Who was the cruelest President?

[First]

Is it just possible that the loss of a sizable fraction of the adult male population and the near total destruction of economic infrastructure might have had something to do with the postwar collapse of the Southern economy?

Of course the Civil War destruction had a lot to do with it, but fact is that, based on the numbers of states that seceded, those states were dependent on crop plantations that made up a vast majority of their economy before the war. That's just the reality of the situation, they were too dependent on something that was widely regarded as morally reprehensible on many levels. It had to be abolished because the South became dependent on it. That's just how it was.

Also, contrary to your Gone With the Wind perspective on the antebellum South, plantation owners were a very small fraction of the white population.

Your point is irrelevant here since a large percentage of the economy at that time was controlled by the upper 2% of the white population.

 

[bamacre]

The number one job fo the federal government has always been defense, which includes defending the territorial integrity of the nation. The civil war was necessary to protect the nation, the south had no right to seize the territory they attempted to seize.

I guess that begs the question, does the federal government "own" the states, or do the states "own" the federal government. It seems to me that the central government was created by the states, so it would be difficult for me to imagine the first is true.

 

[First]

Considering the founding fathers had no official or even unofficial allegiance to any state and that federal jurisdiction over states has been upheld as supreme in all relevant court cases, it's pretty clear what the correct answer is.

 

[Craig234]

Jackson could make some sense, but his cruetly for natives was contrasted by his lack of cruelty for others.

Theodore Roosevelt could too; his cruelty in foreign policy - take a look at the Phillippenes - was contrasted by his lack of cruelty in progressive issues.

JFK doesn't belong anywhere near this list - his presidential 'curlety' was rare compared to his extraordinary compassion for many foreign and domestic.

His area of cruelty would be more regarding his sexual habits.

Nixon was a special case - very cruel in ways, but nutty. He hated the Kennedeys enough to pretend he 'found' documents in the White House implicating JFK for screwups. He's known for his enemies list, and his bigotry and hatred are documented on the White House tapes, at least the parts we got to hear as the family was able to prevent release of the worst parts.

But George W. Bush deserves a special spot IMO. I think he was a sociopath. Remember for an example of how he was, his reaction to a citizen who saw him for a moment and said he was disappointed, Bush's response of 'who cares what you think?' But he was willing to sell out the American people - their welfare, wealth, safety and more - for the crassest political corruption. War, too; I recall parents of troops who were killed saying how cavalier he was in the meetings.

If he ignored a company's cooking the books to profit from it, and used his father's connecitons to avoid prosecution, no problem. If he drove drunk and had his future attorney general cover it up, no problem. If he advocated for others to go to Vietnam but took the spot in a safe domestic air guard of someone else to avoid going himself, no problem.

But one of the most dramatic anecdotes is his making fun of Carla Fay Tucker's appeal not to be executed, as he mimicked her begging not to get killed.

 

[shortylickens]

Teddy Roosevelt was tough but not especially cruel. I guess its Jackson.
Maybe Bush Jr, cuz he started a war arguably to make himself popular and get oil, and we didnt even get the fucking oil.

I think Obamas efforts to get Mexico to invade and take over might end up being the worst. Gotta wait 6 years.

 

[Jadow]

Wilson was a clan sympathizer

 

[Perknose]

Wilson was a clan sympathizer

His wife was said to be far worse.

. . . And she was "President" for quite some time!

 

[OBLAMA2009]

i certainly agreed with post #79. bush's whole political career was characterized by a total lack of a conscience.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Wilson was a clan sympathizer

Clan Stuart?
Clan Gunn?
Clan Hannay?


Or did you mean "Klan"?

 

[CallMeJoe]

Considering the founding fathers had no official or even unofficial allegiance to any state and that federal jurisdiction over states has been upheld as supreme in all relevant court cases, it's pretty clear what the correct answer is.

You might note that the Constitution refers to the citizens of the States more often than it does the citizens of the United States.
You might also note that at the time of the War of Secession a large number of military officers, only a few generations removed from the Founders, resigned their commissions when their native States seceded in favor of their duty as citizens of the States.

 

[Tom]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
The number one job fo the federal government has always been defense, which includes defending the territorial integrity of the nation. The civil war was necessary to protect the nation, the south had no right to seize the territory they attempted to seize.

I guess that begs the question, does the federal government "own" the states, or do the states "own" the federal government. It seems to me that the central government was created by the states, so it would be difficult for me to imagine the first is true.

The states agreed to form a union in part for their common defense. When some of those states decide to violently break that union, the union of states is obligated to protect that union, it's what they agreed to do.

As it turned out, it was the right thing to do. The confederacy would probably have developed along the lines of Mexico or South America, i other words, as a 3rd world country. The north would have still been strong, but probably not strong enough to turn the tide in WW1, and if they did, ww2 would have been very difficult for the allies. Given the likely hostility between the union and confederacy, and the Nazis acceptance of slavery, the confederacy most likely would have sided with Axis powers.

 

[nageov3t]

this is, of course, veering off topic, but I read a pretty good alternative history series a couple months back based on the idea that neither side won the civil war and that it was eventually fought to a stand-still (similar to the korean war).

the end result, at least as far as Europe was concerned, was that WW1 was a draw, which led to no Treaty of Versailles, which led to no Nazi party... but no Nazis meant no mass exodus of Jewish scientists out of Germany to the US, meaning Germany invented the a-bomb first and the Kaiser dropped it on Paris and London.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Jackson was probably the cruelest, but I would love having him in power today. He didn't take shit from anybody.

I wish a general would run for president these days - they're the only ones that seem to be able to actually push for something.