6 Great US Presidents and Their Crimes Against Humanity
History books tend to be kind to American presidents, often overlooking some pretty dick-ish behavior. It's a pretty tough job, so they probably deserve a break once in a while. But some historical anecdotes seem like they were omitted to avoid classrooms full of weeping, terrified children.
In fact, it turns out that even the greatest presidents have some scary-ass skeletons in the closet.
#6.
John Adams, Founder of (and Enemy of) Democracy
Why He's Awesome:
This charming founding father was the second president. Before that he served as George Washington's vice president and helped author the Declaration of Independence. After that he got his own HBO miniseries starring the whiny dude from Sideways. The series seems to argue that Adams was totally the most underrated founding father, and that it might have been his face on the dollar bill if our nation didn't hate short ugly people so much.
Oh, did we mention that he started violating the Constitution before the ink even dried on his signature?
Wait, What the Fuck?
When Adams found himself in the middle of an undeclared war with France in 1798, he did what any president would have done: built up the army, oversaw the construction of warships, and raised taxes. Then he went a step further and ate the Constitution.
Adams, with his brand new Constitution Toilet Paper.
Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which said American citizens were no longer allowed to say anything negative about the government, or its officials. The president could also deport any individual who was from France, or really any individual who someone heard say something nice about France.
We can only imagine what John Adams thought of fellow founding father Benjamin Franklin, who spent much of the time after the American revolution banging fine-ass French shorties.
#5.
Abraham Lincoln Screws Habeas Corpus, Never Calls Back
Why He's Awesome:
Lincoln might be the most revered president in United States history. Not only did the guy end slavery in the US, but he also reunited the country after the bloodiest war in its history. And he did it all while uttering a string of sage proverbs and sporting the bitchingest hat/beard combo this side of ZZ Top.
So what if, during the course of the war, he nearly arrested a Supreme Court justice for not agreeing with him?
Wait, What the Fuck?
Well, Chief Justice Roger Taney would have had plenty of company in the Thought Crimes ward during the Lincoln administration. In response to some rioting in the Union, Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, that little piece of legal trivia that prevents the government from tossing anyone they want in jail without a trial. That meant that Lincoln had the authority to round up 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers and put them away.
"If I hear one more word about the Constitution I'm arresting this whole fucking country."
Or he would have had the authority, if it weren't for the damn Constitution. In the court case Ex parte Merryman, Staney ruled that Lincoln couldn't suspend habeas corpus. Lincolns response? He signed a warrant for Taneys arrest (if some records from the time are to be believed). Of course he never would have gotten away with it, if he hadn't suspended habeas corpus! Which, if you think about it, proves Taney wrong, albeit in the most retarded way possible. Take that, law!
"Arrest that man, he is incredibly dangerous!"
The arrest warrant was never served, as the story goes that Lincoln changed his mind and aborted beforehand. If he hadn't, who knows, it could be some other asshole on the five dollar bill.
#4.
Teddy Roosevelt and the France Double-Team Panama
Why He's Awesome:
Teddy Roosevelt is pretty much the manliest creature to have ever existed, all the more so because he didn't start out that way. Born with only two of the eight testicles that he would possess by the end of his life, Roosevelt spent his early childhood as an asthmatic nerd, but through a strict exercise regimen and sheer force of testostotastic will, he managed to grow up into one mean rough-riding, trust-busting son-of-a-bitch.
His presidency was defined mostly by battles against corruption, racism, general badassery, and teaming up with a French to rip off the entire country of Colombia.
Wait, What the Fuck?
So the United States wanted to build a canal in the province of Colombia called Panama. After some intense negotiations, a treaty between the two countries was signed, but Colombia's Senate rejected it and asked for $10 million more than what had been previously agreed upon.
That's where Philippe-Jean Bunau Varilla comes in. Varilla was a French lobbyist, and the proud owner of what scientists have determined to be the most ridiculously French name in history.
Varilla came to the White House and convinced Roosevelt that the best way to get around the Colombian Senate's obstinacy was to start fucking with Colombia's domestic politics in a big way. See, at the time, Panama was considering seceding from Colombia, and Roosevelt decided that in order to get what he wanted, he was going to have to become that country's anti-Lincoln and get some Panamanians civil-warring. When Panama officially announced that it's independence, Roosevelt sent the USS Nashville to block the Colombian navy from interfering. And thus an independent country was born.
Well, independent from Colombia, anyway. Varilla now wriggled his oily little mustache into becoming the newly independent Panama's ambassador to the US.
Two weeks after Roosevelt and some French guy stole Panama ... er, after Panama declared independence from Colombia, Varilla signed the Hay-Bunau Varilla treaty and sold the Panama Canal Zone to the United States without the permission of a single actual resident of Panama, none of whom ever trusted a man with a mustache again.
What I find interesting is the choice of crimes to focus on. In FDR's case I would consider Executive Order 9066 the decision to send Japanese Americans to internment camps for fear that they might be spies many of whom were American born citizens. We're talking about over 100,000 people jailed without trial or even being accused of a crime just because they were Japanese (or to a lesser extent German or Italian). Sure history has tried to justify it usually by falling back on the "for their own good" argument but imagine the reaction if Bush had ordered the arrest of all Arab Americans after 9/11 just because they might be terrorists.
ReplyIn Truman's case there is also Operation Paperclip. The decision to offer Nazi and Japanese scientists immunity from prosecution for their war crimes if they'd consent to work for the US Government. Again this is often justified in that the Russians were doing the same thing so we had to stop them from getting these people but bluntly a bullet to the head or being arrested and tried for your crimes stops that just as well without giving aid to war criminals of the worst sort.
The suspension of Habeas Corpus by Lincoln never sat well with me either, but he was a pragmatist, albeit a paranoid one, and most of his actions (even taking on Andrew Johnson as VP, who later fucked over reunification) were highly calculated to ensure he kept all the border states (slave states, all) a part of the Union and win the war. But I agree, he was basically taking a s**t on our rights. FDR not only screwed Poland, but many other parts of Eastern Europe by being a terrible negotiator and a horrible judge of character. As for Truman, he was responsible for disgracing and relieving General Douglass MacArthur for following the orders that Truman gave him in the Korean War. (Douglass may have gone on to China and potentially eliminated a huge problem that we face today, but we will never know thanks to Truman). As for John Adams, he was just a terrible politician and President. 'nuff said. Eberyone basically hated him after the Alien and Sedition Acts
ReplyMacArthur also personally led a violent military oppression of Army veterans protesting against not being paid during Hoover's administration. Instead of wondering if he could've won the Korean War, we should wonder why he was allowed to remain in the army in the first place.
Although FDR got to Build the canal under questionable circumstances, the thing helped millions of people and got some cash into US and Panama coffers. And in 1999 the US government gave Panama control of the canal.
ReplyYou have the wrong Roosevelt.
Almost every single President in American history has made an utter mockery of the constitution they swore to uphold. The hero-worship attached to these politicians is pretty sickening, as the vast majority of them were little more than mouthpieces and agents of the wealthy and powerful. The office itself has grown from what was supposed to be a position of little authority into the dictatorial monstrosity we know today. Modern Presidents can have anyone on earth bombed, kidnapped, tortured, or starved to death through economic sanctions, and still people try to make them out as titans of morality. An objective and brief perusal of American history provides an unending train of abuses of power, and most of the Presidents who are considered "great" are the worst offenders.
ReplyAbraham Lincoln's actions were justified. You have been quite selective with your facts. You fail to mention that the Maryland state legislature contained many pro-Southern politicians. Lincoln had to be pro-active. The threat of secession, even by a very small number, might have been enough to rouse the pro-Southern factions against the Union. Virginia had already seceded; if Maryland did like wise, Washington would have been surrounded by the Confederacy. The Capital would have been cut off from the Union. Sometimes it's neccesary to suspend freedoms in order to ensure the continuation and preservation of other freedoms.
ReplyNo problem with number 2, in my opinion. Get back to work, you lazy bastards. You're screwing the country.
ReplyTaney, who WROTE the famous Dred Scott decision for the majority-saying that black people have no rights "that the white man is bound to respect" well, if you're going to arrest someone without trial, he would probably be one of the first.
ReplyYeah, he was an asshole. Lincoln was just being cautious, if a little paranoid.
Well, there's another piece of "FDR ended the depression" propaganda sold.
ReplyIndeed, because he didn't. The end of WWII did.
The government of Poland in 1945 was a coalition government lead by communists. At the time, the Soviets were trying to get the Polish pre-war government back, and said that all it had to do was accept the territorial concessions (it had stolen that land from the USSR in the first place during the Polish-Soviet War). If that just sounds like sophistry and meaningless definitions games, recall that Yugoslavia, Albania, and France all wound up being lead by communists in 1945 without a single Soviet boot landing on their soil.
ReplyFurther, Austria was occupied by the USSR at the time - that's why in his "Iron Curtain" speech, Churchill mentions Vienna - but it wound up a nonpartisan nation. The USSR wanted to neutralize Germany, creating a unified, neutral state. There's lots of evidence like this that Stalin was just looking for a fair guarantee that the USSR wouldn't have to go through this s**t a second time.
Instead, Truman decided to antagonize the USSR and wound up militarizing Eastern Europe. With the opening of Soviet archives after the end of the Cold War, the consensus is moving away from a "Soviet-started Cold War" to a more mixed or even American-dominated placement of blame.
PS: The US constitution includes a provision for the suspension of habeas corpus during invasion or rebellion, which I'm pretty sure includes the American Civil War.
What about George Washington's policies, AKA "Caunotaucarius" or "Town Destroyer"? Thomas Jefferson, who had sex with one of his slaves, an uneven power relationship if there ever was one? Woodrow Wilson, whose mass arrests and deportations are now recognized as the "First Red Scare" (and a hell of a lot worse than the second)?
All in all, this article shows really subpar historiography, much worse than I expect from my list articles on humor sites.
The Southern States were not in Rebellion. That is to say they were not over throwing the US Goverment. They were leaving the Union and by the by thats legal. No where is it writen in any document of this country that a state can not leave. Why do you think they never tried Davis? It would have called the whole war into question and the leader of the Union would have had to admit "Hey we did it for the money." You know the money they made off of cotton tarifs and slave trading. So to suspend Habeas Corpus was not in the C and C's power.
Austria was devided between US and USSR.
And thats not the only inacurate point In your little rant.
Problem is my dear friend when you try and sum up something complex very important details get left out, both in yours and cranked's teksts, only they are not arrogant enough to claim it to be absolute truth.
This is a humorsite not a historical dictionary.
There wasn't much FDR could do against Stalin. At the time, the Soviet Union had the mightiest army on Earth, able to kick both U.S. and U.K. asses together in a blinks. So, his hands were pretty much tied in what comes to the Poland situation.
Reply Hide All See All 7 RepliesBullshit. Red Army couldnt even handle Finland in 1939 and after 4 years of constant war it would have been able to kick both US and UK? Bollocks
Rot in hell Franklin!
@AntekJ - I suggest you look a little further into the matter. The Soviet-Finnish war, though well-fought by the Finns, was emblematic of a Soviet military that crumbled in front of Nazi aggression. The leadership was paranoid and disjointed, and Stalin was as afraid of his own troops as those of the enemy (he even moved many of the local Soviet troops, who wouldn't have minded the cold weather, out of the area in favour of troops from more southern regions, who were less likely to fight for independence in the region at the small cost of being totally unable to handle the climate). There's a reason 1941 and 1943 unfolded so differently - Stalin was forced, in the face of imminent defeat, to put aside at least some of his insecurities in favour of creating an effective fighting force.
Statistically, around 8 out of every 10 Nazi troops killed in the WW2 died at Soviet hands. Just by numbers of troops involved and casualties inflicted, the whole Western war would barely have qualified as a major BATTLE on the Ostfront. By the time the Red Army rolled into Berlin, they had some of the best equipment in the war, a huge numerical advantage, and arguably some of the greatest generals and troops of the time. They had met the cream of the Nazi war machine, and beaten it soundly. Whether or not they could have defeated the US and UK is questionable, but by no means impossible. I think it was more a question of most of the leadership on all sides recognizing that their populations, having just fought a very costly war, were in no mood to jump straight into another. Whether such a war would have ended with the USSR sitting on the Atlantic coast of Europe, or the Iron Curtain being rolled back, is very much open to debate.
My reply to gaysmiley00...learn your history on your own not from your leftist teachers/professors.
@guysmileyoo
While true, I don't see the Soviets actually being able to take the US and UK in Poland had that actually occurred. Yes, the Soviets did a lot more of the fighting against Germany, but in such a hypothetical scenario in Poland in 1945, you have to take into account both A) The US having effectively the largest industrial capacity in the world at the time, and more importantly B) The Atomic Bomb, which at the time the Soviet Union lacked. Moscow under several hundred megatons of irradiated explosive probably would've assured Polish victory in such a hypothetical war.
No, his hands were not tied - he just chickened out in front of Stalin. And it was not only Poland - it was Romania as well, and Ukraine and a whole lot of other countries that had to suffer.
Soviets lost 20 MILLION or so during WW2. Clearly they were not a country with any regard for their citizenry. But I sincerely doubt they would have won against US and UK. And hell, the Germans probably would have joined in
The Soviet's kill to death ratio against Germany was monumentally awful, only sheer numbers allowed them to prevail.
Not a single one of those would be considered a crime against humanity. They are just examples of how those in high political office must make decisions that affect the lives of many. How exactly could you leave off FDR and the Japanese Internment Camps? Or, you know, Monroe and others who were responsible for literally ordering the murders of thousands of American Indians?
Reply Hide All See All 5 RepliesDon't forget Andrew Jackson, he was a dick too.
To udk90.....you are a fool if you try to judge people of history by todays standards.
Well Said...They just doing their job the best they can.
I am not an American but even I can see most of these men try to do the best for their people.
Don't forget, a president first and foremost responsibilities is his people (or majority of his people). If GOD cannot save everyone, why anyone expect a mortal president to do so?
Many other nation leaders not give a damn about their own citizen.
Yeah except these are generally well liked US presidents, some of those guys aren't.
@jackdaniels63, we ARE judging these men by standards of their time. The Native Americans who lived in Andrew Jackson's time absolutely thought he was a dick. The Japanese Americans who lived in FDR's time absolutely thought FDR was a dick. Really, when you use the "people back then didn't know any better" excuse, all you are actually saying is, "white men back then didn't know any better." Actually, I shouldn't say all white men because there were definitely some Supreme Court judges that warned Jackson and Roosevelt, "um...this is definitely racist and a little unconstitutional."
FDR was in a wheelchair because of polio. He definitely had both his legs.
Replyits an expression
Ahhh...cracked deleted my comments...
ReplyThey've done that to me several times, always legitimate if critical comments. Bullshit, isn't it?
They didn't delete them, the site just eats comments randomly. Your comment never actually posted.
What about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing..they are technically war crimes and were totally horrible acts.
Reply Hide All See All 15 RepliesNo, just no, America was the last nation fighting the biggest war on Earth and, and we lost tens of thousands of lives every time we took what could hardly have been considered islands, actually invading Japan would have cost even more lives then dropping the bombs that, at that point in history, no one even knew would release radiation, since they were newly invented and the entire US nuclear arsenal consisted of those two bombs.
It was still a war crime. We can argue about whether it was justified or not if you like, but it. Was. A war crime.
I find the term "war crime" to be redundant. War is a horrific, natural, crime, end of story.
Also, stop feeling sorry for the Jap's they did some horrific s**t too.
The alternative being millions more civilians and soldiers dying? They are still handing out the purple hears they made for the preparation of the invasion of Japan.
That wouldn't be interesting though. It is already well known.
No dickhead, the Japanese government did horrible things. Little baby Japs only got incinerated or worse.
simpro, only if you are the most incredibly stupid person on the planet. Who knows, maybe you qualify...
Though peregrine is making a run for the title...Canada's opinions don't matter. They would be speaking Russian if they had their way...
We knew that the Japanese wanted to surrender to us as early as four months before the bombing of Hiroshima, and by the time it actually happened (after months of firebombing in which we had destroyed 67 Japanese cities) they were openly trying to surrender to us, with the only condition being that they be allowed to keep their emperor - a condition which we ultimately granted them anyway. Even most of our top military commanders at the time were opposed to the bombings, which were completely unnecessary, did nothing to hasten the end of the war, and were, as simpro suggests, monstrous war crimes.
Even though reports suggest the Japanese government was hiding the issue from the emperor?
Myopicrhino you are wrong on multiple accounts. Japan had several conditions for their surrender, all of them bullshit. They wanted to keep all remaining colonies to continue to exploit, no international trials for war criminals, and the whole keeping the emperor thing. If you actually researched the bombings the majority of the US leadership supported the bombing because the alternative would be "another Okinawa." Even the Japanese officials who wanted peace considered the bombs a huge factor in finally overcoming the war hawks who wanted to fight to the death. So no they were not completely unnecessary and was one of the main reasons the Emperor got his s**t together and ended the war. Quit whitewashing Imperial Japan and making them look like the victims they killed way more people than the bombs.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes and really it's undebatable. What else do you call targetting and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians? War crimes committed by the Japanese army don't justify murdering civilians. If it did, well the USA has killed more than it's share of innocent people. Go ahead, flame away.
Ok just my opinion, but even if the war did continue and thousands of soldiers lost their lives, they would be SOLDIERS and not innocent civilians just living their everyday lives. Most of them didn't have anything to do with the war other than maybe being related to someone in the military. You can say that finishing the war without the bombs would have cost more lives, but at least the majority of those killed would have been soldiers, people who know their going to fight in a war and possibly die. Not innocent women and children. Anyone that thinks the nukes were better should really read the book Hiroshima, it really shows the horrors of what the nuclear bombs did. It's not just a quick death from a big explosion. Most of the people who died were killed from infection, radiation sickness (not fun), and having their skin and eyes literally melted. And the people with melted skin and eyes lived for a while afterwards. Not just a little while. They suffered for days until they finally died. It's a horrific way to die and simply living in a country at war with the U.S. doesn't justify a horrible death like that.
You are a dumbass! As are you peregrine...two punk dumbasses.
No one would have batted an eye if we'd bombed Berlin like that on account of the Holocaust, and yet everyone seems to forget that Japan basically committed their own Holocaust in China. Their war crimes were on par with the Nazi's.
Kennedy had quickies with Marilyn Monroe in 1963? Oh, God, he was a necrophile too!
ReplyMaybe he renamed one of the interns...
Good eye aquila89
Interesting article, although I have to agree with a few other posters that Andrew Jackson should be on here, and not Lincoln. Mainly because the Constitution specifically includes an exception to habeas corpus "in cases of insurrection or rebellion". Guess what the Civil War was, kids?
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesHitler had a similar idea...
I was going to say that, but I don't think most people would consider Jackson to be "great," but rather that guy on the twenty dollar bill.
Jackson was great in that he championed "of the people, by the people, and for the people" at a time when some were considering taking voting rights away from the lowest classes (poorest)of citizens. Also, he fought the US bank.
But then his was a racist a*****e with a short temper and was the guy behind the trail of tears. His way of dealing with native americans also contributed to the mentality of the government that allowed railroads to successfully lobby in favor of genocide (basically).
Jackson should probably have been #1 on this list.
Testostotastic - this is officially my word of the month. will use this word at any given opportunity where it bears even the slightest shade of relevance. Thanks
ReplyBonus words: "Teddy", Motherfucking, Rosevelt.
Reagan funding Contra death squads?
ReplyIf you went down that road Bush the elder is guilty by association, Clinton is guilty of not pursuing al-queda enough, W is guilty by getting us into wars that are unwinnable, and Obama is guilty of continuing the same policies.
Go F yourself.....the sandanista's had the death squads dipshit. Learn true history.
Where the f*ck is Andrew Jackson which caused the Trail of Tears, dooming the Cherokee, Choctaw, Shawnee, Seminole and 1000s others? What about that time Ol' Abe sentenced 100 Sioux men to death WITHOUT TRIAL? How about those times Washington burnt down Algonquin villages and slaughtered children? Maybe you could've included Grant which implemented the Indian boarding schools, where children were taught how evil their language, culture, color and family were?
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesBut yet again these, and many other atrocities, are ignored. How can you just ignore it like that? This is our history, Hitler was one person which definitely didn't ignore it. He stated how the US president's dealing of the 'Indian Problem' provided no end of inspiration for the 'Jewish Problem'.
The article was about "great" US presidents. No one thinks Jackson was great, hence, he isn't on here.
God bless America.
Actually pngwn56, Democrats routinely celebrate Jackson, since he was the first Democrat president.
Putting Saddam Hussein into power wasn't JFK's only fuck-up. Let us not forget the Bay of Pigs invasion where over 1,000 Cuban exiles who were willing to liberate Cuba for us were abandoned when the s**t hit the fan, and the fact that Kennedy was the one who got the US into the Vietnam War, a.k.a America's biggest mistake.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesI think slavery is a little higher on the list of "big mistakes."
The Vietnam war was was really over hyped by the anti war movement seeing as the NVA were about to surrender before America pulled out.
@Jakob - you're kidding, right? What, exactly, are you basing that on? And please don't say Tet - the Viet Minh being pretty much destroyed in that operation was a feature, not a bug. There were still lots of communist sympathizers in South Vietnam, and eliminating much of the power base of the existing leadership meant that they wouldn't be around to start making demands of their Northern allies at the end of the conflict.
I really don't understand how people can still insist that Vietnam was a winnable conflict. Maybe the US could have turned Vietnam into an ally using a completely different strategy, but they'd already set themselves up as an enemy of Vietnamese independence in order to woo the French into NATO. Then they compounded the error by supporting vicious South Vietnamese dictators who tried to impose Catholicism on a largely Buddhist nation. It's hard to see how they could have come back from that. The best outcome at that point was a bleeding sore of a conflict where constant clashes with nationalists would be a daily occurrence - and for what? Spending that sort of blood and treasure might be justifiable if you're getting something more valuable out of the deal - resources, strategic positioning, etc. - but what was America gaining from holding South Vietnam?