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.
Has anyone noticed how much Harry Truman looks like Radio O'Rielly from M*A*S*H?
ReplyStalin wasn't a Cossack, he was Georgian.
ReplyNo less of an arsehole, though.
Stalin wasn't a Cossack, he was Georgian.
ReplyNo less of an arsehole, though.
Lincoln was a douche.
ReplyHere, I added a couple more to this list:
Reply# 7 - George Washington embezzled government funds during his presidency.
# 8 - Andrew Jackson was directly responsible for the Trail of Tears by passing the Indian Removal Act of 1830.
Really? If you have to include FDR, take the Internment Camps, not Poland.
ReplyAllow me to enlighten you on why Poland was "abandoned": Millions of battle-hardened Russians, an army that had caused 90% of all German casualties fighting the Nazis from the Volga to Berlin and now occupied that same area. When Stalin has that on his side, and has just proven that he has no problem with sacrificing anything and anyone to achieve victory, you don't set off his paranoia by funding Polish revolutionaries, and you definitely don't give him a giant flip of the bird by calling him out on Katyn, because you will lose. That's not a crime against humanity, that's common f*****g sense.
Iraq wasn't the only JFK's "mistake" also, the embargo against Cuba and the support of the Bay of Pigs invasion. Prior to that, Castro hadn't done anything against the USA (other than expelling the italian-american mobsters that nearly controlled the previous Cuban government) Afterwards, came the missile crisis and the world was nearly destroyed for JFK's little Caribbean adventure. Also, the embargo is still on, costing Cuba millions of dollars, thousands dead, and the adjustment law that automatically provides a green card to every Cuban who manages to get to the USA (a privilege no other nationality in the world enjoy) with the result of thousands of Cubans risking their lives to cross shark-infested waters in rafts even during hurricane season to take that offer. It seems the reason for all this was simply "because f**k Cuba".
ReplySupport for the Bay of Pigs was a mistake, probably, but a far bigger one was pulling their air cover AFTER the battle was committed. He doomed 1100 men to defeat and imprisonment and then had to bail them out while showing his ass before the entire world. The only good thing? He was so thoroughly and completely owned and pissed that he played "mas macho" to the hilt over the Cuban missile crisis. That didn't cut a lot of ice with the Cuban community but, hey, how many votes did they have, anyway?
Article 1, Section 9: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." I think the exception can safely be said to apply in both particulars. It's great to have an opinion. It's even better to know what the hell you're talking about.
ReplyYou know what's even better? Not being a dick just because you stayed awake in tenth grade history. It's Cracked, not the Encylopedia Britannica.
Also worth noting: The chief justice Taney, who was the one Lincoln ignored and almost arrested, was the same one who authored the Dred Scott decision, more or less declaring that African Americans were sub-human and didn't have any rights, and making it a lot harder for the North to prevent the spread of slavery. Taney was a clear Southern sympathizer.
Andrew Jackson should be here.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesI was just about to say; Jackson literally disregarded a Supreme Court order with the military just to remove natives.
Yeah he was terrible presidident.
Most historians agree that Jackson was a good president, and that he got many things accomplished in a very well-performed manner. Most Cherokees agree that he was a douche bag, and probably deserves to rot in Hell. In fact, many of them refuse to use the twenty dollar bill because his face is on it. Most normal people, if they even remember he existed, are somewhere in between.
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.
He also greatly hampered our civil rights and attempted to redact many of our rights and consitutional freedoms.
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.
The Bonus Army incident wasn't as bad as some MacArthur bashers make it. Of the people who died, two were killed by D.C. cops, probably in self defense, the other two deaths were accidental. Also, Patton was leading the cavalry in that operation. Should he have been tossed out, too?
It's easy to dismiss MacArthur without taking into account his long career of highs and lows. He remolded Japan into a democracy when others wanted a vindictive occupation. He championed Phillipine independence when others wanted it to remain a US colony. He actively moved to prevent the invasion of Australia by Japan using the limited resources he had. His plan to land at Inchon was against everyone's advice and he pulled it off, saving (South) Korea. Of course, he was flawed...an egomanic, prone to bombastic statements, and had lofty plans that were impractical and/or motivated by ego, but that's what people focus on today, anyway.
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.
Panamanians hate America(ns). It's 100% because of the canal business.
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.
ReplyThe only three presidents I can think of who actually tried not to destruct the constitution as much off the top of my head are Reagan, Washington, and Eisenhower.
Though Reagan tried to allow for three presidential terms,
Washington failed to stop political party formation,
and I never really could remember anything that Eisenhower did, but he and Hoover were both some of my favorites.
Abraham 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.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesIndeed, because he didn't. The end of WWII did.
*The beginning of WWII did
The intrum of the second World War did that die to the increase of industry and such.
How about, 'FDR postponed America turning all "peasants with pitchforks" 'and becoming Communists long enough for WWII to improve the economy? Germany was in about the same shape as we were and turned Fascist, and we all saw ho great that worked out. I swear, memorizing some popular Tea Party mantras and memes is no substitute for understanding economics or history.
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 8 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.
The Russian army was actually weaker than ours and Canada's tremendously.
The main reason we could have beat them if the Nazis never existed and a war between the U.S. USSR happened is that we have motive for defending and assaulting threats.
It is heart, determination, and honor that defines a warrior, not number slavery.
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 6 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."
Jackson completely ignored Congress and kicked the Natives out of their home lands, the only justifiable reason fro such an act is if they attacked us first - they didn't.
So why should we think that doing such a thing isn't humane?