Who is the worst president in U.S. history?

Question

Was just wondering what you think.

Answer 1

This is a hard thing to evaluate, because Presidents have faced such different situations, but very low on ANYONE's list should be the two Presidents immediately preceding the Civil War, and whose failures helped make this disaster inevitable

1) BUCHANAN
2) PIERCE

________________________

THOSE NOT CHOSEN

First, it's not a good idea to try to assess ANY President one way or the other for at least 20 years. Choosing Clinton OR W is largely a knee-jerk political action, based more on our own feelings than information and careful thought. (We also cannot truly tell how effective one's policies were overall while they are still in office.) So, for instance, the assessment of W's tenure will likely hang on the final outcome in Iraq --and we don't know that yet!-- but even then, the currently booming economy (whether you credit his policies or not) will keep him out of the basement.

Some choose on the basis of "most scandalous administrations" -- and usually pick Harding or Grant. True, scandals marred the administrations of each, though Grant definitely did not take part in them (but was too trusting) and Harding probably did not. (I also can name you three Presidents SINCE Harding whose administrations were MORE corrupt, though each had some notable accomplishments.)

This assessment also fails to recognize anything about what either man succeeded at! Harding's successful management of the economy, making the difficult transition from war to peacetime ['normalcy'], something Hoover failed miserably in. (So successful was Harding's approach, that few now even KNOW we faced something akin to the crash of 1929 early in his administration... and came out of it in very nice shape.)

As for Grant, the incredibly difficult situation of HIS postwar situation should be considered... a time of inflation, a devastated Southern economy and the dicey problem of just HOW to try to secure the rights of (and educate and incorporate into the political system) millions of recently freed slaves, esp. given the VIOLENT efforts of many groups of white Southerners, and racist Northerners who wearied of the effort (and the expense, when the economy was struggling). It's actually remarkable how far Grant went with this effort. (It seems too that a significant piece of the low view of Grant grew out of a gradual acquiescence in the popular Southern view, which never had much love for the man.)

Recent biographies have started a re-evaluation and 'upgrade' in the view of Grant's Presidency. Some have even suggested that his oft-criticized plan to annex Cuba, which almost came off, might not have been so bad after all. (The idea was that it would become an alternative place freed blacks COULD go to if they wished. This would exert pressure on Southern planters who actually NEEDED the labor help, because it would give the blacks a sort of 'bargaining chip', and so pressure the South to accord them more rights and freedom, or risk losing them.)
__________________

WHAT MAKES ONE "WORST"?

I suggest that WORST might best be assessed not by counting or weighing scandals (though they figure in the overall assessment), nor by running of a few economic numbers, nor even by relative "(in)effectiveness", but by looking at who did the most DAMAGE to the nation's strength, unity and interests -- domestic and/or foreign. (This is why I would not automatically put a Van Buren or Hoover in the "worst" category, despite the economic woes during their terms [Van Buren's due mainly to JACKSON's policies, esp. toward the National Bank].) As noted above, we cannot evaluate such results immediately, which along with our own political biases is why it is foolish to try to rank current or very recent Presidents.

By the way, one reason I'm a bit uncertain about what to do with Hoover, is the kinship of the policies for which he is typically condemned with those of FDR who is, oddly, NOT given equal criticism for his mishandling of the economy. That is, the damage Hoover did was mostly NOT by inactivity (as is the popular claim), but by doing TOO much.

But FDR did even MORE of the same sort of thing! .... which arguably accounts for why we were stuck in depression so much longer! (Amity Shlaes's recent book *The Forgotten Man* argues that only when FDR finally stopped following all the activist programs of his academic advisor and listen to what businessmen were saying did things turn around.)


THE "WINNERS"

Now the worst period for the office, has to be the 1840s-50s, with several lackluster Presidents during this (admittedly extremely difficult) time. But I think the clear winners for doing real HARM have to be Pierce (in no way prepared for the office), whose "pro-Southern" (or rather "pro-slavery") policies intensified divisions, and his successor, James Buchanan, who bent even more to extreme pro-Southern/pro-slavery interests, helped convince one Northern justice to go along with Dred Scott, was so disastrously wrong on Kansas (which became "Bleeding Kansas", in many ways the first installment of the Civil War), and willing to foist a fraudulent pro-slavery Constitution and government on them, who punished the Douglass men who disagreed with him, and so contributed much to a major split of the Democratic party. (That split in 1860 was, of course, the reason the Republicans easily won the Presidency.)

The question about Buchanan's response to secession while a lame duck, and whether they may have made the situation more impossible for Lincoln, is a tough one. I don't entirely agree that Buchanan did "nothing" to try to keep the nation together, but his efforts were certainly hampered by his own belief that, though there was no right to secede, the federal government lacked any real authority to DO anything if a state DID secede.

For a careful study of the period of Buchanan's Presidency (generally critical, though trying to offer him SOME credit for things he tried to do), I recommend the 1948 classic study by Roy Nicolls *The Disruption of American Democracy* ["American Democracy" does not refer to the nation but to a name the Democratic Party used for itself in the 1840s-50s]

A bit easier reading is the recent book *The California Gold Rush and the Coming of the Civil War* by Leonard Richards. It is not focused on Buchanan, but does a good job at showing the tensions in the Democratic Party of the 1850s and how Buchanan mishandled matters. (I believe H.W. Brands book on the Gold Rush also delves into some of this... and he's always a good read.)

Incidentally, whatever my misgivings, I would probably end up placing Hoover at 3rd or 4th on this list.

Answer 2

William Henry Harrison, he didn't have time to do anything as president because for his inauguration he made a ridiculously long speech in freezing cold wether, got sick and died a month later.

I am sure that Bush will not be even close to being considered the worst presidents ever in about 100 years when all the Bush haters ( and lovers) are dead and historians will be the ones to judge who was the worst.
I also am sure that most Americans have no clue who William Henry Harrison was or who any of the presidents were between Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln.

Answer 3

I would have to say Grant was one of the worst. He was not a bad person, he just filled his cabinet with crooks and people who used their office for financial and political gain. Grant's administration was a nightmare. He was not a very good president due to the fact that his whole administration is seen as a time of corruption. It is from Grant that we now have the term lobbyist. Grant would almost daily go on a walk and to a hotel down from the White House. He would sit in the lobby of the hotel and smoke his cigar and relax. People who were wanting favors or for the president to help them with something would come in and sit and talk with him. They would try to persuade the president to help them get a job, or to say how they felt about some legislation coming before congress. This is where we get the term lobbyist. Other than that, Grant was not a good president. This once again is partly his fault for believing the people he had around him were all honest. He was just to trusting and supportive of these men. It turned out that they were making money hand over fist from their connection with the president, and the offices which they held in his administration. It was an era of corruption. That's why I say Grant was one of the worst. Also Nixon, due to his lying and love of power. It would be those two things that ended up bringing him down.

Answer 4

I'll leave all living Presidents out of my assessment (but 3 out of the 4 will go down as being pretty bad, though George H.W. won't be in the bottom 10- but he's one of the 3 I'm talking about).

James Buchanan was horrible because he did absolutely nothing to help calm the country down in the immediate run-up to the Civil War.

Warren G. Harding was also a "do nothing" President, and you'd be very hard pressed to name a more corrupt administration than his.

Answer 5

i think of it incredibly is ridiculous to declare Bush grew to become into the worst or Obama grew to become into the worst. human beings are in simple terms asserting that by way of fact they hardly remember extra desirable than 3-5 presidents by way of fact they're so youthful. before asserting who's the best-ever worst or the final, you're able to truly study all the presidents u . s . has had. What did they do, what got here approximately for the duration of their presidency, how lots the persons enjoyed/hated him....in case you in straightforward terms do a survey and ask human beings "who do you think of is the worst US president ever"? human beings will say Bush, Obama, Reagan, Carter, Bush sr.....you be attentive to the main modern ones.

Answer 6

You have asked a common, but odd question.

It is odd because the brilliance or the dullness of any President is heavily influenced by the Congress he inherits AND the events and circumstances he confronts during his tenure.

My vote goes to Herbert Hoover. His lack of leadership lead to a devastating Depression that changed the United forever. The fear of another Depression drives political and legislative priorities even today.

Answer 7

Geroge W. Bush

Answer 8

Oh God here we go... Impeach Bush!!! Impeach Bush!!! meh meh meh shut up. Twenty years from now Andrew Johnson will still be known as the worst president in US History. He always has been and will be for quite some time.

Answer 9

George Bush

Answer 10

It used to be James Buchannon. It is now George Dumya Bush