Most underrated president in american history

[Schmidty]

I'm watching Oliver Stone's "Nixon" right now, and have also been reading "Worst Presidents" lists online. I know we've had threads like that before, so I decided to be a little more positive.

From what I've read, other than the (HUGE) mistakes and corruption in his regime, Nixon was an excellent president. Of course, it's hard to ignore the paranoid corruption, but it's unfair to ignore his diplomatic skills (China), social works (minimum wage), and environmental issues (land usage laws).

Anyway, I'm certainly not a historian and I know that a lot of you know more about this stuff than I do, so I'd like to read your opinions. Who is your most under-rated president ever?

[ISiddiqui]

Damn... I saw the title and was coming in here to say Nixon myself.

I'd add William Howard Taft. He has a pretty good resume (people don't realize he launched 90 anti-trust suits, more than Roosevelt did in his 2 terms). He also wasn't one to pass the buck, or blame others for things. He was probably too straight talking to be a good politician and Roosevelt took advantage. He strengthened the ICC and promoted the 16th and 17th Amendments (income tax and direct election of Senators). He also created the Department of Labor and in a precursor to the Marshall Plan, he supporting US investing in 3rd world infrastructure to expand their economic development.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I'm watching Oliver Stone's "Nixon" right now, and have also been reading "Worst Presidents" lists online. I know we've had threads like that before, so I decided to be a little more positive.

From what I've read, other than the (HUGE) mistakes and corruption in his regime, Nixon was an excellent president. Of course, it's hard to ignore the paranoid corruption, but it's unfair to ignore his diplomatic skills (China), social works (minimum wage), and environmental issues (land usage laws).

Anyway, I'm certainly not a historian and I know that a lot of you know more about this stuff than I do, so I'd like to read your opinions. Who is your most under-rated president ever?

William Henry Harrison

[sabotai]

Calvin Coolidge

[BishopMVP]

Andrew Jackson

[Groundhog]

Mackenzie Allen

[MrBug708]

David Rice Atchison (who was technically president of the United States for a day, but not in power)

[Schmidty]

So is anyone going to actually explain their picks? I love history, and would like to hear people's analysis.

[Vegas Vic]

James K. Polk (1845-1849)

He campaigned on his strong support for westward expansion, an issue that was hotly debated and dodged by other candidates.

Even though he only served one term (which was his intent before the election), he moved swiftly to accomplish the four primary goals that he layed out before he was elected: the purchase of California from Mexico, acquisition of the Oregon boundary dispute, the reduction of tariffs, and the re-establishment of the Independent Treasury System.

He expanded the nation's boundaries with both the Oregon Territory and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago, which ended the Mexican-American War and added about 1.2 million square miles of land in California, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, parts of Colorado and Wyoming.

He signed a bill (the Walker Tariff), which reversed the high rates of tariffs that were in place and brought in an era of almost free trade.

He approved a law restoring the independent treasury system, under which government funds were held in the treasury, rather than in banks or other financial institutions.

So, even though Polk isn't one of our most famous presidents, he basically said "This is what I'm going to do if I'm elected" and then swiftly followed through with it. In my book, this makes him our most underrated president.

[Izulde]

A lot of what Nixon did was under Kissinger's influence, so I'd say that invalidates Nixon as the most underrated president because Kissinger was president more than Nixon was imo.

Polk is an excellent choice and probably my vote as well, though I have a soft spot for Monroe because I think the Monroe Doctrine is the finest piece of American foreign policy in history.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Andrew Jackson

Won the Battle of New Orleans, took Florida from the Spanish, survived a duel despite a bullet lodged less than an inch from his heart and won a plurality of both the popular and electoral vote in 1824 before being screwed over by Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams. As President, averted a potential secession crisis (by South Carolina of course), and survived the first assassination attempt on a POTUS when 2 guns misfired (and subsequently chased the man down and began beating him with a cane.) Most importantly he and his supporters spearheaded the extension voting rights to all free men.

He's usually just associated with brutality toward Indians, and while he certainly did do his share of it in Florida (basically Sherman's march against the Cherokees) he also fought alongside many Indians during his tenure and adopted one as his son. The Indian Removal Act, despite its name, was designed to negotiate treaties, not forcibly remove anyone from their land.

So as a President, the two main things I associate him with are the enfranchisement of citizens at the expense of the elites and westward expansion/"Manifest Destiny". The second of which is rather controversial and Jackson thus gets a lot of bad reputation by people who are uncomfortable with how this country developed. Add in his actions before he was President and I think he's fairly underrated.


On Nixon, there are two other aspects that are rarely brought up. On the positive side, for all of JFK and LBJ's talk, it was during Nixon's administration and under his control that a lot of the the actual implementation of de-segregation happened. To his credit, he could have taken a laisez-faire attitude and let the states and towns keep segregating, but he used federal power to ensure the process kept going. On the negative side, it gets overshadowed by Watergate and the OPEC embargo, but his imposition of price-controls just to win the '72 election was terrible for the country and crippled the economy so much that it took years to recover.

[Abe Sargent]

My two candidates are John Tyler and Andrew Johnson.


-Anxiety

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Damn... I saw the title and was coming in here to say Nixon myself.

I'd add William Howard Taft. He has a pretty good resume (people don't realize he launched 90 anti-trust suits, more than Roosevelt did in his 2 terms). He also wasn't one to pass the buck, or blame others for things. He was probably too straight talking to be a good politician and Roosevelt took advantage. He strengthened the ICC and promoted the 16th and 17th Amendments (income tax and direct election of Senators). He also created the Department of Labor and in a precursor to the Marshall Plan, he supporting US investing in 3rd world infrastructure to expand their economic development.

We're LAUDING the guy who's responsible for the income tax?

No way.

I know, I know..it might've passed without his signature. But still...

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

other than the (HUGE) mistakes and corruption in his regime, Nixon was an excellent president

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

[Tigercat]

Woodrow Wilson is extremely underrated in importance, even if one can successfully argue he isn't underrated in terms of positive achievements.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

We're LAUDING the guy who's responsible for the income tax?

No way.

I know, I know..it might've passed without his signature. But still...

Yes, we are. For all the moaning and bitching, it's a GOOD THING. But, if you want to go without all the various benefits the federal government provides, I'm sure there are small islands out there with no governments .

[WSUCougar]

Ulysses S. Grant

[Buccaneer]

Calvin Coolidge, without a doubt.

[Anthony]

Clinton. i don't know where he stands in conjunction to other presidents, but 8 years of peace and prosperity means a lot to me. i always like when he speaks.

[cartman]

I'd put in Dwight D. Eisenhower. He handled the transition to finish off the Marshall Plan, which has led to sustained peace and great prosperity for Europe, did as well as could be expected with what he was handed with the Korea situation, oversaw the transition from a war economy to one that created the largest percentage growth of the middle class in history, and also give the famous, but unheeded, accurate warning about the unhealthy rise of influence of the military-industrial complex.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by cartman

I'd put in Dwight D. Eisenhower. He handled the transition to finish off the Marshall Plan, which has led to sustained peace and great prosperity for Europe, did as well as could be expected with what he was handed with the Korea situation, oversaw the transition from a war economy to one that created the largest percentage growth of the middle class in history, and also give the famous, but unheeded, accurate warning about the unhealthy rise of influence of the military-industrial complex.

He also chose not to take us into Vietnam to help the French when his own advisors were calling for it.

As Presidential tapes were released, historians became more and more enamoured with Eisenhower, and as such, he regularly makes the top ten or higher on many historian's lists. How underrated can a President be when he is rated that highly by most Presidential historians?


-Anxiety

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

As Presidential tapes were released, historians became more and more enamoured with Eisenhower, and as such, he regularly makes the top ten or higher on many historian's lists. How underrated can a President be when he is rated that highly by most Presidential historians?

He is highly rated by the historians, but I don't think the general public has the same view.

[Abe Sargent]

Dola- let's take a closer look at the subject of rating:

C-Span sent out ratings documents to 90 American President historians, which rated Presidents in a variety of categories.

Let's take a look at how some President's mentioned here fared:

Andrew Jackson - Ranked 13 - which is a fall off in the last twenty years as other Presidents creep up the list, some have to fall. They ranked him as high as 7th in Crisis Management and in Public Persuasaion but as low as 32nd among all Presidents in pursuing justice and equality.

Woodrow Wilson - Ranked 6th. It's hard to be underrated when you are ranked by historians as the 6th best President. As high as 5th in Vision and as low as 20th on equality, and I personally find that to be a generous score to the guy who segregated the federal government.

Eisenhower - Ranked 9th. Again, hard to be underrated whn you are in the top ten. Highest score, Moral Authority with a 5th overall. Lowest score was 18th in vision setting.

Nixon was mentioned earlier - 25th ranked, right in the middle of the pack. 8th overall in foreign relations down to 40th in moral authority and also low marks in congressional relations and performance within the context of the times.


Now, here were my nominees for most underrated:

John Tyler - Ranked 36th Overall

Andrew Johnson - Ranked 40th Overall

You can see why I think these might be more underrated than a guy who the historians think of a top 10 President.

If you would like to check out this information, head over to:

http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/

-Anxiety

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Ulysses S. Grant

Are you kidding?

Mediocre general, and a poor president, in my opinion. But, if you've got something to back up your position, I'd love to read it.

[Barkeep49]

I say George Washington. He doesn't get nearly the respect he deserves for the way he established deomcratic institutions.

I also have a real problem will Cooledge. Cal's devotion to business, over a balance between business and the rights of citizens, helped lead to Hoover and the Great Depression.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yes, we are. For all the moaning and bitching, it's a GOOD THING. But, if you want to go without all the various benefits the federal government provides, I'm sure there are small islands out there with no governments .

I would love to go without many of the "benefits" the federal governmant provides...

And don't pull the old, "if you don't like it, move" argument...

[ISiddiqui]

I think Andrew Johnson was OVERrated. He gets a free pass because the 'radical Republicans' (who were dedicated to equality for blacks lest we forget) went on a Crusade against him. But, IMO, there were valid reasons to impeach him. Foremost he would pardon Confederate officers (allowing them to hold office again) for social favor. It's not too far from bribery, but the other way around. He wanted to curry their favor, so he'd be accepted into their social circle.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I would love to go without many of the "benefits" the federal governmant provides...

And don't pull the old, "if you don't like it, move" argument...

Many? Not all? Do you think that you'd have an interstate highway system to drive on without income taxes? Do you think regulatory bodies who are responsible for making sure companies follow the pension laws would exist without income taxes?

How can you justify cutting off income taxes when you actually agree with a few things that have resulted from such taxes (as you said, 'many', not 'all')?

[Abe Sargent]

I'll go ahead and explain mine.

John Tyler was an accomplished politician who actually had a conscience. He was nominated as the VP in order to garner the southern vote by the Whig party and was therefore insturmental in getting Tippecanoe elected to the Presidency.

After Harrision died shortly after taking office, Tyler rose to the office of President - the first one to do so, and as such, was often unable to meet people's expectations of what a VP does when ascending. Some thought the VP should call for a new election, some thought he shouldn't do anything at all and lay low, and some thought he should do exactly what his predecessor would have done.

Today, a VP takes over, andwe expect the Veep to run things differently like Teddy and Truman and LBJ all did. However, for the first one, it was a difficult political climate without an obvious crisis to bring everybody together, so much of Tyler's bad marks are due to this issue. Add to that, Tyler was kicked out of the party and his cabinet resigned en masse (except for Webster I beleive)

The other issue with Tyler is that he was very much his own man, and did what he thought was right, Whig party be damned. The Whigs did not even nominate him for President when reelection time came up because they had literally kicked him out of the party. The Democrats nominated someone else too. He was known as the Man Without a Party, the Acting President, and His Accidency during his tenure.

Despite the difficult political time, here are some of the things Tyler still managed to do:


1). Vetoed practically the entire Whig party platform becuase he thought it was wrong for America, including the National banking Act twice.

2). Took care of the Maine-Canada issue between us and GB when each claimed land in the other's country. Not a major issue, but no one else had been able to do it.

3). Tyler was not a reactionary when many others weren't. A short economic crisis occured before his Presidency, and Congress was quick to try and pass a variety of reactionary agendas, he vetoed them, and history proved him right, btw, they were overrached and knee jerk reaction.

4). Tyler did the same thign with the military. He chose not to itervene in minor riots in Rhode Island when everybody was clamoring for massive federal intervention. They ended a few weeks later with little bloodshed, only one major engagement occured during the rebellion. Who knows what would have happened had federal soliders fired on people protesting the new state government? Incidentally, what were thse people protesting? They wanted to right to vote in RI.

5). He brought Florida into the fold as a state and laid the groundwork for Texas.


I really like how he stood up to people in both party' and told them to knock it off. BTW, this is exactly what Teddy did as well when he became VP, but the country was ready for it by then.

-Anxiety

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Many? Not all? Do you think that you'd have an interstate highway system to drive on without income taxes? Do you think regulatory bodies who are responsible for making sure companies follow the pension laws would exist without income taxes?

How can you justify cutting off income taxes when you actually agree with a few things that have resulted from such taxes (as you said, 'many', not 'all')?

The income tax is not the only solution. And I'm not necessarily saying you don't have any income tax either, don't think I said that anywhere in my statement.

Just making a broad statement that this formula is flawed:

federal programs = good
income tax = federal programs
federal programs = good

So many flaws in there in my mind... MANY MANY federal programs should go away, therefore the income tax or a large portion of it should go away.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think Andrew Johnson was OVERrated.

He's rated 40th overall by historians. He ranks lower than William Henry Harrision, who held the office for seven weeks and spent most of that time bedridden. How is that overrated?

EDIT: Only one person ranks lower than him: James Buchanon.

-Anxiety

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by wade moore

The income tax is not the only solution. And I'm not necessarily saying you don't have any income tax either, don't think I said that anywhere in my statement.

Just making a broad statement that this formula is flawed:

federal programs = good
income tax = federal programs
federal programs = good

So many flaws in there in my mind... MANY MANY federal programs should go away, therefore the income tax or a large portion of it should go away.

Ah, so basically, you are saying that you set up a strawman and then decided to knock it down? Duly noted.

I don't think anyone said every federal program was good. In fact, I even said "If you want to go without all of the various benefits the federal government provides..." (Not the "all" in the middle there).

And, in your mind, "Many" federal programs should go away, means that some should stay. Therefore some income tax should stay to pay for those. And therefore the guy who pushed for an income tax to allow the future creation of, the interstate highway system, SEC's regulatory authority, etc. should be applauded for that.

Yeah, we could do it with, say, a big ass sales tax, but then people would complain about the sales tax just as much.

Originally Posted by Anxiety

He's rated 40th overall by historians. He ranks lower than William Henry Harrision, who held the office for seven weeks and spent most of that time bedridden. How is that overrated?

EDIT: Only one person ranks lower than him: James Buchanon.

You are talking relative to other President rankings. I think you may be the only one who is. Most of the people I've seen are talking about the President's absolute rating, not relative to others who have held the job.

[Gallifrey]

Wow, no votes for a Bush.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You are talking relative to other President rankings. I think you may be the only one who is. Most of the people I've seen are talking about the President's absolute rating, not relative to others who have held the job.

There is no such thing as an "absolute rating." What hogwash. I doubt that the general public has much of a clue what happened during the Presidency's of most people in the 1800s. The only thing we have are experts, and they rank in relation to other Presidents, which is what makes sense, btw, comparing apples to apples. There is no such thing as an absolute rating.

You may admire Clinton for trying to pass a sweeping Health Care plan, and I may deride him for the same thing, but we both have to agree that it was a failure that drove the Republican elections in 1994 and casued his party to lose Congress. That's what experts do, they find the objective truth that cannot be denied. I may think they are wrong in certain places (like ranking Lincoln so highly in foreign affairs) but at least I'm also an expert (I'm a political science professor).

The concept of an absolute ranking is highly flawed. Even the experts break up the Presidentcy into 10 different categories instead of one sweeping grade, because that's the best way to do things.

-Anxiety

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Gallifrey

Wow, no votes for a Bush.

I think it's a little silly to try and place any President of the last 25 years in any historical context. In fact, it's probably better to wait a good 50 years and get a generation away from the presidency to really place it in proper context.

[st.cronin]

George Washington is TREMENDOUSLY under-appreciated. The trouble with all democracies is that, in order to remain democratic, they have to have periodic revolutions. Washington, by essentially inventing term limits, made for a peaceful way for that to happen.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

There is no such thing as an "absolute rating."

Of course there is. People don't look at Presidents like Lincoln, Nixon, FDR in the context of other Presidents. They evaluate them seperately. They don't say, well, compared to other Presidents X is Y. They evaluate them on an absolute rating.

[WebEwbank]

Hard to believe that no one so far has picked Harry Truman.

A combat soldier (artillery captain) in WWI, he was a failed businessman and later went into politics for the highly corrupt Pendergast machine in Kansas City.

BUT as a sentor he investigated corrpution in WW2 defense contracting, aving up to $15 billion, even though the President was from his own party. When he inherited the Presidency himself after FDR's death, he made the tough decision (correct, in my view) to drop the A-bomb on Japan twice.

Domestically he strengthened social security, worked for full employment, slum clearnance and public housing. He also moved Omar Bradley into the VA, where Bradley did a ton for the millions of returning veterans.

Abroad, he created the Truman Doctrine to oppose the Soviets in Turkey and Greece and launched the Marshall Progam to rebuild Europe. He managed to keep the Korean War from going nuclear and affirmed the power of civilian control when he fired the popular but megalomaniac General Douglas MacArthur.

[larrymcg421]

I'd love to hear the explanation as to why Andrew Johnson was underrated.

Yes, we all know he shouldn't have been impeached. But what makes his presidency underrated?

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Are you kidding?

Mediocre general, and a poor president, in my opinion. But, if you've got something to back up your position, I'd love to read it.

First off, Grant was not mediocre as a general. His Vicksburg Campaign was pretty good. Remember he was leading the Union, which was full of incompetance over a well disciplined and led Conferate force. The whole war of attrition occurred because Grant was left with few other options, plus with Sherman, he did unleash a fury into the South that hadn't been seen before with the likes of Meade (who could've ended the war at Gettysburg). He /did/ succeed in wearing down the Confederacy to the point of surrender.

As for his presidency, yes it was mired in corruption, but as for Grant's integrity, I would say it was far better than Nixon's. Does that make him a good president, I don't know, but I do think he was a good general.

[bulletsponge]

Does that make him a good president, I don't know, but I do think he was a good general.

well this tread is about underrated presidents, not generals

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

I also have a real problem will Cooledge. Cal's devotion to business, over a balance between business and the rights of citizens, helped lead to Hoover and the Great Depression.

Sure, if you want to believe the fearmongers who believe in big government using him as a scapegoat...

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

First off, Grant was not mediocre as a general. His Vicksburg Campaign was pretty good. Remember he was leading the Union, which was full of incompetance over a well disciplined and led Conferate force. The whole war of attrition occurred because Grant was left with few other options, plus with Sherman, he did unleash a fury into the South that hadn't been seen before with the likes of Meade (who could've ended the war at Gettysburg). He /did/ succeed in wearing down the Confederacy to the point of surrender.

As for his presidency, yes it was mired in corruption, but as for Grant's integrity, I would say it was far better than Nixon's. Does that make him a good president, I don't know, but I do think he was a good general.

I don't think there was a single general in the Union that could hold a candle to most of the officers in the Confederacy. Grant was not entirely incompetent, but any mediocre general with the vast advantage in resources that he commanded against the undermanned, underequipped, and underfunded Confederacy would have been able to do just as well, if not better.

Oh, and he was a crap president. Unless you liked the Kevin Kline take in Wild Wild West... then I guess he was OK.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I don't think there was a single general in the Union that could hold a candle to most of the officers in the Confederacy. Grant was not entirely incompetent, but any mediocre general with the vast advantage in resources that he commanded against the undermanned, underequipped, and underfunded Confederacy would have been able to do just as well, if not better.

No offense intended (truly), but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. I don't have the time right now to devote to this subject, but trust me, I'd like to discuss it further.

Oh, and he was a crap president.

This is one of the main reasons why I think he is the most underrated president. Most everyone has the exact same response that you do. Again, I don't have the time to throw at this right now, but let me challenge you to tell me why he was so crappy.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

No offense intended (truly), but you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Boy, you really softened the blow there Coug.

Hilarious.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

No offense intended (truly), but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. I don't have the time right now to devote to this subject, but trust me, I'd like to discuss it further.

This is one of the main reasons why I think he is the most underrated president. Most everyone has the exact same response that you do. Again, I don't have the time to throw at this right now, but let me challenge you to tell me why he was so crappy.

Despite his boldness at Vicksburg, he still outnumbered Pemberton. And even then, he only succeeded in starving him out.

As for his Presidency, the buck stops with him and Johnson when it comes to reconstruction. I could go on, but like you said, we both probably have better things to do.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'd love to hear the explanation as to why Andrew Johnson was underrated.

Yes, we all know he shouldn't have been impeached. But what makes his presidency underrated?

Going into why I think he was underrated would require a long sidestep into Reconstruction, and that's not really cogent, plus I don't want to spend an hour today talking about Reconstruction. He was no Lincoln of course, and I think that Lincoln's death allowed his enemies in his own party, and ravenous Northern liberal, who Lincoln was able to keep at bay with his political acument and moral authority, were able to come out and attack Johnson for all of the things that they were unable to hurt Lincoln for.

However, I think Johnson was right on many of his decisions, history has proven him right is many things, and based on speeches and letters, many historians believe that Lincoln would have followed a similar path in his attitude towards Reconstruction that got Johnson is so much trouble. Again, I want to dodge Reconstruction, so I am just mentioning it there, and moving on.

I did defend my Tyler pick, though

-Anxiety

[Abe Sargent]

Oh, and Johnson was muc better at foreign affairs than he is noramally ranked by experts too:

Johnson on International Relations by the experts: 37th

I'd put him 20th or so (Alaska Purchase, negiotiated thge purchase of the Dutch West Indies but the Senate blocked it, forced the French out of Mexico, wanted to settle the Alabama dispute with Great Britain but, again, the Senate kept him out). That alone would jump him up several places int eh President chain and show him as underrated.

-Anxiety

[finketr]

Millard Fillmore

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by cartman

I'd put in Dwight D. Eisenhower. He ... also gave the famous, but unheeded, accurate warning about the unhealthy rise of influence of the military-industrial complex.

?

When he was President, defense spending accounted for like 70% of federal spending. Today it's about 15%. Meanwhile federal assistance programs like welfare, Medicare, Social Security went from about 15% to around 70% of federal spending. Say what you will about whether those programs are a good thing, but it's pretty hard to argue that the "military-industrial complex" has been taking over federal government since Eisenhower talked about it.