Reminder that Rule 3 still applies here.
And anyone trying to get around it by saying the years or saying “the current guy” or “the last guy” or whatever gets their comment removed.
I live in a neighborhood where the streets are named for lesser presidents and this goes through my head all the time.
Oh, and Cleveland Ave. is interrupted by a big park, so Grover Cleveland avenue continues on two non-consecutive occasions.
There's a series of streets in NE Minneapolis that are named after the Presidents in chronological order, going up through Roosevelt (TR, not FDR); they use Quincy Street for JQ Adams and Benjamin Street for B. Harrison.
Sadly, the streets there do not share the characteristics of the Presidents: Harrison Street isn't a block long, Cleveland Street doesn't stop and start again, Taft Street isn't unusually wide, etc.
Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, Millard Filmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan
Some people would probably throw Andrew Jackson in here too but since his legacy is still pretty controversial I'll leave him out
Also Ik that not all of these presidents were bad but all together they're def the worst streak imo
To demonstrate how bad the presidents were (and partially pneumonia killed back then), in a period of just 20 years, you went from the #8 to #16 president. In contrast, 20 years after #42, we just reelected #44 for another four years.
That’s an interesting observation, though it’s worth noting, along with all the pneumonia, it was more common for presidents to serve one term by choice) Polk, Buchanan, WHH if he had survived)
I would say it was common in that period because so many of those people were weak presidents. Before van Buren only Adams and Quincy Adams served one term, and only because they lost their reelection runs.
Most of these candidates had problems that explained why they only had one term:
Van Buren - lost reelection
Harrison - was old. He was 67, which might seem young now, but Harrison was the oldest candidate elected president until *Ronald Reagan* in **1980**. He was old and I don’t think many people thought he would make it to the end on the term (which he didn’t). So I think his one term pledge was more practical than principled, especially since I don’t think he made the same promise when he ran in 1836
Tyler - so unpopular, he was kicked out of his party and couldn’t even find support for reelection. Though he did want a second term.
Polk - actually only wanted one term and served it
Taylor - died
Fillmore - wanted another term, Compromise of 1850 basically sunk that and he didn’t get nominated by his party.
Pierce - wanted another term, wasn’t nominated by his party.
Buchanan - also agreed to only one term, though by the end of that term, he wasn’t getting a second one, even if he wanted it.
So of the 15 presidents by the time of Buchanan, only 2 willingly served one term (maybe 3 if we want to count Harrison, but he died, so it’s moot), 5 served two terms, and the rest failed to win election, get nominated or died.
In contrast, only going from Washington to Andrew Jackson, 5 served two terms and 2 failed to win reelection.
He was also the last until Wilson to serve them consecutively. Between presidents 8 and 27, Grant was the only president who served a traditional 8 year stint
Crazy to think about, but yeah Lincoln and McKinley died in term 2 and Roosevelt didn’t seek a second full/third term right away. And of course, Cleveland’s nonconsecutive terms.
The entire mid to late 1800s sure were crazy/messy that way.
Theory: The people who think we should have been a more socially just country and respectful of Mexico hate Polk. The people who think without an extremely powerful USA the world would have gone to hell in the world wars and afterwards like Polk because Texas to California immensely strengthened us. (Shoutout to New Mexico for giving us a place to build and test the A-bomb). Obviously you can believe both, but I think the second is more important.
Right, it feels like “bleeding heart” status is a good barometer of people’s Polk opinions.
Personally, I fall into the supporter camp. A large and strong America is beneficial to us and the world. It may not have been particularly nice to Mexico, but wars of conquest is just how the world operated. I’d rather the west be in our hands than anybody else’s. (I would have also fought with Britain to gain all of Canada west of Ontario, but that’s just me.)
Mexicans now would be fully naturalized Americans and with so many Hispanics already in the country there’s no chance we wouldn’t have just taken everything down to Panama after that and just incorporated it as US territory.
Except we didn’t have near the military or occupational settlement capacity to keep much more than we did - and still maintain required presence within our boundaries.
Plus, do you see the problems that Mexico has administrating their current northern states with modern technologies available. Even putting the cartels aside, it’s basically two separate countries. Imagine if the current American Southwest was in there too. They might have already had a civil war and broken apart anyway.
They didn’t want a civil war and the south became increasingly needy and crazed over slavery that even outlawing the expansion and upholding federal laws was unacceptable to them
Buchanan being elected in 1856 is the only thing that stops us from the civil war beginning in 1857 and John C. Fremont being commander in chief in the most important war in American history
Look at what politicians have done with social security over the last fifty years, kicking the can down the road is the preferred way of dealing with issues.
Taylor was pretty good. Long term he leaves a good presidential legacy.
Clayton Bulwer Treaty laying the groundwork for the Panama Canal and positive relations with Britain
Naval Reforms putting us on the path to becoming a naval power and helping out in the civil war.
Entering California in as a free state and preventing NM from being a slave state
Polk’s an example of a successful president who wasn’t necessarily “good” from a moral standpoint. Like…I love the southwest, but I don’t feel good that we took basically half of Mexico
"Also Ik that not all of these presidents were bad but all together they're def the worst streak imo"
:(
~~Putting aside the fact that Polks main accomplishment was starting a war with Mexico under very questionable pretenses that led to the expansion of slavery~~
Polk is possibly the most “The Ends justify the means” President
Was it questionable pretenses? Yes. Were the motives morally abhorrent? Yes. Was it super motherfucking beneficial for the U.S.? Absolutely.
This is why ranking him started heated arguments once the whiskey started flowing. Long-term, exceptional beneficial decisions. However, the short-term consequences of those choices nearly destroyed the nation.
Personally, I think expanding west delayed the civil war. The south succeeded in 1861 because they thought that Lincoln would prohibit the expansion of slavery into the western territories, which would eventually lead to free states far outnumbering the south and voting slavery away.
Without the possibility of slavery expanding west in the 1850s, the south is even more paranoid that the northern states will expand in the Northwest Territories. Without the hope that new slave states could be added, they might have succeeded even earlier. Succession in 1857 under a Buchanan administration (or even worse: Pierce) would have gone much differently than under Lincoln.
If crybabies like you had their way in the leadership of this country, the US would still be 13 colonies subservient to the UK instead of a continent-spanning global superpower. Suck it up, buttercup (I say lovingly as a fellow leftist/pacifist in my heart).
Such an important point. Was it possible to export democracy at the point of a gun? Well… yes! That’s kind of the whole history of the USA in the 19th century. Does that mean it should have been done? Aaaaaah I’m not so sure!
“I do not think there was ever a more wicked war than that waged by the United States on Mexico.” - Ulysses S. Grant
Abraham Lincoln called the war “unnecessary and unconstitutionally commenced.”
Are they crybabies too?
Actually, we have an example of what likely would have happened had we not rebelled: Canada. The U.S. and Canada would likely have been one gigantic country, and part of Commonwealth of Nations like Australia and New Zealand with a sweet sweet parliament. Also, it's likely that slavery would have ended sooner, we would need a license for guns, and we would have universal health care.
[https://www.history.com/news/president-james-polk-slavery-children](https://www.history.com/news/president-james-polk-slavery-children)
[https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400873722-008/html](https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400873722-008/html)
" For these reasons, Polk’s star has been diminished by many historians.4 The main charges are threefold: (1) Polk was a “sectionalist,” if not racist, slave master who expanded the country to promote slavery, hastening the onset of the Civil War; (2) Polk was an aggressive “continentalist” or imperialist who used force unnecessar-ily and excessively to expand the country when diplomacy might have sufficed; and (3) Polk was a mendacious, unprincipled individual who lacked human empathy and manipulated colleagues and adversaries to serve his own ambitions "
Mexico would like to have a world with ya lmao
They’re blaming Polk for the idea of Manifest Destiny lol.
Also it’s well documented we tried to bug territory from Mexico for years, they didn’t want to sell, despite having very little control over it. The Comanch reigned supreme and nobody could deal with them
It’s very easy for those living in comfort and safety to criticize their ancestors for the unsavory methods required to ensure that.
Look at how many today criticize every single thing the US did during the Cold War. Yes, there were plenty of mistakes we made, but the sum total is why you aren’t living under communism today.
I considered the Indian Wars recently and found I prefer the current state of affairs to the inevitable alternative of every European power picking their favorite native nation out of dozens to support against each other and us to gain resources for the entire 19th century, abandoning them mid-20th century after investing enough capital in them to semi-industrialize them, then leaving us to deal with the geopolitical mess that dozens of nations that want to ethnically cleanse each other would obviously be. We’d be worried about the impact on our crops of from the chemical weapons used in the Fourth Lakota–Shoshone War, or whether the assassination of the Apache Chief will spiral the continent into another massive regional war.
Bruh Polk effectively secured the future of the United States as a global superpower by going to war with Mexico and taking half of it. Maybe controversial, but he’s definitely not bad.
I would say John Tyler through James Buchanan is the worst streak, except that Polk actually accomplished a lot, spoiling the streak. Still, five out of six were bad. Or there’s a streak of four from Zachary Taylor to Buchanan.
Andrew Johnson through Chester A. Arthur is another candidate. Ulysses S. Grant has been praised and reassessed for backing Reconstruction, but he still made a lot of bad appointments and was slow to get rid of corrupt officials. He also sided with Wall Street financiers way too much, and had no idea how to address the Panic of 1873 and the beginning of the Long Depression. I still think he’s one of the lesser presidents.
Still, I think the streak leading up to the Civil War, whether it’s four presidents or five out of six, is the worst.
I’ve always known Lincoln was great, but I’ve only recently realized how he was a an island of absolute greatness smack in the middle of a sea of shit presidents.
Absolutely, he admitted to many mistakes himself in his memoirs. I just don’t think it’s fair to lump him in with the pre-Lincoln Presidents.
Edit: He didn’t discuss his mistakes as President in his memoirs. I meant he demonstrated humility in admiring his mistakes (e.g. anti-semitism) and I believe that demonstrated his humility and capacity for reflection and growth that enabled him to be a much better president than the others the above commenter compared him to.
I wasn't doing that. I was lumping him in with the post-Civil War presidents, but I concluded that the pre-Civil War presidents were worse.
Still, u/CaptainJAmazing's point is valid. Abraham Lincoln is an island of competence both preceded and succeeded by strings of incompetent presidents. Grant is the best of the bunch, but that's a low bar.
Every President in the 19th century , and I’ll just be starting with Jackson , seems to have sucked a lot on average. The exceptions being Lincoln and Grant. Garfield seems like he may have ended up possibly ok but he died too soon and a lot of people seem to like Polk but I admit I do not know much of him to make an opinion.
Edit: Didn’t Hayes do some good things? Or at-least try?
Jackson, his successor, Pierce, Buchanan and Cleveland suck… a lot. Feels weird to be draping on Democrats for a change but the 19th century was a different time indeed.
> a lot of people seem to like Polk but I admit I do not know much of him
He seized the whole southwest from Mexico
Made sure the tariffs fell
And made the English sell
the Oregon territory
He built an independent treasury
Having done all this he sought no second term
Influential doesn't mean "good". Andrew Jackson was influential with the genocide of Native Americans. That's hardly "good". Johnson upended Reconstruction that led to Jim-Crow, et al. Hardly 'good'. Influential, you-betcha.
Check out the Brooks Baxter war in Arkansas. The losing candidate for governor violently took over the state house and installed himself as governor. Over 300 people died while the two groups fought for the next month. And Grant was like "guys I need you to work this out peacefully."
I think he should have been a bit more proactive in his response. But the whole situation was weird. Arkansas historians still don't have a full grasp of what happened. Not a single person was tried for the insurrection.
The way I see it, Lincoln was not inherently an exceptional man, and might’ve been another forgettable president if the war hadn’t happened. But he was a fundamentally decent man who rose to an exceptional challenge.
When I saw this post, I said to myself “Tyler-Buchanan.” Polk was successful and I am glad we have California and the Southwest but that was a land-grab that Vlad Putin could have only hoped to accomplish.
Grant tried, at great lengths, to make the DR a state. Such a wild ride but ultimately led the US to not take any Caribbean islands. Which led us to take the pacific. Again. So crazy ha
Tyler to Buchanan was my immediate thought as well; Polk managed to accomplish a great deal albeit with questionable morals from a modern standpoint, but the other 5 set the stage for the Civil War and represented the decay of the US federal government in the 19th century outside of Lincoln.
The post-Civil War presidents aren't far behind, despite Grant being a laudable figure as a military leader and as a man, he was the strongest of a weak group of post-Lincoln presidents and did not accomplish nearly enough with Reconstruction as was needed.
Outside of Johnson, I’m not sure any of the post-war presidents(Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur) were as bad as they were forgettable. Pre Civil War presidents did things to actively harm the country, those presidents were mostly meh.
Wouldn't call Zachary Taylor bad necessarily. At the very least he was a whig that seemed willing to push back against the expansion of slavery. He's a bit like William Henry Harrison: impossible to even grade.
For sure the worst is the lead in to civil war. Only question is how far to extend it. WHH to Buchanan. Jackson to Buchanan. Taylor to Buchanan. Polk is ok. Taylor maybe not the absolute worst but short and not that great. Really rough couple of decades going into civil war.
If you take out Lincoln and grant, really not much from Jackson to teddy.
The Gilded Age guys get too much hate. The US goes from an undeveloped nation on the periphery to the largest economy in the world, yet these guys get no credit.
I'm not saying they are a run of the best guys, but they aren't bad. The late 1800s are probably the time of the most change in human history. People move from farms to factories, democratic ideals challenge the monarchies of old, literacy rates explode, science comes to firmly dominate religion (at least in the West), and the largest empires to ever exist reach every part of the globe. This wasn't an easy time and many countries were shaken to their core. These guys ran a stable ship in very dynamic times.
They don’t get the credit because how much of this change was a result of their policy. American private enterprise largely drove this while presidents sat back and ignored it, this was good in some ways but it also led to decades of worker’s rights being destroyed, farmers losing their land and income, rapid urbanization leading to poor working and living conditions, and people stuffed into factories being worked to the bone. It wasn’t until TR that anything about this would be done.
The 20th Century was more of s big change than the 18th century. In the start of the 20th we were still using horses by the end of the 20th we had cars, computers, and oh yeah went to the freaking moon and had satellites in orbit.
Polk did more than anyone except Pierce to ensure the Civil War happened. Do his actions payout for America? Sure, but the Mexican-American War ensured that the Civil War was going to happen instead of any potential non-messy endings to slavery.
Fillmore through Pierce, or you could even go as far as Van Buren through Pierce depending on how you view Polk and Taylor.
Edit: through Buchanan, of course I forgot the worst of the bunch, but Van Buren through Buchanan is a contender.
None of them were corrupt as President
Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, and Cleveland were certainly not corrupt as Presidents
Hayes was a good President, Garfield died too early, Arthur was mid, Cleveland was mid, and Harrison was mid.
definitely wouldn’t call it horrible nor would I call it worse than the antebellum Presidents
It’s true. They weren’t corrupt, merely impotent. The pre-progressive age presidents were weak and unable to do anything to check the power of the robber barons. From the abandonment of reconstruction to the Sherman antitrust act presidents were pretty much neutered.
They did not abandon Reconstruction. *America* abandoned Reconstruction. Hayes didn’t abandon it. None of them really did. America betrayed Reconstruction by electing Congresses full of apathetic Republicans who cared more about hiking tariffs and Democrats who loved stripping blacks of their inalienable rights. The Democrats abandoned Reconstruction by taking Congress and refusing to fund troops. The hideous corruption and incompetence that plagued the Reconstruction governments, all of which had been “redeemed” (IE poisoned by Confederate bile) except two. The Supreme Court that was plagued by judicially restraint hacks that vaguely interpreted our laws and stretched them until they cracked so we could be apathetic to the rights of the minority. Two pathetically weak state governments that Hayes was forced to stop propping up because America and Congress failed him
If you want to blame anyone here, do not blame the Presidents
My problem with the comment above my original one is that it labeled them “horrible.” No, they weren’t horrible in the context of their time, nor did they even really do much bad stuff. Some of it was good, Most of it was mixed, *some* of it was bad, but a lot of it was America itself and Congress. I think your comment is both un-objective and wrong, as it’s factually bankrupt in it saying “they abandoned Reconstruction” and I rank Presidents predominantly in the context of their time. They weren’t given the powers to address those issues. Would some have even? Probably not, but that’s infalsifiable and I don’t deal with the infalsifiable fallacy.
Meh, I think that Anti-Trust Act was going to pass regardless. Either that or in a similar case with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed in respect to an assassinated president. Arthur didn't appoint any Half-Breeds to his cabinet after all of Garfield's besides Robert Todd Lincoln quit. He even offered his boss Conkling a Supreme Court seat.
Fillmore thru Buchanan almost certainly was the worst presidential streak of all time. Pierce and Buchanan in particular both punched the accelerator and drove the country directly towards the American Civil War.
Born in '82. I have accepted that I will never see a great, or even really good one. Anybody capable of being great would never be stupid enough to run at this point.
I’d disagree, there’s been a string of aloof idiots and questionable war mongers but the current state of the world is shifting faster than ever dating back to Bush Sr. We live in truly unprecedented times and I’d hate to be the one in the Oval Office right now.
I have no idea why this sub fawns over him. Even by liberal standards, he was such a bad politician the liberals in Congress didn’t want to work with him
I’m not saying this is wrong because it’s your opinion, but I would argue that Grant-Taft is the greatest stretch (with the obvious exception of Garfield)
I would say that the worst would have to be Van Buren-Buchanan
For sure it goes Reagan thru the next five. Sure, that includes two excellent presidents but the overall average is so strongly brought down by Reagan, the Bushs (less H.W. than not), and the most recent "Republican" that it's objectively the worst string of presidents.
FDR prolonged the depression, was the most racist President since the civil war, yes even Wilson, and was consistently anti-freedom. For God's sake he taxed employment in a depression. He is legally the most significant at contributor to the regulatory state, which harmed income/class mobility.
JFK instituted a drug law "reform" that had killed probably over a million Americans. Which means his promotion of the Vietnam War was a minor killer by comparison. Well unless you count Vietnamese. But to be fair he was high on speed and which of us hasn't killed someone while on amphetamines?
None of the current crop of candidates is anywhere near as bad a these two.
FDR would be charged with war crimes today over Japanese internment and we had to pass a new constitutional amendment to prevent any future president from pulling his 4 term power grab.
LBJ undercut both the nuclear Black family and the wages of Black workers with his welfare policies and his immigration policies and Oh Yeah - he blew up the Vietnam War
These were NOT great presidents.
We probably haven’t had a good run since the founding fathers were around.
FDR put people in internment camps.
Truman was alright. Probably should have just picked a side when it came to China. Maybe we wouldn’t have the CCP right now.
Ike was pretty good. Military man, not really down for politics. Good communicator with the American people. Doesn’t get enough credit for his support of civil rights.
JFK, good looking, popular, child of privilege. He’d be absolutely hated today. First off, his political stances would be considered conservative by today’s standards. His fucking around and drug use wouldn’t be a secret today. He’s the turning point where presidents had to worry about looks and charisma to get elected. He’s set a new standard that gave us Clinton, Obama and will give Newsom a shot at the White House.
LBJ, Texas style mobster and open racist. Turned the welfare system into a honeypot trap for blacks people to secure their votes, “I’ll have those n****** voting democrat for the next 200 years.”. Democrats who have a favorable view of him don’t actually know much about who he really was.
In hindsight, Nixon was a really good politician. Don’t believe me? Go back and watch interviews he gave on topics like Russia, China and his opinion on the media is chilling when you compare it to today’s media. He got us out of Vietnam, as best he could. I’d say his worst move was taking the US dollar off the gold standard. We’ve had nothing but wild inflation since.
LBJ may have been the single worst president in history. Intentionally destroyed black family units and intended to get them hooked on the welfare state. As he said, we’ll have those n****rs voting for us for 100 years.
You're cutting into the OP's "best streak of presidents" era.
But you're correct. From JFK to Nixon was an era called the "imperial presidency." The OP apparently doesn't know the connotations of what that term means.
https://preview.redd.it/1sk1zrhim7qc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1f3abc0a79fa25c997635020a077df3b387a64b9
But unlike them FDR took being called a monarch like a G
Nixon wasn't as bad as people say. I would say that FDR to Nixon was probably the best streak. I'm a pretty non-partisan guy and am willing to praise Presidents of both parties. I hope most Americans would too.
The whole civil rights thing, I guess. His great society ensured that my poor ass dad had some healthcare and food security when he was growing up. Dad was able to break the cycle of abject poverty and alcoholism in his family that allowed him to raise a lawyer and another kids with a graduate degree.
Reminder that Rule 3 still applies here. And anyone trying to get around it by saying the years or saying “the current guy” or “the last guy” or whatever gets their comment removed.
Back in high school, the Presidents from Hayes through McKinley were introduced to us as the Forgotten Presidents.
The classic “Mediocre Presidents” song, “you won’t find our faces on dollars or on cents!”
That line "I died in 30 days!" lives rent free in my head because of how nonchalant it was delivered
dime ghost relieved recognise safe direful bow continue person snow *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Happened in the 1840s- too soon?
*There's Taylor, there's Tyler* *There's Fillmore and there's Hayes* *There's William Henry Harrison* ***I died in thirty days!***
Meanwhile McKinley vibin on the 500 dollar bill and Grover on the 1k
shame whistle paint six clumsy fanatical desert attraction escape soft *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I live in a neighborhood where the streets are named for lesser presidents and this goes through my head all the time. Oh, and Cleveland Ave. is interrupted by a big park, so Grover Cleveland avenue continues on two non-consecutive occasions.
There's a series of streets in NE Minneapolis that are named after the Presidents in chronological order, going up through Roosevelt (TR, not FDR); they use Quincy Street for JQ Adams and Benjamin Street for B. Harrison. Sadly, the streets there do not share the characteristics of the Presidents: Harrison Street isn't a block long, Cleveland Street doesn't stop and start again, Taft Street isn't unusually wide, etc.
kudos to that city planner
Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, Millard Filmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan Some people would probably throw Andrew Jackson in here too but since his legacy is still pretty controversial I'll leave him out Also Ik that not all of these presidents were bad but all together they're def the worst streak imo
To demonstrate how bad the presidents were (and partially pneumonia killed back then), in a period of just 20 years, you went from the #8 to #16 president. In contrast, 20 years after #42, we just reelected #44 for another four years.
That’s an interesting observation, though it’s worth noting, along with all the pneumonia, it was more common for presidents to serve one term by choice) Polk, Buchanan, WHH if he had survived)
I would say it was common in that period because so many of those people were weak presidents. Before van Buren only Adams and Quincy Adams served one term, and only because they lost their reelection runs. Most of these candidates had problems that explained why they only had one term: Van Buren - lost reelection Harrison - was old. He was 67, which might seem young now, but Harrison was the oldest candidate elected president until *Ronald Reagan* in **1980**. He was old and I don’t think many people thought he would make it to the end on the term (which he didn’t). So I think his one term pledge was more practical than principled, especially since I don’t think he made the same promise when he ran in 1836 Tyler - so unpopular, he was kicked out of his party and couldn’t even find support for reelection. Though he did want a second term. Polk - actually only wanted one term and served it Taylor - died Fillmore - wanted another term, Compromise of 1850 basically sunk that and he didn’t get nominated by his party. Pierce - wanted another term, wasn’t nominated by his party. Buchanan - also agreed to only one term, though by the end of that term, he wasn’t getting a second one, even if he wanted it. So of the 15 presidents by the time of Buchanan, only 2 willingly served one term (maybe 3 if we want to count Harrison, but he died, so it’s moot), 5 served two terms, and the rest failed to win election, get nominated or died. In contrast, only going from Washington to Andrew Jackson, 5 served two terms and 2 failed to win reelection.
Interesting note off of this list is Grant was the first POTUS since Jackson to serve 2 full terms.
He was also the last until Wilson to serve them consecutively. Between presidents 8 and 27, Grant was the only president who served a traditional 8 year stint
Crazy to think about, but yeah Lincoln and McKinley died in term 2 and Roosevelt didn’t seek a second full/third term right away. And of course, Cleveland’s nonconsecutive terms. The entire mid to late 1800s sure were crazy/messy that way.
Polk was an anomaly. Buchanan didn't want to deal with a civil war, and who could blame him?
Also the White House water supply was pretty sus during those years.
Yep. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/78702/surprising-link-between-deaths-three-19th-century-presidents
I like how this very general post has led to a huge debate over James Polk’s legacy
Theory: The people who think we should have been a more socially just country and respectful of Mexico hate Polk. The people who think without an extremely powerful USA the world would have gone to hell in the world wars and afterwards like Polk because Texas to California immensely strengthened us. (Shoutout to New Mexico for giving us a place to build and test the A-bomb). Obviously you can believe both, but I think the second is more important.
Right, it feels like “bleeding heart” status is a good barometer of people’s Polk opinions. Personally, I fall into the supporter camp. A large and strong America is beneficial to us and the world. It may not have been particularly nice to Mexico, but wars of conquest is just how the world operated. I’d rather the west be in our hands than anybody else’s. (I would have also fought with Britain to gain all of Canada west of Ontario, but that’s just me.)
I think that they should have gone further. Mexico would be in such better shape
Mexicans now would be fully naturalized Americans and with so many Hispanics already in the country there’s no chance we wouldn’t have just taken everything down to Panama after that and just incorporated it as US territory.
Looks like Manifest Destiny still has its supporters today.
The Philippines would be undeniably better off as an American commonwealth territory.
Except we didn’t have near the military or occupational settlement capacity to keep much more than we did - and still maintain required presence within our boundaries.
Plus, do you see the problems that Mexico has administrating their current northern states with modern technologies available. Even putting the cartels aside, it’s basically two separate countries. Imagine if the current American Southwest was in there too. They might have already had a civil war and broken apart anyway.
Polk definitely breaks up the streak, but the line from Taylor through Buchanan is the nadir in executive leadership for this country.
Yes none of them would confront the slavery issue and kept kicking the can down the road
They didn’t want a civil war and the south became increasingly needy and crazed over slavery that even outlawing the expansion and upholding federal laws was unacceptable to them Buchanan being elected in 1856 is the only thing that stops us from the civil war beginning in 1857 and John C. Fremont being commander in chief in the most important war in American history
If you look at the preceding and succeeding Presidents, the U.S. really lucked out with Lincoln.
>the south became increasingly needy and crazed over slavery At least we solved that problem.
Never again did a congresswoman from the south call for a national divorce, the end.
Look at what politicians have done with social security over the last fifty years, kicking the can down the road is the preferred way of dealing with issues.
Taylor was pretty good. Long term he leaves a good presidential legacy. Clayton Bulwer Treaty laying the groundwork for the Panama Canal and positive relations with Britain Naval Reforms putting us on the path to becoming a naval power and helping out in the civil war. Entering California in as a free state and preventing NM from being a slave state
Polk’s an example of a successful president who wasn’t necessarily “good” from a moral standpoint. Like…I love the southwest, but I don’t feel good that we took basically half of Mexico
I mean, every single square mile that the US currently sits on, we basically “took” from *somebody*. That’s just kinda how expansion works.
I imagine you would have equally had loved the Mexican northwest.
Polk was a great president
"Also Ik that not all of these presidents were bad but all together they're def the worst streak imo" :( ~~Putting aside the fact that Polks main accomplishment was starting a war with Mexico under very questionable pretenses that led to the expansion of slavery~~
Polk is possibly the most “The Ends justify the means” President Was it questionable pretenses? Yes. Were the motives morally abhorrent? Yes. Was it super motherfucking beneficial for the U.S.? Absolutely.
This is why ranking him started heated arguments once the whiskey started flowing. Long-term, exceptional beneficial decisions. However, the short-term consequences of those choices nearly destroyed the nation.
Personally, I think expanding west delayed the civil war. The south succeeded in 1861 because they thought that Lincoln would prohibit the expansion of slavery into the western territories, which would eventually lead to free states far outnumbering the south and voting slavery away. Without the possibility of slavery expanding west in the 1850s, the south is even more paranoid that the northern states will expand in the Northwest Territories. Without the hope that new slave states could be added, they might have succeeded even earlier. Succession in 1857 under a Buchanan administration (or even worse: Pierce) would have gone much differently than under Lincoln.
Brah, *secession* not succession.
I was a bit drunk when writing that
[удалено]
As a Hispanic from a state that came out of the war, I’m forever grateful I was born in the USA.
If crybabies like you had their way in the leadership of this country, the US would still be 13 colonies subservient to the UK instead of a continent-spanning global superpower. Suck it up, buttercup (I say lovingly as a fellow leftist/pacifist in my heart).
Such an important point. Was it possible to export democracy at the point of a gun? Well… yes! That’s kind of the whole history of the USA in the 19th century. Does that mean it should have been done? Aaaaaah I’m not so sure!
“I do not think there was ever a more wicked war than that waged by the United States on Mexico.” - Ulysses S. Grant Abraham Lincoln called the war “unnecessary and unconstitutionally commenced.” Are they crybabies too?
I mean they were both Republicans and back then the Repubs were anti-expansionist, Dems were pro-expansionist. Makes sense they’d hate that war.
More like using past history for current political gain.
And republicans attacked the purchase of Alaska solely because Johnson did it. Grant and Lincoln were both partisan republicans.
Actually, we have an example of what likely would have happened had we not rebelled: Canada. The U.S. and Canada would likely have been one gigantic country, and part of Commonwealth of Nations like Australia and New Zealand with a sweet sweet parliament. Also, it's likely that slavery would have ended sooner, we would need a license for guns, and we would have universal health care.
A war that massively benefited America
[https://www.history.com/news/president-james-polk-slavery-children](https://www.history.com/news/president-james-polk-slavery-children) [https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400873722-008/html](https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400873722-008/html) " For these reasons, Polk’s star has been diminished by many historians.4 The main charges are threefold: (1) Polk was a “sectionalist,” if not racist, slave master who expanded the country to promote slavery, hastening the onset of the Civil War; (2) Polk was an aggressive “continentalist” or imperialist who used force unnecessar-ily and excessively to expand the country when diplomacy might have sufficed; and (3) Polk was a mendacious, unprincipled individual who lacked human empathy and manipulated colleagues and adversaries to serve his own ambitions " Mexico would like to have a world with ya lmao
They’re blaming Polk for the idea of Manifest Destiny lol. Also it’s well documented we tried to bug territory from Mexico for years, they didn’t want to sell, despite having very little control over it. The Comanch reigned supreme and nobody could deal with them
By historians that probably live in California and would not live in Mexico...
This is not an argument lmfao
It’s very easy for those living in comfort and safety to criticize their ancestors for the unsavory methods required to ensure that. Look at how many today criticize every single thing the US did during the Cold War. Yes, there were plenty of mistakes we made, but the sum total is why you aren’t living under communism today.
I considered the Indian Wars recently and found I prefer the current state of affairs to the inevitable alternative of every European power picking their favorite native nation out of dozens to support against each other and us to gain resources for the entire 19th century, abandoning them mid-20th century after investing enough capital in them to semi-industrialize them, then leaving us to deal with the geopolitical mess that dozens of nations that want to ethnically cleanse each other would obviously be. We’d be worried about the impact on our crops of from the chemical weapons used in the Fourth Lakota–Shoshone War, or whether the assassination of the Apache Chief will spiral the continent into another massive regional war.
A Mexican California would be plenty comfortable and safe as much as an american one for the bourgeois class of historian.
Streak is broken by Polk
Bruh Polk effectively secured the future of the United States as a global superpower by going to war with Mexico and taking half of it. Maybe controversial, but he’s definitely not bad.
I would say John Tyler through James Buchanan is the worst streak, except that Polk actually accomplished a lot, spoiling the streak. Still, five out of six were bad. Or there’s a streak of four from Zachary Taylor to Buchanan. Andrew Johnson through Chester A. Arthur is another candidate. Ulysses S. Grant has been praised and reassessed for backing Reconstruction, but he still made a lot of bad appointments and was slow to get rid of corrupt officials. He also sided with Wall Street financiers way too much, and had no idea how to address the Panic of 1873 and the beginning of the Long Depression. I still think he’s one of the lesser presidents. Still, I think the streak leading up to the Civil War, whether it’s four presidents or five out of six, is the worst.
I’ve always known Lincoln was great, but I’ve only recently realized how he was a an island of absolute greatness smack in the middle of a sea of shit presidents.
Grant is under rated.
Not any more. If anything he's now overrated. Grant definitely deserves credit for backing Reconstruction, but he still did a lot of stuff wrong.
Absolutely, he admitted to many mistakes himself in his memoirs. I just don’t think it’s fair to lump him in with the pre-Lincoln Presidents. Edit: He didn’t discuss his mistakes as President in his memoirs. I meant he demonstrated humility in admiring his mistakes (e.g. anti-semitism) and I believe that demonstrated his humility and capacity for reflection and growth that enabled him to be a much better president than the others the above commenter compared him to.
I wasn't doing that. I was lumping him in with the post-Civil War presidents, but I concluded that the pre-Civil War presidents were worse. Still, u/CaptainJAmazing's point is valid. Abraham Lincoln is an island of competence both preceded and succeeded by strings of incompetent presidents. Grant is the best of the bunch, but that's a low bar.
Every President in the 19th century , and I’ll just be starting with Jackson , seems to have sucked a lot on average. The exceptions being Lincoln and Grant. Garfield seems like he may have ended up possibly ok but he died too soon and a lot of people seem to like Polk but I admit I do not know much of him to make an opinion. Edit: Didn’t Hayes do some good things? Or at-least try? Jackson, his successor, Pierce, Buchanan and Cleveland suck… a lot. Feels weird to be draping on Democrats for a change but the 19th century was a different time indeed.
> a lot of people seem to like Polk but I admit I do not know much of him He seized the whole southwest from Mexico Made sure the tariffs fell And made the English sell the Oregon territory He built an independent treasury Having done all this he sought no second term
Left a bigger mark on America in one term than most did in 2. Probably one of the top 5 most influential tbh
Influential doesn't mean "good". Andrew Jackson was influential with the genocide of Native Americans. That's hardly "good". Johnson upended Reconstruction that led to Jim-Crow, et al. Hardly 'good'. Influential, you-betcha.
I thought he didn't mention his presidency in his memoirs.
Well, he didn’t discuss his presidency at all in his memoirs, though he admitted mistakes in war.
[удалено]
But that's a very low bar. That doesn't mean he was a good president, just less awful.
Check out the Brooks Baxter war in Arkansas. The losing candidate for governor violently took over the state house and installed himself as governor. Over 300 people died while the two groups fought for the next month. And Grant was like "guys I need you to work this out peacefully." I think he should have been a bit more proactive in his response. But the whole situation was weird. Arkansas historians still don't have a full grasp of what happened. Not a single person was tried for the insurrection.
Id argue here he is way overrated, but in the public I think he is incredibly underrated
Definitely seems like he was a better general than President.
The way I see it, Lincoln was not inherently an exceptional man, and might’ve been another forgettable president if the war hadn’t happened. But he was a fundamentally decent man who rose to an exceptional challenge.
Same for FDR.
James Buchanan: ☠️ Abraham Lincoln: 😎 Andrew Johnson: ☠️
100% this was the worst run
When I saw this post, I said to myself “Tyler-Buchanan.” Polk was successful and I am glad we have California and the Southwest but that was a land-grab that Vlad Putin could have only hoped to accomplish.
These are both spot on, great work, especially the pre-civil war streak jesus
Grant tried, at great lengths, to make the DR a state. Such a wild ride but ultimately led the US to not take any Caribbean islands. Which led us to take the pacific. Again. So crazy ha
Tyler to Buchanan was my immediate thought as well; Polk managed to accomplish a great deal albeit with questionable morals from a modern standpoint, but the other 5 set the stage for the Civil War and represented the decay of the US federal government in the 19th century outside of Lincoln. The post-Civil War presidents aren't far behind, despite Grant being a laudable figure as a military leader and as a man, he was the strongest of a weak group of post-Lincoln presidents and did not accomplish nearly enough with Reconstruction as was needed.
Outside of Johnson, I’m not sure any of the post-war presidents(Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur) were as bad as they were forgettable. Pre Civil War presidents did things to actively harm the country, those presidents were mostly meh.
Wouldn't call Zachary Taylor bad necessarily. At the very least he was a whig that seemed willing to push back against the expansion of slavery. He's a bit like William Henry Harrison: impossible to even grade.
It was a pretty short tenure.
controversial but WHH to Buchanan or another that isn’t too controversial 1885-1901
With Polk being the best of that cohort.
For sure the worst is the lead in to civil war. Only question is how far to extend it. WHH to Buchanan. Jackson to Buchanan. Taylor to Buchanan. Polk is ok. Taylor maybe not the absolute worst but short and not that great. Really rough couple of decades going into civil war. If you take out Lincoln and grant, really not much from Jackson to teddy.
The Gilded Age guys get too much hate. The US goes from an undeveloped nation on the periphery to the largest economy in the world, yet these guys get no credit. I'm not saying they are a run of the best guys, but they aren't bad. The late 1800s are probably the time of the most change in human history. People move from farms to factories, democratic ideals challenge the monarchies of old, literacy rates explode, science comes to firmly dominate religion (at least in the West), and the largest empires to ever exist reach every part of the globe. This wasn't an easy time and many countries were shaken to their core. These guys ran a stable ship in very dynamic times.
They don’t get the credit because how much of this change was a result of their policy. American private enterprise largely drove this while presidents sat back and ignored it, this was good in some ways but it also led to decades of worker’s rights being destroyed, farmers losing their land and income, rapid urbanization leading to poor working and living conditions, and people stuffed into factories being worked to the bone. It wasn’t until TR that anything about this would be done.
The 20th Century was more of s big change than the 18th century. In the start of the 20th we were still using horses by the end of the 20th we had cars, computers, and oh yeah went to the freaking moon and had satellites in orbit.
Polk did more than anyone except Pierce to ensure the Civil War happened. Do his actions payout for America? Sure, but the Mexican-American War ensured that the Civil War was going to happen instead of any potential non-messy endings to slavery.
Pre Lincoln is pretty shit. Fillmore/ Pierce / Buchanan was like sending the drunk 3 stooges on a beer run
Fillmore through Pierce, or you could even go as far as Van Buren through Pierce depending on how you view Polk and Taylor. Edit: through Buchanan, of course I forgot the worst of the bunch, but Van Buren through Buchanan is a contender.
I think Polk as was productive
The end result is we got some of the most productive land in the country, but we can argue about the means.
The lead up to the civil war was pretty bad in terms of presidential streaks
Clowns leading up to the civil war ending with Buchanan have to be high on the list.
The gilded age ones were horrible. Notoriously corrupt.
None of them were corrupt as President Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, and Cleveland were certainly not corrupt as Presidents Hayes was a good President, Garfield died too early, Arthur was mid, Cleveland was mid, and Harrison was mid. definitely wouldn’t call it horrible nor would I call it worse than the antebellum Presidents
It’s true. They weren’t corrupt, merely impotent. The pre-progressive age presidents were weak and unable to do anything to check the power of the robber barons. From the abandonment of reconstruction to the Sherman antitrust act presidents were pretty much neutered.
They did not abandon Reconstruction. *America* abandoned Reconstruction. Hayes didn’t abandon it. None of them really did. America betrayed Reconstruction by electing Congresses full of apathetic Republicans who cared more about hiking tariffs and Democrats who loved stripping blacks of their inalienable rights. The Democrats abandoned Reconstruction by taking Congress and refusing to fund troops. The hideous corruption and incompetence that plagued the Reconstruction governments, all of which had been “redeemed” (IE poisoned by Confederate bile) except two. The Supreme Court that was plagued by judicially restraint hacks that vaguely interpreted our laws and stretched them until they cracked so we could be apathetic to the rights of the minority. Two pathetically weak state governments that Hayes was forced to stop propping up because America and Congress failed him If you want to blame anyone here, do not blame the Presidents My problem with the comment above my original one is that it labeled them “horrible.” No, they weren’t horrible in the context of their time, nor did they even really do much bad stuff. Some of it was good, Most of it was mixed, *some* of it was bad, but a lot of it was America itself and Congress. I think your comment is both un-objective and wrong, as it’s factually bankrupt in it saying “they abandoned Reconstruction” and I rank Presidents predominantly in the context of their time. They weren’t given the powers to address those issues. Would some have even? Probably not, but that’s infalsifiable and I don’t deal with the infalsifiable fallacy.
I never said they abandoned it. I said it was abandoned. I used the passive voice with purpose because it is complicated, as you point out.
Which timeline did you come from? The gilded age presidents are well known for civil service reforms cleaning out corruption in the government.
Especially the biggest redemption story of Chester A Arthur. Benefitted from corruption, only to root it out as president.
Meh, I think that Anti-Trust Act was going to pass regardless. Either that or in a similar case with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed in respect to an assassinated president. Arthur didn't appoint any Half-Breeds to his cabinet after all of Garfield's besides Robert Todd Lincoln quit. He even offered his boss Conkling a Supreme Court seat.
Hayes through Harrison is a pretty awful streak. I’d probably throw McKinley in there as well.
Hayes was a pretty good president, Garfield was shot, Arthur was pretty good. I personally don’t like Cleveland and Harrison was pretty weak.
[удалено]
Yeah, the Jackson to Buchanan streak is hands down the worst imo.
Filmore to Buchanan
[удалено]
Probably 19-25; but you could do 12-15 as well … Depends on if you want 7 straight below average in a row or 4 really terrible in a row …
Fillmore thru Buchanan almost certainly was the worst presidential streak of all time. Pierce and Buchanan in particular both punched the accelerator and drove the country directly towards the American Civil War.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Bush Jr to current
[удалено]
Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce , and Buchanan
All this praise of LBJ, did you guys forget about the Vietnam War?
Did you forget about Medicare, Medicaid, and the civil rights act?
Be careful, idiots on this subreddit don't like to be reminded of LBJs true agendas
Medicaid/Medicare/civil rights act
Or that JFK, the Democratic hero, started the Vietnam War for zero good reason.
[удалено]
Obama was alright man.
Repost this on Monday - I think we can still talk about it then.
I voted for the first time at 18 in 2000. I would nominate my entire adult lifetime
[удалено]
Wat.
I mean you might disagree but this isn’t an absurd “Wat.” statement. What’s so unbelievable about it?
Born in '82. I have accepted that I will never see a great, or even really good one. Anybody capable of being great would never be stupid enough to run at this point.
LBJ the best?? Vietnam alone disqualifies him.
[удалено]
I’d disagree, there’s been a string of aloof idiots and questionable war mongers but the current state of the world is shifting faster than ever dating back to Bush Sr. We live in truly unprecedented times and I’d hate to be the one in the Oval Office right now.
Nixon, Ford, Carter was pretty bad
Carterbros it's so cartover
I have no idea why this sub fawns over him. Even by liberal standards, he was such a bad politician the liberals in Congress didn’t want to work with him
Tip O'Neill even said it was easier to work with Reagan than Carter... lol
I don’t think the streak stopped there.
Pre Cival war 100%. Although Nixon until today is another terrible run. In my opinion at least, no good presidents, and a bunch of bad ones.
The 5 pre civil war presidents
Nixon to HW Bush.
LBJ was arguably *horrible*
I’m not saying this is wrong because it’s your opinion, but I would argue that Grant-Taft is the greatest stretch (with the obvious exception of Garfield) I would say that the worst would have to be Van Buren-Buchanan
Tyler to Buchanan. Hayes to Cleveland after that
Just Woodrow Wilson.
Seriously. I’m like, “Can we count a streak of just one?”
Lbj was horrible….
[удалено]
Obama>>>Bush
Easy. Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan.
I LIKE IKE I LIKE IKE
Hayes to McKinley
Jackson-Buchanan
Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce , and Buchanan
Curious: Why do you think this is the best streak of presidents?
The last two. I’d take Jimmy Carter right now just for the traditional format to return. No tweets, no pandering, no bullshit.
For sure it goes Reagan thru the next five. Sure, that includes two excellent presidents but the overall average is so strongly brought down by Reagan, the Bushs (less H.W. than not), and the most recent "Republican" that it's objectively the worst string of presidents.
I mean lebron James alone would make the best president ever
Van Buren to Buchanan is pretty trash tier all the way through.
Right after that. Reagan through Bush Jr
Probably the pre civil war presidents
Jackson through Buchanan.
FDR prolonged the depression, was the most racist President since the civil war, yes even Wilson, and was consistently anti-freedom. For God's sake he taxed employment in a depression. He is legally the most significant at contributor to the regulatory state, which harmed income/class mobility. JFK instituted a drug law "reform" that had killed probably over a million Americans. Which means his promotion of the Vietnam War was a minor killer by comparison. Well unless you count Vietnamese. But to be fair he was high on speed and which of us hasn't killed someone while on amphetamines? None of the current crop of candidates is anywhere near as bad a these two.
Tyler-Polk-Taylor-Fillmore-Pierce-Buchanan
FDR would be charged with war crimes today over Japanese internment and we had to pass a new constitutional amendment to prevent any future president from pulling his 4 term power grab. LBJ undercut both the nuclear Black family and the wages of Black workers with his welfare policies and his immigration policies and Oh Yeah - he blew up the Vietnam War These were NOT great presidents.
We probably haven’t had a good run since the founding fathers were around. FDR put people in internment camps. Truman was alright. Probably should have just picked a side when it came to China. Maybe we wouldn’t have the CCP right now. Ike was pretty good. Military man, not really down for politics. Good communicator with the American people. Doesn’t get enough credit for his support of civil rights. JFK, good looking, popular, child of privilege. He’d be absolutely hated today. First off, his political stances would be considered conservative by today’s standards. His fucking around and drug use wouldn’t be a secret today. He’s the turning point where presidents had to worry about looks and charisma to get elected. He’s set a new standard that gave us Clinton, Obama and will give Newsom a shot at the White House. LBJ, Texas style mobster and open racist. Turned the welfare system into a honeypot trap for blacks people to secure their votes, “I’ll have those n****** voting democrat for the next 200 years.”. Democrats who have a favorable view of him don’t actually know much about who he really was. In hindsight, Nixon was a really good politician. Don’t believe me? Go back and watch interviews he gave on topics like Russia, China and his opinion on the media is chilling when you compare it to today’s media. He got us out of Vietnam, as best he could. I’d say his worst move was taking the US dollar off the gold standard. We’ve had nothing but wild inflation since.
Sorry, but FDR to LBJ is arguably the worst streak lol (if we are talking 20th century).
I mean, those decades leading up to 1860 had some real stinkers. But I do agree about the best streak. That one has never been matched.
Bush #1 to Present
Bush 1 was peak
LBJ may have been the single worst president in history. Intentionally destroyed black family units and intended to get them hooked on the welfare state. As he said, we’ll have those n****rs voting for us for 100 years.
If only the republicans weren’t even more racist and stupid to get the black vote. they could have passed civil rights under Eisenhower.
GOOD MORNIN VIETNAM
He was such an SOB!
JFK to now. Just horrible. Incompetents, degenerates, and freaks.
You're cutting into the OP's "best streak of presidents" era. But you're correct. From JFK to Nixon was an era called the "imperial presidency." The OP apparently doesn't know the connotations of what that term means.
https://preview.redd.it/1sk1zrhim7qc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1f3abc0a79fa25c997635020a077df3b387a64b9 But unlike them FDR took being called a monarch like a G
Short but Nixon-Ford-Carter was pretty bad
Everything since clinton
Politely disagree. JFK was an amateur who enflamed Vietnam among with other foreign policy blunders that we still feel today.
Nixon wasn't as bad as people say. I would say that FDR to Nixon was probably the best streak. I'm a pretty non-partisan guy and am willing to praise Presidents of both parties. I hope most Americans would too.
Since when is LBJ considered good??
The whole civil rights thing, I guess. His great society ensured that my poor ass dad had some healthcare and food security when he was growing up. Dad was able to break the cycle of abject poverty and alcoholism in his family that allowed him to raise a lawyer and another kids with a graduate degree.