John Tyler (April
1841-1845)
We’re about to enter the
dregs of the Presidency; the next group have always been considered among the
worst in history. It’s not a coincidence that ‘the sectional crisis’ that led to
the Civil War occurred under their tenure. Tyler has always ranked below
average by historians and that hasn’t changed much. If anything, I think
historians are ranking him too high by placing him above at least a
couple of the names on the list (which we’ll get too)
In my opinion Tyler
deserves credit for one thing only: by deciding that a Vice President who takes
office after his President dies should be considered one in their own right.
There was a lot of doubt about that when it happened in 1841, and had he not decided
to do so many of the Presidents on this list – and the significant achievements
that they accomplished in their administration – would not be here. So he was a
pioneer. That doesn’t mean he was a good at it.
Part of it may have been
the fact that he was a Democrat who had been put on broaden the appeal for the
Whigs. But he chose to do go not only against the Whigs but his own party,
neither of whom liked him. He opposed the major goals of his own party and was
the first President to use the veto excessively. The fact that some of the
goals of his Congress, including higher tariffs and a national bank were good
ones, did not matter to him. He also annexed Texas, against the goals of most
politicians in both parties, which brought about the Mexican War and aggravated
the sectional crisis further. Small wonder neither party wanted to renominate
him. Furthermore he remained a strict advocate for slavery and was elected to
the Confederate Congress after the South seceded. (He only didn’t serve because
he died before it ever met.)
Below average doesn’t suit
him; he’s as much a failure as some of his successors were, and if anything he
doesn’t get enough blame because he wasn’t in office when the real
fireworks got started.
My Assessment: Worse Than History Remembers (And
He Was Already Horrible.)
James K. Polk (1845-1849)
Polk has long been
considered the one bright spot among the Presidents between Van Buren and
Buchanan, usually ranked as above average. He’s taken a bit of hit in recent
years dropping all the way down to 25th which puts him pretty close
to average. I honestly don’t know why.
Perhaps he is being blamed
for the Mexican War, but while he aggravated the situation the conflict was
inevitable once he was named the Democratic nominee for President instead of
Van Buren (who most thought would prior to the both conventions). He settled
the boundary dispute with Britain over Oregon that could have led to a conflict
with them (’54-40 or fight), did his best to make the White House a slightly
less ribald place and was the only President to decide that one term was
enough.
I don’t know what led to
his drop in the ranking but I think it’s unjust. In this case, I think the
original assessment of historians is the correct one.
My Assessment: He’s as Good
As We Remember
Zachary Taylor (1849-1850)
Taylor is a tough one,
mainly because he was only President for a year and a few months. Trying to
figure out his legacy is difficult because of his mysterious death, which seems
to have been of stomach problems. He has usually been ranked below average and
in the most recent poll he has actually dropped five places so that he’s now
below, among others, John Tyler. Clearly he wasn’t that bad. So what is his
legacy?
Well, he was the first
President to never hold elected office and while he was from the South and a
slaveowner, his victory in 1848 was not sectional: he carried eight states in
the South and eight in the West. He also opposed extended slavery into new
territories, something that almost none of his fellow Southerners did. He
pushed for the development of a transcontinental railroad. But the trouble
comes when you consider what was going to be the issue of his Presidency: the
Compromise of 1850.
In the spring of 1850,
Henry Clay and Daniel Webster had worked together to put together a compromise
that might avert the impending Civil War. Taylor was opposed to many parts,
especially the Fugitive Slave Act. It’s not clear what he would have done, some
say he might have vetoed it. But he died that July and as a result his
successor Filmore signed it.
Because we can’t know the
future and because his term was so short, most historians have not given Taylor
the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they are right to. Then again, considering
how they consider the next one, maybe they’re just judging with the advantage
of hindsight. I think at the end of the day Taylor is a mirror image of JFK;
the latter is judged too highly based on potential; Taylor is judged because he
didn’t realize. I think Taylor deserves to be either ranked average or not at
all. Either way, history has him too low.
My Assessment: Bad, But Not
As Bad As They Say He Is.
Millard Fillmore
(1850-1853)
Filmore also ranks below
average by historians and I get he wasn’t the best President. But he ranks
below Taylor, which throws the idea of the Compromise of 1850 being out of
whack. Perhaps historians have this out-of-whack idea that Filmore’s support of
the Compromise of 1850 was a betrayal of his principles because it allowed for
expansion of slavery into the Western territories though he opposed slavery.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Perhaps some of the reasons
Filmore has a worse reputation is two-fold. The Whigs didn’t nominate him for
President in 1852, which historians might thing was because they didn’t like
him. The thing is took more than fifty ballots to nominate Winfield
Scott in 1852, and in any case the Whig Party already sick, was within a few
years of dying out. We can’t blame Filmore for that.
A bigger sin may be that in
1856, he chose to run on a third-party ticket on what was known as the
Know-Nothing Party. It was a party whose sole purpose was running
anti-immigration and it was a factor in politics in the 1850s. They may have a
point about that bias – for an ex-President to give this party credibility was
not the best look for him.
Still Filmore tried his
hardest to save the Union by his Presidency and it didn’t start to fall apart
until after he left. He’s not a great President but he’s not that terrible. I
think he deserves to be ranked average.
My Assessment: Needs to be
considered mediocre.
Franklin Pierce (1853-1857)
Pierce has been dropping
for a while and he was never ranked that high to begin with. Once considered
below average, he is now ranked almost at the bottom. Sadly, they are correct
is this assessment.
Pierce managed to achieve
the Presidency based on being a ‘doughface’ -
a Northern Democrat with Southern Principles. It took nearly fifty
ballots to choose him as President and he only won in a landslide because the
Whigs were at deaths door. Almost immediately after being sworn into office, he
started to tear apart the fragile détente the Compromise of 1850 had put into effect
when he approved the Kansas-Nebraska Act that Stephen Douglas, one of his
rivals for the nomination, had put before Congress to improve his prospects for
the White House in two years. This led to the bloody fighting and reopening the
debate that led to the Civil War. Pierce then earned the dubious distinction of
becoming the only President not renominated
by his own party.
Pierce was one of our worst
Presidents, and though I think there are some ranked ahead of him who are worse
then him, there are few whose actions did more damage.
My Assessment: As Bad As
His Ranking Now Suggests.
James Buchanan (1857-1861)
I once suggested that for
those people who think we might have had a gay President that Buchanan, the
only President who never married, was the most likely candidate rather than
Lincoln. I do understand why the LGBTQ+ wants it to be Lincoln. Because Lincoln
was one of the greatest Presidents in history, and right now Buchanan is ranked
the worst. That’s not something you want to have on your roster.
Sexuality aside I’m
inclined to agree with the assessment that Buchanan is the worst of the worst.
All of the other ‘contenders’ got their title either out of association or
abuse of power. Buchanan earns because at the most critical time for leadership
in our history, he decided it was not his job to lead.
Despite his opposition of
slavery when the Dred Scott decision came out within months of his take office,
he decided that was the final say and that either he should do nothing else or
that the issue was settled. While the country was more divided than it ever
was, he spent much of his Presidency trying to get Cuba, Haiti and certain
countries in South America to become part of the United States. Even as the
1860 election began to start (Buchanan chose not to run for renomination) he
took no role as the Democratic Party split. Indeed, he decided to endorse his
Vice President John Breckinridge (a major backer of the South) over Stephen
Douglas, the candidate who might have been able to win had he support.
(Buchanan, for the record, loathed Douglas: the two had been fighting for the
Democratic nomination for the Presidency since at least 1852 and the feeling
was mutual.) Even after Lincoln’s election and the Southern states began to
secede in the immediate aftermath, he still did and said nothing.
Pierce and Tyler were
horrible Presidents because their actions aggravated the sectional crisis.
Buchanan was far worse because his inaction at a time when action was
needed was practically treason. Even after the war began he spent much of the
rest of his life trying to shore up his legacy rather than taking
responsibility or a position.
Revisionist historians have
done much to try and polish the reputations of some of the worst Presidents or
politicians of our past. No one has tried with Buchanan and I doubt they ever
will. In most case, you can point to something that President did and Buchanan
purposely chose to do nothing.
My Assessment: Hard to Think Of A Worse One – But There Are Some Contenders
Coming Up.
In the next group, I will
go from Reconstruction to the start of the Progressive Era.
No comments:
Post a Comment