Rank the US Presidents

[landscapingvol]

I'm not talking about how the wars were prosecuted, we have been over that. When a nation commits to war turn the dogs lose and win.

The wars and how they treated their own citizens are separate issues and neither can be forgiven or excused. Their actions do tarnish their entire presidencies. Not to mention FDRs teenage girl infatuation with Stalin.

Stalin was a necessary evil at the time. Looking back Roosevelt should not have interned the Japanese but I understand his paranoia for having done so at the time. The US should have done more to help escaping Jews from Europe prior to the war. The US should have fought China in the Korean war. The US should have kept the pressure up on the North Vietnamese following TET. My point is we can look back on a lot of decisions made by Presidents during times of war and dissect them. The "ends justify the means" in certain situations because in both situations that we are discussing, FDR and Lincoln, were very much in doubt. The US military was woefully unprepared for WWII at the beginning and Japan was very much a military superpower at the time. There were no guarantees that Britain could hold out against the Germans and Russia had its hands full with Germany. The North had not fared well during the first half of the Civil War and Lincoln had replaced overall command several times. The World would be much different today had the South won or negotiated a separate peace. The same can be said about Japan and Germany. Would the US have won WW2 without internment camps? Probably. Had Lincoln simply followed the law and allowed slavery to exist in some form, as well as the secession of several states then slavery would have continued for several more decades. How many thousands of slaves would have suffered needlessly? But I get it, nearly a million people died fighting the war.

 

[utvolpj]

There were German immigrants that were spying for Germany yet FDR didn't consider interning people of German descent. What he did to the Japanese was unforgivable and people trying to justify it (not you) keep the door open for it to happen again with another people.

It will absolutely happen again and likely in the next 50yrs. It's my belief that's how the shooting starts

 

[hog88]

Stalin was a necessary evil at the time. Looking back Roosevelt should not have interned the Japanese but I understand his paranoia for having done so at the time. The US should have done more to help escaping Jews from Europe prior to the war. The US should have fought China in the Korean war. The US should have kept the pressure up on the North Vietnamese following TET. My point is we can look back on a lot of decisions made by Presidents during times of war and dissect them. The "ends justify the means" in certain situations because in both situations that we are discussing, FDR and Lincoln, were very much in doubt. The US military was woefully unprepared for WWII at the beginning and Japan was very much a military superpower at the time. There were no guarantees that Britain could hold out against the Germans and Russia had its hands full with Germany. The North had not fared well during the first half of the Civil War and Lincoln had replaced overall command several times. The World would be much different today had the South won or negotiated a separate peace. The same can be said about Japan and Germany. Would the US have won WW2 without internment camps? Probably. Had Lincoln simply followed the law and allowed slavery to exist in some form, as well as the secession of several states then slavery would have continued for several more decades. How many thousands of slaves would have suffered needlessly? But I get it, nearly a million people died fighting the war.

Damn you like to tapdance around the subject.

I don't fault Lincoln nor FDR for how they prosecuted the wars. They won and that is the goal once you are committed to war. We can debate the mistakes of both wars in a separate discussion because many were made. What we are talking about here is how 2 presidents violated everything we claim to hold sacred as Americans in the treatment of their citizens.

 

[landscapingvol]

Damn you like to tapdance around the subject.

I don't fault Lincoln nor FDR for how they prosecuted the wars. They won and that is the goal once you are committed to war. We can debate the mistakes of both wars in a separate discussion because many were made. What we are talking about here is how 2 presidents violated everything we claim to hold sacred as Americans in the treatment of their citizens.

Not tap dancing, I am telling you in those two particular situations they were the correct decisions at the time because they led to the desired outcomes but I do acknowledge that they are controversial decisions.

 

[hog88]

Not tap dancing, I am telling you in those two particular situations they were the correct decisions at the time because they led to the desired outcomes but I do acknowledge that they are controversial decisions.

Internment of Japanese Americans, suspending habeas corpus and ignoring court rulings were not correct decisions.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Occasionally the ends do justify the means, whether we agree with it or not. History has proven that FDR and Lincoln were both correct in fighting the wars in the way in which they were fought. That doesn't mean mistakes weren't made but that doesn't tarnish their entire presidencies. I completely disagree with FDR's economic policies but he was the right leader at the right time for WW2

Do not know I would agree with that on FDR. FDR had a man-crush on Stalin and we paid for his sycophantic behavior for decades. He was somewhat of a turd to the British when he wanted to be. I'd lean more towards George C Marshall as the real leader that won the war. Right behind Sir Winston.

 

[hog88]

Do not know I would agree with that on FDR. FDR had a man-crush on Stalin and we paid for his sycophantic behavior for decades. He was somewhat of a turd to the British when he wanted to be. I'd lean more towards George C Marshall as the real leader that won the war. Right behind Sir Winston.

I firmly believe FDR planned to divide up the world with Stalin after the war. One of FDRs goals was to end the British Empire and for the US to assume most of it.

 

[landscapingvol]

Do not know I would agree with that on FDR. FDR had a man-crush on Stalin and we paid for his sycophantic behavior for decades. He was somewhat of a turd to the British when he wanted to be. I'd lean more towards George C Marshall as the real leader that won the war. Right behind Sir Winston.

Disagree, Roosevelt developed the notion of "lend/lease" which heavily supported the British, Russians, and Chinese. Marshall certainly played a very big role as did Eisenhower in organizing and supplying massive operations. Marshall also supported an invasion of the home islands of Japan and was against the "lend/lease" act. Eisenhower and Nimitz played far bigger roles in the war. As far as Stalin goes, I don't blame Roosevelt for showing deference to him in regards to the invasion of Eastern Germany and Berlin. They gave him way too much influence in shaping of politics in Eastern Europe. But you have to remember, the US was relying on the Soviet Union to take some of the pressure off of the US if Operation Downfall had to be undertaken by invading the northern islands of Japan

 

[hog88]

Disagree, Roosevelt developed the notion of "lend/lease" which heavily supported the British, Russians, and Chinese. Marshall certainly played a very big role as did Eisenhower in organizing and supplying massive operations. Marshall also supported an invasion of the home islands of Japan and was against the "lend/lease" act. Eisenhower and Nimitz played far bigger roles in the war. As far as Stalin goes, I don't blame Roosevelt for showing deference to him in regards to the invasion of Eastern Germany and Berlin. They gave him way too much influence in shaping of politics in Eastern Europe. But you have to remember, the US was relying on the Soviet Union to take some of the pressure off of the US if Operation Downfall had to be undertaken by invading the northern islands of Japan

Lend/Lease and the idea of letting the British and Soviets spill their blood fighting a war of attrition with the Germans while we built up was brilliant. I give FDR his props for that but his capitulation to Stalins post war demands was dreadful and was the cause of most of the worlds problems since.

 

[landscapingvol]

Lend/Lease and the idea of letting the British and Soviets spill their blood fighting a war of attrition with the Germans while we built up was brilliant. I give FDR his props for that but his capitulation to Stalins post war demands was dreadful and was the cause of most of the worlds problems since.

I don't disagree.

 

[GroverCleveland]

I firmly believe FDR planned to divide up the world with Stalin after the war. One of FDRs goals was to end the British Empire and for the US to assume lease most of it.

FYP.

 

[Orange defense]

1.JFK
2. Trump
3. Ronald Reagan

 

[VolStrom]

1.JFK
2. Trump
3. Ronald Reagan

JFK? WTF did he ever do?

 

[hog88]

JFK? WTF did he ever do?

Got killed

 

[Orange defense]

JFK? WTF did he ever do?

He loved America!!

 

[Weezer]

I won't dispute that but you must also acknowledge that many in the South did not see a peaceful resolution to the issues at hand principally the pressing issue of state's rights and sovereignty. The South was destined to eventually move past an agricultural based society and slavery would have ended naturally regardless but Lincoln felt the nation was better served united. At the end of the day, Lincoln was a politician and viewed many issues through a political lens especially when it came to slavery. He could have taken a different stance on slavery, one similar to Douglas, and allowed it to naturally run its course but he didn't. Looking back, he wasn't wrong to fight to maintain the Union and end slavery. Could have it been handled differently? Probably, but he genuinely felt the nation was headed towards complete collapse. In the end, it cost him his life right or wrong.

Lincoln didn't fight the Civil War to end slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation was a political move that came well after the war was started. His goal was to preserve the Union, not end slavery. It's one thing to say the war was fought over slavery. It was to a large degree because Southern states were afraid that Lincoln would try to abolish it, which ironically, their own actions sped up the end of slavery. But Lincoln himself was more concerned with stopping the spread of slavery to new states, and was willing to let existing slave states be. This is even demonstrated in his willingness to leave slave states that had remained in the Union be.

 

[Weezer]

Desperate times call for desperate measures and his case, the end truly did justify the means but I agree in different circumstances those actions would be viewed much differently. I also don't blame FDR for the internment camps

It's funny, because everyone on the left was afraid Donald Trump would act in the authoritarian way that Abe Lincoln did act in. Yet we excuse Lincoln's behavior as "necessary".

 

[Weezer]

Occasionally the ends do justify the means, whether we agree with it or not. History has proven that FDR and Lincoln were both correct in fighting the wars in the way in which they were fought. That doesn't mean mistakes weren't made but that doesn't tarnish their entire presidencies. I completely disagree with FDR's economic policies but he was the right leader at the right time for WW2

Winning their respective wars doesn't make them "correct" in all that they did. That's a fallacy.

 

[hog88]

He loved America!!

LOL

 

[Boston Vol]

JFK? WTF did he ever do?

Cut taxes and created both the Peace Corps and Navy SEALS. That’s pretty much all I got. He was a foreign policy disaster. Being assassinated was the best thing for his legacy.

 

[Boston Vol]

1.JFK
2. Trump
3. Ronald Reagan

JFK was bad. Trump was bad. Reagan was good, albeit overrated.

 

[AM64]

The Klan used violence against former slaves to prevent them from voting. Not just beatings, but lynchings. Nothing justifies that. "Reconstruction was unfair" or even my own belief that the Southern states had a right to secede justifies beating and killing people, or even enslaving people, because of the color of their skin. Slavery was abhorrent. So nothing justifies the Klan.

I didn't state my position well at all. I agree with you that physical violence against former slaves was wrong - although I don't have problem at all with anything done to the yankees of any color who came south to take advantage of the situation, nor do I have a problem with any "punishment" at the hands of the KKK that those imposing martial law (or playing the game) might have gotten. I am absolutely opposed to a victor preying on the vanquished, and my position about the first iteration of the KKK had to do with those people ... and not violence against former slaves. The strong preying on the weak is nothing to ever condone.

If you want to look at things a bit differently, the north treated the south very much like a master and slave ... except you can't personally abuse another part of the country like one person can another person. There were other ways - federalist rule and the tariff game for one. The north was guilty of treating the south very much like a runaway slave (it refused to give the south it's right to leave) and punished it like a recaptured slave. At least that's my interpretation of the sordid mess called Reconstruction. I'll be the first to admit that my thoughts and beliefs about that time are definitely colored heavily by the federalism and the crap shoved down our throats today. The federal government having ignored the "all other things" clause is again nothing but the strong preying on the weaker.

 

[AM64]

He loved America!!

JFK loved the Kennedy money, power, and influence and all that it could do for him.

 

[Credo]

1.JFK
2. Trump
3. Ronald Reagan

I wonder what if JFK was alive today, would he still consider himself a Democrat? Would Reagan regret the amnesty he gave to the illegal immigrants?

 

[AM64]

I wonder what if JFK was alive today, would he still consider himself a Democrat? Would Reagan regret the amnesty he gave to the illegal immigrants?

No if Kennedy woke up and looked at the dem party as it stands; but he probably would have just morphed right along with it had he lived. Reagan would not have liked being played after granting amnesty and then seeing nothing done to resolve the original problem. Livid would probably be fairly descriptive.