The question is often asked, who is the worst president of all time? Surprisingly, you’re going to get a lot of overlap between mainstream left and right. They may disagree on specifics but look at any “best presidents” list and you will find that “do something” presidents always rank near the top. Presidents who waged war and governed as a monarch always rank high. “Forgettable” presidents who presided over times of peace and prosperity tend to rank lower. This is wrong. We should not rank presidents by how famous they are. We should not judge them based on whether they did unconstitutional things that we like or don’t like. There is one single metric for measuring how good a president was: Did they uphold their oath to defend the constitution? Based on that, who is the worst?
When looking at rankings that way, you will find that most of these lists can be flipped upside down. All of the presidents that historians rank highly should be near the bottom and vice versa. There are a few exceptions. George Washington, although not the best, should be near the top. Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon deserve spots in the bottom half, although they are not the worst. But the establishment’s historical curators love dictators and warmongers – Franklin Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman are always in their top ten, yet they are some of the worst abusers of executive power in history.
Why is this? For many reasons, these historians are proponents of centralized power (unless someone exercising these powers is not on their “team”). We will get to my theory on the reason for this, but it is a serious problem in America. Under the Constitution, all powers not delegated to the central government are reserved to the states. We are not, and never were, one American people. There were always cultural differences in each region. Each state was intended to be a laboratory for democracy, with a union for commerce and defense purposes only. It hasn’t always worked out this way, and efforts to impose local ways and culture on others by force has always bred conflict.
I make no secret of my biases. I am right-wing/conservative/libertarian. I believe government works best from the ground-up, like our Constitution intended. I believe in free markets and non-aggression in both foreign and domestic policy. If you ask people who align with my beliefs who they think the worst president is, they will most likely say Woodrow Wilson. And I would not argue that. Wilson was atrocious in foreign and domestic policy. He deserves the low standing that conservatives have awarded him, but someone else belongs right there with him. Someone who is almost identical to Wilson in both foreign and domestic policy and constitutional abuse, yet conservatives might say was one of the best – Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln? But he saved the union! He abolished slavery! None of this is true. At Salerno Schools there are no sacred cows, I just care about the truth. If you’re on my side of the aisle politically, you can’t believe Wilson is the worst and Lincoln is the best. It’s “Republicans were always the good guys and Democrats were always the bad guys” binary thinking. History isn’t that convenient. Let’s take a look at Wilson’s record and compare it to Lincoln’s. It’s shocking how similar the two really are.
Free Speech
Woodrow Wilson was the first president since John Adams to deliver his messages to Congress in person. Starting with Jefferson, the message was simply delivered in writing. There is nothing unconstitutional about this however it reeks of monarchy. Wilson did this to pressure Congress into enacting his legislative agenda, holding special sessions until they acquiesced. Congress is supposed to legislate, not the president, but the constitution was always a mere inconvenience to Wilson. He wrote as much in his 1913 New Freedom agenda, impressing Darwinian principles on the Constitution, stating that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.
Wilson’s Democrat party held a majority in Congress, and he was able to establish a Committee of Public Information. This board could censor any publication that spoke out against involvement in World War I. If that was not enough, his administration also passed the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. Film directors, editors and even civilian protestors were fined and imprisoned for any negative opinion they held of the war. This is in blatant violation of the First Amendment. There is no “emergency powers” clause that allows the Federal government to do whatever they please in times of war. When you consider the fact that many wars started based on lies, wartime is when a free press is needed the most. Ironically enough, it was also John Adams who enacted similar legislation in 1798. But Wilson did not have to go back to Adams for his blueprint. He had a far more recent example of censorship.
Lincoln used the wartime excuse to abuse the First Amendment in 1861. His suspension of habeas corpus was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court but that did not stop the Lincoln administration from arresting over 10,000 northern citizens (not Confederate) for opposing the war. These people were arrested for publishing anti-war material, mainly newspapermen, and even a sitting Ohio congressman. Say what you want about communist regimes, but they at least had show-trials to give the appearance of habeas corpus before jailing their dissidents.
The war was not popular in the North. For example, New York city was very pro-South. As a hub for all commerce, they relied on the south’s agricultural exports. The disproportionate taxation that lead to secession hurt not just the Southern economy, but also New York’s. Let’s not forget, Lincoln only won 55% of the popular vote, in the North (the Confederacy was out in 1864), when he ran for reelection. Lincoln also disarmed civilians who spoke out against the war and sent troops to polling places in Union Democrat areas such as Maryland. With all of the intimidation and violence that was used against dissidents, the actual percentage of Northerners who supported Lincoln was probably less than half. For conservatives that care about free speech and election integrity, this guy is your hero?
Economic Policy
To pay for war, the Wilson administration created the biggest monster to proponents of sound economic policy – the Federal Reserve. This central bank initially appealed to progressives who believed that big banks and big industry were robbing them of their money. However, big banks and big industry do not exist without the help of big government, and nothing tied these interests together tighter than the Federal Reserve. This central bank can provide easy money, free from risk analysis underwriting that a private lender would have to consider, to special government interests, mainly in the military-industrial sectors. This is accomplished by constant borrowing (debt financing) and quantitative easing of interest rates. In simple terms, your money is worth less and less each year because more of it is being printed to give bad loans. Government and banking working in tandem.
A private bank would not be able to do this because poor risk analysis would drive them out of business. Bad loans that do not get repaid would drive away investors (savings accounts) and the bank would collapse. The banks that are propped up by the Federal Reserve can never give bad loans. This is unsustainable, yet the Fed remains with us today. But central banking did not begin with the Federal Reserve. Alexander Hamilton was a strong proponent of central banking and as the first Secretary of Treasury, got a Bank of the United States approved in 1791. This was strongly opposed by Jefferson’s republicans, and central banking became a hotly contested issue through the eventual Jackson administration and beyond.
Lincoln, to debt-finance his war, also adopted poor economic policies that wrecked generations of wealth. In 1861, the United States did not have a central banking system. But in 1862, Lincoln signed the Legal Tender Act into law. This act authorized the creation of promissory notes, or “green backs,” that could be redeemed in gold or silver at a later date. One problem that occurred was that so many of these notes were printed, that the dollar was worth 35 cents in gold in only one year. A drop that severe is not something that can be fixed right away, and the 1860’s and 1870’s became periods of economic turmoil due to the destruction of sound money.
Conservatives like to talk about how they want to reign in debt and adopt sound money policies. So again, I have to ask, why is Lincoln one of the best presidents?
Income Tax
Speaking of standard conservative talking points, how can you forget income tax? Many of the founders supported taxation at the federal level, but they supported it via tariffs only. States could determine how to tax via whatever worked for their own economies. Federal taxation that targeted specific industry was always going to affect states disproportionally, and this has been a source of conflict throughout the country’s history.
Woodrow Wilson was actually not the worst when it came to tariffs as he generally supported free trade. But Wilson often got himself involved in the legislative process for tax reform, which is the duty of Congress. In exchange for lowering tariff duties, the Wilson administration passed the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, which allowed the Federal Government to progressively tax income. Wilson was heavily involved in subsequent tax bills and just like the Federal Reserve – the income tax, which was always left to the states, remains with us today.
But this is another area where Wilson had a blueprint to implement his schemes. Lincoln signed the first Federal income tax legislation into law in 1862, which lasted until 1872. The tax bill was 119 sections printed on 17 triple-column pages of fine print. Who could possibly enforce these complex regulations that the average citizen can barely understand? Bureaucrats. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue was created which existed under various names until finally settling on the Internal Revenue Service in 1953. Yes, Lincoln created the tax bureaucracy which became the IRS that conservatives despise more than any other Federal agency.
Foreign Policy
Woodrow Wilson ran on the mantra “He Kept Us Out of War!” It is unimaginable today, but the United States had remained out of conflict abroad until the progressive movement of the 20th century. As John Quincy Adams famously said, the United States “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” It was always understood that the old world had complex issues that existed for centuries before we became a nation. We were best to stay out of these conflicts, be good neighbors, and fight defensive wars only.
This mentality changed with the Spanish-American War of 1898. The war started under the false assumption that we were attacked off the coast of Cuba, so it at least began as a presumed defensive war. However, the war evolved into liberating subjects of the Spanish Empire and got us involved in Puerto Rico and the Philippines. This marks a very strong shift in American foreign policy as we no longer waged defensive war, we waged ideological war. We were going to import our idea of democracy to the rest of the world. We were going to go abroad and search for monsters to destroy.
While Wilson ran on an anti-war stance, he was privately bringing us closer to war. When the United States entered World War I in 1917, Wilson’s war message was filled with rhetoric like “making the world safe for democracy.” Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan was an isolationist and this schism caused him to resign. I’m not here to delve into any of the conspiracy theories regarding US entry into WWI, but it is important to recognize that Wilson’s rhetoric leading up to war is full of statements like this. A devout Presbyterian, Wilson truly believed that he was sent from God to bring democracy to the world.
Wilson used war to ram his agenda through, often without congressional approval. He gave us the selective service act, or draft. The founding generation would have been appalled at the idea of forcing American citizens to die for European politics. Yet, this attitude has permeated every single foreign policy decision of the last 100 years. And just like all of his other issues, Wilson had an example to draw from.
Abraham Lincoln enacted the first conscription law in American history. It is important to reiterate that the war was not popular in the North. If citizens are truly under attack, they will defend themselves and their country. But the South did not attack the North. In order to have the bodies necessary for combat, Lincoln needed to enforce mandatory conscription.
I’m putting this under foreign policy because it is often miscategorized as a domestic issue by Lincoln supporters. This is based on the false assumption, created by Lincoln, that the Federal Government created the states. This has no basis. The states created the Federal government. A perpetual union is voluntary, in that the union is perpetual as long as both parties’ consent. This also brings up an interesting dilemma with Lincoln. If you believe secession is legal, then the South became its own nation, and Lincoln invaded in a non-defensive act of aggression. If secession is illegal, then Lincoln sent Federal troops into states without their governor’s request. Under the constitution, this is treason and an executable offense. You can’t have it both ways.
This is where the real issues occur with the Lincoln cult. So-called conservatives that worship him don’t actually care about founding principles or a federal republic. They like it when the executive does unconstitutional things, as long as it’s their guy in charge. Modern liberals are the same way. This is the problem with central power, and why Jefferson and his kind were against it. Take any controversial issue today such as abortion, welfare, carbon neutrality or gun rights. Why should 51% of the entire country be able to impose their will on the other 49%? Our original federal republic understood this and left those issues up to the states. It’s a call for peace. State secession is the final check on abusive central power. Lincoln destroyed that.
So What’s the Difference?
With all of these abuses, it’s hard to see how anyone could defend Lincoln yet condemn Wilson. They’re the same guy. Both also came from backgrounds that do not tend to produce moral civil servants. Wilson was an intellectual who worked in academia for his entire life before becoming Governor of New Jersey. He never worked in the private sector or managed a business. Lincoln was a corporate lawyer and a disciple of Henry Clay. Lincoln’s entire political M.O. was to get Clay’s American system of federally funded internal improvements realized. This always leads to corruption. One only has to look at the railroad scandals of the Lincoln administration where nonsensical pathways were made to enrich hometowns of politicians. These railways went bankrupt immediately yet were kept afloat by taxpayers. Contrast that to private railroads like James Hill’s Great Northern that did not receive a cent of subsidy and actually turned profits. And that’s not to mention the eradication of Plains Indians that the Federal government carried out to enact their railroad plans.
I can already hear the criticism: “Lincoln is a hero because he ended slavery. Why didn’t you mention slavery at all?” I didn’t mention slavery because Lincoln didn’t talk about it much either. Lincoln was not an abolitionist, supported the Corwin amendment until he died, supported repatriation and just like every crooked politician, used the slavery issue for political gain. The war was initially fought to preserve the Union. Nobody in the North was fighting to free slaves, outside of a fraction of a percentage. Once half a million soldiers and civilians were killed, a moral justification higher than “Union” needed to be given to justify the carnage.
And thus, slavery was adopted as a post-facto cause for why the war was necessary. It was ultimately the only good thing that came out of the war. But why did 620,000 have to die to end slavery? Many European countries had already abolished slavery peacefully by this point. And slavery is an inferior economic system. The North would have outproduced the South anyway, and maybe they would have eventually reunited? Hard to say. But the fact remains, in addition to all of the above issues, Lincoln’s main goal was to institute central authority once and for all, ending the question of state sovereignty. He took cues from his political influences, Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay, and amplified them to their logical conclusion. Lincoln did not “save” the Union. He destroyed the voluntary Union and created a new one by coercion and force.
This is something that conservatives need to get on board with. Stop thinking along binary Republican vs. Democrat lines. It’s not easy. I’m a product of nationalist public education and for a long time, I believed the Lincoln myth just like everyone else. But once you look at the facts, all of the problems we have in government today will make sense. Is Lincoln or Wilson the worst president of all time? I’ll leave that for the reader to decide. There are certainly several more who belong in that conversation. But if you are putting together rankings, I don’t see how you can have the two on opposite sides.