I wouldn't say most underrated, though, not by a long shot...

Truman and James K. Polk both come to mind at the mention of "underrated," the former being a very stern and effective leader at a time when the US really needed someone to take the place of the immortal FDR, and Truman, while not measuring up to him--who COULD?--he still provided the presence necessary...

And Polk was a tireless manager and worker, and it was under his watch that California and Texas--if I remember correctly--were both entered into the Union, winning the Mexican-American war, adding two of our four largest states, and achieving "Manifest Destiny."

(How "manifest" that destiny really was is up for debate, but hey--without it, I'm not sitting here in Southern California typing this, so...I'll take it.)

;)

Polk's Presidency was a time of tremendous domestic turmoil and it destroyed the Jackson-Whig party system, creating sectional parties in their midst. The Mexican war/annexation of Texas set in motion the events which led to the civil war, and was a brazen war for the expansion of slavery at the expense of a weak, divided, newly independent country. I don't think that's worth praise. Whatever land he added to the country could have easily would up as part of a hostile Confederacy armed to the teeth and hellbent on territorial expansion.

Well...

He added California AND Texas.

So, in fairness, that's one Union state as well as one to-be Confederate state...

And I'd also say that Polk didn't do any more to bring about the Civil War than any other leader before him...really, it was inevitable the moment the Founders decided to sort of skirt the issue of slavery in the Constitution and make that a states-choice deal and leave it for another age:

Which was a fine move, a logical one...the colonies could barely agree on the Constitution as it was, if the Founders had tried to tackle slavery then as well, there's a good chance there'd be a CSA in existance today, and it very well might have sported the likes of Washington and Jefferson among THEIR first Presidents...

So the Civil War was, really, inevitable, and it seems unfair and rather spurious to blame Polk for it due to unrest in the nation that had, essentially, always been there since the beginning--hence the Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1950, compromise after compromise to keep everyone appeased, states joining in twos, one Free for every Slave state to keep the Senate balanced--and for a War that was destined to happen since the beginning.

And...

He DIDN'T fight the Mexican-American War to expand slavery, just the US, and, again, he expanded both the Free and Slave sides immensely with California and Texas, so, again, that seems to offset...

And as far as his destroying the Jackson-Whig system...

So?

Political parties die...I fail to see why this case was such a horror...

Because it left a power vacuum politically?

Well, politics can do that, and it WAS filled...by the Republican party.

Granted, that's a horrifying thought...but hey--we at least got Lincoln and TR out of the deal. ;)



So really, your argument against Polk comes down to he sort of maybe contributed to a political party that was already ailing dying, which is natural, that there were bad political moods during his term, which there always were and always will be as long as the US allows freedom of speech and different ideas, and twenty years on from him we had the Civil War, which was inevitable from Day 1 after the Constitution.

So I'm not convinced by your case against him, really...it seems to rely far too much on unfair hindisight, and even that's somewhat blind, as matters such as the Civil War and Free/Slave states were out of his control, it seems unfair to blame him for them...

polk was an imperialist i dont understand how you can venerate that. its like venerating cecil rhodes.

yes i agree that carter was underrated.

the "malaise" speech is still right on target. though i have to disagree about "oily rebublicans" putin. they are all oily, except carter. but they "got" him for that, didn't they?

ever read "the limits of power" by bacevich?

Almost everything you said about Carter is true, Putin. I just don't like Presidents, no matter what party they're in, to claim jobs created during their terms. The economy creates jobs, not the Presidency. He can only create jobs if he creates brand-new positions himself and fills them. Some policies may favor job creation, but how many jobs created do you attribute to that policy, and how many would've been created anyway? You simply cannot know.

I dont know...Lil Wayne is pretty overrated if you ask me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFsTjVcYanU

If we're going to get on Presidents for being imperialist from 1787-1945, we're going to nail most of them as such in one capacity or another...

And most Western leaders in that era, for that matter.

That was just the way it was done.

No different than the Roman and Greek leaders seeing nothing wrong in conquering their lands.

I acknowledge, certainly, that America and the West did a lot of wrong in that era...

But by the same token, again, I AM where I am today partially BECAUSE of that wrong-doing and imperialism, so while I'll admit to being somewhat biased, and a Native American would certainly have a far less accepting view, I'm inclined to allow a 19th Century leader with imperialism the same latitude we give Washington for being a slave holder in the 18th Century:

Namely, it was simply part of the era and part of what was taught and was going on, and Polk was a product of that time in the West, rather than a truly malicious empire builder.



That being said, I DON'T happen to think we should celebrate every last action in that era...

And while I'm happy to receive my $20 per tutoring session, I DO think it's high time we get Andrew "Trailo of Tears" Jackson off of there.

FDR, Reagan, JFK, and non-Presidential heroes like MLK...

They ALL deserve the $20 a hell of a lot more than he does.

Reagan doesn't have a bill yet, and while I think HE was a flawed president, I'll concede he was a good President for America for his time as well...

So if FDR gets the .50 cent piece and FDR is classic for the dimne, why not allow Reagan the $20?

OR, if we want to be really radical and GASP! put a black man on some currency, how about MLK for the $20 or, hey, the $50?

I mean...Grant?

...

Grant.

About the best that can be said for him as a President is he sounds like a fun guy to get drunk with and he DIDN'T send hundreds of thousands of Cherokee on a thousand-plus mile trek across the con tinent at gunpoint...

So, I guess, he's more deserving than Jackson, but still...

Obi, you have said you think there are other contenders for the "most" underrated president", such as Polk (which is a common claim, and does have merit). Fair enough.
Polk has often been lauded as a great President, whereas Carter has had hard time in the history book - often rated as one of the worst Presidents. Forgetting the word "most" [underrated] - do you agree with Putin that Carter is underrated?

i dont agree that carter was that bad. he got kicked the fuck out of office, ill give you that, but since when does popularity equal greatness?

again, i think the malaise speech was just about the bravest and most honest thing any president has ever since ever, or maybe lincoln

I'm not American but I like mr Goldfinger's argument, everytime I see a politician of my country claiming he's creating job I have a feeling he thinks he is a deity. How do you "create" a job anyway as a politician? You free up a part of the economy, yeah, that should probably have been freed up to begin with...

and stop acting like polk was a good man because he conquered some territory without just cause

He had a just cause.
"Why are we invading, Mr President?"
"Just 'cause."

Maybe invading some territory is just 19th century job creation. Who knows it was a measure to drive up the economy.

I would often put Taft in the underrated president category since he was the first president to truly hold corporations accountable...TR gave a lot of rhetoric about good corporations and bad corporations but never did anything. Taft came in and started busting up monopolies immediately.

But I also feel that Carter is insanely underrated, he also did SALT treaties, which are something I'm really in support of. And he got a lot of flak for Three Mile Island which, even at the time, was discovered to be basically nothing. The area was not really any more radioactive after the incident than before it.

Yeah Taft and Teddy Roosevelt were anti-business before it was cool

I ddon;t think Carter was a great president by any stretch of the imagination, but he gets knocked first and foremost for his "crisis of confidence" speech. I find it revealing that Americans who supposedly want to hear it straight from politicians, finally had a politician tell it to them straight, and he gets run out of office and damned for eternity.

Dear America:

We have slimy politicians because you prefer slimy politicians.

"Yeah Taft and Teddy Roosevelt were anti-business before it was cool"

Not quite

@Obi,

Your view of the period is superficial. What started the whole crisis with Mexico? Mexico's decision to abolish slavery in Texas. Who supported the war with Mexico? Exclusively the pro-slavery forces in government. Who opposed it? Exclusively the anti-slavery forces in government. Jackson and Van Buren refused to annex Texas because they knew exactly what would happen - 1-that it would lead to war with Mexico and 2- that it would destabilize the country on the slavery issue. And it's bizarre to me that you claim I'm making judgments based on hindsight, when you claim that the fact that California was admitted as a free state is proof that the war was simply about land and neutral on the slavery question. That's absolutely false. It took the compromise of 1850 to diffuse the conflict (very temporarily) that arisen over the slavery question with California (the North conceded all of Texas to the slavers, paid Texas off to avoid rebellion, and opened up the possibility of slavery in Utah and New Mexico in order to get California as a free state). There was strong sentiment among the South that southern California south of the Missouri Compromise line be slave territory. The "problem" for the slave empire was that the climate and the population were opposed to slavery, so there was no way it'd be admitted into California with California putting up with it.

Just read the damn speeches from the people in the period and it's clear as day that the war was about expanding slave territory. Read Thoreau's Civil Disobedience or anything he wrote during the period. Hell JQ Adams literally died speaking out against a war he regarded as a war for slavery. (Speaking of which, JQ Adams was another highly highly underrated President, maybe #2 on my list).

Grant.

"About the best that can be said for him as a President is he sounds like a fun guy to get drunk with and he DIDN'T send hundreds of thousands of Cherokee on a thousand-plus mile trek across the con tinent at gunpoint...

So, I guess, he's more deserving than Jackson, but still... "

Grant was the staunchest defender of the civil rights of African Americans from the end of the Civil War till probably FDR, and perhaps to LBJ.

did I say staunchest, I probably should have said ONLY

+1 Santa,

The Trail of Tears wasn't actually done under Jackson, although he's obviously culpable for signing the removal act and whatnot.

Taft was the only President who went on to serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He is also the only politician to serve in all three branches of government, but he only gets remembered for getting stuck in a bathtub; so yeah, I'd say he was a little underrated.

Roosevelt ran against Taft and undercut him he was so annoyed with the latter's trustbusting.
Although my favorite quote by Republican hero, TR is - "The enslavement of the people by the great corporations can only be held in check by the expansion of governmental power".

Imagine if Obama said that.

In 1844, the Democrats were split
The three nominees for the presidential candidate
Were Martin Van Buren, a former president and an abolitionist
James Buchanan, a moderate
Louis Cass, a general and expansionist
From Nashville came a dark horse riding up
He was James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump

Austere, severe, he held few people dear
His oratory filled his foes with fear
The factions soon agreed
He's just the man we need
To bring about victory
Fulfill our manifest destiny
And annex the land the Mexicans command
And when the votes were cast the winner was
Mister James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump

In four short years he met his every goal
He seized the whole southwest from Mexico
Made sure the tarriffs fell
And made the English sell the Oregon territory
He built an independent treasury
Having done all this he sought no second term
But precious few have mourned the passing of
Mister James K. Polk, our eleventh president
Young Hickory, Napoleon of the Stump
_________________________________________

Guess where I learned everything I know about Polk!

Just a quick note:

Carter may have signed the Superfund law (CERCLA) into effect in December 1980, but it was one of his last acts as President in an attempt to make himself look better and it was the incoming Reagan who pushed Congress to get it done so he could hit the ground running so to speak. Reagan also give CERCLA more teeth when it was revised in 86 and his administration collected $40 million dollars from responsible parties. But I really have to give props to Clinton for reforming it even further and making it the success it is today.

Oh, bu the way, I worked for a subcontractor to the Dept of Energy cleaning up Fernald in the early 90s. My groundwater analysis and worst case wind event analysis is the data that was used to design the containment silos used out there. Let's hope I got it right. :-)

Wait, what? Sewergate much?

Man there is so much bs said about around Reagan it makes my head spin sometimes. Reagan was the worst environmental President in history. Worse than even GW.

@ Santa
Grant.

"About the best that can be said for him as a President is he sounds like a fun guy to get drunk with and he DIDN'T send hundreds of thousands of Cherokee on a thousand-plus mile trek across the con tinent at gunpoint...

Well let's not forget the treatment of the 5 'civilised'' tribes during reconstruction too.

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/R/RE001.html

Rubbing salt into the wounds wouldn't you say?

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/scarjo_popcorn.gif

Okay tell me more about Grant, I have heard he was a shitty president but didn't know he wasn't a racist.

Explain this to me.