Who are the most polarizing Presidents in history? And why?

>>3012709
Washington
Lincoln
FDR
JFK
Nixon
Reagan

None of them were swamp creatures, and all of them stood for something.

>>3012709
Jackson
Lincoln
FDR
Nixon
Reagan
Trump
The first 4 took quasi-illegal or blatantly illegal actions. The last 3 were right wing in an era where academia and media were populated by left wingers.

>>3012709
Drumpf

Edit: thanks for the gold kind gentlesir

>>3012756
i unironically upvote this

>>3012709
Adams
Taft
Reagan

File: AJ.jpg (116KB, 1200x1385px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1200x1385px

>tfw you cause such acute buttdevastation people are still trying to erase your legacy 150 years later

Reagan obviously. You don't see nearly as much concentrated hate or love and nothing inbetween than on him. At least that's if you don't count prime ministers.

>>3012765
>>3012765
>Adams
>Taft
Nigger, these are the only guys posted ITT so far I want to see the
>And why?
part of and you didn't even include it.

>>3012709
Lincoln
Literally started a civil war
Washington is least because he founded America

>>3013005
What's the most polarizing /aspect/ of Washington then?

>>3012709
Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan, Jesus fucking Christ you guys

Pierce supported Kansas-Nebraska, which drove division over slavery to a federal level, and did retarded shit like the Ostend Manifesto that fueled Northern working class sentiment against Southern slaveowners.

James Buchanan built off of Pierce and did Dred Scott and wanted the Lecompton Constitution. For fucks sakes Buchanan split his own party by not getting Douglas to agree with its hardline on slavery.

The fact that these two chuckleheads were able to polarize the country into accepting a Civil War makes them way more polarizing than any of the Reagans, Nixons, Bushes, or Trumps, who managed to piss off a few sheltered liberals in metropolitan areas and make a few people move to Canada.

>>3013023
Whiskey Rebellion?

>>3013005
Washington did a lot of shit that hampered America including but not limited to.
Being a glory hound.
Putting his economic personal interest first many time both as the head of the Congressional Army and as President.
Scapegoating nearly everytime he fucked up.
Being super fucking indecisive like all the fucking time mainly with fucking up several strategies during the war and being wholly unable to even try to end partisanship which led to a whole bunch of bullshit when Hamilton and Jefferson were clawing at each other when the new nation was weak.

Unrelated, but I think a better question is who was the most influential one-term President?

>>3013057
George H.W. Bush?
>Gulf War first application of digital tech in a large-scale war setting
>Defeated fourth largest army in the world at the time
>Built a major international coalition in doing so
>also oversaw the collapse of the Soviet Union

John Quincy Adams' and John Adams' presidencies leading to the rise of Jacksonian and Jeffersonian democracy may also be significant, but if we're going by that metric then Carter should be pretty significant as well

>>3013057
James Polk

>>3013093
Totally forgot about him, disregard my response >>3013090

>>3013090
that's all pretty minor. The Gulf War had awful consequences and Saddam should have had been allowed to take Kuwait whether it was legal or not desu. The USSR collapsed during his term but he himself was not responsible for that nor did he have any hand in the developments in the former USSR afterwards.

>>3013023
Remain colonies v Independence

Only about 30% of the colonialists wanted independence. Washington pushed hard for it, and then almost ended up with a monarchy. One King George for another, you might say.

>>3013143
Yeah, but he didn't even want to be King. And it still would've been better to be ruled by a local King than one faraway.

File: Calvin-Coolidge-silent-cal-george-will-620x306.jpg (30KB, 620x306px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 620x306px

Calvin Coolidge
>Did literally nothing during his presidency
>Most likely caused the great depression
>Was weend on a pickle

>>3013167
ideally had the english been more perceptive americans would have settled for representation in parliament or a federal framework with an american parliament presided by a british monarch. the entire issue arose from parliamentary supremacy or, that is, that the king ruled through parliament and embodied sovereignty and so it was indivisible. The americans would have accepted a british king, they revolted against parliamentary supremacy, not the british monarchy, which they thought was being held captive by a catholic conspiracy of sorts in parliament