Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)
If you’ve read my recent
series on Andrew Johnson, you know that I think he has been treated unfairly by
history and historians. And his reputation has plummeted over the last twenty
years. He is now considered a failure and the current poll says that only
Buchanan is worse than him.
I don’t think that’s
entirely fair. Yes his challenges to Congress were ill-conceived and he had no
ability to see which way the winds were blowing. But he did come to power and
the most traumatic time in our nation’s history to date and did manage to
successfully end the Civil War. I’ve already made it clear his impeachment was
essentially a witch hunt made by the opposition that was involved in
legislative overreach rather than any high crime or misdemeanor. As for his
failures with Reconstruction and his decisions to issue amnesty for all the
Confederates, all of them were closer to what Lincoln had in mind than Congress
and he has suffered mainly because everyone thought Lincoln would have done a
better job even though we have no idea what it was.
I think Johnson is being
crucified for his views which, sad to say, were not uncommon at the time and
that not even most Northerners shared. To view him as the worst President is
mainly due to the impossible circumstances he took office under and the
situation he tried to negotiate with.
I think history has
terrifically undervalued Johnson. I don’t think he would ever be a great
President but to consider him among the very worst is completely unfair. He
needs to be considered average, which may not seem like much but is far better
than his current ranking.
My Assessment: Deserves to rank among the
Middle Rather Than The Worst
Ulysses S. Grant
(1869-1877)
By contrast Grant’s
reputation has vastly improved over time. For decades he was considered one of
the worst Presidents ever, one of the
major failures in the office. But in the most recent ranking he has shot up nine
spots to go all the way to seventeenth which puts him almost at the average
category. Have we overcorrected or did we undervalue him?
First of all everyone does
acknowledge that Grant’s administration was corrupt but that he himself was
honest. That’s basically true of every politician in the 1870s in either party.
He also supported the Fifteenth Amendment, was the last President for eighty
years to back a Civil Rights bill, and strongly enforced Reconstructions. He
was also immensely popular, easily won reelection in 1872, many wanted him to
run for a third term and he actually tried to in 1880. Those are the pros.
Against him: he might have
been fundamentally honest, but he was a really bad judge of character,
considering how many people he appointed had to resign because of corruption.
(He holds the record with 5 Attorneys General in his administration.) And in the
midst of his administration, the Panic of 1873 occurred and the nation nearly
went into another depression on his watch, which he did very little to help.
The divide of the one percent was very visible in his administrations, perhaps
more than any other. Throw in the fact he was an alcoholic, and I’m not
sure how good his judgment was.
I think we’ve
overcorrected. Grant was not the worst President ever, clearly, but he was far
from a good one. Indeed, he’s one of the best examples of why we should not let
people with no political experience run for, nor serve as President. At best he
deserves a consideration of below average, no higher.
My Assessment: Not as Bad as He Was
Remembered, Not As Good as We Seem to Think he is Now.
Rutherford B. Hayes
(1877-1881)
This is a tough one. Hayes
lost the popular vote and the electoral college but because of corruption on
the Republican side and an electoral commission as weighted for his party as
the Supreme Court was in 2000, he won the Presidency. As a result, we nearly
had another civil war before he was sworn in.
Part of the bargain that
the Republicans made was that Hayes would end Reconstruction, which essentially
led to the Jim Crow era and the South remaining where it was for the next
eighty years. Long-term he may deserve blame for it, but I do think this was
inevitable at some point. He also tried Civil Service reform but he failed
they’re too. And he decided not to run for reelection, given how he’d come into
office.
Hayes has been ranked as
average for decades and that’s basically where he is now. I see no compelling
reason to go against the opinion.
My Assessment: No Reason to Change.
Chester Arthur (1881-1885)
After Garfield finally died
of his wounds in 1881, Republicans said: ‘Chet Arthur as President! God help
us!” But Arthur actually did better than anyone could have expected given he
was on the ticket as a product of the spoils system.
Indeed, not long after
Garfield’s assassination civil service reform finally happened and Arthur
advocated for it strongly. He signed the Pendleton Act, which created the
modern civil service system. He also argued against the Chinese exclusion act,
which was becoming a big issue at the time. Neither of these did much to
increase Arthur’s popularity and he was denied renomination by Republicans. In
truth, he did not wish: he was suffering from Bright’s disease an illness of
the kidneys and in poor health. A year and a half after leaving office, he died
from it at the age of 57.
Arthur’s initial reputation
is that of average, but over the last few years he has dropped to the below
average category, very close to the group that are considered failures. I don’t
think that’s quite fair. I think the average ranking him suits him.
My Assessment: Deserves to Be Considered Average.
Grover Cleveland
(1885-1889, 1893-1897)
Cleveland’s place in
history has been the only President to serve two non-consecutive terms. He’s
also one of two Presidents to win the popular vote three times but the
electoral college only twice. Cleveland’s reputation was built on the fact that
he was a reformer and the Republican opponent in 1884, James G. Blaine was a
symbol of corruption so great that Republicans switched parties to vote for
him. In his first term, he enlarged the Civil Service and opposed high tariffs,
saying that they were unfair to farmers and workers. Supporting that cause
eventually cost him reelection in 1888.
I suspect if he had just
let it be we might still regard him as above average. But the very election
that gave him his place in history led to his fate. Not long after he took
office in 1893, a severe economic depression hit the country and organized labor,
which had been building up volume for decades became such a factor that the
power of the union became fully realized for the first time. As a result,
though he might have been able to run again in 1896 he couldn’t put his name in
renomination.
Cleveland was once
considered above average, even near great but his reputation has been dropping
over time. He is now ranked 26th, which puts him right on the cusp
of being average. A lot of this may be due to the rankings of so many recent
Presidents (many of whom are overrated) but his second term did much to drag
down his national reputation. If he had been a one-term President we might
think more of him, but his two terms were not equal and I think that’s the
right call.
My Assessment: History Has
(Non-Consecutively) Caught Up With Cleveland
Benjamin Harrison
(1889-1893)
Benjamin Harrison, until
fairly recently, was the last President to win despite losing the popular vote.
It was actually a lot closer: Cleveland only beat him by 95,000 votes but New
York, which had gone for Cleveland four years earlier, went to Harrison
instead.
That aside Harrison was one
of the first Republican Presidents to openly be on the side of big business,
supporting laws that outlawed business combines that restrained trade and
approved high tariffs which protected U.S. industries. He also managed to win
the White House by his family legacy – he was the grandson of William Henry
Harrison, which opened a lot of doors for him. In the next election he was
absolutely routed by Cleveland and probably deservedly.
Benjamin Harrison ranks at
the cusp between average and below average, which is where he’s always been. I
see no reason to change.
My Assessment: No Better and No Worse Than
He Deserves.
William McKinley
(1897-1901)
McKinley was the last Civil
War veteran from Ohio to win the Presidency. Believe it or not, from 1868 to
1896, if you were a Republican that’s basically all the qualifications you
seemed to need to both get nominated and win. All except Grant had held elected
office, either Governor or Congressman, and in McKinley’s case he’d been both.
He managed to win the Presidency on the campaign for both high tariffs and
backing U.S. money on the gold standard. (Don’t ask me to explain what
bimetallism was; I’ve been reading about it for twenty years, I still have no
idea what it means) Once he became President, that’s essentially how our
currency was handled.
That said, most of his
first term was essentially dominated by the Spanish-American War which he
opposed but his administration and outside forces basically started, let happen
and won. This is where the march towards U.S. imperialism begins and while McKinley
wasn’t an active participant, he didn’t use his power to get it stopped.
McKinley was not much liked
even by some of his fellow Republicans; the Speaker of the House famously said
that McKinley “had all the backbone of a chocolate éclair’. That is no doubt
why big business and the party bosses liked him so much – and why labor
agitators and anarchists found him a symbol of everything they found wrong with
the status quo. The public loved him because times were good and the country
was coming out of the depression. When he was assassinated in 1901 the nation
mourned a great loss.
McKinley ranks basically
among the average Presidents and but he has been dropping steadily over the
last several polls, he was once as high as 19th and now has dropped
practically dead center at 24th. He may drop below average soon but
I think his ranking is accurate
My Assessment: Still
Ordinary.
In the next part I will go
from the end of the Progressive era to the Great Depression.
No comments:
Post a Comment