Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 6th, 2016, 08:38 PM   #21

Bishop's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: City of Angels
Posts: 1,538

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salah View Post
My favorite president is Ulysses S. Grant. While I would never argue that he was our greatest president, or even among the greatest five, I do strongly contend that his presidential performance is misunderstood and badly underrated.

He had a very solid Civil Rights record, which for his time period and his historical context was all the more impressive.
U.S. also signed legislation establishing Yellowstone as the nation's first national park in 1872.
Bishop is offline  
Remove Ads
Old May 7th, 2016, 01:52 AM   #22

Baltis's Avatar
Goat Whisperer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 3,933
Blog Entries: 35

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salah View Post
My favorite president is Ulysses S. Grant. While I would never argue that he was our greatest president, or even among the greatest five, I do strongly contend that his presidential performance is misunderstood and badly underrated.

He had a very solid Civil Rights record, which for his time period and his historical context was all the more impressive.
I also like Grant as President. He may have been among the greats but those spots are frequently reserved for men who led the nation in times of great crisis or other great events.

I recently read a book about James Garfield. Interesting fellow who may have also had the right stuff to be a great President had it not been Guiteau shooting him 4 months later. He had been off to a good start in the office and showed signs of having the potential for greatness. But, just as times made FDR, GW, and Abe Lincoln our most popular choices for top honors, Garfield stands as example of how events take us the opposite direction. His early assassination places Garfield in the position of not even getting ranked by most historians who try and rank Presidents.

Like most of us, I tend to settle back on FDR, GW, Abe Lincoln, and JFK among the greatest Presidents. But I am never certain how much credit they are getting simply for being the President at the time of events. Understanding the bump they get doesn't keep me from picking them anyway.
Baltis is offline  
Old May 7th, 2016, 03:48 AM   #23

StoryMan's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: Northwest Territories, USA
Posts: 412
Historical History vs Recent History vs


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge View Post
Items that have occurred post 1991 can be discussed, not 1990.

Which brings us neatly to the definition of what we feel is "contemporary". After much discussion we’ve decided to set a date of 31st December 1991 as the cut off point between “history” and “the present”,
That's not confusing. Anything after '91 can be discussed but not '90? You probably meant PRE 12/31/1991. I'm the same way with LATE, is in a late model car - is that an old care or one made "lately'?

Anyway, I concur that there needs to be a period of time between the "event" and when it changes from "current" to "historical" in nature. It was determined in 2011 that anything occurring during the previous 20 years was contemporary and anything before that was historical. Margaret Thatcher was historical - John Major was not. Reagan was historical, Bush I is not. The Gulf War is historical, as are Thurgood Marshall and the Warsaw Pact (both of which ended in 1991).

On February 1, 1992, George HW Bush met with Boris Yeltsin at Camp David where they formally declared that the Cold War was over. When will that become a historical event? Nelson Mandela was elected President of South Africa in 1994, but we're forbidden to discuss the historical ramifications of it. After almost 203 years of consideration, the 27th Amendment of the US Constitution went into effect in 1992, but still too contemporary to discuss.

It's fine to have a time limit, but time marches on. Selecting one point in time or a specific event and indefinitely ignoring everything thereafter is pig-headed on the part of Historum's Wizard of Oz, and does a disservice the members of the community.

Just sayin'.
StoryMan is offline  
Old May 7th, 2016, 04:26 AM   #24

Lucius's Avatar
the governed self
 
Joined: Jan 2007
From: Nebraska
Posts: 16,213

Quote:
Originally Posted by StoryMan View Post
...

It's fine to have a time limit, but time marches on. Selecting one point in time or a specific event and indefinitely ignoring everything thereafter is pig-headed on the part of Historum's Wizard of Oz, and does a disservice the members of the community.

Just sayin'.
If drawing a line is pig-headed, I plead "Oink!"(They are highly intelligent you know. The problem is that they are very stubborn[or "pig-headed" if you like] , and that impinges on their ability to navigate through mazes and such.).

But the area titled "Themes in History" should encompass all of the subjects which pertain to many things at once over the centuries. If there is any doubt about that, you could just look up the word "theme" in a dictionary; it means "anything and everything".
Lucius is offline  
Old May 7th, 2016, 04:31 AM   #25

Diplomat2000's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2016
From: Russia
Posts: 288

Putin is the best for all times and for all countries.
Eltsin is the worst for Russia since 1991.
Dont know what american presidents you consider the best, but i believe that Obama is the worst, and Linkoln is the best
In other countries good leaders are Angela Merkel, Indira Gandhi, Margeret Thatcher and Lee Kwan-Yee(Singapore) though they are(were) Prime Ministers

Last edited by Diplomat2000; May 7th, 2016 at 04:38 AM.
Diplomat2000 is offline  
Old May 7th, 2016, 04:35 AM   #26

leakbrewergator's Avatar
Tiger of Kai
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Milford, OH
Posts: 6,272
Blog Entries: 32

No discussion about bad presidents is complete without Woodrow Wilson.
leakbrewergator is offline  
Old May 7th, 2016, 04:42 AM   #27
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2013
From: ohio
Posts: 13

Not sure why Reagan gets a pass from the Lebanon barracks bombing, Iran Contras and Obama gets hammered for the Benghazi attack? I view these as horrible events taken place under a presidents watch. I think Grant would be on my list of top presidents? Your views are welcome. Nice thread.
luvhistori is offline  
Old May 7th, 2016, 04:42 AM   #28

Wenge's Avatar
American
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Virginia
Posts: 10,426

Quote:
Originally Posted by StoryMan View Post
That's not confusing. Anything after '91 can be discussed but not '90? You probably meant PRE 12/31/1991. I'm the same way with LATE, is in a late model car - is that an old care or one made "lately'?

Anyway, I concur that there needs to be a period of time between the "event" and when it changes from "current" to "historical" in nature. It was determined in 2011 that anything occurring during the previous 20 years was contemporary and anything before that was historical. Margaret Thatcher was historical - John Major was not. Reagan was historical, Bush I is not. The Gulf War is historical, as are Thurgood Marshall and the Warsaw Pact (both of which ended in 1991).

On February 1, 1992, George HW Bush met with Boris Yeltsin at Camp David where they formally declared that the Cold War was over. When will that become a historical event? Nelson Mandela was elected President of South Africa in 1994, but we're forbidden to discuss the historical ramifications of it. After almost 203 years of consideration, the 27th Amendment of the US Constitution went into effect in 1992, but still too contemporary to discuss.

It's fine to have a time limit, but time marches on. Selecting one point in time or a specific event and indefinitely ignoring everything thereafter is pig-headed on the part of Historum's Wizard of Oz, and does a disservice the members of the community.

Just sayin'.
Yes I certainly blew that one didn't I? I'm really glad that I included the excerpt from the thread where there announcement was made.
Wenge is offline  
Old May 7th, 2016, 06:05 AM   #29

StoryMan's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: Northwest Territories, USA
Posts: 412

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge View Post
Yes I certainly blew that one didn't I? I'm really glad that I included the excerpt from the thread where there announcement was made.
Not really! If you think of it as traveling back on the time-line, that is, beginning in 2016 and when you reach 1991, anything "AFTER" that point makes perfect sense. It just takes a little imagination!
StoryMan is offline  
Old May 7th, 2016, 06:30 AM   #30

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,622

As and when the cut-off point changes, we'll let you know. Until then, it stands.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
best or worst, presidents



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Presidents that Should've Been Robespierre American History 27 December 23rd, 2013 10:31 AM
Best and Worst Vice Presidents? Congo American History 27 April 16th, 2013 03:35 PM
Presidents Day Lucius American History 9 February 9th, 2009 12:38 PM
Top Ten Presidents Ragz American History 21 July 30th, 2007 12:06 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.