Worst US Presidents Who Never Were

Just because Aaron Burr ended up killing Alexander Hamilton doesn't mean he wouldn't have been a pretty good president for the time.

Agreed. Though another candidate of his times would make an awful President. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (1746-1825), who came second in the elections of 1804 and 1808. His famous opposition to the popular vote might have resulted in an anti-democratic United States. See: http://books.google.com/books?id=BH..."Charles Cotesworth Pinckney" slavery&f=false

"With support from the other South Carolinians, General Pinckney worked to prevent men of middling means from winning seats in the legislature and to distance the national legislature from the people at large. He spoke out against senatorial stipends, observing that as the upper house "was meant to represent the wealth of the Country, it ought to be composed of persons of wealth." "

"The South Carolinians voted with the minority against James Madison's proposal to allow fixed salaries for representatives, and they were adamantly opposed to popular election of senators and representatives. Charles Pinckney noted that "the people were less fit judges [in such a case]," and along with the others, he believed that the president should be chosen by the national legislature rather than by the voting public."

Such views were acceptable in 1787. But Pinckney and other Federalists hadn't changed their tune by 1804. It has been noted than in the period preceding the 1804 elections, the "Jeffersonian Democrats and their partisan press "reached out to the people, providing them with information on how to acquire land, education, and the right to vote. The Federalist newspapers, which offered little more than business and shipping news, targeted commercial and shipping interests in particular." See: http://books.google.com/books?id=d5...="Charles Cotesworth Pinckney" "1804"&f=false
 
From the eyes of 21st century people, yes, becasue dueling is so badly looked upon today. In fact, it was looked down on enough even back then that, IIRC, Burr was charged with murder and only acquitted because he followed all the rules of dueling. Which is sort of like winking and saying, "Okay, you were living by different rules than most civilized people but at least you followed those rules.

So, I think the stigma would have followed Hamilton, and just as it did Burr, I belie it would have haunted him.

Only if he kills Burr.

I had always understood that Hamilton regarded it as murder to kill a man in a duel, and would in any case have aimed to miss. So if Burr misses (or only manages to wound Hamillton), they both survive and it's all a bit of a nine days wonder.
 
Actually, that was probably a story Hamilton started preparing in case the worst happened. Deloping, as it was called, operated by strict rules. Hamilton--an experienced duelist, and a much better shot than Burr--observed none of them during their duel. In fact, he behaved as provactively as possible, adjusting his glasses at one point as if seeking to strengthen his aim. (He also brought a pair of dueling pistols with a secret hair trigger device, though he also stated he had no plans on using it.) To quote Burr on the subject 'contemptible, if true'.
 

Starseed

Banned
Palin, who got in after McCain died due to suffocation.

I'm not a conspiricy loon, but it's very questionable.
 
The Panic of 1837 struck five weeks after Martin Van Buren was sworn into office as the eighth president. He was completely unprepared for the economic collapse and following recession, and did very little to reduce the seriousness of the situation. Four months following the collapse, Van Buren died on 13 September 1837 of a stroke brought on by stress.

Vice President Richard Mentor Johnson had taken a leave of absence shortly after the collapse to return home to Kentucky in order to open and run a tavern, neglecting the duties of the Vice Presidency. Upon hearing of Van Buren's death, he immediately set off for Washington City, arriving on 18 September. Much like his predecessor, Johnson was unprepared for handling the recession and did very little to mitigate the economic problems. Added to his perceived incompetency, he was considered scandalous due to his common law marriage to three mulatto women and his acceptance of responsibility for the welfare of his children by them.

Although applauded by a few Northern abolitionists, Johnson was reviled by Southerners, especially Southern Democrats who felt he had befouled the party. Representative James Polk of Tennessee presented a bill of impeachment against President Johnson in December 1837, which was accepted with a strong majority. On 2 February 1838, the Senate voted to remove Johnson from office, making him the first president in United States history to be both impeached and removed. In the absence of a Vice President, the president pro tempore of the Senate, William R. King, was sworn in as the tenth president of the Untied States.

Historians in the 20th century nearly always ranked Johnson amongst the very worst presidents, however, after the election of Barack Obama in 2008, a few historians praised Johnson for his courage in marrying a mulatto woman despite the social ramifications of the time. Despite this renewed interest in his legacy, though, a 2010 survey of historians of the presidency listed Johnson as the worst president to have served.
 
How about DeWitt Clinton (1769-1828), who came second in the elections of 1812? He led a union of Federalists and disgruntled Democrats. Most of them hoping for an early end to the War of 1812 (1812-1815) through negotiations, others supporting the war but considering James Madison's administration to be incompetent.

It has been noted that Clinton made "no promise" to his various supporters, and it remains unclear whether he even had a plan in case of being elected. See: http://books.google.com/books?id=pu...wBg#v=onepage&q="DeWitt Clinton" 1812&f=false

If Clinton is successfully elected but swiftly disappoints his various supporters, the most probable result would be a political crisis. With the War still ongoing and severe economic hardship being its main effect to that date. Could make for an explosive situation.
 
I am guessing that from the 1940s to the 60s and possible the 70s there may have been Some Senate Presidents Pro Tem who were not in the full spring of youth and not visibly committed to racial equality
 
Top