Probably more so the latter. But then there are presidents who were successful who did lots of damage. I think you're probably intelligent enough to find the right balance.
It amazes me how overrated Polk has become. Maybe he wasn't the worst president, but he was hardly that remarkable. The guy was a largely unknown compromise candidate who won based on a deal between Jackson and Tyler. Most of the accomplishments of his term were already well underway by the end of Tyler's term, so his job was basically to stick to the Democratic platform and not rock the boat. Additionally, he started the Mexican-American War based on false pretenses and because there was no political consensus on what to do after the war, the sectionalism regarding what to do with the territories set the stage for the Civil War.
Almost every major political battle leading up to the civil war had something to do with maintaining balance between the potential slave and free states being carved out of the western half of the nation. Obviously the Mexican-American War was not the direct cause of the Civil War, but it upset the very tenuous political balance between the states.
>Most of the accomplishments of his term were already well underway by the end of Tyler's term, so his job was basically to stick to the Democratic platform and not rock the boat
Wow, you mean the person who actually accomplished the bubbling issues of the time is thought highly of? >he started the Mexican-American War based on false pretenses
Nearly every war in this country, especially going back to the Spanish-American war has been started under false pretenses. It doesn't negate the end result of the Mexican-American War were hugely beneficial to the country and its progress.
Almost every major political battle leading up to the Civil War had something to do with maintaining balance between the potential slave and free states being carved out of the western half of the nation. Obviously the Mexican-American War was not the direct cause of the Civil War, but it upset the very tenuous political balance between the states.
>because there was no political consensus on what to do after the war, the sectionalism regarding what to do with the territories set the stage for the Civil War.
The South was always going to start a Civil War, and the Missouri Compromise and the admission of Nebraska and Kansas (territories which had nothing to do with the war) are far bigger impetuses than anything Polk did.
Yes, the last purely good president of the US. There's simply no criticism that can be made towards Coolidge in good faith, other than the fact that he didn't run again for a second term, which indirectly led to h*over taking over. But even that is a huge stretch and not his fault.
Are we ranking charts based on how much we like them or how successful they were?
Probably more so the latter. But then there are presidents who were successful who did lots of damage. I think you're probably intelligent enough to find the right balance.
>Hobbesian
Polk and Grover Cleveland, yes.
Washington should be good. Nixon should be terrible considering he created China.
>Nixon created China
that was a good thing though
It wasn't.
My ranking.
what's your ideology?
Primacist.
Essentially a Black person
>Nixon should be terrible considering he created China.
Brainlet detected, it wasn't Nixon who gave them Most Favored Nation status
It amazes me how overrated Polk has become. Maybe he wasn't the worst president, but he was hardly that remarkable. The guy was a largely unknown compromise candidate who won based on a deal between Jackson and Tyler. Most of the accomplishments of his term were already well underway by the end of Tyler's term, so his job was basically to stick to the Democratic platform and not rock the boat. Additionally, he started the Mexican-American War based on false pretenses and because there was no political consensus on what to do after the war, the sectionalism regarding what to do with the territories set the stage for the Civil War.
polk is overrated but the mexican american war is not what caused the civil war
Almost every major political battle leading up to the civil war had something to do with maintaining balance between the potential slave and free states being carved out of the western half of the nation. Obviously the Mexican-American War was not the direct cause of the Civil War, but it upset the very tenuous political balance between the states.
the Mexican American war was a scapegoat for political shitflinging
>Most of the accomplishments of his term were already well underway by the end of Tyler's term, so his job was basically to stick to the Democratic platform and not rock the boat
Wow, you mean the person who actually accomplished the bubbling issues of the time is thought highly of?
>he started the Mexican-American War based on false pretenses
Nearly every war in this country, especially going back to the Spanish-American war has been started under false pretenses. It doesn't negate the end result of the Mexican-American War were hugely beneficial to the country and its progress.
>because there was no political consensus on what to do after the war, the sectionalism regarding what to do with the territories set the stage for the Civil War.
The South was always going to start a Civil War, and the Missouri Compromise and the admission of Nebraska and Kansas (territories which had nothing to do with the war) are far bigger impetuses than anything Polk did.
Progressive nationalist
what does that even mean?
Progressive economic policy combined with nationalistic social/foreign policy.
the populist plague must be eradicated
hey hey - ho ho - your charts are fricking horrible
>Coolidge
I don't even know anymore.
The correct order
>Coolidge again
Yes, the last purely good president of the US. There's simply no criticism that can be made towards Coolidge in good faith, other than the fact that he didn't run again for a second term, which indirectly led to h*over taking over. But even that is a huge stretch and not his fault.
Also why is John Quincy Adams so overrated? He didn't really do anything.
Socialists love him and Lincoln for wanting to print money for canals and pass on the inflation to citizens
>wanting to print money for canals
moron alert
Dirty beaner
Contemporary historians mostly rate presidents based on how they viewed black people.