Posted on 02/18/2006 12:20:02 PM PST by ncountylee
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) - From engaging in sexual relations with an intern to letting the Vietnam War escalate, U.S. presidents have been blamed for some egregious errors. So who had the worst blunder? President James Buchanan, for failing to avert the Civil War, according to a survey of presidential historians organized by the University of Louisville's McConnell Center.
The survey's top 10 presidential blunders were announced Saturday during a President's Day weekend conference called "Presidential Moments."
"We can probably learn just as much - or maybe even more - by looking at the mistakes rather than looking at why they were great," said political scientist and McConnell Center Director Gary Gregg.
Scholars who participated said Buchanan didn't do enough to oppose efforts by Southern states to secede from the Union before the Civil War.
The second worst mistake, the survey found, was Andrew Johnson's decision just after the Civil War to side with Southern whites and oppose improvements in justice for Southern blacks beyond abolishing slavery.
"We continue to pay" for Johnson's errors, wrote Michael Les Benedict, an Ohio State University history professor emeritus.
Lyndon Johnson earned the No. 3 spot by allowing the Vietnam War to intensify, Gregg said.
Where does Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinsky scandal rank? Many scholars said it belonged at No. 10, saying that it probably affected Clinton's presidency more than it did American history and the public.
The rest of the top 10 blunders:
-4: Woodrow Wilson's refusal to compromise on the Treaty of Versailles after World War I.
-5: Richard Nixon's involvement in the Watergate cover-up.
-6: James Madison's failure to keep the United States out of the War of 1812 with Britain.
-7: Thomas Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807, a self-imposed prohibition on trade with Europe during the Napoleonic Wars.
-8: John F. Kennedy allowing the Bay of Pigs Invasion that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
-9: Ronald Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair, the effort to sell arms to Iran and use the money to finance an armed anti-communist group in Nicaragua.
I've read that book. But I wasn't talking about people who worked for the West. A great many of the "revelations" by former KGB officers aren't much more than self-serving rehashes of things we already know. I see no reason to make them rich for such "revelations."
The list is BS, bot for content and omissions. It was a stretch to get a second Republican on the list. (Madison, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Buchanan, JFK, LBJ and Slick Willie were all Democrats) Based upon the consequences, Regan and Iran Contra was a success. Communist expansion in Central America was thwarted. Carter's bungling of the Iranian hostage crisis opened the door to today's crisis in the middle east.
I urge everyone who believes what they were taught in school about Lincoln to read this article.
The Civil War is bound to be controversial, especially among libertarians, but Alexander's article reads like the work of a deeply delusional character. Like some people, he seems to be convinced that all the bad things in history will disappear on their own, without people having to take a stand or do anything about them.
Thus, slavery and segregation would go away by themselves without anyone ever doing anything real and substantial against them, and the two halves of the union would peacefully join together without any real wrangling over such issues. When you consider the great power that Southern slaveowning states had in the early years of the country and how dissatisfied they were, it's hard to think of what the Northern states could give them to make them contented enough to reunite with them.
Like a lot of people, Mark Alexander also has the notion that the problems we face now are the worst we've faced, and that we can blame someone like Lincoln for the fact that things aren't perfect today. He doesn't acknowledge that there were real problems in "the Old Republic" or that conditions could have been far worse had things gone differently in our past.
Lincoln may or may not have been one of our greatest presidents, but to judge that one has to look realistically at our past, at past evils, and at how things might have been even worse than they are now. I don't think Mark Alexander does that.
You are right about Lincoln and Washington, and WayneS and people like him on this board haven't got a clue. I find particularly hilarious the quote by Robert E. Lee, war criminal, to the effect that he wouldn't have surrendered at Appomattox had he known the effects of Reconstruction. Oh, Lord, I fervently pray we could go back in time to grant that wish, so that he and his wretched cause could have been utterly destroyed, if only so that we wouldn't have to be subjected to the endless pontification of this second rate general whose successes were confined entirely to defensive battles and all the advantages that accrue thereto. Lee's alternative to surrender was annihilation. Too bad he had the good sense to choose the former.
Lee, Forrest, Davis, and all of their ilk should have been hanged. But those terrible, evil Northerners decided that men who had taken an oath to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States could simply go home after taking up arms against their own country. The ever- reviled Sherman was so vicious he was willing to allow the "surrender" of Johnston's army with all the means necessary to continue hostilities, and not much more than a promise not to do so. Fortunately, Stanton intervened.
Oh, how gawd awful Reconstruction was for those brave, brave, southern boys. Imagine: they had to don masks and hoods in order to continue to torture their Nigras. How degrading the lynchings and burnings must have been for people dedicated to such a Noble Cause.
Quotes from John C. Calhoun in a putatively serious article about Lincoln (or on any other subject)? Please.
Now get this straight, losers. The expansion of the Federal government was accomplished by the natural tendency of power to accumulate, and most conspicuously by Supreme Court decisions that took place after Roosevelt frightened Nine Old Men in the 1930's. Your hatred of Lincoln, and your revision of his record is the result of an animus nurtured by an envy you dare not admit to yourselves. A historian once said, "All that was necessary for the South to have won, and the North to have lost, was for them to have exchanged Presidents." Fortunately for America, Providence determined that Lincoln should belong to the United States of America. And as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
It is a shame that you have to refer to people with whom you disagree as "losers". You argue like a liberal.
I made no defense of slavery in any of my posts and would never even consider doing so. Neither did Mr. Alexander.
The issue raised had to do with the power of the federal government becoming greater than the founding fathers ever intended it to be. Mr. Lincoln was one of the major players in causing that to happen. That is a FACT, whether you like it or not.
It is also a fact that Lincoln didn't care any more for blacks than any other politician of his time. So play the "race card" if you must, but just remember it was you who did so (like I said, you argue like a liberal).
Your violent reaction and vehement condescending personal attacks show a whole lot more about you than they do about me or anyone else who questions the deification of Lincoln.
Thank you for a well thought-out reply.
Truman ignoring the warnings from MacArthur and Patton regarding the Soviet Union and China.
I may have it wrong, but it's from things I read at the time and over the years.
Ike had set up the invasion of Cuba before he left office, and Kennedy was faced with a decision whether or not to go through with it when he first came into office.
Kennedy and the media did their best to make it appear to be Ike's fault when it failed, and he was gracious enough to keep his mouth shut as ex-presidents were expected to do.
The basic problem was that Kennedy went ahead, but in such a half-hearted and uncommitted way that it was certain to fail.
P.S. If Ike's VP Nixon had won, I believe things would have turned out very differently. But Kennedy stole the election, and Nixon decided not to contest it.
Yeah, no kidding.
"McKinley's decision to annex the Philippine Islands may deserve a spot too."
How so? McKinley is possibly the most underated president. One could argue that America became a true international power during his presidency.
General Patton knew what they were... why didn't Truman?
Tell me.. When was the war really over? In 1945 or when the wall came down?
A weak central government would have seen the United States newborn ripped apart by the European lion. Fortunately our greatest leaders, Washington and Hamilton, made sure that the Nation would be possessed of sufficient means to defend itself. Remember that our country was a small portion of a continent controlled by three huge empires. Napoleon was scheming up until the sale of LOuisiana to attack North America through Domingo. Jefferson was clueless to this helping the Frence destroy the slaves revolting there.
Despite the dangers we faced the "weak government" advocate proceeded to cut our ability to defend ourself and blunder his way into weakening our military and navy so much that we were treated with contemp by the Europeans. His embargo (rightly pointed out here as one of the greatest blunders) was an attempt to get around the fact he had weakened the Navy so much.
Our Constitution provides the means to defend the Union and Lincolns rightly used them. FDR was a different situation but not widely appreciated by those for whom ideology is all.
Lincoln would be second just for his literary ability to speak to the heart of man over the ages and express the deepest thoughts within them. Shakespearean and remarkable.
That sounds about right. Though just exactly who pulled back the air cover is still somewhat vague. McGeorge Bundy seems to come to mind. But of course having all the CIA principals out of town while this was going down did not help matters either.
I got about two paragraphs into it and realized it was flawed in understanding and accuracy and not worth the time it would take to read the whole time. With crackpot stuff there are so many errors that clearing them up takes forever and escapes those who have not recognized them to begin with.
What is funny is that these people think there is some "public school" version of Lincoln unaware that many of us raised in the South were given a public school version not so kind to the man. This pap was part of my upbringing so I am well aware that it is a total fraud which attempts to justify a brutal, uncivilized regime of oppression and inhumanity. Magnolias and mint julips aside.
Carter is missing as well. His spineless dealings with Iran and gutting of the Armed Forces and Intelligence gathering have been costing us for many years. We should have had the war with the jihadists back in the 80's when they were weaker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.