Worst President in History?


I know we had a thread that had our opinions on who was the best president in America. We had a lot of Reagans, Lincolns, a few Washington’s, a Harrison duos, and some weirdo who said James K Polk (this guy lol). Well, I present the antithesis of that question. Which was the worst president. Now I suspect I will hear about Obama a lot. And for my utter disdain of him, he doesn’t reach rock bottom for me. As a Historian, I have read about every single president in detail. In this man’s humble opinion, there are in fact two presidents who rank below ol’ Bamer. See? I can be fair. My opinion who is the worst? Woodrow Wilson. That’s right, I have nothing but contempt for this man. Created the Federal Reserve. Instituted the Income Tax. Got us into a war we had no business in. (That’s right WW1 was not our fight. WW2 most certainly required our presence, but WW1 was a colonial war). The German’s bent over backwards trying to keep us happy, even writing warnings to ur ships saying to the passengers “The ship you are boarding is a weapons merchant. We intend to prevent these weapons from reaching our enemy. We implore you to pay heed and not board this vessel under danger of attack”. Tell me something, if an Arab came up to you in the Jetway and said, I intend to blow up this plane, would you board? No, but, that SOB Wilson not only disregarded these warnings but encouraged passengers to not pay attention to such warnings. What? Then, once the war started, he federally seized by force all manufacturing, farming, energy, and communication companies. He created the Selected Services Act, put forth rules about free speech, putting a man in jail for 10 years for saying “This War is Wrong”. Then after the war, tried to relinquish our soverignty to the international community AND when unsucessful, went bat crazy to the point of stroke. This is on top of being influential in the resurgeance of the KKK as he was a patron and supporter of their film Birth of a Nation. This man far outdoes the Bamer. Wilson is the worst president and the closest this country ever came to a dictator present company INCLUDED.


For long term destruction that not only endures but grows within the education system and the economy Stateside, Nixon is still the clear king followed at a distant second by FDR.

Obama has done more immediate damage than any former President but so far he has only destroyed one element long term, the Health Care system.


Since we apparently don’t have to post sources to anything say then I think the worst president ever was Ronald. Because Hollywood types are always liberals…


My first instinct is the say Nixon. Not so much for his policies as president, but because he has betrayed the public trust and caused an era of presidents who were no longer expected to not mislead the public.


I think I would concur with Wilson. Besides the things you mentioned, he also instuted a draft and created an alien and sedition acts. The direction election of senators and prohibition got put into the Constitution at this time. He did not follow the Constitution, intentionally.

Honoroable mention for Lincoln and FDR. Teddy, Nixon, L. Johnson, and J.Adams were also bad.


Richard Nixon, he just has no redeeming qualities. The Watergate scandal showed what he was about. He told the American people that he had a plan for ending the Vietnam War, and then expanded it. He was also a racist who laid the foundation for the GOP’s abysmal popularity among minorities.


Florida I certainly respect your thoughts, well supported…

There is on problem here: We are judging the past by the later results, thus we can see Obama as just sorta mucking things up in the here and now and optimistically it will all be better after he is gone.

However I do not see it that way. My frame of reference is somewhat different than most on here, my father was career military and so was I…but buried in this career of both of us were entrepreneurs. Dad started several successful business and so have I, both before my military and after. My view is that of a military who has fought communism on the killing fields and as a businessman, a Capitalist, who has dealt with increasing regulations and rules.

When I see Obama I see: Black Liberation Theology Muslim socialist who thinks redistribution of wealth is the answer. And he is doing it at the TRILLION $ level as I am typing

I see a man who is has NEVER held job in his life, never worked or been in the capitalist system of America, in fact he hates it, like his clear hatred for America and his blatant racism.

We are on a glide path to have $23 TRILLION in by the end of 2016, every man and woman in America owing $189,000. I see the collapse of America as we have know it for over 200 years.

I see an emerging dictatorship, we are functioning without a budget and have been for 4 years, the Congress and US Constitution have been at best put on hold and at worst tossed in the trash bin.

What this man is doing now will have serous repercussions for the rest of your life, no matter your age. The freedoms and rights you have know will be gone, this man is a destroyer of men and now countries.

I would not give him the courtesy I would a rabid dog…


I vote Lincoln. He is responsible for 600,000 American deaths. He Changed individual soverign states into a nation and laid the ground work for leviathan.


Wow, so far this has been just great. This does a teacher proud to see such an array of responses and opinions. I want to try and respond to all of your points of view. RET, it is absolutely difficult to analyze Obama’s legacy as he is still president and the true ripple effect has not been felt yet. But as of this moment in time, Wilson ranks bottom on my personal list. Perhaps Historiographers will have a different view later down the road. BullsOnParade, I was just starting conversation, citations are unnecessary. However, I can provide primary, secondary, and tertiary evidence to you upon request for my personal opinion on Wilson. Disagree with Ronald opinion, but that’s ok. The thread was in your opinion, so, there you go. Trekky. I agree 100%. Before Nixon, the people had a sense of trust in the government. Since then, we almost expect them to be doing something devious and the sad part is, they are. Bigfoot, I don’t mean to correct you, but the Alien & Sedition Acts were under John Adams. It is the Espionage & Sedition Acts of 1917. Again, not trying to nitpick, just pointing that out. But you are right, very ugly pieces of legislation. 17Oak. You are correct and like I said to RET, I as a Historian am not in a position to properly critique him and his legacy until after he is gone for awhile. Ask me in 2025 and you’ll have my answer. Not to cynical but you never know, we may actually vote in someone like Bernie Sanders to the Presidency by then. Bremen. An interesting answer. in addition to 600,000 dead, the habius corpsus scandal, draft riots, copperhead suppression, etc. Good job people. Let’s add a corollary to this question. Who do you believe if, we could reincarnate any president to fix our current financial mess, who would it be?


Probably Lincoln.

Everyone since Wilson (except Reagan) was horrible as well.


Post-Wilson, I have a high regard for Coolidge minus prohibition. Harding was good policy wise but was corrupt. Eisenhower was decent. And I would say Reagan was fairly good, especially compared to his contemporaries.


Prohibition was enacted by Wilson, not Coolidge.


Though granted he did veto it, but the House overruled him


Why are so many people hating on Lincoln?


Well for one because it is a unique answer that compels interesting thought. Lincoln, in my view, did what needed to be done to keep the country together. The Civil War was aweful and a lot of people died. But the country survived and grew stronger


My point was Coolidge was a staunch prohibitionist.


He actually opposed Prohibition. As governor he stood against the prohibition law, then a law was passed to allow small amounts of alcohol for consumption. He did veto it, but only because he felt that the state could not and should not try to disobey the constitution


[quote=“FloridaConservative, post:17, topic:37489”]
He actually opposed Prohibition. As governor he stood against the prohibition law, then a law was passed to allow small amounts of alcohol for consumption. He did veto it, but only because he felt that the state could not and should not try to disobey the constitution
[/quote]Oh, interesting. My opinion of him rises.


I chose Nixon and FDR for specific reasons.

FDR established the concept of sustained debt and a Social Security Ponzi scheme that was not only unsustainable but designed in a way that would leave every generation feeling entitled because they payed, even though their “payments” were really just a tax to pay for current retirees. FDR also was the first President who openly politicized the Supreme Court and established the “Living Document” concept of interpretation in practice as opposed to just an idea that was bantered about in academic circles.

These actions condemned our currency and made “buying votes” the standard for winning elections, established a Socialist concept that engulfed every citizen and made them dependent and diminished our Nations respect for the Constitution as the supreme standard of law. All of these things have lived on and grown into the albatross that is choking us off today.

Nixon was worse because FDR’s mess could probably be sustained if the U.S. economy was allowed to grow according to market forces and evolve in the ways that always occur when men are allowed to dream, build and create to the limits of their imagination and the quality of their ideas.

Nixon destroyed the Liberty of free men to own and capitalize on their property and ideas and in so doing eradicated this uniquely American trait.

Nixon gave us several wholly corrupt and unaccountable entities that have grown into the Primary cause of Americas inability to compete with a world that once could not keep up with us.

The E.P.A.
The Federal Department of Education
The Minority Business Development Agency
The 26th Amendment was passed under Nixon lowering the voting age to 18 so children who have never experienced any of the real world consequences of Utopian Leftist ideas could choose the Leaders that would curse all following generations at the prompting of their schoolteachers.

All of these “accomplishments” have now conspired to stagnate our economy and insure that a large percentage of voters in every election will choose idealistic candidates that offer unsustainable “feel good” promises.

Just listen to anyone who thinks the National Debt is due to military spending, you are probably listening to a child who has never owned a calculator but who can vote America into bankruptcy.

Obama has embraced and expanded the Socialism of FDR and capitalized on the corrupt nature of government agencies to crush our economy that Nixon created but he has brought nothing new, just some gas to pour onto FDR and Nixon’s fire.

I rate Nixon worse because without his Big Government concepts immortalized in law we would at least have an economy that has a punchers chance at keeping up with the Socialist Ponzi scheme that will now destroy us all.

A strong economy could have masked a lot of destruction, that is simply not possible under our current regulatory climate thanks to Richard Nixon.


Here’s a start.

Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War

We have all been taught that Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator who freed the slaves during the Civil War, but according to the Independent Review, “contrary to popular belief, the war was not fought primarily over slavery.” This statement counters everything we have been taught since grammar school. It appears that in reality most Northerners did not object to slavery; quite to the contrary, they graciously accomplished trade and most business matters with the south, without protest. Supposedly, the war was fought because of the different economic policies of the northern and southern states, wherein some of these policies were related, but other matters had absolutely nothing to do with slavery.

Therefore, the war with the south, which is more correctly identified as the “war between the states,” was a convenient vehicle to ensure the southern tax base was retained to fund the treasury to feed expansion. Lincoln may have made many decisions for what he considered the greater good of the country, but on the surface it appears that sinister forces were at work. Scholars have debated the issue of why the war was fought for over a hundred years, without an absolute conclusion. As far as this book, this is not the issue I wish to explore. The issue is how the Constitution has been suborned, misinterpreted, ignored or simply bypassed by the politicians, and in some cases by the judicial system itself, so I will leave the great debate to the scholars.

Let me be very clear about this. I am not attempting to demonize some of the most important figures, such as Abraham Lincoln, in American history, as many revisionists have reviled both Jefferson and Washington and other revolutionary visionaries because they owned slaves. We know little of the mindset of many of these people over one hundred to two hundred years ago. As incomprehensible as their thinking may have been in today’s society, in many quarters slaves were considered sub-human, to be used for menial labor in much the same manner as we use robots today. Therefore, the Founding Fathers did not see any contradiction between slavery and the “All men are created equal” clause of the Declaration of Independence.

Lincoln claimed in his First Inaugural Address “No state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union.”

Closely examining the Articles of Confederation, Article II states,

“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

By the standard definition in any randomly chosen dictionary, delegated means to pass down a chain-of-command to a subordinate agent by a superior authority – in this case, the individual state is passing authority to the Federal government. To reinforce this argument, The Declaration of Independence, in part, states quite clearly,

“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States… and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

“Power to levy War?” “Contract Alliances? These words sound very much like the authority any nation would grant itself.

Remember that the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution very specifically designed the new government on the basis of a union of strong and independent states with a minimal Federal government solely responsible for defense and the judiciary, to avoid the pitfalls of powerful central governments such as England. In fact, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution specifically states

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Common defence and general Welfare meant that their intention was simply to maintain a Federal army and the development of a nationwide judicial system. That was the main purpose of the Federal government – and not the mutation we have today. According to various legal interpretations, Lincoln had no more claim to bind Georgia or Alabama than it had in binding China or France to the Union. The key here is that somehow Lincoln and his supporters chose to believe that the states had magically surrendered their status as sovereign nations as justification to wage war against the south. Lincoln’s actions clearly violated the tenth amendment to the Constitution that states,

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Legal experts, ad nauseum, can debate this argument but one seemingly indisputable fact stands out like a Times Square billboard. By almost all legal interpretations, the Constitution is fundamentally a treaty between separate and sovereign nation-states, which those states agreed to support, as opposed to being bound to obey by law. This is a very important point that illustrates the rape of the Constitution commencing with the administration of Lincoln. There are thousands of legal interpretations that are both pro and con on this issue, so consult your library (or the Internet) if you wish to pursue this matter in greater depth.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (a writ to release a party from unlawful restraint) and people were seized and confined on the possible suspicion of disloyalty. At least 13,000 civilians were held as political prisoners, often without trial or with minimal hearings before a military tribunal. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ruled that the suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, but was overruled by Lincoln. Does this not ring a bell? The Patriot Act was not the first instance of suspension of the people’s rights under the Constitution.

Once Lincoln and his supporters had made the decision that states had surrendered their sovereignty, the Civil War caused a tremendous expansion of the size and power of the Federal government. A progressive income tax was imposed on the people to pay for the war, the start of the extortion of our paychecks that we live with today.

One of the key provisions of the Constitution is that it is a “living” document. Our Founding Fathers recognized that they could not foresee the needs of the people 100 or 200 years in the future, so they developed the system of amendments to permit continual update of the document. However, a very important point must be emphasized in that two-thirds of the states must ratify any change. Obviously since the south represented about one-half of the states in the Union, Lincoln would not have been able to modify any provision of the Constitution dealing with states rights – he would not have obtained approval on this issue.

Frank Meyer, in the August, 1965, issue of National Review, wrote an article that in part stated,

“Lincoln’s pivotal role in our history was essentially negative to the genius and freedom of our country.”

Pretty harsh words I would have to say. He also wrote:

“Lincoln…moved at every point …to consolidate central power and render nugatory (of little importance) the autonomy of the states…It is on his shoulders that the responsibility for the war must be placed.”

Many historians would agree with the following statement,

“If the premise upon which the US broke from England is legitimate then the ENTIRE PREMISE upon which Lincoln prosecuted the war against the Confederacy was ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL.”

There is no question the Lincoln freed the slaves, a terrible blot on the country, but “does the means justify the end?”

As un-American and contrary as this may sound, an argument can be made that if this democracy falls within the next 50 years because of excessive Federal government control and taxation, Lincoln’s freeing of the slaves by fighting the war may have been too high a price to pay for his usurpation of the Constitution.

Violations of the Constitution by American Presidents