rich_m wrote:
More in response to those who have proposed Presidents to be second on the list because of extramarital affairs or sexual harassment or even the criminal acts done by Nixon.....lets get some perspective here. Andrew Jackson was a slave owner, war criminal and ethnic clenser. None of the modern presidents even come close to the guys on the money. i get that people are complicated and should be evaluated as a totality - but doesn't any one of slave owner, ethnic clenser or war criminal move them into a place where no good deed can make amends.
Even judging people by the standards of the age those early presidents don't look good.
So I'd put Jackson first not second - but lets not put Nixon, Clinton, Trump, LBJ in the same discussion
People make a lot of assumptions about 'the standards of the age'. We are not talking about whether it is ok to eat meat.
Many of the founding fathers kept slaves. Washington claimed to be against slavery but kept/sold/rented slaves his entire life and never spoke out against it publicly. When a particular slave escaped he captured him, put him on a ship to be sold into notoriously bad conditions at a sugar plantation in the Caribbean.
You might say the standards of the time made this ok. But did they? Franklin came back from France, got rid of his 2 slaves, joined the Quakers, and publicly worked against slavery. European countries were banning slavery. Half the country more or less opposed slavery. So it was most certainly not universally accepted.
So before you can make the argument that something was ok at the time you better make sure that it was actually ok. Just because you could get away with something does not mean people thought it was ok.
So yeah, I would agree, Jackson is probably 2nd in character. Harding is probably worst in ethics, I think his scandals beat Watergate by a long way.
I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.