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

Answer 1

bush....

Answer 2

Since Bush Jr. is President now, he doesn't really count as historical.

So, my second pick is James Buchanan. He announced in his inaugural address (1856) that he would not seek re-election, essentially creating himself as a lame duck before he had even taken office. He proposed purchasing Cuba from Spain so that slavery could expand there. He sent the army against the Mormons in Utah, because he had been told they were planning rebellion. He mismanaged the U.S. Treasury and cause the Panic of 1857 by allowing the treasury to issue deficit financing. He is rumored to have interfered in the Dred Scott decision, which said that the courts had no jurisdiction over slavery in the territories. He fought for control in his own party over the Kansas constitution, which led to the time known as "bleeding Kansas."

Seven states seceded from the Union near the end of his presidency. After a resupply ship was fired on by Fort Sumter, he remained paralyzed and did nothing to prepare the country for war or to negotiate a peace.

So, I think he did a lot to cause the Civil War and nothing to prevent it.

Answer 3

I'd have to go with James Buchanan, because he failed to accomplish anything to prevent the war, the only thing I can see that he did manage to do was to transfer military stores to southern military posts, which were ultimately surrendered to the Confederacy.

Jimmy Carter did manage to get Begin and Sadat together, even though they had to practically lock them in their cabins until they agreed to "make nice", the Camp David accords were still signed.

Bush, as much as I hate the Patriot Act, and as much as I think he's mismanaging the Iran situation (because I'm not going to be surprised if a new President finds that they end up handling it the same way), I still don't think it rises to the level of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Answer 4

James Buchanan, who was either a secessionist or a slavery sympathizer, or both, because he aided the secessionists throughout his term to prepare for their betrayal of their vows and treason against their country. Where he didn't actively help those who planned throughout the 1850's to seceed from the US, he turned a knowing blind eye.

Answer 5

Jimmy Carter.

Answer 6

Bush

Answer 7

Bush the younger.

Answer 8

Nixon, by far.

He was drunk when we bombed Cambodia.

He cranked up the AC, then lit the fireplace.

And he was President why...?

Answer 9

Bush the second.

Answer 10

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 -- BUCHANAN and PIERCE. I would place them at the bottom, and in that order. Immediately following them would be ANDREW JOHNSON, a stubborn, racist politician who made a mess of Reconstruction. (Nice irony - arguably the BEST President came in the midst of these.)


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.

But this assessment fails to recognize 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 (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.
__________________

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.

THE "WINNERS"

Now the worst period for the office, has to be the 1840s-50s, with several lackluster Presidents during this (admittedly 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, which led to secession.) And that's not even to consider the question of how his weak responses to secession while a lame duck may have made the situation more impossible for Lincoln.

(I have my own ideas for 'worst in the 20th century', but that runs the risks mentioned above, and I still don't think ANY can compete with the 'doughface disasters'.)

Close behind this pair, as I mentioned at the start, would be Andrew Johnson. He supposedly wished to follow Lincoln's "soft" plan for Reconstruction, but in fact, he was nothing like Lincoln --as seen in his arrogant disdain for those in Congress with different opinions (suggesting in campaign speeches that some of them should be hanged!?), his allowing the Southern elite to quickly regain control of their states and complete lack of concern to protect the rights of the freedmen.

For the 20th century, my vote will likely end up being for Jimmy Carter, under whose watch Iran fell, Communism spread (including in Central America), and the economy staggered.... leaving quite a mess to clean up (arguably we are still cleaning up the Iran failure). Then there is Hoover's disastrous response to economic troubles --a lot of government meddling, and going along with protectionism. (Sorry to say, FDR, though very reassuring, and RIGHT on critical foreign policy decisions, esp. in breaking us out of isolationism, was an even bigger disaster to the economy, as Amity Shlaes new history of the Great Depression [*The Forgotten Man*] spells out.)