To be fair.  Some could make the arguement that the Civil War was unavoidable once Abraham Lincoln was elected.  Previous seccession attempts being stopped with threats but that eventually the conflict would of happened, and Lincoln would of always been the flashpoint.

So argueably true blame of the Civil War might be put on Pierce if you think it was unavoidable at that point... or ironically nobody or lincoln if you thought it wasn't unavoidable at all.

Still Buchanon could of prepaired for war.  Readied troops, fortified important outposts, move resources out of the south.

George Bush Junior is the worst president the US has had in my lifetime, by far. He was probably the worst world leader of his time, doing more damage than even Gadafi or Kim Jong il.

You can't blame Lincoln for all 625000 lives. The civil war was about to happen anyway. Tensions were high and compromise was failing. The election of Lincoln was merely the instigator for secession. If lincoln let the secession occur without a conflict, he would have been a worse president, putting the United States in a state of weakness and could have easily been abused starting future foreign wars in the Americas. I think one war is better than setting the country for multiple wars.
Jackson also started the spoils system, which would have put people who supported him in the bureaucracy thus making most of the executive branch on his side. He also directly disobeyed the Supreme Court in causing the Trail of Tears, thus making the Supreme Court powerless unless Jackson agreed. These could easily have helped him set up a fascist state in the United States. He's one of the better President but he also had some clear problems with his leadership. It's good that he was a believer in state rights else he would have made the US into a dictatorship

Yeah... really when it comes to "Worst" president too... it depends on what basis you are measuring on.

A) Worst outcomes due to their presidency.

B) Worst attrocities they committed under their presidency.

C) Worst decisions they made under their presidency whether they got lucky or not.

If you go with B.  The script flips quite a bit and you end up with FDR at the bottom... and is argueably Obama's weakest placing due o his massive use of illegal drone strikes.

C) is espeically interesting, and  fun to consider.  You just have to think "What would this president done in the other's place."

Though full of guesswork... it really shows how a lot of presidents are judged more by their time then their presidency.

For example, put George W Bush in FDR's place... and he's probably pushing for WW2 harder then FDR was.  He'd suddenly be a hero and one of the "best" presidents... Bush's crimes in his presidency actually pale at all the illegal shit FDR did.

Put Jimmy Carter in the presidency of John Quincy Adams where agriculture is still king and there are no big foreign policy issues and he may of been regarded even higher then JQA  (Who actually historically gets a bad rap.)

Really...  the peacetime presidents in general get a bad rap in my opinion.  Which is partially why Teddy is my favorite President.

hue, I needed to do this, please take my comments with the needed amount of knowledge that I think USA = evil (also, there is some (a lot) sarcasm sprinkled in ;P)

Also, I surely hope that the initial post was to be read with the same amount of sarcasm than what I had to add ;P

Wow.  Why bring up race?  And the republican Congress definitely did not do everything President Bush wanted, same as the Democratic Congress of the first two years of President Obama didnt do all he wanted. 

I just find it amusing that you (plural you) can blame the sitting president in one term, and them exclusively congress in the next.  We need to wait on these three presidents for awhile before any judgement can be made.  When a judgement is made, to have a compelling argument there needs to be some synergy on how the judgement is reached.  Is it President vs. President? Or Congress of that President vs Congress of that other President?

You should really read up on Trail of Tears. It's really was just mass genocide.

Looking at mainly the positives can be done for every President (and I could easily do the same for Bush Jr.

Well, I was just joking about the race thing.

But you got to admit that no other president has ever been treated like this, with Congress talking while he gives a speech screaming liar, to other polticians coming right up to him and pointing their finger right at his face up close in person.

And calling him Muslim seems to be code for saying his an "N" word (either ending in "er" or "ro").

Plus we should be questioning Senate & Congress more. When 54% of Senate votes against what 90% of Americans want, then you got to ask who actually tries to work for the American people: Obama who agrees with 79% of Americans about the Public Option & 90% of Americans about extended background checks for guns being sold OR Congress & Senate who are against 79% of Americans on Health Care and against 90% of Americans on extended background checks for other gun sales. I mean they would rather sidetrack the discussion about abortion and other minority rights, then to do what a minimum of 75% of Americans want.

banks are more powerful than standing armies. He killed the bank. If bushjr or obama killed half the arab world but also uprooted the vipers in our federal reserve restoring the ppls rights.. I would gladly call em great. The rights and prosperity of my countryman come first.

No other president has been treated like him, at least not in my lifetime  (though some of the stuff thrown at Bush after his time in office does come close).  Though I would say this is from both sides, those against him and with him (regardless of party ties).  Its all really silly.  Neither the undue hate nor the unearned adoration are due to him.

I will have to disagree with you on the 90% thing.  One part of it might have been on that 90% and they should have ONLY put a Bill up for that part.  The rest of the bill was not wanted by the majority of those same people who said Yes to Background checks.   Thats the problem with Congress (through all time) they try to pass Bills that are to large and have maybe 1 piece of legislation in them that the "other side" wants to try and sneak in.  it is usually those "added pieces of someones agenda" that destroy an otherwise good Bill.