn’t lead the charge and the fights there were in many respects his fault given his position on the 1850 Compromise. He is average at ultimate best here.
Justice/Rights
He enforced the Fugitive Slave Act in the face of growing north opposition solely to make sure the south didn’t start a civil war. The fighting over the enforcement of that law alone was perhaps the most important foundation for what would happen in the next 6 years.
Context
Fillmore wasn’t big enough for the times he was leading in. When the country needed a forceful and powerful President he was neither. Taylor might have been and Fillmore may have been a great lieutenant to him. But as the guy in charge he wasn’t able to make the north and south work together and saw victories where there really weren’t any. By allowing Stephan Douglas to lead the Senate into the five bills that became the ultimate compromise of 1850, he gave the democratic party a clear avenue to take back the Presidency and in doing so he destroyed his party. And his failures in leadership in 1852 and 1853 gave us two of our worst President’s in history.
Conclusion
[SIZE=11pt] On persuasion Millard gets a 3, on crisis he gets a 2, on economy he gets a 3, on foreign policy he gets a 5, on Congress a 2, on civil rights he gets a 1 and on context he gets a 2. Clocking in at a total of 18 Fillmore should be at the bottom of any ranking of our Presidents. One can argue that the growing storm was bigger than any of the men that served during this time, but we saw leaders rise above the issues and do good work. Fillmore was at best a caretaker until the next guy could take over. But the next guy was abysmal and his ascendency to the office was just as much Fillmore’s fault as it was the fault of the times.[/SIZE]
Public Acumen/Persuasion
Fillmore is an interesting case study on the effects of trying to make peace with everyone and as a result making peace with no one. The rising stakes of the coming civil war proved too much for him to be able to wade through. The one domestic policy success – if you want to call it that – of his administration was the brain child of Stephan Douglas in the Senate, not Fillmore’s. Fillmore tried to keep the south from moving further towards differences that ultimate led to war and in doing so he annoyed the north greatly. When he tried to appease the north the south went after him. Unable to chart a course on his terms, his presidency was weak at best. But to call it an absolute failure wouldn’t be fair either. To an extent. In the end, though, he ended up having the south hate him and the north not like him. It fractured his party and as a result he wasn’t even nominated for re-election.
War & Crisis
Fillmore can’t get a good grade here. Upon taking office the Compromise of 1850 was the major problem. Prior to Taylor’s death Fillmore made it clear to his President that if the Compromise came to a vote in the Senate and he was the tie breaking vote he was going to vote for it. Knowing this to be the case, shortly after Taylor died and Fillmore was sworn in the cabinet resigned in mass. He filled his cabinet with Whigs who were in support of the Compromise. Trying to help the situation, just a month after Taylor died Henry Clay reintroduced a much weaker version of the Compromise. Fillmore balked at it and demanded that Congress pass the original one. It started a war inside Congress that had pro slavery and anti-slavery forces fighting over the new version of the bill line by line and resulted in the bill ultimate collapsing. Henry Clay was done, reaching an age where he didn’t have anything left to give and he left the Senate, putting leadership in the hands of Stephen Douglas.
With Douglas running the Senate and Fillmore trying to get the original Compromise back on the rolls, Douglas broke the entire thing into five separate bills. With Douglas running the Senate and the debate, Fillmore went along for the ride to try to get everyone to work together. And each of the five passed. The Texas – New Mexico border dispute was settled, California was admitted as a free state, New Mexico was given territory status with no mention of slavery, Utah the same, and the Fugitive Slave Law was passed. Each bill had just enough support by itself to pass, but the collection only ended up making everything worse.
The north refused to comply with the Fugitive Slave Law. The south demanded that Fillmore do something about it. When he tried northern governments and courts worked around him. The south wasn’t happy about it and started making more and more overtures about civil war. In response, Fillmore empowered General Winfield Scott to refortify the garrisons in South Carolina in order to stop the south from acting on their threats. It only made matters worse. And by failing to lead his party and make it work together and then work with the Democrats, the Whig Party collapsed unable to stem the tide of growing discontent.
Economy
Fillmore gets solid grades here for what he started but didn’t see until completion. With slavery dominating the domestic front, his foreign policy was steady. Fillmore commissioned Admiral Perry to open a trade agreement with Japan. He didn’t see it done during his time though but beginning the process was a plus on his ledger.
Foreign Policy
Fillmore began the process of opening trade with Japan. How it ended up going though wasn’t great at first. He stood up to France and their moving towards trying to take Hawaii and got them to back off. Fillmore had the navy protect South America from British war ships. Fillmore tried to stop two separate American backed revolutions in Cuba but the attempts were made without his support and ultimate failed. It was a Bay of Pigs incident a century earlier and Fillmore was blamed for the failure of the revolutions even though he didn’t do much either way. England and France sent warships to Cuba to protect Spanish claims there but Fillmore stood strong against them and averted a Cuban war with three world powers in the process.
When the Austrian Hungarian civil war began, Austria claimed Fillmore was taking part on Hungary’s side. Fillmore detailed a renewed resolve that all people in the world should be able to choose their own government. When the leaders of Hungary were invited to a state dinner, Fillmore made it clear that they were on their own which meant he wasn’t going to back up his words. Overall though he kept America out of foreign wars during his time and his reach into the pacific led to more trade with Asia.
Executive Skills/Congress
He lost his cabinet before he started and the infighting in the Congress was impossible for him to control. His inability to lead his own party fractured and ultimately killed that party. He did sign off on the five bills that Douglas got through Congress but he didn’t lead the charge and the fights there were in many respects his fault given his position on the 1850 Compromise. He is average at ultimate best here.
Justice/Rights
He enforced the Fugitive Slave Act in the face of growing north opposition solely to make sure the south didn’t start a civil war. The fighting over the enforcement of that law alone was perhaps the most important foundation for what would happen in the next 6 years.
Context
Fillmore wasn’t big enough for the times he was leading in. When the country needed a forceful and powerful President he was neither. Taylor might have been and Fillmore may have been a great lieutenant to him. But as the guy in charge he wasn’t able to make the north and south work together and saw victories where there really weren’t any. By allowing Stephan Douglas to lead the Senate into the five bills that became the ultimate compromise of 1850, he gave the democratic party a clear avenue to take back the Presidency and in doing so he destroyed his party. And his failures in leadership in 1852 and 1853 gave us two of our worst President’s in history.
Conclusion
[SIZE=11pt] On persuasion Millard gets a 3, on crisis he gets a 2, on economy he gets a 3, on foreign policy he gets a 5, on Congress a 2, on civil rights he gets a 1 and on context he gets a 2. Clocking in at a total of 18 Fillmore should be at the bottom of any ranking of our Presidents. One can argue that the growing storm was bigger than any of the men that served during this time, but we saw leaders rise above the issues and do good work. Fillmore was at best a caretaker until the next guy could take over. But the next guy was abysmal and his ascendency to the office was just as much Fillmore’s fault as it was the fault of the times.[/SIZE]
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
91. Rachel Carson
But man is a part of nature, and his war against nature is inevitably a war against himself.
In 1962, noted marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote a book called Silent Spring. It was about the use of pesticides by the chemical industry and the detrimental effect it had on birds. With this book, the modern environmental movement started. Prior to Carson, what passed for environmentalism in the United States was devoted to conservation efforts, as exemplified by the Sierra Club. After Silent Spring, the emphasis changed to the meme of: man is actively doing harm to the planet, especially as a result of our industrial use of chemicals, fossil fuels, waste products, etc.
Whether or not you believe in the virtues of this movement, (many American conservatives believe it to be an attack against capitalism and western development) there is no question that it has spread throughout the entire world, becoming one of the most dominant issues we face today. Of course, current environmentalists are focused on climate change, a specific issue that Rachel Carson throughout her life was completely unaware of (she died in 1964, only 2 years after her incredibly influential book was published.) Carson was only writing about pesticides, not about the world being in crisis. Yet she was the first to popularize the notion that man is acting against the interests of nature, and this has been the relevant theme all throughout the growth of the movement she began.
Personally, I have always been a little skeptical about the true goals of extreme environmentalists. For example, their opposition to all forms of nuclear energy, despite the fact that it seems to answer all of their concerns about our continuing use of fossil fuels, is completely frustrating to me, and it makes me wonder if they would EVER accept any fuel source that was actually profitable. I've always suspected that, should solar energy ever become economically viable, at least some of these environmentalists will find something wrong with it.
But that has little to do with Carson herself. Her book, though savagely attacked by DuPont and other chemical companies when it came out, succeeded in changing many pesticide laws. It also led indirectly to the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency. There are many conservatives who are conservationists, who, while disdainful of the modern day green movement, have spoken positively of Rachel Carson and her efforts. There are also many who believe that Carson's work, which led to the worldwide banning of DDT, has been destructive and has caused the death of millions of people. But nobody can deny her influence.
Next up: Defining the term "movie star"
But man is a part of nature, and his war against nature is inevitably a war against himself.
In 1962, noted marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote a book called Silent Spring. It was about the use of pesticides by the chemical industry and the detrimental effect it had on birds. With this book, the modern environmental movement started. Prior to Carson, what passed for environmentalism in the United States was devoted to conservation efforts, as exemplified by the Sierra Club. After Silent Spring, the emphasis changed to the meme of: man is actively doing harm to the planet, especially as a result of our industrial use of chemicals, fossil fuels, waste products, etc.
Whether or not you believe in the virtues of this movement, (many American conservatives believe it to be an attack against capitalism and western development) there is no question that it has spread throughout the entire world, becoming one of the most dominant issues we face today. Of course, current environmentalists are focused on climate change, a specific issue that Rachel Carson throughout her life was completely unaware of (she died in 1964, only 2 years after her incredibly influential book was published.) Carson was only writing about pesticides, not about the world being in crisis. Yet she was the first to popularize the notion that man is acting against the interests of nature, and this has been the relevant theme all throughout the growth of the movement she began.
Personally, I have always been a little skeptical about the true goals of extreme environmentalists. For example, their opposition to all forms of nuclear energy, despite the fact that it seems to answer all of their concerns about our continuing use of fossil fuels, is completely frustrating to me, and it makes me wonder if they would EVER accept any fuel source that was actually profitable. I've always suspected that, should solar energy ever become economically viable, at least some of these environmentalists will find something wrong with it.
But that has little to do with Carson herself. Her book, though savagely attacked by DuPont and other chemical companies when it came out, succeeded in changing many pesticide laws. It also led indirectly to the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency. There are many conservatives who are conservationists, who, while disdainful of the modern day green movement, have spoken positively of Rachel Carson and her efforts. There are also many who believe that Carson's work, which led to the worldwide banning of DDT, has been destructive and has caused the death of millions of people. But nobody can deny her influence.
Next up: Defining the term "movie star"
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Franklin Pierce (1853-1857)
Public Acumen/Persuasion
After he won but before he was sworn in Pierce and his family were in a tragic accident that caused the decapitation of his only son. The event destroyed him and most likely destroyed any potential for greatness he had as a President. Pierce was a compromise candidate given that the democratic party was going through its own problems with pro and anti slavery forces. In his inauguration he claimed that he was going to unite the country and put to rest the question of slavery once and for all. He let Stephen Douglas and Jefferson Davis convince him to support the Bleeding Kansas bills that effectively began the civil war. The Kansas Nebraska Act was passed with Pierce threatening his own party and the Whigs finally self destructed under the weight of the bill.
The bill which ended the Missouri Compromise destroyed the democratic party in the north. But Pierce was never a leader of the party and never had the ability to make it all work. He wasn’t even a candidate until the 40th ballot at the convention. The party was fighting itself and Pierce was considered the weakest possible person that could serve in the office and not make it more of a mess. They were all wrong.
War & Crisis
Kansas Nebraska was the main problem of his term. He failed the country miserably. Effectively ended the truce over Missouri, and allowing Stephen Douglas to do what he wanted with the Montana territory for railroad access, Pierce must take the moniker of a President who just sat by and watched his party start a civil war. And given the personal tragedy he suffered he was never able to muster any force in the conflict in his Congress. Douglas filled the vacuum like he always wanted.
He stupidly allowed the Onstead Manifesto to be published which basically threatened Spain and Cuba into allowing America to take Cuba. Europe went ballistic and Pierce had to back down and his Secretary of State had to repudiate it as a mistake. Pierce also backed a warmonger in taking over Nicaruaga only to find the country embroiled in chaos as a result. Pierce had to eventually use the navy to force the dictators removal only proving his weakness in leading his own nation. About the only good thing Pierce did as president during a crisis was not fire a shot himself.
When shots were finally fired in Kansas Pierce did nothing and supported pro slavery factions. John Brown committed his crimes and Pierce did nothing. Pierce sat back and watched the central lands of the nation descend into chaos.
Economy
Pierce focused little on the economy. Kansas Nebraska was the sole focus of his administration. He did get the treasury department organized a little better and got rid of some bad federal workers there. And his support of Douglas’s transcontinential railway did help future presidents grow the economy of the nation.
Foreign Policy
His games in Cuba were a disaster. His games in Nicaragua were a disaster. He did manage to ease tensions with England over atlantic trade and he was the President that finalized the borders that we have now, coming to terms with Mexico and Britian. He didn’t fail here that much.
Executive Skills/Congress
Pierce couldn’t control his own party and couldn’t get them to work together. His hatred of abolishionists and his appointment of the hardest hard liners of the democratic party to his cabinet made moderates effectively walk away from him. He did such a poor job that he wasn’t truly considered for re-election.
Justice/Rights
Franklin Pierce started the civil war. His lack of leadership and tacit support of pro-slavery forces in Kansas and Nebraska were the first shots fired. He left President Buchanan a mess that Buchanan couldn’t and to some extent wouldn’t fix, and we were engulfed in a war that saw hundreds of thousands die. Pierce was never going to be a free slave man but he did nothing to support his belief that the union should hold. And his failure was a nightmare.
Context
In 1853 we had a floundering sectional framework in this nation. A strong President could have kept working at it to try to make it work. Fillmore couldn’t do it and the Democrats thought maybe Pierce could since he wasn’t a well known name in the nation. His personal tragedy didn’t help him to be sure and he wasn’t an evil man. He was just unable to work in the time he found himself in. By allowing Stephen Douglas and Jefferson Davis to lead the nation under his signature he plunged us into civil war. Again, like Fillmore, you can make the argument that it was happening anyway. But Kansas Nebraska should have never happened. Pierce couldn’t see what it would do at the end of the day. That failure ended up being the true first shot in the civil war.
Conclusion
On persuasion Pierce gets a 1, on crisis he gets a 1, on economy he gets a 3, on foreign policy he gets a 2, on Congress he gets a 1, on civil rights he gets a 1 and on context he gets a 1. 10 total points. As we were approaching 1860 we needed great men in that office to try to do great things. Pierce wasn’t that great man. We needed strong leadership to try to keep the country together, not allow laws to be passed that had no other result than to split us apart. Pierce allowed it to happen. After he left office and the civil war was obviously going to happen, Pierce wrote to all the living Presidents trying to get them to meet and work together to try some kind of diplomatic work to stop it. No one acknowledged his actions seeing him as a failure and unable to be a person that could lead anyone, his own party included. Franklin Pierce is the front runner for our worst President. The country ultimately survived in spite of him.
Public Acumen/Persuasion
After he won but before he was sworn in Pierce and his family were in a tragic accident that caused the decapitation of his only son. The event destroyed him and most likely destroyed any potential for greatness he had as a President. Pierce was a compromise candidate given that the democratic party was going through its own problems with pro and anti slavery forces. In his inauguration he claimed that he was going to unite the country and put to rest the question of slavery once and for all. He let Stephen Douglas and Jefferson Davis convince him to support the Bleeding Kansas bills that effectively began the civil war. The Kansas Nebraska Act was passed with Pierce threatening his own party and the Whigs finally self destructed under the weight of the bill.
The bill which ended the Missouri Compromise destroyed the democratic party in the north. But Pierce was never a leader of the party and never had the ability to make it all work. He wasn’t even a candidate until the 40th ballot at the convention. The party was fighting itself and Pierce was considered the weakest possible person that could serve in the office and not make it more of a mess. They were all wrong.
War & Crisis
Kansas Nebraska was the main problem of his term. He failed the country miserably. Effectively ended the truce over Missouri, and allowing Stephen Douglas to do what he wanted with the Montana territory for railroad access, Pierce must take the moniker of a President who just sat by and watched his party start a civil war. And given the personal tragedy he suffered he was never able to muster any force in the conflict in his Congress. Douglas filled the vacuum like he always wanted.
He stupidly allowed the Onstead Manifesto to be published which basically threatened Spain and Cuba into allowing America to take Cuba. Europe went ballistic and Pierce had to back down and his Secretary of State had to repudiate it as a mistake. Pierce also backed a warmonger in taking over Nicaruaga only to find the country embroiled in chaos as a result. Pierce had to eventually use the navy to force the dictators removal only proving his weakness in leading his own nation. About the only good thing Pierce did as president during a crisis was not fire a shot himself.
When shots were finally fired in Kansas Pierce did nothing and supported pro slavery factions. John Brown committed his crimes and Pierce did nothing. Pierce sat back and watched the central lands of the nation descend into chaos.
Economy
Pierce focused little on the economy. Kansas Nebraska was the sole focus of his administration. He did get the treasury department organized a little better and got rid of some bad federal workers there. And his support of Douglas’s transcontinential railway did help future presidents grow the economy of the nation.
Foreign Policy
His games in Cuba were a disaster. His games in Nicaragua were a disaster. He did manage to ease tensions with England over atlantic trade and he was the President that finalized the borders that we have now, coming to terms with Mexico and Britian. He didn’t fail here that much.
Executive Skills/Congress
Pierce couldn’t control his own party and couldn’t get them to work together. His hatred of abolishionists and his appointment of the hardest hard liners of the democratic party to his cabinet made moderates effectively walk away from him. He did such a poor job that he wasn’t truly considered for re-election.
Justice/Rights
Franklin Pierce started the civil war. His lack of leadership and tacit support of pro-slavery forces in Kansas and Nebraska were the first shots fired. He left President Buchanan a mess that Buchanan couldn’t and to some extent wouldn’t fix, and we were engulfed in a war that saw hundreds of thousands die. Pierce was never going to be a free slave man but he did nothing to support his belief that the union should hold. And his failure was a nightmare.
Context
In 1853 we had a floundering sectional framework in this nation. A strong President could have kept working at it to try to make it work. Fillmore couldn’t do it and the Democrats thought maybe Pierce could since he wasn’t a well known name in the nation. His personal tragedy didn’t help him to be sure and he wasn’t an evil man. He was just unable to work in the time he found himself in. By allowing Stephen Douglas and Jefferson Davis to lead the nation under his signature he plunged us into civil war. Again, like Fillmore, you can make the argument that it was happening anyway. But Kansas Nebraska should have never happened. Pierce couldn’t see what it would do at the end of the day. That failure ended up being the true first shot in the civil war.
Conclusion
On persuasion Pierce gets a 1, on crisis he gets a 1, on economy he gets a 3, on foreign policy he gets a 2, on Congress he gets a 1, on civil rights he gets a 1 and on context he gets a 1. 10 total points. As we were approaching 1860 we needed great men in that office to try to do great things. Pierce wasn’t that great man. We needed strong leadership to try to keep the country together, not allow laws to be passed that had no other result than to split us apart. Pierce allowed it to happen. After he left office and the civil war was obviously going to happen, Pierce wrote to all the living Presidents trying to get them to meet and work together to try some kind of diplomatic work to stop it. No one acknowledged his actions seeing him as a failure and unable to be a person that could lead anyone, his own party included. Franklin Pierce is the front runner for our worst President. The country ultimately survived in spite of him.
timschochet
Footballguy
I ranked Pierce slightly higher than you did because I think the transcontinental railroad was important to pursue, whether it inadvertently helped cause the Civil War or not. Also, his selection of Jefferson Davis as Secretary of War helped modernize the army and prepared it for the Civil War (ironically).
timschochet
Footballguy
90. Marilyn Monroe
I am good, but not an angel. I do sin, but I am not the devil. I am just a small girl in a big world trying to find someone to love.
Unfortunately, despite her three marriages (two of them to famous celebrities) she never really did find that someone. One of the reasons that Marilyn Monroe seems timeless is that she died at 36, so it's impossible to envision her as an old woman. And of course she died so young, whether intentionally or not, because she was so unhappy.
Norma Jean was the quintessential movie star (the American Film Institute ranked her the 6th greatest of all time) but if that's all she was, she would not be on this list. (AFI's top 2 by sex, Humphrey Bogart and Kathryn Hepburn, were not considered here.) She was also arguably the most iconic woman in American history, one of our very greatest pop stars, and likely our greatest sex star. Ironically, although in films she mostly played the role of a dumb blonde and was the image most attacked by feminists of the next generation, her very presence redefined the traditional roles of women in our society, especially in terms of sexuality. She was willing to go further than women had before in film, and she correctly perceived herself as the spiritual heir of Mae West. In fact, Marilyn was eager to go far beyond even the boundaries of her own stardom: she was, of course, Playboy Magazine's first centerfold, and she anticipated the coming of pornographic movies and wanted to be in them.
Marilyn was one of the first stars who had to deal with Paparazzi following her every move, with all that this entailed. Her choice of husbands seems strange: Joe DiMaggio and Arthur Miller are two men that appear to have very little in common (her first husband was before Norma Jean became a star.) Like James Dean and John F. Kennedy, two other icons who died young, the public has maintained it's fascination with Marilyn for over 50 years. It seems like nearly every year there is a new movie or TV show about her. A dozen actresses have now portrayed her on the screen, all trying to capture that image, that look, that special something that defined her. None has quite been able to pull it off, but that's not unreasonable: Marilyn Monroe was unique.
Elton John's song about Marilyn, "Candle In the Wind" (he later rewrote Bernie Taupin's original lyrics to make it about Princess Diana) probably captures her essence as well as any biography. Her candle burned out long before her legend ever did.
Next up: He was an ambulance driver, a jazz musician, a DJ, and a salesman. But his life changed when, over the age of 50, he took a trip to San Bernardino...
I am good, but not an angel. I do sin, but I am not the devil. I am just a small girl in a big world trying to find someone to love.
Unfortunately, despite her three marriages (two of them to famous celebrities) she never really did find that someone. One of the reasons that Marilyn Monroe seems timeless is that she died at 36, so it's impossible to envision her as an old woman. And of course she died so young, whether intentionally or not, because she was so unhappy.
Norma Jean was the quintessential movie star (the American Film Institute ranked her the 6th greatest of all time) but if that's all she was, she would not be on this list. (AFI's top 2 by sex, Humphrey Bogart and Kathryn Hepburn, were not considered here.) She was also arguably the most iconic woman in American history, one of our very greatest pop stars, and likely our greatest sex star. Ironically, although in films she mostly played the role of a dumb blonde and was the image most attacked by feminists of the next generation, her very presence redefined the traditional roles of women in our society, especially in terms of sexuality. She was willing to go further than women had before in film, and she correctly perceived herself as the spiritual heir of Mae West. In fact, Marilyn was eager to go far beyond even the boundaries of her own stardom: she was, of course, Playboy Magazine's first centerfold, and she anticipated the coming of pornographic movies and wanted to be in them.
Marilyn was one of the first stars who had to deal with Paparazzi following her every move, with all that this entailed. Her choice of husbands seems strange: Joe DiMaggio and Arthur Miller are two men that appear to have very little in common (her first husband was before Norma Jean became a star.) Like James Dean and John F. Kennedy, two other icons who died young, the public has maintained it's fascination with Marilyn for over 50 years. It seems like nearly every year there is a new movie or TV show about her. A dozen actresses have now portrayed her on the screen, all trying to capture that image, that look, that special something that defined her. None has quite been able to pull it off, but that's not unreasonable: Marilyn Monroe was unique.
Elton John's song about Marilyn, "Candle In the Wind" (he later rewrote Bernie Taupin's original lyrics to make it about Princess Diana) probably captures her essence as well as any biography. Her candle burned out long before her legend ever did.
Next up: He was an ambulance driver, a jazz musician, a DJ, and a salesman. But his life changed when, over the age of 50, he took a trip to San Bernardino...
Gawain
Footballguy
I'm a big believer in Pierce at #43, so I appreciate you elucidating his awfulness. A terrible tragedy he shares with Lincoln, but two compete opposites as president.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That's a really big deal. The transcontinental railroad helped lead to the CW - it was supposed to run through New Orleans. However, since Stephen Douglass and many a whig and northern Democrat had financial interests around Chicago they asked for it to run through there, in return the Southerners asked that Kansas allowed to have a plebiscite to see if slavery would be legal. Which seemed like a near certainty at the time. However the powers that be had to have their cake and eat it so they delayed the vote until claims rushers could get in there, causing conflict, then leading to outright war in KS and Bloody Kansas.
The South feeling ripped off in this whole endeavor caused seriously bitter feelings and helped lead many to the conclusion that they would never be treated fairly as the country expanded westward.
IMO, this was one of the major immediate causes of the CW.
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713
Footballguy
Marilyn Monroe
Rachel Carlson
John Lewis
Madonna
Billy Graham
George Gershwin
Huey Long
Eli Whitney
Joseph McCarthy
John Brown
Billy Jean King
That's 1/9 of your list of the greatest Americans. You've got 4 from pop culture, and only 2 prior to 1900.
Rachel Carlson
John Lewis
Madonna
Billy Graham
George Gershwin
Huey Long
Eli Whitney
Joseph McCarthy
John Brown
Billy Jean King
That's 1/9 of your list of the greatest Americans. You've got 4 from pop culture, and only 2 prior to 1900.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
James Buchanan (1857-1861)
Public Acumen/Persuasion
Buchanan was a northern democrat who supported the southern slavery policies. Bleeding Kansas hurt the reputation of Stephan Douglas too much for the party at the time and they wanted to make sure they got the White House. The party forced Douglas to step aside and nominated Buchanan. Upon taking office Buchanan asserted that the question of slavery, territories and laws that affected both were going to be resolved during his term because the Supreme Court was going to decide the issue and he would support whatever the court found. The Dred Scott case was the case at hand. Supporters of the south on the court told Buchanan the way the case was going to go which is why he said what he said in his inauguration speech.
Buchanan believed that the federal government should be a weak entity allowing states to control their own destiny as much as possible. As a result he did little to stop the continual fighting in the west and ultimately sat by and watched his country burn. And when you sit back and watch your country burn, you don’t get a good score here.
War & Crisis
Buchanan’s was a presidency of crisis. But unlike many of the men before him who we can define that way, he did almost everything wrong. He supported the Dred Scott decision which angered the north and was one of the focus points of a new growing political party in the country, the Republicans. When it was made known that the Supreme Court told Buchanan what the outcome of the case was supposed to be a young politician already making national waves destroyed him in one of the greatest speeches in American history – the House Divided speech, given by Abraham Lincoln.
Kansas-Nebraska was still a problem as well. Buchanan appointed a pro-slavery governor to the area to help draft a constitution to admit Kansas as a state. But the state was mostly anti-slavery and the result was the Lecompten Constitution which was anti-slavery. Against his party, Buchanan supported the constitution and tried everything possible to get it to pass in Congress, even going so far as trying to bribe congressmen with money from the treasury. The fight split the Democratic party and Stephen Douglas withdrew all support from Buchanan and took over the other faction. In the Illinois Senate battle that gave us the great Lincoln Douglas debates, Buchanan supported every side except Douglas’ in an effort to beat Douglas, but he didn’t have the power to do it and Douglas’ team won.
The growing sectional strife and consumption of European imports resulted in the Panic of 1857 which decimated the southern economy under Buchanan. Buchanan’s answer was to literally do nothing new, pay for current debts and projects and not offer one new spending bill. To his credit his plan ultimately helped alleviate the Panic by the end of his term.
The Utah War was also under Buchanan’s watch and he took the position that the Mormon’s were in open rebellion with the country. Which wasn’t true. He sent federal troops to Utah to put down the rebellion but also sent negotiators to try to get a peace, which they ultimately did. The underlying problem there though was that the south saw Buchanan’s act as a support of their efforts while the north saw likewise. When Buchanan did little to support either in the coming year it only made matters worse.
And of course, in the end, without a strong President, Buchanan saw the secession of South Carolina and the outbreak of hot war. By the time Buchanan left office, 7 states were in rebellion and Buchanan was unable to take any action to do anything about it, his party having been fractured by his break with Douglas and the incoming Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, not exactly being a supporter of his to begin with.
When General Winfield Scott urged Buchanan to reinforce southern forts after Lincoln’s election, Buchanan initially agreed and ordered it to happen. But then he rescinded the order so as to not anger the South, hoping that it would slow down the inevitable. Had he reinforced the forts, especially Sumpter, maybe things happen differently. Probably not. But his hesitation and ultimate lack of action were the worst possible act.
Economy
Buchanan attacked free trade policies and high tariffs, which only angered both sides of the political divide. His tariff policy was ultimate blamed for the Panic of 1857. His plan to stop the panic was to not spend on any new improvements in the nation but to keep paying for the ones that were already underway and passed. He began deficit spending a great deal to keep that going and ultimately massively increased the national debt. But by the end of his term, the Panic looked to be slowing down even though the south was damaged considerably by it. The outbreak of all out war however would become the driving economic force for the next few years.
Foreign Policy
Buchanan continued the previous adminsitration’s actions in protecting Central America and South America against British advances and managed to do so fairly well. At the same time though, Buchanan forced and threatened small governments in those areas to accept American leadership and in doing so considerably weakened America’s reputation in that area of the world where the country became synonymous with colonial powers.
Executive Skills/Congress
Let’s see – he weakened his own party, fractured the nation, supported the Dred Scott decision which only made everything worse, couldn’t get the Lecompten Constitution through the Senate and was the President that saw the United States implode. He was the guy in charge of Leahman Brothers in 2007-2008. This is not something you shoot for when you start your professional career. Oh, and Congress tired to impeach him. So, not good.
Justice/Rights
In supporting Dred Scott Buchanan doubled down on Pierce’s policies and let the Civil War happen. His true hatred of abolitionists didn’t do him any favors. His colonial policies in central and south America hurt America’s reputation.
Context
Pierce started the Civil War. Buchanan watched it happen. Hoping that the people of the country would simply abide by the Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott, Buchanan had no plan or ability to actually lead. A northern politician with southern sympathies, Buchanan at least had the background to be a potential helper in the coming war, but he never was able to turn that into actual action. The slavery question ultimately froze him and he was unable to figure out what to do and when to do it.
Conclusion
If you want to look for any silver lining, Buchanan was so bad at his job that we got Abraham Lincoln. It’s hard to score for that though. On persuasion he gets a 1, on crisis he gets a 1, on economy he gets a 3, on congress he gets a 1, on foreign policy he gets a 3, on civil rights he gets a 1 and on context he gets a 1. 11 total points. When James Buchanan left office, the country was in the midst of all out civil war. What started as ugly speeches and romantic stories about the potential for a southern American country that started as far back as Madison’s presidency finally culminated in all out war with Buchanan. Nero watched while Rome burned. And Buchanan watched while the United States did the same. The only reason he isn’t the worst President in our history is because he predecessor was so bad and at least one guy to come was actually worse – which is an accomplishment onto itself. And just two months after he left office, having done nothing to save the country that he took an oath to protect, he wrote that he supported the Confederacy and urged them to take up arms and fight the war to their fullest. You don’t get to be honored in a list of our greatest leaders when you do that.
Public Acumen/Persuasion
Buchanan was a northern democrat who supported the southern slavery policies. Bleeding Kansas hurt the reputation of Stephan Douglas too much for the party at the time and they wanted to make sure they got the White House. The party forced Douglas to step aside and nominated Buchanan. Upon taking office Buchanan asserted that the question of slavery, territories and laws that affected both were going to be resolved during his term because the Supreme Court was going to decide the issue and he would support whatever the court found. The Dred Scott case was the case at hand. Supporters of the south on the court told Buchanan the way the case was going to go which is why he said what he said in his inauguration speech.
Buchanan believed that the federal government should be a weak entity allowing states to control their own destiny as much as possible. As a result he did little to stop the continual fighting in the west and ultimately sat by and watched his country burn. And when you sit back and watch your country burn, you don’t get a good score here.
War & Crisis
Buchanan’s was a presidency of crisis. But unlike many of the men before him who we can define that way, he did almost everything wrong. He supported the Dred Scott decision which angered the north and was one of the focus points of a new growing political party in the country, the Republicans. When it was made known that the Supreme Court told Buchanan what the outcome of the case was supposed to be a young politician already making national waves destroyed him in one of the greatest speeches in American history – the House Divided speech, given by Abraham Lincoln.
Kansas-Nebraska was still a problem as well. Buchanan appointed a pro-slavery governor to the area to help draft a constitution to admit Kansas as a state. But the state was mostly anti-slavery and the result was the Lecompten Constitution which was anti-slavery. Against his party, Buchanan supported the constitution and tried everything possible to get it to pass in Congress, even going so far as trying to bribe congressmen with money from the treasury. The fight split the Democratic party and Stephen Douglas withdrew all support from Buchanan and took over the other faction. In the Illinois Senate battle that gave us the great Lincoln Douglas debates, Buchanan supported every side except Douglas’ in an effort to beat Douglas, but he didn’t have the power to do it and Douglas’ team won.
The growing sectional strife and consumption of European imports resulted in the Panic of 1857 which decimated the southern economy under Buchanan. Buchanan’s answer was to literally do nothing new, pay for current debts and projects and not offer one new spending bill. To his credit his plan ultimately helped alleviate the Panic by the end of his term.
The Utah War was also under Buchanan’s watch and he took the position that the Mormon’s were in open rebellion with the country. Which wasn’t true. He sent federal troops to Utah to put down the rebellion but also sent negotiators to try to get a peace, which they ultimately did. The underlying problem there though was that the south saw Buchanan’s act as a support of their efforts while the north saw likewise. When Buchanan did little to support either in the coming year it only made matters worse.
And of course, in the end, without a strong President, Buchanan saw the secession of South Carolina and the outbreak of hot war. By the time Buchanan left office, 7 states were in rebellion and Buchanan was unable to take any action to do anything about it, his party having been fractured by his break with Douglas and the incoming Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, not exactly being a supporter of his to begin with.
When General Winfield Scott urged Buchanan to reinforce southern forts after Lincoln’s election, Buchanan initially agreed and ordered it to happen. But then he rescinded the order so as to not anger the South, hoping that it would slow down the inevitable. Had he reinforced the forts, especially Sumpter, maybe things happen differently. Probably not. But his hesitation and ultimate lack of action were the worst possible act.
Economy
Buchanan attacked free trade policies and high tariffs, which only angered both sides of the political divide. His tariff policy was ultimate blamed for the Panic of 1857. His plan to stop the panic was to not spend on any new improvements in the nation but to keep paying for the ones that were already underway and passed. He began deficit spending a great deal to keep that going and ultimately massively increased the national debt. But by the end of his term, the Panic looked to be slowing down even though the south was damaged considerably by it. The outbreak of all out war however would become the driving economic force for the next few years.
Foreign Policy
Buchanan continued the previous adminsitration’s actions in protecting Central America and South America against British advances and managed to do so fairly well. At the same time though, Buchanan forced and threatened small governments in those areas to accept American leadership and in doing so considerably weakened America’s reputation in that area of the world where the country became synonymous with colonial powers.
Executive Skills/Congress
Let’s see – he weakened his own party, fractured the nation, supported the Dred Scott decision which only made everything worse, couldn’t get the Lecompten Constitution through the Senate and was the President that saw the United States implode. He was the guy in charge of Leahman Brothers in 2007-2008. This is not something you shoot for when you start your professional career. Oh, and Congress tired to impeach him. So, not good.
Justice/Rights
In supporting Dred Scott Buchanan doubled down on Pierce’s policies and let the Civil War happen. His true hatred of abolitionists didn’t do him any favors. His colonial policies in central and south America hurt America’s reputation.
Context
Pierce started the Civil War. Buchanan watched it happen. Hoping that the people of the country would simply abide by the Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott, Buchanan had no plan or ability to actually lead. A northern politician with southern sympathies, Buchanan at least had the background to be a potential helper in the coming war, but he never was able to turn that into actual action. The slavery question ultimately froze him and he was unable to figure out what to do and when to do it.
Conclusion
If you want to look for any silver lining, Buchanan was so bad at his job that we got Abraham Lincoln. It’s hard to score for that though. On persuasion he gets a 1, on crisis he gets a 1, on economy he gets a 3, on congress he gets a 1, on foreign policy he gets a 3, on civil rights he gets a 1 and on context he gets a 1. 11 total points. When James Buchanan left office, the country was in the midst of all out civil war. What started as ugly speeches and romantic stories about the potential for a southern American country that started as far back as Madison’s presidency finally culminated in all out war with Buchanan. Nero watched while Rome burned. And Buchanan watched while the United States did the same. The only reason he isn’t the worst President in our history is because he predecessor was so bad and at least one guy to come was actually worse – which is an accomplishment onto itself. And just two months after he left office, having done nothing to save the country that he took an oath to protect, he wrote that he supported the Confederacy and urged them to take up arms and fight the war to their fullest. You don’t get to be honored in a list of our greatest leaders when you do that.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I'm anxiously waiting to see if Michael Brown beats out John Glenn and Walt Disney.
timschochet
Footballguy
Its certainly close!
Similar threads
