I've been fascinated by the American presidents, all of them, since I was a small child. I've read extensively about them as well.

I found this History Channel series to be fairly interesting, but of course it's impossible to go in depth about any of the men who held the highest office in the land.

I would disagree with your opinion that "do nothing" presidents are better than "big doer" presidents. It was "do nothing" presidents like Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan (the 13th, 14th, and 15th presidents) who allowed the U.S. to spiral into the Civil War. It was other "do nothings" like Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover who allowed the economy to plunge into the Great Depression.

Of course, activist presidents can also get us into trouble, such as the current one who led us into an unnecessary war with Iraq.

Finally, William Howard Taft wasn't exactly a "do nothing" president. For all the credit that Theodore Roosevelt gets for "busting" the trusts and monopolies of the times, William H. Taft's administration actually took more action against the trusts than did that of Roosevelt's.

This series was a good starting point for people who would like to know more about our presidents. Thanks for sharing.

Geoff- My point about activist vs pacifistic presidents is general, so it won't apply 100% in all places and times. Also, all presidents do something - and some things they're supposed to do. Trust busting was significant, but pretty mild as "activism" compared to FDR's breathtaking socialist usurpations.

And doing little or nothing would have been far better when he came to power. It was his huge, arbitrary and unpredictable interventions that drug out a bad market correction into a decade+ depression. Thomas Sowell notes that Black Friday in 1987 was proportionally as bad as the 1929 crash - yet Reagan resisted strong political pressures and did nothing. Arguably as a result of benign neglect, that bad minute in the market is now barely remembered.