Worst Presidents: William Harrison (1841)
Alas, poor Harrison.
That the ninth president makes any list at all is an act of scholarly injustice. The Virginian's greatest claim to fame was defeating the Shawnees in 1811 at the Battle of Tippecanoe.
Delivering the longest inaugural address in U.S. history, he came down with pneumonia that made his 30-day presidency the shortest in U.S. history.
Death would seem sufficient punishment for long-windedness; historians are guilty of piling on.
Reader Comments
Worst Presidents
Your article was a "fun read" IF not taken seriously. And how could one take it seriously since you did not spell out and develop the criteria in terms of which you use the word "worse" as predicated of "president." In passing to take up for the family, we did not talk very much about THIS Benjamin. He did, you know, move to the other side of "The River" and away from the center of God's creation -- Tidewater. (LOL)
HARRISON
Perhaps the unluckiest President, but worst, I wasn't in office long enough to be judged. I agree with another comment. Knowing what we do about the man, would he be a effective administrator.
Some of the 19th Century Presidents Really Were the Worst
It really gets me the breezy way these vignettes are written. There really is more reason that Gen. William Henry Harrison is regarded as one of the worst. He ran his 1840 campaign, "Tippicanoe and Tyler Too", openly bragging about being an Indian killer. He openly advocated mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide of non-white peoples from the North American continent. Ditto for Gen. Andrew Jackson. That is why they were popular in their time (and since). James K. Polk maneuvered the United States into expansion through shameless aggressive military conquest ---about on a moral par with Saddam Hussein's conquest of Kuwait or You-Know-Who's conquest of Poland or Mao's conquest of Tibet. Actually, Polk had even less justification than any of those three. He operated on a moral par of "might makes right" and "power comes out of the barrel of a gun". We still look back at these people through the lens of late 19th century historians who glorified those who would not flinch from drenching themselves in blood to springboard this country into a W.A.S.P.-dominated, trans-continental world power. Looking at it through the lens of non-violent conflict resolution, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, these 19th century characters look awfully primitive now.
One last very un-P.C. insight: James Buchanan adhered to the view that it would be a shame if there were a Secession, but it was certainly not worth killing anybody about. Lincoln was the one who went ahead with a policy if you dare to secede, we will just shoot you in the face and make you real sorry. Who adhered to the Gorbachev standard of non-violent conflict resolution, and who resorted to the Josef Stalin standard of blood-soaked forced union (to keep the Soviet Union together)? I think someone of the instincts of James Buchanan could have negotiated a settlement of ending slavery as the price of four countries on the North American continent instead of three. Lincoln had only blood-soaked mass tragedy to offer, as the price of ending slavery and forcing union.
George W. Bush was a breathtakingly poor President, but take a look at some of these 19th Century Presidents (through the lens of non-violent conflict resolution), and you have some real Lu-Lus for all time...
advertisement
