Historians rank top Presidents on Leadership

#51
#51
I dunno, to me the standard has to be high.

I would think every one would agree Lincoln, FDR and Washington.

The rest are much ado about nothing!
 
#52
#52
I think that ranking has some rather laughable rankings.

To lend any validity to that average opinion would mean one would have an in depth look into the backgrounds of those polled.

Here they are:

Ackerman, Ken
Felzenberg, Alvin
Maier, Pauline
Algor, Catherine
Ferguson, Andrew
Maranto, Robert
Allen, William
Fleming, Thomas
Marszelek, John
Anderson, Annelise
Frazier, Michael
McPherson, James
Anthony, Carl Sferrazza
Gawalt, Gerard
Medford, Edna
Arnold, Perry
Goodrich, Debra
Oates, Stephen
Baker, Dick
Gordon-Reed, Annette
Persico, Joseph
Baker, Jean
Gormley, Ken
Pika, Joe
Berns, Walter
Greenberg, David
Pious, Richard
Brands, H.W.
Greene, J. Robert
Randall, Willard Sterne
Brinkley, Alan
Greenstein, Fred
Reily, Russell
Brinkley, Doug
Guelzo, Allen
Renshon, Stanley
Brown, Lara
Hayward, Steven
Ritchie, Don
Burton, Vernon
Helco, Hugh
Rockman, Bert
Calhoun, Charles
Henriques, Peter
Sabato, Larry
Cannon, James
Hess, Stephen
Sheldon, Garrett
Cannon, Lou
Holzer, Harold
Simpson, Brooks
Cooper, John Milton
Kauffman, Robert
Smith, Richard Norton
Crapol, Edward
Kengor, Paul K
Stuckey, Mary
Cronin, Thomas
Knott, Stephen
Warsaw, Shirley
Dallek, Robert
MacDougall, Walter
Dallek, Susan
Madonna, G. Terry

To me that evaluation is a load of bull crap that leans toward the twentieth century. Seven of the top ten are twentieth century and that is just wrong.

To leave Andrew Jackson out of the top ten is a bit off the mark.

What is their basis for their evaluation of leadership??

To put Wilson ahead of Reagan is to reveal political bias.

To place Carter anywhere outside the bottom ten is a joke.

Clinton's high ranking will be revised when the foolishness of his Balkan blunder is evaluated by history.
 
#53
#53
OrangeEmpire said:
I dunno, to me the standard has to be high.

I would think every one would agree Lincoln, FDR and Washington.

The rest are much ado about nothing!
Click to expand...

I very much disagree with FDR being in the top half, he was a terrible president if you look at the big picture!

Five worst presidents in American history if you take it by guarding the best interests of the citizens, by rank.

1) Thomas Woodrow Wilson
2) Franklin Delano Roosevelt
3) James Earl Carter
4) William Jefferson Clinton
5) Lyndon Baines Johnson

(there may be some 19th century sleazebags but they would have to be pretty bad to be lower that those listed above.)
 
#54
#54
Ranking FDR as one of the worst presidents is a great way to get people to take you seriously.
 
#55
#55
I cannot argue against FDR having failed at several projects but the hope he provided the people during the depression cannot be overlooked. Futhermore, as with Lincoln, who else would you want running World War II?
 
#56
#56
I cannot argue against FDR having failed at several projects but the hope he provided the people during the depression cannot be overlooked. Futhermore, as with Lincoln, who else would you want running World War II?
Click to expand...

George Washington or Andrew Jackson.

George Washington should be #1 without question. Without him, there would have been no Union for Lincoln to save.
 
#57
#57
Anyone else see a problem with Kennedy being ranked so high?
 
#60
#60
The Civil War was fought over states rights..... guess what states rights?

You bet, it was slavery!

The Civil War started boiling in 1820's........

Lincoln forcing the hand by issuing the emancipation proclamation was a stroke of political briliance!
 
#65
#65
OrangeEmpire said:
European intervention!

Europe's populace would never allow their governments to support a fight for slavery!

:hi:
Click to expand...

Europe's population has never had the say so over those matters, what kept England out of the war was the work of Cassius Marcellus Clay, US Ambassador to Russia, who got the Tsar to send half his Imperial Navy to New York and San Francisco.

That's what kept England from entering the war.

Unfortunately for the Romanov family, they got a pay back within a half century.
 
#66
#66
gsvol said:
Europe's population has never had the say so over those matters, what kept England out of the war was the work of Cassius Marcellus Clay, US Ambassador to Russia, who got the Tsar to send half his Imperial Navy to New York and San Francisco.

That's what kept England from entering the war.

Unfortunately for the Romanov family, they got a pay back within a half century.
Click to expand...

That is not true, they came because their harbors were going into freezing season and the Tsar didn't want his ships caught in harbor.

England didn't go to war for the south because of the slavery issue.
 
#67
#67
cd12 said:
JFK should also be way down the list. His time was too short to form an opinion one way or another. Not knocking the guy but had he lived on his time in office might not have lived up to the hype.
Click to expand...

JFK never gets credit for issuing silver certificates, which is what got him killed imo.

Same thing was the cause of the demise of presidents Lincoln and Garfield and the cause of two assassination attempts on Andrew Jackson.

Who knows exactly the motivation for the assassination of McKinley but his stance on banking probably was the real basis for that action.

BigPapaVol said:
Doubt Lincoln all you'd like, but be faced the biggest challenge to this nation's sovereignty and came out on top. The lone other leader in his league is Washington, who held our pitiful Army together by the sheer force of his personality.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I think Jefferson and Jackson deserve to five status.

Both had great efforts against foreign threats and both threw off the yoke of central banking.

One could also say that Lincoln did great harm by making legitimate the ignoring of the US Constitution, which along with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were the guidelines for our Republic which now seems to be entering perilous times.

oklavol said:
I think people forget Carter lost the popular vote to Reagan by 9%. For comparison, McCain lost to Obama by 7%. He was not the widely unpopular President people have tried to portray him as of late.
Click to expand...

McCain wasn't an incumbent, Carter was, big difference.

Plus msm media had a love affair with Obama.

Don't get me wrong, I think McCain was a horrible candidate for the highest office, but then he was the NY Times favorite Republican.

GASOUTHERNVOL said:
i think the trail of tears is what kicked AJ out, i disagree with him being out of the top 10, but i think thats why. The Indian Removal was a natural evolution of the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny
Click to expand...

Again, Jackson's victory against central banking was a major factor in defining 19th century America, a great victory for the American people that even overshadows his victory in the battle of New Orleans.

An interesting footnote to the history of that time; the British offered Napoleon the title of "King of America" if he would join forces and attack America.

Napoleon is a far better character than that most historians accord him, he refused and he also refused to allow central banking back into France, and that is why the British sent Wellington, whom Washington had defeated on the field of battle, into France and eventually into the battle of Waterloo.

Waterloo was barely a British victory, Napoleons reinforcements were only hours late to that battle, if they had arrived in time, history would be completely different.
 
#68
#68
OrangeEmpire said:
That is not true, they came because their harbors were going into freezing season and the Tsar didn't want his ships caught in harbor.

England didn't go to war for the south because of the slavery issue.
Click to expand...

In that case why didn't the Russian Imperial Navy come to New York and San Francisco before and after the war of norther aggression???

FYI the Russian Navy participated in the blockade of Charleston! (there exists photographs of just that.)

The Russian Navy could just as easily have ported in southern ports.


At several of the most critical junctures of the Civil War, the Lord Russell-Petit Napoleon axis was on the verge of declaring war on the Union. Each time, they were forced to weigh the consequences of a fully mobilized Russia's declaration of war on England and France. Russia's huge land armies were ready to roll over the Ottoman Empire and India, thus ending British political domination of an area extending in a great arc from the Balkans through the Middle East to London's subcontinental ``jewel'' of India.

Had Russia not lined up with the Union, a wavering London-dominated Bismarckian Germany, with no anti-British continental powers nearby, would have been able to swing nationalist elements in the German leadership into joining Britain and France as a junior partner. The fact that Russia allied with the Union and mobilized to fight if necessary, guaranteed that if a global war erupted, German national interests, which could not tolerate the elimination of the United States and Russia and a Europe under the complete domination of England and Petit Napoleon, would lawfully assert their control over German policy and move against London.

In short, the ``concert of powers'' rigged game that had characterized European affairs since the Congress of Vienna would be over. The means of British political control over the continent would have exploded in the faces of Russell and Palmerston.


You ought to read the whole link.
 
#69
#69
gsvol said:
I think Jefferson and Jackson deserve to five status.

Both had great efforts against foreign threats and both threw off the yoke of central banking.
Click to expand...

I knew you would eventually say something that made sense. I kid, I kid...:)
 
#70
#70
tvolsfan said:
Ranking FDR as one of the worst presidents is a great way to get people to take you seriously.
Click to expand...

What good did FDR accomplish??

He was a horrible president.

Let's go over his presidency point by point, and I don't give a whack whether you take me seriously or not, I can't take you seriously after your comment.
 
#72
#72
gsvol said:
In that case why didn't the Russian Imperial Navy come to New York and San Francisco before and after the war of norther aggression???

FYI the Russian Navy participated in the blockade of Charleston! (there exists photographs of just that.)

The Russian Navy could just as easily have ported in southern ports.


At several of the most critical junctures of the Civil War, the Lord Russell-Petit Napoleon axis was on the verge of declaring war on the Union. Each time, they were forced to weigh the consequences of a fully mobilized Russia's declaration of war on England and France. Russia's huge land armies were ready to roll over the Ottoman Empire and India, thus ending British political domination of an area extending in a great arc from the Balkans through the Middle East to London's subcontinental ``jewel'' of India.

Had Russia not lined up with the Union, a wavering London-dominated Bismarckian Germany, with no anti-British continental powers nearby, would have been able to swing nationalist elements in the German leadership into joining Britain and France as a junior partner. The fact that Russia allied with the Union and mobilized to fight if necessary, guaranteed that if a global war erupted, German national interests, which could not tolerate the elimination of the United States and Russia and a Europe under the complete domination of England and Petit Napoleon, would lawfully assert their control over German policy and move against London.

In short, the ``concert of powers'' rigged game that had characterized European affairs since the Congress of Vienna would be over. The means of British political control over the continent would have exploded in the faces of Russell and Palmerston.


You ought to read the whole link.
Click to expand...

Oh come on!

Russia was preparing for a war with England and France!

:p
 
#73
#73
gsvol said:
What good did FDR accomplish??

He was a horrible president.

Let's go over his presidency point by point, and I don't give a whack whether you take me seriously or not, I can't take you seriously after your comment.
Click to expand...
He faced the toughest time in our countries history, helped bring us through it, and although he may not have been successful in everything, he kept everything from falling apart.

I know are you are some conservative extremist, but you are really reaching here.
 
#74
#74
tvolsfan said:
He faced the toughest time in our countries history, helped bring us through it, and although he may not have been successful in everything, he kept everything from falling apart.

I know are you are some conservative extremist, but you are really reaching here.
Click to expand...

From what little I know, I would say WWII and a select few of his public works projects (Hoover Dam for example) saved FDR's presidential legacy. Before that, his social programs and economic policies did very little in the short-term and proved to be disasterous in the long-term. He can thank WWII for pulling us out of the depression. He was a decent wartime president and seemed to work well with his allies.

That may all be wrong, but it is my impression.
 
#75
#75
OrangeEmpire said:
Oh come on!

Russia was preparing for a war with England and France!


:p
Click to expand...

I knew you wouldn't read it.

Who did Russia fight in the Crimean war??

When was that?

And the French and British sided with the Turks in that war.

You think the Russians weren't still POed???

Tell me this oh glib one, why did the Russians sell us Alaska??

:p

tvolsfan said:
He faced the toughest time in our countries history, helped bring us through it, and although he may not have been successful in everything, he kept everything from falling apart.

I know are you are some conservative extremist, but you are really reaching here.
Click to expand...

Your name calling really establishes your knowledge, or lack thereof.

Luckily most of FDRs socialist new deal initiatives were ruled unconstitutional.

His policies did nothing to alleviate the depression.

When I think of Woodrow Wilson and FDR, I think of betrayals of the American people.

When I think of FDR I think of American farming cooperatives and his adoration for Uncle Joe and I think of Alger Hiss.

I think of his administration as being the one who drove Africdan Americans off their land and into the cities.

When I think of FDR I think of his maternal grandfather Warren Delano who made a fortune smuggling opium into China, causing great misery, death and hardship. FDR always knew the origin of the family fortune but refused to discuss it.

I'll tell you just like I told one of my own children this week, if you only look at one side of a coin, you never know heads from tails.

FDR aided and abetted the wolf in sheep's clothing super rich to rape America financially and economically.

It was during the administration of FDR that the super wealthy put all their money in tax free trusts and foundations that make them above paying public taxes.

"Capital must protect itself in every way...Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of leading financiers.

People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd."--

Taken from the Civil Servants' Year Book,
"The Organizer" January 1934.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is a detestable human being, if you can call him that!

And don't give me all that claptrap you've read about him, I personally listened to Roosevelt fireside chats on a battery radio before we had electricity, he had a charming voice, just like our current POTUS but just like our current POTUS, he was a wolf in sheep's clothing.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top