Jackson versus Roosevelt for Worst Person in All American History

There was a previous edition of the Worst and that one was the contest between Cheney or Jackson for Worst Person in All American History.  Cheney was a decisive winner on multiple points of comparison.

However, today it was suggested there was another at least on par with Andrew Jackson and this one will tickle liberals plenty as the selection in this case is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Once and Future King of American Liberalism.


We need a brief digression to review also Abraham Lincoln, the Once and Future Republican King of the United States.  Maybe it's reasonable to call him the first 'modern' era Republican.  He is famed for uniting the states and for freeing the slaves but we know now he would not have freed the slaves if it were not politically expedient to do so.  While his position is abhorrent, the net effect of his administration was good as this did truly become the United States and the slaves really were freed.  Therefore, we reject his inclusion in this contest.


Franklin Delano Roosevelt did so many of the things liberals admire and they were fundamental changes to the way America works.  Retirement and Social Security came into being.  The Public Works program built many long-lasting structures for the country and put many people back to work.  Then he led the war effort here to a win.  With liberals, FDR is a god.


There are valid reasons for FDR's consideration in the context of the Worst Person in All American History and this is based on matters of political expediency as well.

First, internment of Japanese citizens and gross violations of their rights took place after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  The political expediency is demonstrated by the fact German citizens were not interned like this as only about eleven thousand were interned relative to internment of well over a hundred thousand Japanese people.  The immediacy of the Pearl Harbor bombing made it politically important to react whereas the bombing of London was distant enough that it was not important to react locally despite the same threat of spying, sabotage, etc.  (WIKI:  Internment of German Americans)

While the behavior is morally reprehensible and the basis for it even worse, this really doesn't compare to Andrew Jackson pushing the Cherokee into a forced march from Tennessee on the Trail of Tears and dumping the survivors in a reservation in Oklahoma.  That was different from other of his campaigns as some of them lived.  FDR didn't match this in any way.


Second, there was no response to the Warsaw Uprising and, despite pleading from Churchill, FDR said he would not respond because it not be politically expedient relative to upcoming talks at Yalta with Stalin.  Hundreds of thousands of people died.

Again, this was morally reprehensible but the mitigating circumstance is that it might have affected the relationship with Stalin.  There's no way to know that but we do know how many people died.  Again, this doesn't match Jackson who was committing an active work of genocide.  FDR, while morally spineless, was seeking the greater good.


Cadillac Man suggested earlier Eleanor Roosevelt was the morality in that White House but that's likely too harsh as who knows better the wrath he will face for making something he knows she will consider the wrong decision.  It may well have torn his heart to make such decisions but he felt the circumstance required he do that.

There is no apology for FDR and there is no compunction against slashing him if it's warranted but there does not seem sufficient basis in these examples, not relative to what Andrew Jackson did and definitely not relative to Dick Cheney.