I saw this essay on Digg a while back, and I thought some of you here might like to read it. Essentially, the author argues that the most admired American presidents were actually the worst presidents in American history, pointing out that many of them oversaw wars of previously unheard-of destruction.

While there's a lot in there that I (and many of you) strongly disagree with, it is interesting reading nonetheless.

Yeah, the worst presidents are always the ones to get us into war. I mean, look at George Washington. What a horrible president, getting us into the Revolutionary war and stuff, making us independent. Wow. And FDR, what a terrible guy. Sending us into combat against two dictatorial regimes bent on taking over the world and would have attacked us had they been able to succeed. Gosh, what jerkoffs. And Polk? Sheesh, gaining us California that supplied a ton of gold during the gold rush and fulfilled manifest destiny? Wow. They suck. Yeah, maybe for OTHER countries they are the worst. But for the sake of OUR country, they are among the best.

As Orborde said, although I disagree strongly with most of the article it is rather interesting. It certainly does give a new spin on history. The author though, makes it seem like all of the presidents' intents prior to office were to start a war. Most presidents at war time had no choice: Zimmerman note WWI, seizing of ships 1812, unrestricted sub warfar and Pearl Harbor-I mean come on now! Also, how can he say the on lly popular presidents are those that get us in to a "blood bath." I hate to say it, but the evidence against that would be Bush.

I noticed where the author suggested that America's intervention in WWI was the cause of : "Allied victory, a harsh Versailles treaty, German resentment, the rise of Nazism, and World War II, not to speak of the rise of Communism, which also followed in World War I's wake." (Paragraph 9). I can agree that America's joining WWI caused the Allied victory, and the obvious results of that. However, Wilson was against the Versailles treaty from the start. He advocated a League of Nations (which Congress would not join), and a much looser set of restrictions on Germany. I cannot blame the Versailles treaty on Wilson.

Higgs' point is that Presidents should be restricted, and not have unilateral power. The powers of the presidency have greatly expanded since 1781, and Lincoln, FDR, and Bush II have all treated it as almost an unlimited monarchy. In the last century, presidents have taken more power than ever before, even to the extent of declaring war without Congress' permission. Higgs point is that the Founding Fathers intended for the presidency to be much more limited than it is today. His ranking of the presidents puts many of those who did least as best, and those who did most as worst.