Who was the better president? William Henry Harrison or LBJ?

[TDAS04]

Well?

[Rockefeller GOP]

Harrison

[RINO Tom]

Harrison

[SWE]

Doing nothing>being actively destructive

[Sumner 1868]

The one who abolished Jim Crow apartheid in the US rather than the man who made traitor John Tyler president.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

On one hand, LBJ pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress. On the other, Harrison tried to establish slavery in my state when he was Indiana's territorial governor. Hmm...

[Mr. Smith]

Johnson (normal)

[SWE]

On the other, Harrison tried to establish slavery in my state when he was Indiana's territorial governor. Hmm...

And this affected his performance as President?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

On the other, Harrison tried to establish slavery in my state when he was Indiana's territorial governor. Hmm...

And this affected his performance as President?

Harrison was president for all of a month, so the only way to reasonably evaluate him is to examine his pre-presidential career. Otherwise, this poll would be pointless.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Harrison was a stupid arse who should have worn a coat. LBJ clinches it, despite being vile etc. he at least attempted to get out of Vietnam, until Nixon scuppered the peace talks for typical Nixon reasons.

[ElectionsGuy]

Doing nothing>being actively destructive

Harrison was a stupid arse who should have worn a coat. LBJ clinches it, despite being vile etc. he at least attempted to get out of Vietnam, until Nixon scuppered the peace talks for typical Nixon reasons.

When? He's the one that escalated the war so dramatically that half a million Americans were in Vietnam by the time he left office.

[TDAS04]

On the other, Harrison tried to establish slavery in my state when he was Indiana's territorial governor. Hmm...

And this affected his performance as President?

Harrison was president for all of a month, so the only way to reasonably evaluate him is to examine his pre-presidential career. Otherwise, this poll would be pointless.

Some people think LBJ did more harm than good as POTUS, so it makes sense for them to vote for the president who did nothing.  (I don't agree with them, btw.)

[Mr. Smith]

Doing nothing>being actively destructive

Harrison was a stupid arse who should have worn a coat. LBJ clinches it, despite being vile etc. he at least attempted to get out of Vietnam, until Nixon scuppered the peace talks for typical Nixon reasons.

When? He's the one that escalated the war so dramatically that half a million Americans were in Vietnam by the time he left office.

1968, Paris Peace Talks,...South Vietnam walked out after Nixon offered "a better deal".

But he did try.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

A better poll for this site would be Harrison vs. Reagan, he gets even more hate.

Anyway, the one who is both the best and the worst at the same time.

[Mercenary]

Harrison wins by default for not being president long enough to do damage.

[SATW]

Doing nothing>being actively destructive

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Johnson wins by default since Harrison didn't serve long enough to actually do anything.

[Türkisblau]

Easily Johnson.

I agree with HST in that the only way to evaluate WHH is that you have to look at his career before being president. SWE wouldn't be saying otherwise if someone like Goering emigrated to Argentina after the war and became president there. And that effects his performance as president of Argentina how?

Anyway, WHH was a major force behind displacing Native Americans (and that's putting it kindly), as well as tried to establish slavery in Indiana as HST mentioned. Obviously LBJ is preferable to him despite Vietnam.

[Mechaman]

Easily Johnson.

I agree with HST in that the only way to evaluate WHH is that you have to look at his career before being president. SWE wouldn't be saying otherwise if someone like Goering emigrated to Argentina after the war and became president there. And that effects his performance as president of Argentina how?

Anyway, WHH was a major force behind displacing Native Americans (and that's putting it kindly), as well as tried to establish slavery in Indiana as HST mentioned. Obviously LBJ is preferable to him despite Vietnam.

Yes because the lives of MILLIONS of Vietnamese aren't as important as the few hundred black people who lived in Indiana at the time or the few tens of thousands that Harrison displaced.

Very Relevant article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

If there is any justice in this world LBJ will be remembered by our grandchildren about as fondly as we remember Andrew Jackson.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Harrison was only president for a month and was sick the whole time, so he literally accomplished nothing.  As much as I loathe Johnson, I have to vote for him by default.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yes because the lives of MILLIONS of Vietnamese aren't as important as the few hundred black people who lived in Indiana at the time or the few tens of thousands that Harrison displaced.

A few problems with this:

1. You note that more people died in Vietnam that during Jackson and Harrison's attempts to massacre the Native Americans. What you fail to mention is that the population of Vietnam in 1965 exceeds the Native American population in the early 1800s. Harrison and Jackson killed fewer people than LBJ because there were fewer people to kill when they were around.

2. You'll notice that no-one who voted for LBJ in this poll is arguing that Vietnamese lives are not as valuable as black/ Native American lives. That's not the point. What we are arguing is that LBJ pursued a horrible foreign policy and a decent domestic policy, and thus is preferable to Jackson and Harrison, who were bad on all counts. In layman's terms: BAD + SOME GOOD > BAD + BAD

Even if Vietnam and Indian Removal are judged as equally unethical (ignoring the vastly different circumstances during which they occurred), that doesn't change the fact that LBJ has the positive legacy of civil rights, Medicare, and Medicaid, while Harrison was pretty much sh**tty all around.

[Xing]

Johnson. It's a shame he handled Vietnam so poorly. If not for that, he might've been one of the greatest presidents.

[Mr. Smith]

Easily Johnson.

I agree with HST in that the only way to evaluate WHH is that you have to look at his career before being president. SWE wouldn't be saying otherwise if someone like Goering emigrated to Argentina after the war and became president there. And that effects his performance as president of Argentina how?

Anyway, WHH was a major force behind displacing Native Americans (and that's putting it kindly), as well as tried to establish slavery in Indiana as HST mentioned. Obviously LBJ is preferable to him despite Vietnam.

Yes because the lives of MILLIONS of Vietnamese aren't as important as the few hundred black people who lived in Indiana at the time or the few tens of thousands that Harrison displaced.

Very Relevant article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

If there is any justice in this world LBJ will be remembered by our grandchildren about as fondly as we remember Andrew Jackson.

This 100%. Come on, if he was a Republican, he would be as hated as George W. Bush on this forum.

No he wouldn't, no one hates Eisenhower despite him being a Republican and pretty much setting up the precedent that LBJ simply did not have the intelligence to handle right.

He gets credited for the "dime store New Deal", Johnson one-upped that by the Great Society.

[SATW]

Yes because the lives of MILLIONS of Vietnamese aren't as important as the few hundred black people who lived in Indiana at the time or the few tens of thousands that Harrison displaced.

A few problems with this:

1. You note that more people died in Vietnam that during Jackson and Harrison's attempts to massacre the Native Americans. What you fail to mention is that the population of Vietnam in 1965 exceeds the Native American population in the early 1800s. Harrison and Jackson killed fewer people than LBJ because there were fewer people to kill when they were around.

2. You'll notice that no-one who voted for LBJ in this poll is arguing that Vietnamese lives are not as valuable as black/ Native American lives. That's not the point. What we are arguing is that LBJ pursued a horrible foreign policy and a decent domestic policy, and thus is preferable to Jackson and Harrison, who were bad on all counts. In layman's terms: BAD + SOME GOOD > BAD + BAD

Even if Vietnam and Indian Removal are judged as equally unethical (ignoring the vastly different circumstances during which they occurred), that doesn't change the fact that LBJ has the positive legacy of civil rights, Medicare, and Medicaid, while Harrison was pretty much sh**tty all around.

This was a great post. I disagree with the domestic views being promoted as successes, but nonetheless, very solid post.

I voted for Harrison precisely because I didn't like LBJ's presidency, but this ridiculous crusade by certain members is getting old.