Who was the cruelest President?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Who was the cruelest President?

  • Jackson

  • Lincoln

  • McKinley

  • TJR

  • Wilson

  • FDR

  • LBJ

  • Bush 41

  • Clinton

  • Bush 43


Results are only viewable after voting.

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,447
133
106
Cruelty involves somebody delighting in the pain of others. I don't think, from what I know of our past presidents, that any of them were cruel. Many had to make terrible and difficult lose-lose decisions that resulted in the pain of thousands or millions, yes. Others have displayed an apparent indifference or callousness to the pain that their decisions caused, whether from a lack of character or from the need to distance themselves in order to keep doing their job.

So yeah, I'm right there with woolfe9999 in thinking this is a dumb poll.
 

Elias824

Golden Member
Mar 13, 2007
1,100
0
76
Why Andrew Jackson is the top

"Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Jackson's presidency was his policy regarding American Indians, which involved the ethnic cleansing of several Indian tribes. Jackson was a leading advocate of a policy known as Indian removal. Jackson had been negotiating treaties and removal policies with Indian leaders for years before his election as president. Many tribes and portions of tribes had been removed to Arkansas Territory and further west of the Mississippi River without the suffering and tragedies of what later became known as the Trail of Tears. Further, many white Americans advocated total extermination of the "savages," particularly those who had experienced frontier wars. Jackson's support of removal policies can be best understood by examination of those prior cases he had personally negotiated, rather than those in post-presidential years. Nevertheless, Jackson is often held responsible for all that took place in the 1830s."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Indian_removal

read this part carefully "ethnic cleansing of several Indian tribes" This wasnt part of a war, we weren't attacked, it was to free up land. That seems pretty cruel to me.




Polk wasnt mentioned on the poll be he has to be up there

"After the Texas annexation, Polk turned his attention to California, hoping to acquire the territory from Mexico before any European nation did so. The main interest was San Francisco Bay as an access point for trade with Asia. In 1845, he sent diplomat John Slidell to Mexico to purchase California and New Mexico for $24–30 million. Slidell's arrival caused political turmoil in Mexico after word leaked out that he was there to purchase additional territory and not to offer compensation for the loss of Texas. The Mexicans refused to receive Slidell, citing a technical problem with his credentials. In January 1846, to increase pressure on Mexico to negotiate, Polk sent troops under General Zachary Taylor into the area between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande—territory that was claimed by both the U.S. and Mexico.
Slidell returned to Washington in May 1846, having been rebuffed by the Mexican government. Polk regarded this treatment of his diplomat as an insult and an "ample cause of war", and he prepared to ask Congress for a declaration of war. Meanwhile Taylor crossed the Rio Grande River and briefly occupied Matamoros, Tamaulipas. Taylor continued to blockade ships from entering the port of Matamoros. Mere days before Polk intended to make his request to Congress, he received word that Mexican forces had crossed the Rio Grande area and killed eleven American soldiers. Polk then made this the casus belli, and in a message to Congress on May 11, 1846, he stated that Mexico had "invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Polk

So he wanted land from Mexico and they wouldn't sell it to him, so he marched a bunch of troops into disputed territory and instigated the Mexican American war to get what he wanted.




The worst thing I can think of for FDR was the internment camps for the Japanese.

"order 9066 authorized the Secretary of War and U.S. armed forces commanders to declare areas of the United States as military areas "from which any or all persons may be excluded," although it did not name any nationality or ethnic group. It was eventually applied to one-third of the land area of the U.S. (mostly in the West) and was used against those with "Foreign Enemy Ancestry" — Japanese.

The order has led to the internment of Japanese Americans or AJAs (Americans of Japanese Ancestry); some 120,000 ethnic Japanese people were held in internment camps for the duration of the war. Of the Japanese interned, 62% were Nisei (American-born, second-generation Japanese American and therefore American citizens) or Sansei (third-generation Japanese American, also American citizens) and the rest were Issei (Japanese immigrants and resident aliens, first-generation Japanese American)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

so yeah 120,000 people got locked up because of their race, most of these people were U.S citizens born and raised here.
 

Elias824

Golden Member
Mar 13, 2007
1,100
0
76
Could you guys explain why so many people voted for Lincoln? He didnt really start the civil war, the south rebelled and even fired the first shots. I guess you could argue how it was fought but it was a war, wars just suck I dont know if I really could define them as being cruel when your country is at stake. I think the emancipation of the slaves is pretty far from being cruel.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,958
3,948
136
Anybody who didn't vote for the dude that force-marched Indians (including children) hundreds of miles in the middle of winter is off their fucking meds.

Comparing that to government health insurance? Really, people?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,377
10,691
136
Could you guys explain why so many people voted for Lincoln? He didnt really start the civil war, the south rebelled and even fired the first shots. I guess you could argue how it was fought but it was a war, wars just suck I dont know if I really could define them as being cruel when your country is at stake. I think the emancipation of the slaves is pretty far from being cruel.

We're the only nation to kill each other to end slavery. There was no need for that.

One might argue removing the right of secession, of self determination, dismantled checks and balances necessary to keep our ruling elites in check. Inevitably resulting in the ungovernable mess we find ourselves in today.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
We're the only nation to kill each other to end slavery. There was no need for that.

One might argue removing the right of secession, of self determination, dismantled checks and balances necessary to keep our ruling elites in check. Inevitably resulting in the ungovernable mess we find ourselves in today.

What's amazing is that this is a serious post.
 

OBLAMA2009

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2008
6,574
3
0
bush wins by a mile. no president has ever caused so much destruction for so little reason or gain
 

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
This poll is interesting... anyone who knows their history knows Jackson was a nasty SOB... and it looks like most ATers know their history... and then you can see the crazy right wingers saying FDR/Clinton and the crazy left wingers say Bush...
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
I see a lot of people agree with you. Out of curiosity, why is it Jackson?
Only read the first page so far, but the Trail of Tears is why.

Still, FDR actually wanted the Pearl Harbor tragedy, and he used an Executive Order to imprison and torture the citizens of Japanese descent. At least the Trail of Tears was popular among southerners and done through Congress rather than some tyrant issuing EO-9066.

I'm not saying the Trail of Tears was right, as they should've made the Native Americans citizens from the beginning, but Jackson at least went through Congress.

One thing of many that I love Coolidge for was the fact that he made the Native Americans citizens.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
What's amazing is that this is a serious post.
It was an excellent post. The cost of putting down insurrections was going to get too high and the South, when they seceded, voided their contract with the north for them to have their slaves returned. Slavery would've ended shortly after the South seceded, Emancipation Proclamation or not.

Lincoln was the father of centralized power, so I don't know what's wrong with his post.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Roughly 1 million died in the civil war. To those who still believe it was necessary, would you support another such war today, assuming states started secession?
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
Only read the first page so far, but the Trail of Tears is why.

Still, FDR actually wanted the Pearl Harbor tragedy, and he used an Executive Order to imprison and torture the citizens of Japanese descent. At least the Trail of Tears was popular among southerners and done through Congress rather than some tyrant issuing EO-9066.

I'm not saying the Trail of Tears was right, as they should've made the Native Americans citizens from the beginning, but Jackson at least went through Congress.

One thing of many that I love Coolidge for was the fact that he made the Native Americans citizens.

Act of congress or not, the Native American removals and wars of the early 19th century were as close as the US has come at pure government sanctioned genocide.

While the imprisonment of US citizens of Japanese descent was quite despicable on FDRs part I don't believe it had the pure malice behind it that the Indian Removal Act did.
 
Last edited:

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
Roughly 1 million died in the civil war. To those who still believe it was necessary, would you support another such war today, assuming states started secession?

The civil war both was and at the same time was not necessary.

The reasons for it had already be set a good 15-20 years before the war actually happened. If the proper steps had been taken then war could have been averted.
Instead the situation was left to fester until secession and war that ultimately followed seemed to be the answer.
I also believe that after the southern states had secceded that eventually a treaty or other political action could of brought them back into the fold of the Union. Instead they fired the first shots.
 
Last edited:

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
The civil war both was and at the same time was not necessary.
The reasons for it had already be set a good 15-20 years before the war actually happened. If the proper steps had been taken then war could of been averted.
Instead the situation was left to fester until succession and war that ultimately followed seemed to be the answer.
I also believe that after the southern states had succeeded that eventually a treaty or other political action could of brought them back into the fold of the Union. Instead they fired the first shots.
could have

secession

seceded
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Roughly 1 million died in the civil war. To those who still believe it was necessary, would you support another such war today, assuming states started secession?

Hell, why stop there? The American War of Independence was fought a lot of people say for more reasons of settlers wanting to expand into the lucrative west quickly without having to pay for already occupied lands whereas the British thought pissing off natives was bad colonialism.

Why support our genocidal founding fathers and their war of aggression?

Canada, Australia and New Zealand turned out to have higher standards of living in some ways and a more flexible government as far as resisting corporate influence.

Did we fail from the beginning? The civil war was about $$$$$. Just like all wars.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Canada, Australia and New Zealand turned out to have higher standards of living in some ways and a more flexible government as far as resisting corporate influence.

I think it's because the US is filled with Americans while Canada, Aus, and NZ are all British colonies that still act very British. Religion is the most obvious example of how the people themselves are different. In Canada, the dominant religion is Roman Catholicism. Australia is also Roman Catholic. New Zealand is Anglican followed closely by Roman Catholic. USA is completely different in that much of the country is protestant Christians and there's a strong tone of biblical literalism that doesn't exist in any other British colony.

America's system of government works fine. It's the people themselves that are broken. The US could completely switch over to Britain's style of parliament and it wouldn't change anything.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
It was an excellent post. The cost of putting down insurrections was going to get too high and the South, when they seceded, voided their contract with the north for them to have their slaves returned. Slavery would've ended shortly after the South seceded, Emancipation Proclamation or not.

Lincoln was the father of centralized power, so I don't know what's wrong with his post.

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.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
It was an excellent post. The cost of putting down insurrections was going to get too high and the South, when they seceded, voided their contract with the north for them to have their slaves returned. Slavery would've ended shortly after the South seceded, Emancipation Proclamation or not.

Lincoln was the father of centralized power, so I don't know what's wrong with his post.

The entire Southern economy was based on slave plantations and suffered horribly after the Civil War when slavery was outlawed, they were dependent on slavery for their livelihoods. So please explain in detail how slavery would have ended "shortly" after 1865 in the South knowing this reality? Also please try and explain to us what crop the Southern economy would have switched to off from slaves and how institutionalized racism, which was prevalent 100 years after the Civil War, would have magically subsided in the same 100 years (and not taken much longer) had the Civil War not been fought and had amendments not been passed. I'd really, really love to hear this. :D
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
The entire Southern economy was based on slave plantations and suffered horribly after the Civil War when slavery was outlawed, they were dependent on slavery for their livelihoods...

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?

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