Posted on 12/02/2006 9:40:43 AM PST by WinOne4TheGipper
Ever since 1948, when Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55 historians to rank U.S. presidents on a scale from "great" to "failure," such polls have been a favorite pastime for those of us who study the American past.
Changes in presidential rankings reflect shifts in how we view history. When the first poll was taken, the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused by granting black men the right to vote. As a result, President Andrew Johnson, a fervent white supremacist who opposed efforts to extend basic rights to former slaves, was rated "near great." Today, by contrast, scholars consider Reconstruction a flawed but noble attempt to build an interracial democracy from the ashes of slavery -- and Johnson a flat failure.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I see he has his email address on that tripe
Forner is a well-known Marxist Historian. He sees History as a matter of following the buck, or viewing events through the lens of class warfare.
Naturally, he's not going to think much of President Bush.
When all is said and done, through it might be fifty years, Bush will be with the near-greats: Truman, Polk, Eisenhower, and Jackson.
Standing up to the radicals in the Middle East was not easy; especially with ninety percent of the media running the effort down 24/7.
History will validate the effort.
Eric Foner? Hey, someone put a "r" at the end of his name where the "y" should be.
The worst thing is that this idiot is a professor at Columbia university, indoctrinating the students.
"Eric Foner is DeWitt Clinton professor of history at Columbia University."
This type of "ranking" tells us more about the author than about the particular president.
Uh, yeah, right. The Presidents considered "great" never did such a thing. I mean, can you imagine President Lincoln just blowing off the Constitution?
I don't care what anyone says.
Our greatest President was, without a doubt, William Henry Harrison.
Is Eric Foner the worst history professor ever? He has my vote. Making a judgement so early in the game, in like the first quarter. At the same point if this were 1863 with Lincoln he would be the worst president ever.
How about it. I was wondering what history books he's reading, or re-writing.
Yes worse than Carter..then man that gave us the Iranian problem we have today. The man that killed the economy and shot our image in the world. And that incidnt with the Killer Rabbit...
And Bush is also worse than Clinton. The man who slept thru 8 years and thereby advoiding doing anything to prevent the Muslim terrorist threat. Clinton was a joke of a Pres. Who gave us " It depends on the defintion of "is" Is"
And, if the truth be told, Clinton is the Man on whose the blood of countless Americans has on his hands. His selling of missle secrets to the Red Chinese are the stuff that legands are made of. The way he deftly advoiding catching OBL, thereby making 911 happen. And who can forget the way he hit that Asprin factory and the empty terrorist training site. Yes Clinton was the greatest President----- that our enemies ever had.
Buchanan wasn't the President during the Mexican War...it was Polk. Buchanan, on the other hand did help quiet things down in the San Juan Islands (WA) dispute of 1859 (also called the Pig War). Because of Buchanan we didn't go to war with the British over ownership of the Islands and that's a good thing to be remembered by.
scholars consider Reconstruction a flawed but noble attempt
LOL.
That would be James K Polk who was President during the Mexican-American War. Buchanan preceded Lincoln.
Ah, you beat me by a minute. :-)
No. Polk fought the Mexican War. Buchanan was President just before the Civil War; did little except try and ram the Lecompton (Kansas Constitution) down the throats of the North.
It didn't work.
Don't you just love "polls?"
His example of the Reconstruction era polls is a prime example of skewing polls, though. If Southerners had been polled, any doubts the results would list Lincoln as the worst?
Even in the 50s in the South (where I grew up) Lincoln was still considered a dirty name.
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.