Look I agree with the overall sentiment but 1 of these is not like the others, especially if you’ve read the history of the Dakota War of 1862. Should the US in general not have wholesale slaughtered an indigenous people and stolen their land? Obviously not. Did that reality lead to the war of 1862? Sure did. Does that make massacring people on either side ok? No not really. Lincoln was given a recommendation to execute 303 people who participated in battles and, in some cases, massacred civilians. He asked for details of their convictions. Then he decided that the 38 who actively participated in massacres of innocent people should be executed, not the others who participated in battles. That kinda feels like the best of a fucked up situation to me.

The Lincoln one isn’t fair. After the Dakota uprising, the court sentenced HUNDREDS of natives to death for the murder of almost 500 settlers, including women and children. Lincoln commuted the sentences of almost all the convicted natives, save for the ones that personally murdered women and children.

They also did that just do vandalize a sacred mountain.

Two of these guys are much more complicated. Most people have already pointed out Lincoln but Teddy is more complicated than how he viewed Native Americans. He was out first Trust Buster as President. The robber barons thought they had bought him but once he was in office, after the death of McKinley, he went after them. He broke up Standard Oil. He went after those fuckers with his big stick and helped a lot of people because of it. He also created National Parks, which is complicated but still more positive than the destruction of the land that was happening.

Of course he was also racist, but there are presidents who are complicated and manage to do both terrible and actually very positive things at the same time. Teddy wasn’t perfect and he was often an asshole, but he did good things too.