[rotorwash]

Interesting post.

Of course, you understand this is a minority viewpoint because most responsible historians are careful not to judge an event while it is still taking place, and in the case of a presidency, it is unfair to judge the results until a larger perspective - one not clouded by unreasonable bias - can be constructed.

The analysis about Buchanan was right on, although to color him as the worst president could be unfair. To judge a president you must look at not only his non-achievements, that is, the things he might have done to mess things up (and in the case of Buchanan, they were many) but also the result of any positive achievements. It was widely felt that J. Q. Adams was the worst president ever, and this idea lasted for many decades, until it began to be understood that what he was trying to accomplish was far ahead of the thinking of his contemporaries. Sometimes it takes fifty years or more to accurately evaluate a presidency.

I hope this doesn't upset you too much, but a majority of historians are taking a long look at Nixon before Watergate and are considering him to be a successful president.

As far as lumping Hoover and Andrew Johnson with Buchanan, I think that is a big mistake. Hoover took office in March and the stock market fell the following October. To blame him for the collapse, as so many like to do, is like blaming the spoon for Rosie O'Donnell being fat. That collapse was building for over a decade and he just happened to be the right guy in the wrong place. He reacted like presidents in the past had always reacted, strengthening market forces to try and get things going again, but the collapse was not only here but worldwide, so there were no markets anywhere to absorb the excess production of the twenties. Although Roosevelt gladly accepted the credit for getting us out of the depression, in actuality he did nothing more than continue Hoover's policies, only on a grander scale using the Keynesian fallacy of borrowing into prosperity. In actuality the only thing that brought this country out of the Depression was WW II.

Andrew Johnson didn't have a fighting chance from the start. And to say that Lincoln successfully embraced the opposition party and brought them together to fight the war is not only erroneous, it borders on a stupid remark. The Northern Democrats had been soundly beaten by Lincoln and had little or no influence left. Lincoln occasionally threw them a bone just to let them know he knew they were there, but he was riding a high wave of popularity that cowed his opponents, Democrat and Radical Republican alike. Andrew Johnson was a concession to the Unionist Democrats and a spit in the eye to the Radical Republicans. As long as Lincoln was alive he would control reconstruction, but when he was killed, the Radical Republicans overpowered Johnson. The man did not want to be VP, was inaugarated in March and was President in April. No worse fate could have befallen him then to have Lincoln killed.

Interestingly enough, your post ommitted any mention of the man most legitimate historians now consider the absolute worst president of the 20th century - Jimmy Carter. Possibly because he is still alive.

I understand that nothing is going to dissuade you from your opinions, I am glad you have the courage of your convictions, but I don't think you should hold your breath until your ideas are proven by the weight of historical conclusion.

One more thing, no president worth his salt has ever cared about polls. Only the media thinks they are important.

Rotorwash