"FDR was a douchebag near-dictator that nearly destroyed the Constitution, tried to pack the Supreme Court, set a god-awful precedent of big government (and big spending) which we are still trying to break, broke George Washington's 140-year-old two-term precedent, and whose wartime leadership was completely unremarkable."

I can agree in principle (but without the venom) to a lot of that. There are examples of when FDR skirted uncomfortably close to the sorts of things many of his fellow heads of state were doing in the 1930s. Court packing was a scandal, alphabet soup big government, should have respected the two-term tradition, yada yada yada. But for every NRA you get an FDIC, for every farm subsidy boondoggle you get Social Security. And it's surprising you bring up the court packing at all, considering your champion Jackson ignored a Supreme Court order not to move the Cherokees to Oklahoma. Double standard?

You're just wrong about the lack of leadership during World War II. Shockingly so.

And the guy repealed Prohibition, for goodness sake! Even the most irredeemably partisan hack ought to have that count enough for him to pass William Henry Harrison.


"Truman was okay until he turned into a big fat pussy with respect to the Korean War. He should have listened to General MacArthur, not fired him. Because of his indecisiveness and overall lack of balls, we slugged it out for a three year stalemate when we could have been kicking communist ass in China. Because of this, we have had to deal with two asshole communist countries in east Asia for the last 60 years. (for the record, I am not a MacArthur fan. He completely abandoned his men on Corregidor and never even set foot in Korea)."

Leaving aside his domestic policy (which you wouldn't call okay if you knew anythign about it), Truman acted as good as can realistically be expected during Korea. It was worth fighting to deter further communist aggression, but not worth occupying half of Asia while the Russians were poised to take the whole of Europe. Firing MacArthur was all Truman could do, since MacArthur had challenged the doctrine of civilian control of the military. It's really quite unpleasant to read you advocating a land war in China and the breakdown of democratic control of the armed forces during the height of the Cold War, when nuclear exchange was extremely possible.

More in the next post.

"Lincoln was okay, but not spectacular. Any other president would have gone to war with the south. It's not like Lincoln did anything extraordinary as president. He simply oversaw a civil war. He wasn't even involved in the big decision-making of the war. And he is a pompous ass for calling the Mexican-American War unjust. Andrew Jackson was a southern man himself yet was just about willing to go to war with South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis."

Shame on you.

Saying any other president would have gone to war is patently false, since the secessions occurred while Buchanan was still president and he did nothing. John Tyler ended up getting elected to the Confederate Congress! You just don't know the facts here.

As for Lincoln not doing anything extraordinary, I'd say the Emancipation Proclamation fits the bill. He was involved in the decision making of the war, both in consulting with his generals and in deciding the one condition of victory: preserving the Union. Again, you just don't know what you're talking about. Lincoln is probably the most studied president in American history, with every bit of correspondence he ever had being scholarly analyzed and every part of his life researched. Pick up a goddamn book and realize how wrong you are.

As for the Mexican War, he was right. Polk provoked a war. Mexico wanted the war just as bad, but it was a war of conquest against a weaker neighbor. That's been what countries have done for thousands of years and it's only been seen as bad for less than a century. Lincoln wasn't an ass for believing this, you're one for profaning one of the unambiguously great men in history.

More in the next post

"He also made America a world power, so I'm willing to overlook both his progressiveness and his stupid Bull Moose stunt."

This is in reference to Teddy Roosevelt. How did he make America a world power? McKinley was president during the Spanish-American war. And it wasn't as if the country was a nobody before 1898. Napoleon III was scared out of Mexico in the 1860s due to American might. Roosevelt is certianly one of the most interesting presidents and among the most consequential, but I see no reason to include him despite his progressivism when you exclude Grover Cleveland (who is almost a Tea Party caricature when it comes to economic policies) merely for having a D after his name.


"I generally omit Washington from my top <number> President lists because you can't really fairly compare him with any other president, because he was the first. If you made me put him in the list, he'd be between 6 and 10. I'm not going to put him in the top five because he really did not do anything extraordinary during his actual presidency, besides setting a shitload of important presidents and his skillful handling of the Whiskey Rebellion."

You know nothing of his presidency. Everything was extraordinary. His stable leadership and decision to step down set the country up for the two hundred years of constitutional government it has enjoyed. That is unequaled in human history. Like my advice on Lincoln, read a damn biography of the guy.


As for Nixon, yeah he shouldn't be at the bottom. Not the top, but certainly not the bottom.


obiwanobiwan would be proud of this little tome of mine.

It's pretty late at night in my time zone. I will respond to all of this in 8 to 12 hours.

Make it 48 hours, I'm sure we can wait

I think Invictus just provided chapter and verse as to how poor gunfighter's understanding of history is.

I'd say its partisan hackery, but I think that would be an insult to hardworking partisan hacks the world over.

The United States had little influence on European affairs before Teddy sent the Great White Fleet on a show of force voyage around the world. Interestingly he did so with only enough funding appropriated by Congress to get the fleet to Asia, but he knew once the fleet was there Congress would have to fund the rest of its voyage. The United States first influenced European events in Morocco in the first decade of the twentieth century. Building the Panama Canal and controlling it put the United States firmly in the realm of Great World Powers and gave Teddy the clout to demand that Japan negotiate and end to the Russo-Japanese War in the United States under T-Rex's mediation (for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize). Napoleon III abandoned Mexico because of the rebellion of the Mexicans against Maximilian. Juarez overthrew Max with little if any help from the United States. Polk didn't provoke the Mexican American War. Mexico had never fully recognized the independence of Texas and Mexico withdrew its ambassador which ended any chance of a negotiated settlement. It was Mexico that cut off diplomatic ties and chose the military option not the United States. It was also Mexico that send forces north of the Rio Grande to attack American forces. The United States did not cross to the southern side and attack Mexico to begin the war.

But we all agree that Reagan was great, right?

I thought it was "Great! We all agree Reagan was right!"

Polk was instrumental in the fraying of the Union and the coming of the most destructive war in American History. The new lands he haphazardly grabbed thrust the question of slave states and free states back into the limelight. It was a ham fisted and short sighted attempt to unify the country and benefit slave power at the expense of free power. Everybody saw through it, and it made the Civil War nearly inevitable. Only someone with Gunfighter's view of America, that is a Sports team with guns playing games of war with territory as points, could possibly consider Polk that high on the list.

And please, you DEMAND we give facts to back up our assertions, howe about you back up your assertions that Jackson "Advanced the common Man" (common man of course being a man who isn't black or red). What are you going to use that you saw on the history channel? That he had a party when he was elected for common people? That is likely a myth and even if it wasn't, so what? How does that better the common people? The Bank Battle? So "helping the common man" means helping southern and western elites over Northeastern elites? By expanding party politics? That was Van Buren's show. You just spit out generalities as usual, but that has the Conservative show in this country for quite a while

Polk haphazardly grabbed land? Americans had been migrating to Oregon, Texas, and California long before Polk ever took office. Manifest Destiny was an ideology that drove America in the 1840's not James K. Polk. Missouri merchants dominated the economy of New Mexico beginning in the 1820's. In fact John Tyler and Congress put the annexation of Texas in motion before Polk even took the oath of office. Saying that Polk grabbed anything totally ignores the reality that Americans were land hungry with an eye on expanding America's control from the Mississippi to the Pacific long before James K. Polk ever ran for the White House.

And how does that change the fact that he haphazardly grabbed land? Annexing Texas (which was half the size of today's Texas) Hardly compares to grabbing the entire pacific southwest and california in a political climate where the Missouri Compromise had formed an uneasy truce. It was a purchase that helped lead to the greates instance of blood letting and destruction in US history, and the effects of the conquest was not lost on people at the time.

And honestly, thank god for that, slave power needed to be broken. But if you are going to put polk on your personal Rushmore, you have to consider that his actions were severely destructive to the Union.

Actually the Texans claimed a territory much larger than today's Texas not less. Please refer to the Compromise of 1850 for proof of that. Tyler and Congress began annexing Texas two months before Polk took the oath of office. Claiming that the Mexican-American War directly caused the Civil War thirteen years later is an opinion and not a fact.

A list of events and movements that contributed to the rise of sectionalism that preceded the Civil War- the Wilmot Proviso, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, the prohibition of the slave trade in Washington D.C., the Ostend Manifesto, Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, he Underground Railroad, radical abolitionists, fire eaters, popular sovereignty, the Dred Scott decision, Bleeding Kansas, the Lecompton Constitution, the rise of the Republican Party, Lincoln's election, John Brown's Harpers Ferry Raid.

Many of which were the direct result of the Polk's presidency. The Fugitive Slave law of 1850 was a result of the treaty of Guadeloupe Hildago as it was an essential portion of the compromise of 1850 which was made to settle the question of what to do with the massive windfall of land that the United States had obtained. The Ostend Manifesto was a continuation of Polks attempts to purchase Cuba from spain (and strengthen slave power). The standing of Utah, a territory that was won from the Mexicans and under the Compromise of 1850 was made a slave state contrary to the line formed by the Missouri Compromise, created an ambiguity which helped lead to the Kansas Nebraska act and Bleeding Kansas. The rise of the Republican party was intimately related to the Free Soil argument which was set off because of the very same ambiguities that were formed by the addition of new lands. Behind the strife that occurred in and because of event in the lands of the Louisiana purchase was the ambiguity caused by the annexation of massive stretches of land crushing a truce that was formed with the Missouri Compromise. Was it the only cause? No. Was it a major cause? No doubt. Did Polk's actions shred the Union? I don't think their is any doubt, nor did his critics.

At not time in its history as a state was slavery ever legal in Utah. Saying that "....Utah, a territory that was won from the Mexicans and under that Compromise of 1850 was made a slave state...." is a completely false and inaccurate statement.

The Ostend Manifesto was sent by the Franklin Pierce administration to Spain in 1854 and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Polk administration.

Slavery was permitted in Utah Territory. I mis spoke that is what i meant, Utah wasn't a state until well after the civil war of course Utah never had slavery. You can see the mistake by the fact I specifically said it was a territory.

Your point about the Ostend Manifesto is wrong. Polk's administration attempted to buy Cuba, Pierce followed suit.

I would argue that the Mexican American War was the result of deeply rooted historical conflict between Protestant England and Catholic Spain that was manifested in the ideologies of the Black Legend, the tremendous anti-papist nature of the American colonists after two centuries of conflict with Catholic French Canada and Catholic Spanish Florida, and the beliefs of the majority of Americans from the War of 1812 on that God chose Americans to spread republican government and protestant religion across the North American continent known as Manifest Destiny. Trying to vilify Polk as the sole cause or even the main cause of the animosity between Protestant Americans and Catholic Mexico by the 1840's seems simplistic and incomplete.

The Ostend Manifesto is a specific historical document written by the Pierce administration and delivered to Spain in 1854. It had nothing whatsoever to do with anyone from the Polk administration. American attempts to acquire Cuba preceded the Polk administration by about 80 years. The Americans and British laid siege to Havana during the French and Indian War in 1762. Almost every American administration from the beginning of the country attempted to acquire Cuba.

"The Ostend Manifesto is a specific historical document written by the Pierce administration and delivered to Spain in 1854"

Oh so a piece of paper, not the attempt to buy Cuba and increase slave power is what helped cause the civil war, got it.

"Almost every American administration from the beginning of the country attempted to acquire Cuba. "

Name one that tried before Polk. I'd like to see you try. It was always something people believed might or should or inevitably would happen in the future, but no one tried to carry it through because of the chaos it would cause in the Union. Until Polk and his Democratic successors of course. Sense a pattern?

"The Americans and British laid siege to Havana during the French and Indian War in 1762."

British and British colonists laid siege to Havana. The difference? The Americans had no choice and in most cases did not want to be there. They were subjects of the King who wanted Cuba for the British Empire. I have written a paper that discusses this very subject. It is profoundly ahistorical to say "The Americans and British" laid siege to Havana during the Seven Years War, and it has no bearing on my point.

"seems simplistic and incomplete"

Sort of like attributing the Mexican American War to religious differences? No one says Polk caused the Mexican War by force of will alone. He did decide to prosecute it, and expand a border dispute into a full out war of conquest in order to obtain new lands. Those lands were a windfall, but almost led to the dissolution of the Union and the most destructive war in american history

I am responding to Gunfighters assertion that Polk was a genius for annexing the western holdings of Mexico. I contend that doing so was not 6the brilliant act gunfighter suggests and in fact, combined with the issue of slavery, was a huge factor in causing the Civil War.

What's it like to make a deposit at the ATM of a sperm bank?

Dammit, Emac. You stole all of my arguments lol.

But seriously, I wanted to enjoy my Fourth of July, so I took a break from this argument. I will be happy to continue at this point.

"I am responding to Gunfighters assertion that Polk was a genius for annexing the western holdings of Mexico. I contend that doing so was not 6the brilliant act gunfighter suggests and in fact, combined with the issue of slavery, was a huge factor in causing the Civil War."

That's completely bullshit. Polk intentionally took the Oregon Country and New Mexico/California to balance northern and southern interests. The fact remains that the Mexican-American War did not significantly disrupt the balance of power between northern and southern interests. The Civil War was inevitable. The issue of slavery was simply too explosive. Abraham Lincoln's election (not saying that it was Lincoln's fault, but the fact that he was elected caused a big chunk of the South to immediately secede) has much more blame for the Civil War than the Mexican-American War.

Even if the Mexican-American War did cause the Civil War (once again, bullshit), I would argue that the long-term benefits of having access to the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, as well as the natural resources of New Mexico, California, and Oregon far outweigh the human and materiel cost of the Civil War.

American attempts to acquire Cuba before Polk included Jefferson sending James Wilkinson to Madrid to purchase Cuba. Jefferson wrote to Madison “I candidly confess that I have ever looked upon Cuba as the most interesting addition that can be made to our system of States." Secretaries of State John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay along with Secretary of War John C. Calhoun all wrote openly and advocated the annexation of Cuba by the United States in the early 1820s. William Shaler, a state department official in the Madison administration feared the British would occupy Cuba since Napoleon controlled Spain, and advocated in a number of state department reports that the United States annex Cuba. American attempts and advocacy to add Cuba to the United States were decades old by the time James K. Polk became president.

The Ostend Manifesto was the written policy by the Pierce administration to buy Cuba from Spain and if she refused to go to war in 1854. It had no connection to the offer by the Polk administration's 1848 offer to buy Cuba. It had no connection to the offer by the Jefferson administration to buy Cuba. It was an independent policy initiative by the Pierce administration.

Anti-Catholicism, historical beliefs in the inferiority of Latin culture, and God's choosing of the United States to dominate North America in Manifest Destiny not only played a role in American support for a war with Mexico, but it also prevented attempts by Southern factions who wanted to annex Mexico proper as slave territory after the war. In the March 30, 1848 edition of the New York Evening Post Daniel Wester said that mixing Mexican civilization with American would debase our nation. In a speech before
the Senate Webster cited a report by a former Congressman recently killed in battle that offered a scathing view of Mexican culture as "Imposing no restraint on their passions, a shameless and universal concubinage exists, and a total disregard of morals, to which it would be impossible to find a parallel in any country calling itself civilized. .. .Liars by nature, they are treacherous and faithless to their friends, cowardly and cringing to their enemies; cruel, as all cowards are, they unite savage ferocity with their want of animal courage." When a Senator of Webster's stature entered such a statement into the Congressional Record it spoke to a widespread and deeply held belief about Mexican-Catholic society. This type of historical bigotry towards Mexico is not a simplistic part in the Mexican American War. It is at the heart of it.