Presidential Mix up.

Go down

Who do you think the best President of the United States was.

22% 22% 
[ 7 ]
13% 13% 
[ 4 ]
3% 3% 
[ 1 ]
9% 9% 
[ 3 ]
6% 6% 
[ 2 ]
22% 22% 
[ 7 ]
6% 6% 
[ 2 ]
6% 6% 
[ 2 ]
3% 3% 
[ 1 ]
9% 9% 
[ 3 ]
 
Total Votes : 32

Presidential Mix up.

Post by Bowtie on Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:52 pm

Washington set presidential standards,
Jackson paid off the national debt,
Lincoln sign the Emancipation Proclamation,

Would these men act differently if they were President's at different times and circumstances.


Last edited by Bowtie on Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:00 pm; edited 1 time in total

Bowtie
Centurion

Posts : 148
Join date : 2017-07-08
Age : 19
Location : Southwest territory

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Presidential Mix up.

Post by Bowtie on Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:58 pm

I believe Lincoln would have made a great president no matter what time period He was put in.

Bowtie
Centurion

Posts : 148
Join date : 2017-07-08
Age : 19
Location : Southwest territory

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Presidential Mix up.

Post by EmperorTigerstar on Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:23 am

FDR. Also, moved to the proper section.
avatar
EmperorTigerstar
Admin

Posts : 193
Join date : 2017-06-22
Age : 22
Location : Missouri, USA

View user profile http://terrahistoria.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Presidential Mix up.

Post by Bowtie on Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:25 pm

You're right I did have this in the wrong section.

Bowtie
Centurion

Posts : 148
Join date : 2017-07-08
Age : 19
Location : Southwest territory

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Presidential Mix up.

Post by Cold War Communist on Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:34 pm

Other: James K. Polk.
avatar
Cold War Communist
Centurion

Posts : 263
Join date : 2017-07-11
Age : 95
Location : The East

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Presidential Mix up.

Post by Big_Appa on Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:33 am

Personal favorite is Lincoln, although I haven't studied all the presidents in-depth. Lincoln's leadership was crucial during the Civil War and led the country during its most difficult crisis.
Arguments could be made for FDR too.
avatar
Big_Appa
Optio

Posts : 55
Join date : 2017-07-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Presidential Mix up.

Post by DuceMoosolini on Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:22 pm

Lincoln was all around the greatest, but my personal favorite is Eisenhower.
avatar
DuceMoosolini
Centurion

Posts : 119
Join date : 2017-07-11
Age : 20
Location : Kansas, USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Presidential Mix up.

Post by ceaserkhan22 on Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:15 pm

James Madison was better then most on the list
avatar
ceaserkhan22
Centurion

Posts : 147
Join date : 2017-07-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Presidential Mix up.

Post by EmperorTigerstar on Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:06 am

ceaserkhan22 wrote:James Madison was better then most on the list

Ah yes. The president who waged war against Britain and caused the white house to burn down.
avatar
EmperorTigerstar
Admin

Posts : 193
Join date : 2017-06-22
Age : 22
Location : Missouri, USA

View user profile http://terrahistoria.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Presidential Mix up.

Post by ceaserkhan22 on Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:32 am

EmperorTigerstar wrote:
ceaserkhan22 wrote:James Madison was better then most on the list

Ah yes. The president who waged war against Britain and caused the white house to burn down.

You mean the President who drafted the Bill of Rights and is considered the Father of the Constitution, and yes waged a justified war against the British Empire and WON.
avatar
ceaserkhan22
Centurion

Posts : 147
Join date : 2017-07-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Presidential Mix up.

Post by Mr Trolldemort on Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:31 pm

ceaserkhan22 wrote:
EmperorTigerstar wrote:
ceaserkhan22 wrote:James Madison was better then most on the list

Ah yes. The president who waged war against Britain and caused the white house to burn down.

You mean the President who drafted the Bill of Rights and is considered the Father of the Constitution, and yes waged a justified war against the British Empire and WON.

I'd like to know your definition of "winning", because the USA had the war goal of annexing Canada, and as we know that didn't work out. It ended up being a white peace, without any victors, but given that the Americans were the ones who declared war, I consider it to be a loss for them.
avatar
Mr Trolldemort
Centurion

Posts : 195
Join date : 2017-07-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Presidential Mix up.

Post by DuceMoosolini on Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:04 pm

Mr Trolldemort wrote:
I'd like to know your definition of "winning", because the USA had the war goal of annexing Canada, and as we know that didn't work out.  It ended up being a white peace, without any victors, but given that the Americans were the ones who declared war, I consider it to be a loss for them.  

I'm gonna have to disagree on this one. The War of 1812 ended in America's favor, even if we didn't gain any land. The war wasn't just over a desire to annex Canada (in fact, this was barely factored into the reasoning). It was mostly over anger over British interference with American trade, and the British policy of supplying the natives with weapons and encouraging them to attack the US. Naturally, no land was taken from Canada, and US maritime rights were not officially recognized. However, the British stopped impressment of US sailors and US trade rights were unmolested by anyone until WWI. The war also helped unify Americans politically, as well as vastly increase nationalist pride, especially after Jackson's victory at New Orleans. The Federalist Party was destroyed by the war, ushering in the Era of Good Feelings. The US finally won enough victories to truly crush any doubt that they were an independent nation. This would also prove to be the last time the US was the underdog in a war.
But the biggest effect of this war comes from the last war goal. The British agreed to stop arming the Native Americans. This was huge because it made American westward expansion into native territory much easier, and also removed any serious military threat to the US up until the Civil War.  From the fires of war and the invasions of foreign land, Americans renewed their desire for expansion, and that expansion went right through the lands of the Native Americans.
avatar
DuceMoosolini
Centurion

Posts : 119
Join date : 2017-07-11
Age : 20
Location : Kansas, USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Presidential Mix up.

Post by ceaserkhan22 on Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:11 am

DuceMoosolini wrote:
Mr Trolldemort wrote:
I'd like to know your definition of "winning", because the USA had the war goal of annexing Canada, and as we know that didn't work out.  It ended up being a white peace, without any victors, but given that the Americans were the ones who declared war, I consider it to be a loss for them.  

I'm gonna have to disagree on this one. The War of 1812 ended in America's favor, even if we didn't gain any land. The war wasn't just over a desire to annex Canada (in fact, this was barely factored into the reasoning). It was mostly over anger over British interference with American trade, and the British policy of supplying the natives with weapons and encouraging them to attack the US. Naturally, no land was taken from Canada, and US maritime rights were not officially recognized. However, the British stopped impressment of US sailors and US trade rights were unmolested by anyone until WWI. The war also helped unify Americans politically, as well as vastly increase nationalist pride, especially after Jackson's victory at New Orleans. The Federalist Party was destroyed by the war, ushering in the Era of Good Feelings. The US finally won enough victories to truly crush any doubt that they were an independent nation. This would also prove to be the last time the US was the underdog in a war.
But the biggest effect of this war comes from the last war goal. The British agreed to stop arming the Native Americans. This was huge because it made American westward expansion into native territory much easier, and also removed any serious military threat to the US up until the Civil War.  From the fires of war and the invasions of foreign land, Americans renewed their desire for expansion, and that expansion went right through the lands of the Native Americans.

Yes, the capture of Canada was a means to an end, not an end in itself. The reason the U.S. wanted to take Canada was to have a bargaining tool against Britain to gain leverage for the issues the U.S. cared most about such as ending British impressment and expanding westward. However since the U.S. was able to gain what it wanted in the end there was no need to capture Canada. With victory at the climactic battle of New Orleans the U.S. established itself as a nation that could defend its independence and for the first time was considered by many a world power on the global stage.
avatar
ceaserkhan22
Centurion

Posts : 147
Join date : 2017-07-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Presidential Mix up.

Post by B12ad on Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:27 pm

I'm a pretty big fan of William McKinley honestly, his presidency at the turn of the century began the Progressive era, yet he wasn't very progressive at all by today's standards. He set the stage for Theodore Roosevelt's awesome presidency even though his was cut short by an assassin. It is key for me to note that he's not better remembered because he didn't have the chance to serve his second term that he had won.

His accomplishments include:
Economic growth
Protectionist tarrifs
Gold Standard Act
Spanish-American imperialism (Treaty of Paris 1898)
- Cuba independence promised but remained occupied
- Spain ceded Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines to the US as a result,
also he annexed the Republic of Hawaii which led to it becoming a US territory.

Although he stirred a lot of shit, he certainly is overlooked because of his assassination and his obsession on the big picture rather than the liberties of his people.

I feel like we can draw some parallels between him then and where the US is heading towards today. Where he was the catalyst for the Fourth Party System which led to Republican dominance in the states during the progressive era, the current year sees us entering a potential Seventh Party System.
avatar
B12ad
Pedes

Posts : 16
Join date : 2017-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Presidential Mix up.

Post by DavidlVofGeorgia on Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:41 pm

Reagan 100%. FDR was horrible.
1. Trusted Stalin to hold free elections.
2. refused to recognize Free French
3. Imprisoned American citizens and stripped them of their rights because they were Japanese,
4. started failing Social Security which just steals from the young to give to the old.
5. Cult of personality.


Last edited by DavidlVofGeorgia on Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
DavidlVofGeorgia
Centurion

Posts : 138
Join date : 2017-07-08
Location : Tbilisi, Georgia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Presidential Mix up.

Post by Bowtie on Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:06 pm

I've got one problem with Ronald Reagan and that is he was the first trillion-dollar Spender.

Bowtie
Centurion

Posts : 148
Join date : 2017-07-08
Age : 19
Location : Southwest territory

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Presidential Mix up.

Post by Bowtie on Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:07 pm

But we won the Cold War so I guess we can forgive him for that.

Bowtie
Centurion

Posts : 148
Join date : 2017-07-08
Age : 19
Location : Southwest territory

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Presidential Mix up.

Post by Bowtie on Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:10 pm

And we know Ronald Reagan always told the truth because he wasn't that great an actor.

Bowtie
Centurion

Posts : 148
Join date : 2017-07-08
Age : 19
Location : Southwest territory

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Presidential Mix up.

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum