I'd sub out FDR and insert Woodrow Wilson.
Sherman? Bah. I'd go with that Alabama sherriff dude from the Civil Rights marches days. Bull Connor
I think Hilary Clinton needs to be up there, too. In fact, I think she is worse than Bill.
I would put Jefferson or Madison on the list before Burr. Their attacks on Adams were quite vicious. Both men were evil.
However, we must keep in mind that Adams (or at least his crew) attacked back quite viciously.
I agree that Hilary is worse. She has the added threat of being smarter.
On Sherman ... I would have agreed before Hannah learned in American history class that Sherman actually did what he did in order to end the war more quickly with less loss of life overall (here we are back to the argument about if it was better to bomb Japanese cities or fight on the beaches ... I always went with the bomb scenario).
Tommissar, I considered Wilson and his buddy "Colonel" House. They are certainly deserving, but Roosevelt's betrayal led to more unnecessary evil than is imaginable. It didn't have to be that way, even if it meant following Patton's desire to march on Moscow, the terms in death and destruction would have been minescule in comparison to what was wrought.
Rhonda...Hillary's evil, but alas...she hasn't had the opportunity to reach her full potential for evil...at least not yet.
M.Z., No way, buddy. While there are things to dislike about those two (in particularly, Jefferson), they did exhibit some common virtue and insight. And their influence, on the whole, was good for our country.
Julie,
I argue that the dropping of the nukes was the right thing to do (though it pisses me off that Catholic centers were targeted). I don't think the analogy applies to Sherman. It was just plain old brutal and nasty business and I would object if it was done to people a world away, but that it was done to fellow Americans disgusts me even more.
Consider this...Americans were rightful upset over Lexington and Concord...What if the later events of the revolution played out differently and the British burnt and pillaged their way down to Yorktown in order to end the war more rapidly and save lives. I don't think it would have saved any or many lives...it would just be barbarous in nature.
Julie,
I was going to say "Bill's just stupid", so I agree with you that Hilary is smarter.
She will reach her FULL evil potential, Rick, just give the b*tch time.
I'm sorry, but she brings that out in me. See how evil she is?! 
Rick, since neither you or I have read the specific history pointing out Sherman's tactics, I will decline to argue ... but based on other discussion with Hannah at the time I still don't agree. However, if I ever get time to plow through Paul Johnson's American history ... then watch out!
Rhonda, I almost said that Bill was stupid. However, upon reflection I think that he is probably quite intelligent but is criminally self absorbed and lazy which takes on the same appearance as stupidity ... so it's essentially a wash.
Julie,
What makes you think I don't have the specific history pointing to Sherman's tactics? hmmmm?
Though, you are right...I only have a cursory knowledge of events. I love history all kinds of Western history, and am particularly fond of WWII. At one time I studied the American Revolution in some depth, but I have never had much interest in the Civil War. I'd rather read the monotonous tales of the meaningless bloodshed of WWI before I delve into the Civil War.
Nevertheless, I stand by the notion that the Sherman's March to the Sea is a stain on our history as an "upright" people. 
Julie and Rick,
I must disagree. Adams was the ideal stateman. Jefferson was an anarchist in the mold of the French Revolution. Madison was our first true political hack.
Margaret Sanger -- Yes! She should have been on my list. Good job, Rick!
I'm not dissing Adams, he posessed a lot of virtue and was a stabilizing force at the foundational level.
Jefferson was rather irreligious but not void of virtue and he had a sharp mind in spite of it being rather "enlightened". Concerning the founding of this nation he generally used it for the better - for liberty and a check against intrusive government. True, he was caught up in revolutionary fervor and supported the French Revolution, but in fairness, he was disillusioned with it because he had expected it to be in the mold of the American Revolution. Obviously, it was a blood-thirsty exercise with no intention of establishing liberty (even as TJ would define it in a secular scope).
I don't want to sound like a mindless apologist for him, but I think it is a mistake to deny his positive contributions and attribute more evil to him than he is deserving of. After all, if I can suck up my contempt for FDR and give him the nod for what he did good, you should be able to do it for TJ.
Thanks, Jean.
Hmmm. I'm not sure either Kerry or Bill Clinton have the stature to be true top ten list material...
Well, Rick disagrees that this man should be on the list, but since we're married that makes more than half the list mine. So this evil man, along with this other evil man, are officially on the list.
Darwin, I have no doubt about Clinton's place. Writing up Hanoi Jane is kind of got me going on Kerry. And while I admit I could probably find some worse examples; If for nothing other than the memory of those who served in 'Nam, many of whom paid the ultimate price - John Kerry stays on my list.
Rhonda...like I said...Tiller's evil to the core...but he is one of many of that ilk and while he swaths a wider path of destruction than what we more commonly refer to as serial killers and psychopaths, the roots of his existence can be found in Sanger ilk and his empowerment can be found in the Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry ilk.
Sorry dear...but I'm sure everyone here can agree with your contempt for the "man", myself included.
Rick,
Check out my Ten Best Americans challenge here: http://
catholicfire.blogspot.com...logosphere.html
I think Tiller does a lot more than kill babies that are "less than perfect". I believe he is involved in politics as well.
Someone commented on that a while ago.
I just can't remember who it was or what exactly they said, but it gave me the impression that he was politically active.
So his evilness goes beyond what he does for a living, if that isn't enough.
If not for Wilson's lust to dismember the Austro-Hungarian Empire (who were the only dudes in the entire frikking war to have a valid grievance), and his sacrificing of his high falutin' ideals to appears his British overlords...oh and trying to scrap the stupidest idea ever (ok, you can rip the Catholic heart out of Europe, but please give me a proto-UN), we wouldn't have had to deal with everything that happened in WWII.
That means we wouldn't have had to deal with a lot of what FDR pulled.
(1-4) I agree with Sanger and Kinsey and added Hugh Hefner and Margaret Mead who made up a lot of facts that "science" still uses today.
(5)I agree with Wilson, but I had selected Henry Cabot Lodge who lead the Senate fight to keep us out of the League of Nations (which was Wilson's idea). Had Wilson not got us into World War I, it would have been a draw through exhaustion and there probably would have been no Bolshevik Revolution nor an Adolph Hitler.
(6-7)I selected John C. Calhoun, one of the Confederate rabble-rousers before the Civil War, and John Wilkes Booth, Lincoln's assassin.
(
I selected Benedict Arnold, but Aaron Burr is probably a better selection. The early loss of Alexander Hamilton was a tragedy for the young United States.
(9) Julius Rosenberg who lead the commie team that gave the Russians the plans for the Atomic Bomb.
(10)Joseph Pulitzer who invented "yellow journalism"
I don't know how that smiley got there for number 8.
With respect to FDR and the Yalta Conference which was held in February, 1945, do you really think that Stalin, whose troops were in Germany by April 45 would have pulled back because of a "treaty?" Especially after the Germans (and his own people) had caused 20 million Russian deaths as a result of WWII?
Would American mothers, fathers and politicians, not to mention those of England and the Commonwealth, have agreed to send their boys further eastward against the revitalized Russian Army to fight for another couple of years?
And my father was 100% Polish. So I have mixed feelings. But I just don't think that it was a realistic expectation that we could have kept the Soviet Union out of eastern Germany and Central Europe. No matter what a treaty said.
Good points about WWI being foundational for WWII and Bolshevism. However, I have a hard time believing that anything good could have come out of it. It was a bloody and stupid war that clearly should have never happened.
I did consider the Rosenbergs but chose Alger Hiss as the "poster child" for the lot.
Here's the thing about FDR and his buddy Joe. FDR empowered Stalin with the Lend-Lease. He played the deadly game of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and he shouldn't have done that - and certainly not to the extent that he did. We had a vested interest in keeping the German's busy on the Eastern Front, but that doesn't make everything okay.
If I were in FDR's shoes, and considering helping Killer Joe afloat for pragmatic ends, I would have measured the help I were to give and make it clear to him that I am being self-serving; that I still consider him the enemy of Poland (which is why the war was started) and the Allies.
In spite of that not being the stance, concessions were given to the Soviets all along. They were racing for Berlin, and we were "letting them have it". We didn't need Pearl Harbor, entering the war would have been just just to liberate Poland and France, etc. (not to mention all those in concentration camps)
By turning coat on Poland, which is what we did, then many lives were lost in vain and some of the justness of the war was diminished. We were geared up and over there...we should have either checked the bastards at their boarder or liberated Moscow.
BTW, I don't have an ounce of Polish blood, but it's not a tough call for me.
When I first started reading this list, I was considering doing my own "Top Ten" list. But about the 3d on into the list... quicker than Hammer could say "Don't Touch This", I realized I couldn't even come close!
Great job, Rick.
And an extra h/t for adding that damnable terrorist Sherman.
Possibly just one addition. The Granddaddy for One Worlder's -- Woodrow Wilson.
As to Stalin, Truman really hated him because he said he'd be very friendly and nice, sign your treaty, and then just go ahead and do whatever he darned well felt like.
About Jefferson ... a LITTLE irreligious? I don't think so. How about totally! I have read about this and he played Madison (as well as the general public) like a violin when it came to laws about religious rights. Pfft.
I will find the points made about Sherman and post them sometime ... we discussed this again over dinner. Tom is now plowing through that book. Both of them agree that Sherman's tactics are widely misunderstood. And, frankly, if you're ready to drop a nuke on the Japanese to save lives then for consistency's sake I'd think you'd be ready to do whatever it took to save more American lives ... on both sides, even if it doesn't look very savory on the surface. Brothers or not, it was a war and they needed to stop it.
MN-Ray, I forgot to address your Henry Cabot Lodge suggestion. I think keeping us out of the League of Nations was a good thing, it preserved our autonomy and without our support it collapsed. I only wish the same would have happened with the United Nations.
Thanks Caveman, and lets be clear, lest anyone think I'm a sucker...I despise Wilson (and his boy, House); I had to make a judgment call and chose to select FDR's example...perhaps because in my mind there is no doubt about the enormous consequences of his actions.
Julie, yes Stalin was a miserable excuse for a human being. That's my point, he should not have been given any recognition other than outright contempt. He was evil to the core and any aid and comfort from us was evil.
Note too: A great case could be made that aiding Stalin did aid him, but not us. Even if the Germans had prevailed in the East, it would have taken as many or more resources for them to occupy, put down rebellion and maintain lines of communication.
Okay...TJ was QUITE irreligious, but he wasn't as a hostile to religion as some who make him out to be. Nevertheless, even if he was overtly and openly hostile to religion it wouldn't merit him a place among the worst ten. His actions benefited this nation far more than caused any harm.
Please share what Tom digs up. I am by no means as informed about the Civil War as I am other aspects of our history and I desire to have the proper perspective of things, so I am open to learning more and changing my position is warranted.
That being said, it will be a tough sell. There is nothing profound about Sherman's tactics. They're as old as mankind. Pillage, burn, plunder and deliberatly harm the civilian population.
I don't think there is any hypocisy in distinguishing between dropping the bomb in Japan and the March to the Sea. We had four years of the civil war and both sides knew each other (all too well). We knew the Japanese in WWII (if nothing else, Okinawa demonstrated that those folks were fanatical and fierce and would actively fight to the last person soldier or civilian). The bombs were dropped on legitimate targets, though we knew to some extent that there would be catastrophic damages to the civilian population, they were NOT the target. It was NOT meaningless wholesale destruction done out of malice or sheer pragmatism.
Things got destroyed during battle on the way to Berlin, but we didn't blaze a trail and abuse civilians along the way and we rightly shouldn't have.
No, but we did do things that people regretted later such as bomb the heck outta Dresden as a sheer act of revenge. Oh human nature ... sigh.
Julie, Julie, Julie...
In that I find all war regrettable on the surface, I understand that our imperfect world and that it is sometimes necessary. That being said, I don't think anybody on our side who has any knowledge of the events "regrets" it.
Be careful of the hand-wringing revisionists who would have us believe that we are the evil empire.
The bombing took place in the middle of February, 1945. Only a couple weeks after the Battle of the Bulge ended and tt least a full month before Patton crossed the Rhine. It could hardly be considered revenge.
As was always the case with our military, legitimate military targets were targeted (contrary to Hitler's policy recall the Battle of Britain, V-2s, etc.). Did we know there would be destruction to civilian targets, a.k.a. collateral damage, of course...there always is (though now we have been able to reduce that risk with "smart bombs").
Dresden was rich with important military targets, though the only one I recall is a bombsight lens manufacturer and possibly a ball bearing plant.
If we could have hit Dresden long before February we would have. Unfortunately, it was far out of our bomber's range until we were able to secure forward airbases in France.
The bombing was much more "successful" than we could have ever imagined. Hitler, needing artillary on the Eastern Front, pulled Dresden's defenses and sent them eastward. It wasn't necessarily a stupid move at the time, because Dresden was safe from attack. However, as he began losing on both fronts, and quite rapidly I might add, Dresden was a sitting duck.
The other factor that made Dresden so destructive was the technique used. The airplanes circling the city actually fueled the fire. (A friend told me that it was a cab driver who came up with the idea and mentioned it to a fare who was an officer - I haven't read that info myself, but I have no reason to doubt the story because he is a bigger WWII buff than I).
Really and truly...our military is made up of some of the most decent soldiers the world has ever seen. Not that there aren't bad apples or that everything we have done is honorable or perfect, but by and large you won't find a more powerful, yet humane collection of soldiers.
When faced with an option of who to surrender the enemy always picks us. The Japanese had so bad-mouthed us as being brutal, that many civilians on Okinawa chose to die rather than be liberated from the oppressive Japanese. They were quite surprised by the compassion and caring of our troops.
As dissapointed as I am by our cultural downfall, I'm proud as hell of our military on the whole.
God bless them!
I'd go with SCOTUS Justice Hugo Black and that da--able "separation of church and state" opinion in 1947's Everson v. Board of Education.
Hi Chris...yeah there are a fair number of justices who would rank high on the list.
Hey, lay off of Michael Jackson and Bill Clinton. Bill's done good, he's brilliant, effective, diplomatic and far less embarrassing than "Shoot 'em Up" Dubyah.
As for Mike, admittedly the man needs help. But he's been needing help for a long time and why has no one around him done anything to help? As an entertainer, he is the best ever.
*gasp*
Marilyn Manson comes in as a close second, though. What a great contributer to the human race and a fantastic role model. He's just an all around wonderful guy.
I am trying to remember which leader it was who said that ... one of the biggies. The fact that it worked and was supremely successful doesn't mean they can't regret the overall effect on the people in the end, right? (I am in total agreement with all that you said about our military and soldiers ...)
Just keep in mind that as I was reading your comments about revisionists and people who didn't look into the truth of details ... I was also applying it to Sherman and your reaction (which used to be mine at one time). Don't fall into that same mindset about that event without further digging into the facts ...
(gotcha)
...(notcha)
All war and loss of life is regrettable, I thought I said something to that effect. And make no bones about it...I understand that a lot of innocent people suffered greatly and I am not trying to diminish their lives to nothing but a statistic or say because they are "not us", that their lives are expendable.
I would argue that like sin, intention plays a pivotal role. i.e. If you intend on destroying a legitimate military target and in the process destroy 100 homes and kill 100 civilians there you are more justified in your action than if you directly and intentionally kill 1 civilian and burn his home.
The laws of moral actions and double effect, etc. have to be applied even to warfare. Sure, some things aren't always cut and dried, but that's where intention, sincerity, prudence and well-formed consciences come into play.
Like I said...I would be willing to reconsider Sherman, but it will be hard to sell me on the idea that he didn't intentionally set out to harm civilians in search of his "good results" - such actions violate the law of double effect. Barring anything truly surprising, I would consider characterizing Sherman's actions as a positive good to be the work of a revisionist of a different stripe.
I would consider characterizing Sherman's actions as a positive good to be the work of a revisionist of a different stripe.
Not if you ever met this history teacher or read this book (I haven't read it yet but have had enough bits read to me by an approving Tom to know that any revisionism is not happening there).
Just thinking about the guy from Detroit arguing against Sherman and the
family from Texas (and they HAVEN'T forgotten the war here, BTW, as I
was surprised to find out when I started dating Tom) arguing FOR
Sherman. Oh the irony!
If nothing else, that should give you pause over the revisionism idea. :-D
Gen Sherman absolutely doesn NOT belong on this list. He was much vilified by pro-southern historians after the war, but if you look at the actual conduct of the March to the Sea, he destroyed much war infastructure but did not tolerate wanton harm to civilians. Anyone who thinks Sherman is a "bad guy" needs to read Victor Davis Hanson's superb "The Soul of Battle" and rethink. Unquestionably the vilest commander in American military history was Nathan Bedford Forrest. Dispite his genius as a cavalry commander, he was notoriously unmerciful to prisoners and civilians. He killed blacks on site. And after the war he founded the Klu Klux Klan, which has been a blight on America for 150 years. Far far worse than anything Sherman ever did.
Other nit picks. Sure Jesse Jackson is a self-absorbed race-baiter, but I think Louis Farrakhan is a geniune bigot and preacher of hate who has done much more damage to race relations that Jackson or Sharpton. I'm reluctant to agree with you on FDR, but your reasoning is sound. Clinton - okay, one of only president ever impreached. If you're going to go there, you could add Nixon as an honorable mention for also bringing disgrace upon the office of the Presidency. And John Kerry. I don't know, just too political and seemingly petty. Sure he's a rotten guy, but top 10? I think the following individuals could go in ahead of him - Al Capone, Timothy Leary, Hugh Heffner, Larry Flint, Joseph McCarthy, Jefferson Davis, or, everyone's favorite traitor, Benedict Arnold (who I can't believe didn't make your list in the first place).
johnb,
As a friend of N.B. Forrest, I must let you know that you have fell for union propaganda. The allegation that Forrest massacred blacks and others at Siloh (I believe) was put up by the Union to help Lincoln's re-election. Sherman didn't even believe this allegation. Sherman believed the gross loss of life was caused by union's refusal to surrender that battle when they had lost hope of winning. If the union acutally believed Forrest was guilty of the attrocities accused, they would have hanged him at the end of the war.
The Klan you refer to was founded in Atlanta, long after Forrest. The Klan Forrest founded (allegedly) fought principly against the Republicans who came in to destroy the South after the war. This Klan was shortly abandoned (within like 2 years). That Klan didn't generally attack Blacks, because the southern blacks tended to vote with the democrats. Toward the end of N.B.'s life, he worked at the local level trying to reconcile and build unity between black and white communities through community picnics and whatnot.
Why is not Timothy Leary, "Tune in Turn on Drop out", on the list? He certainly led many astray.
While my own list took a decidedly different turn (with some places of complete agreement), I could as easily have simply had you crosspost yous and been well pleased.
Do note one problem: the Kerry/Fonda photo should be listed as a fake (because they never appeared speaking together during those years. Close examination of the photo reveals the fakery.) Oh, they are both beneath contempt, it's just that particular photo is a hoax.
Johnb, I've spoke at length in this forum about Sherman. I'm willing to back off of it if I were to find credible evidence that Sherman didn't target civilians and their property.
I am unfamiliar with NB Forrest, so all I have to go on is your allegation and MZ's defense.
Farrakhan is a great suggestion, I still don't know if I could agree with the notion that he has had more influence than Jackson. Though, he is a much more hateful and bigotted man.
Joe McCarthy does NOT belong anywhere near the list. He was a patriot and he was right all along. The facts say one thing about him and the leftist propaganda machine say another. Unfortunately, propaganda has won out in contemporary society.
Your cultural suggestions are good, but I sort of view their influence as part of the Kinsey slippery slope.
As I said, I considered Benedict Arnold. It was no doubt a great treachery, but trying to evaluate based on consequences, I think Burr did far more damage. In the end, Arnold's treason wasn't much benefit to the Brits, nor very destructive to us. Burr's actions and even his personality and ambitions were quite harmful.
Joe: Timothy Leary didn't even cross my mind. Just giving it a cursory examination, I would think that he was as much a product of the times as he was an influence. I'm sorry, but I could still think of many more I'd rather have up there before him.
Yeah, David we took a little different tact. A couple of things really struck me on yours, though:
Dewey! My simple mind didn't even go his way. Doh!
and this, "but the plain fact of the matter is that for all intents and purposes, the republic handed us by the Framers died at Appomattox, and what we have today in runaway federal anarcho-tyranny is a direct result of Lincoln's War.
Amen to that.
"but the plain fact of the matter is that for all intents and purposes, the republic handed us by the Framers died at Appomattox, and what we have today in runaway federal anarcho-tyranny is a direct result of Lincoln's War."
Okay, I'm pretty damn conservative by any estimate, but I've never got the brand of conservatism that sees the South as a better exemplar of American democracy than the North. Rather than living out the true republic as envisioned by the framers, the Confederacy was the last gasp of the spirit that brought us that blessedly brief failure: The Articles of Confederation, which preceded the Constitution but provided such a weak government as to be totally useless.
If the confederacy was what the framers had in mind for us, the framers were wrong. Count me as one of the 21st century republicans who'd gladly have stood with the republicans of the 1860s and fought Johnny Reb.
Darwin, I think you're missing the point. As a Yankee, I don't view that statement as an endorsement of the Confederacy or its cause. We are (or I am, anyway) lamenting the loss of the very republic that fought the Confederacy.
The Constitution was changed into something it was never intended to be and all succeeding generations have paid the price.
If you despise big and intrusive government now, you can look to the Civil War (both parties) and its end as the root cause.
Good picks, especailly Sanger and Kinsely, I would on my own list have tossed in...
Hugh Heffner, Kinsley cleared the path for the sexual revolution scientificly, and Sanger did in terms of the gritty practicalities, aka how to dispose of the little ones, Heffner however pushed it on the cultural backround, the other two may have taken the cork out of the bottle, but Heff was the one who really let the genie out.
I guess I'd probably put the loss of the republic that the founders envisioned (and that fought the South) a lot later. It seems to me the country suffered a three part blow, two of which could have been recovered from (and were partly). The first big blow was the creation of the IRS and a lot of other government machinery during WWI. The second blow came under FDR, both the New Deal and the wartime powers he assumed (including interning Japanese-Americans, even citizens). The final nail in the coffin, though, was clearly LBJ and the great society.
Speaking of which, LBJ probably deserves an honorable mention...
No Joe McCarthy, Henry Ford or Richard Nixon? And Clinton and Kerry make the list, but W doesn't?
Franklin Delano Roosevelt? F.D. frickin' R.?
What utter nonsense.
Darwin, those were all big blows indeed, I'd include the Federal Reserve among those.
Local Man, obviously we are from different planets or something. Not that Dante's depiction of Hell is doctrine of any sort, I do understand why he has the treacherous in the deepest part of Hell.
Funny how you would take the treacherous off the list and define the antithesis of them as the evil-doers.
Nixon sucked, but we would probably argue for different reasons.
Never a fan of Henry Ford, but worst American ever? Give me a break.
W., I'm not a great fan, but much more so after 911. Far from perfect, but has so far proven to be the best we had for life causes and the courts. He has proven that he's willing to defend this nation from her enemies...your boys abetted the enemy and have worked to secure a million innocent lives a year in this country are slaughtered. Clinton took measures to extend the bloodbath throughout the world...W. stopped it again.
I explained my take on FDR, if you disagree that millions of lives oppressed or killed over a generation is evil, what can I say? If you disagree with his culpability in it, I suppose you're free to do so.
Joe McCarthy may have had faults, but his cause was justified. Whatever you think of him, remember he was trying to defend his country rather than undermine her. Can't say that for Clinton and Kerry.
Commenting by HaloScan
