RANKING OF THE PRESIDENTS: How the Historians Have it Wrong (Part I)

(Also see Parts II and II.  See below comments for analysis.)

Historians can also be lazy or incompetent.  The graduate student prodded to write his master’s thesis on the settlement of Albemarie County in Virginia probably spent less than five minutes studying the Presidency of Zachary Taylor.  As a university professor the historian may have lost his first job due to budget cuts and somehow came around to blaming it on the President of the United States.  He may be a constitutional scholar and holds in esteem only the Presidential administrations of the founding fathers.  He may be familiar with crisis in American history while only paying attention to the Presidents at the time of war or economic turmoil.  He may find Watergate and Teapot Dome particularly odious because he is oblivious to all other Presidential scandals.  Though marginally aware that the platforms of political parties have changed over times, he cannot forgive Taft for choosing to be a Republican or Wilson for being a Democrat.

By organizing the historians into commissions or panels the problem becomes even more exasperated.  The head of the commission likely has his own personal bias and will choose members accordingly.  The members, grateful for the opportunity to make easy money, may want to please their new boss by never saying anything disagreeable.  The conclusions of panels set up for whatever reasons are suspect to begin with and the results are usually never compelling or surprising.  By its very nature a commission requires compromise, and the compromise generally leads to the wrong conclusions.  The votes of knowledgeable members are cancelled out by those of the ignorant members.  The objective vote is cancelled out by the biased vote.  The votes of a maverick historian are countered by the meek individual unwilling to buck any trend.  Plus, many of the panel members are never known to the public and we seldom know what data they use to come up with their opinions.

We had Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. conducting polls of historians in 1948 and 1962 concerning who were and were not the best Presidents.   Schlesinger’s rankings show up in high school history books with little explanation as to why we should accept the panel’s findings.  The panel held to many questionable assumptions.  For example, the one sentence consensus of the historians involved in the 1962 survey was that Franklin Pierce was an indecisive President - ignoring the fact that most of Pierce’s vetoes were overridden.  Though Schlesinger claimed to downplay ideology in his historical rankings of the Presidents, most of the historians polled had progressive leanings like Schlesinger's - and Presidents such as Eisenhower, Coolidge and Harding did not fare well in the rankings.  Since Schlesinger’s polls were the first of their kind (and the first are usually the least reliable), probably every ranking since has been influenced by the panel’s conclusions.  As far as the mass media is concerned, being the first to be prominently published always makes the study authoritative.  The historians in any case have committed themselves in print.   The published results will not be altered, even if certain members of the original panel change their mind.  No panel will ever publicly admit that it was wrong.

Historians are subject like everyone else to popular prejudices that seldom wane.    Take a few examples: Wilson has long been considered our first progressive President, though there was little in his domestic agenda that would make him appear anything like a progressive thinker.  Wilson was ruthless in his treatment of dissent, and he came down most heavily on dissent from individuals politically left of the Wilson' administration.  On the other hand, Taft was more notorious in breaking up trusts than his predecessor, yet Taft (and his many descendents) were members of the Republican Party and by proxy associated with corporate interests.  If historians spent a little more time studying what actually happened during administrations rather than identifying policies by party affiliations (along with taking single quotes as representations of the character of that particular President), the published rankings would be far different.

There’s been interest in Presidential rankings lately because, in our polarized society, such rankings stir up controversy.  Intense partisanship (not something new in this country) has been intensified during the Bush, Jr. and Obama administrations.  We like to argue as to who makes better Presidents - Democrats or Republicans.   We're seldom disillusioned to discover that one administration is not that different from another, and that the individual in the White House that we voted for did not keep any more promises than the President we opposed.  The admirers of politicians are generally blind.  Most Presidents are brilliant men that are not up for a job in which they are expected to know everything.  Some Presidents are credited for accomplishments that only came per chance.  Others are blamed for failures that were beyond their control.   Our Presidents are expected to be workaholics, politicians, historians, socialites, good family men, scholars, and great public speakers while also expected to remain charming, humble and likeable.  It’s just not possible to be all of these things.  Though some politicians are as narcissistic as the worst celebrity, no President is going to be universally popular.  Since no President has picked up more than sixty-two percent of the vote in any election since the votes have been counted, at least one-third of the country never supported even the most popular President to be in the White House.  Unsurprisingly, the Presidency is not a healthy occupation.  Eight of our Presidents did not survive their term.  A number of other Presidents didn’t live five years after leaving office.  Almost all looked youthful and energetic coming in and worn-out and old when leaving. 

But before feeling sorry for them, remember that they sought the position.   Royalty had more appeal to them even than wealth.  Outside of Grant, almost all of them died with large amounts of cash in the bank, and since 1900 most of them came from families that were highly connected.  Almost all of our early Presidents were landed gentry.  We did have a period where military leaders by the names of Jackson, Harrison, Taylor, Grant and Garfield worked their way to the top office.   Lincoln was more of an anomaly by never rising to major military rank.  During the 1800s, there was a time when voters did not understand that they were supposed to vote in career politicians.  But with the onset of the 20^th Century we saw dynasties come to power with the names of Roosevelt, Taft, Kennedy and Rockefeller.  It’s surprising with all of that we even had Presidents with names like Truman, Reagan and Clinton seeing how much money it now costs to finance a Presidential campaign.

 I decided to create my own ranking of the Presidents (see below and my Part II and Part III comments concerning this) as an exercise in revisionism.  In doing so, I’ve attempted not to be partisan.  Please notice that the top 15 Presidents in my rankings all varied from being politically conservative to moderate to liberal.  You may also want to note that the bottom 15 in my rankings were all Presidents that could be considered politically conservative, moderate or liberal.  (I’m guessing there will be conservatives in any case who will take exception to my high ranking of Franklin Roosevelt and liberals that will be offended by my high ranking of Ronald Reagan - if anyone even bothers to read my list or my comments.)  To defend myself from those thinking that I'm trying too hard to remain neutral, I did take policy considerations into account.  Our four most visionary Presidents had their faces carved upon Mount Rushmore and are appropriately listed high within my rankings.  But I do need to point out that the terms conservative, moderate or liberal are misleading as definitions for any of our Presidents as these concepts have changed over time.  (Remember that conservative Republicans at one time were isolationists advocating high tariffs while many liberal Democrats remained indifferent to the Jim Crow laws legislated in the south.)  I do favor what I consider positive, relaxed, and sociable individuals that have inhabited the White House such as Monroe, Grant, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Reagan and Clinton.  Uptight individuals such as John Adams, Pierce, Wilson and Nixon did not fare well on my list.   (As an aside, I tried not to punish a President in my listing because they happened to die in office.  Garfield and William Henry Harrison were gifted men that could have been some of our better Presidents.  Though they did not accomplish enough in their administrations to be placed among the top 10, they did much less damage than did Pierce or Buchanan.)

Take my rankings for what they are worth or make an argument that can change my mind.  I know that not all of my choices are conventional.  Contrary to other rankings, I’ve placed Taylor, Grant and Harding high upon my list because I think the historians focused in too narrowly on isolated events during those administrations.  Likewise, I’ve rated Madison, McKinley and Wilson low on my list (when they’ve traditionally achieved high rankings) because these ambitious men strived to self-righteously achieve goals that were unattainable and more aimed at the greater glory of their own legacy than the good of the nation.

Below are the rankings from best to worst.  My remarks concerning each individual President are contained in Part II and Part III of this commentary.  Do at least read the commentary before you criticize my choices.

(1)           Abraham Lincoln

(2)           Franklin Delano Roosevelt

(3)           George Washington

(4)            Ronald Reagan

(5)            Grover Cleveland

(6)            Thomas Jefferson

(7)            Theodore Roosevelt

(8)            Harry S. Truman

(9)            Ulysses S. Grant

(10)           Zachary Taylor

(11)           Dwight D. Eisenhower

(12)           James Monroe

(13)           Warren G. Harding

(14)           William Jefferson Clinton

(15)           John F. Kennedy

(16)           Calvin Coolidge

(17)           Martin Van Buren

(18)           Andrew Jackson

(19)           William Henry Harrison (only President 30 days)

(20)           James Garfield (only President for six months)

(21)           Chester Arthur

(22)           William Howard Taft

(23)           Gerald R. Ford

(24)           John Quincy Adams

(25)           Andrew Johnson

(26)           Lyndon Baines Johnson

(27)           George H.W. Bush

(28)           Rutherford B. Hayes

(29)           James Knox Polk

(30)           John Adams

(31)           Richard Milhous Nixon

(32)           George W. Bush

(33)           James Earl Carter

(34)           Benjamin Harrison

(35)           Herbert Clark Hoover

(36)           Milliard Fillmore

(37)           John Tyler

(38)           James Madison

(39)           William McKinley

(40)           James Buchanan

(41)           Franklin Pierce

(42)           Woodrow Wilson

Barack Obama – Not rated (still in office)

July 26, 2010

© Robert S. Miller 2010

Also see:

Part II: http://arcticshores.blogspot.com/2010/12/ranking-of-presidents-part-ii.html

Part III: http://arcticshores.blogspot.com/2010/12/ranking-of-presidents-part-iii.html

(Also see Parts II and III)

Ranking of President: How the Historians Have it Wrong - Part II

(Also see Parts I and III.  See below comments for analysis.)

George Washington, 1789-1797): It should chagrin all of us that the true “father of our country” was also a slaveholder.  Yet Washington was largely perfect in his role as President because he was so adeptly able to play in public the role of a humble man.  He decided to be a President rather than a king, refused to serve more than two terms, and declined to put his religious beliefs on display.  Washington should also not be underrated as a statesman.  Because he did not pursue further conflict with the British, a period of peace was issued in that the young republic badly needed.  In large part due to his cabinet appointees, Washington kept the new nation economically solvent.  And in his farewell address, he warned that the nation should not entangle itself in European affairs – a policy that all Presidents then followed until 1917.  RANKING: 3rd Best of 42 Presidents.

John Adams, 1797-1801:  Adams will forever be foreshadowed by the President that came before him and the President that came immediately after him.  It is fortunate that Adams was not elected prior to Washington.  Otherwise, we may have called our leaders Majesty.  Adams came as close as any President to imagining his own person as royalty, and for all his brilliance left office with a reputation of being a poor politician.  Adams was the President that signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts to suppress political opposition.  But without the assistance of his benefactor, George Washington (who died during Adams' term), Adams was not even able to keep united his own political party.  Perhaps his one great act that he performed as President was the appointment of John Marshall to the Supreme Court.  RANKING: 30th of 42 Presidents.

Thomas Jefferson, 1801-1809: Jefferson was a great thinker, the author of The Declaration of Independence and above average President.  Jefferson did much to undo the damage brought on by the Adams’ Presidency, pardoned many prisoners charged under the Alien and Sedition Act and overall attempted to reduce the size of government.  Not everything he did fit into his own political philosophy, however.  He ended up purchasing land under the Louisiana Purchase - not that he thought he had the power to do so under the Constitution, but because it was a gift too generous to turn down.  He also became the first President to initiate an overseas war – which was a severe compromise of his principles.  (The First Barbary War, as it is known, actually did little to prevent piracy, so there was a Second Barbary War that was launched in 1815 during the Madison administration.)  Jefferson was also a conflicted man.  He abolished the slave trade though he personally owned slaves.  And because he long had proclaimed the equality of opportunity for all men, he was uncomfortable in his role as President of the United States and leader of other men.  He attempted to make up for this by greeting diplomats in informal attire.  Jefferson was also a shy man and, great writer that he was, apparently was not too impressive as a public speaker.  Historians note that his one failure as President was the Embargo Act of 1807, which effectively stifled trade with Europe.  However, most historians fail to note that the act was repealed before Jefferson left office in early 1809.  Jefferson’s greatness as a man (with great flaws) along with his lasting contribution towards the creation of our nation is the primary reason as to why his face is carved on Mount Rushmore.  Nevertheless, his vision as President, if not perfectly accomplished during his administration, was at least a model for all Presidents to come.  RANKING: 6th of 42 Presidents.

James Madison, 1809-1817: Simply being a founding father does not qualify one to be President.  Try to comprehend what the reaction would have been of historians if Washington D.C. had been occupied by enemy combatants and the White House burned to the ground during George W. Bush’s Presidency.  I believe they would have been much less forgiving than they have been to Madison.  What’s more, Madison declared war on the British while not having the armed services fully prepared.  In fact, Madison was never really able to bring popular support to any items of his agenda and did next to nothing to improve the infrastructure of the country.  Madison could likely be considered our most overrated President.  RANKING: 38th of 42 Presidents.

James Monroe, 1817-1825: Monroe issued in the Era of Good Feeling simply by being a different President than his predecessor.  Monroe also may be remembered fondly by historians simply because he faced almost no opposition during the two times that he was elected President (a practice that was soon to end after Andrew Jackson came upon the scene).  Monroe was the first President to make a goodwill tour of territories of the U.S.  Perhaps Monroe’s most significant accomplishment was the Missouri Compromise, which eliminated slavery from being implemented in many (but not all) new territories in the country.  Monroe was the first executive to at least address the issue of slavery.  Regarding foreign policy, Monroe’s name is on the Monroe Doctrine which disallowed further European colonization in any place in the Western Hemisphere and has still had a dramatic impact on global politics after two-hundred years.  The Seminole War in pursuit of hostile Indians, popular among southern settlers at the time, was in hindsight a blemish on his administration.   RANKING: 12th of 42 Presidents.

John Quincy Adams, 1825-1829: Adams' Presidency was almost over from the start as he was never able to overcome the charge that he and Henry Clay made a corrupt arrangement so that Adams could steal the Presidency and appoint Clay as Secretary of State in the process.  Whatever actually happened in the 1824 election, Adams will be more fondly remembered for his life following his Presidency including his seventeen year stint in Congress and his outspoken defense of abolitionism (in particular, his defense of the freed slaves in the Amistad case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court).  Adams supported enlarging the federal government to such a degree that states’ rights advocates withdrew any political support.  Adams only legislative accomplishment was to pass a tariff that proved to be unpopular in the south.  The younger Adams nevertheless was a humanitarian far ahead of his time in his attitude towards those of a different race.  Unlike Jackson, Adams wanted to implement a policy that was friendly toward the Cherokee tribe.  Not surprisingly, this was opposed by those living in regions like Georgia where the Cherokee populated.  Ultimately, Adams was unpopular as President because he was viewed as a Washington insider and because he was not a gifted statesman.  RANKING: 24th of 42 Presidents.

Andrew Jackson, 1829-1837: Old Hickory was a natural leader and somewhat power-hungry individual.  Jackson had the most forceful and fascinating of personalities of any President and he was never plagued by self-doubt.  Earlier in his life, Jackson survived imprisonment by the British and had participated in a number of duals.   During his Presidency he survived a physical assault and an assassination attempt.  Partly due to his reckless personality Jackson took on the federal banks and won a dubious victory.  Though he succeeded in abolishing the bank, no one is sure how much economic fallout and other consequences resulted because of this.  Jackson’s temper often got the best of him, and he was pushing for war with France (and almost got his wish) until Vice President Van Buren managed to smooth things over.  And the infamous “trail of tears,” the removal of American Indians from their land to reservations, foremost was the responsibility of the Jackson’ administration.  Jackson had a positive side.  Jackson did stave off a secessionist movement brewing in the South.  He was also an extremely popular President and was only defeated in the election of 1824 due to the chicanery of the Monroe administration.  That he began the Spoils System in American politics is greatly overstated.  The Monroe and Quincy Adams administrations before him made public participation in the political process almost impossible.  It was Jackson’s popularity and his reputation as a political outsider that turned the United States away from a nation of one-party rule to one where popular elections were held every four years.  We are a truer democracy today because of the Jackson' Presidency.  RANKING: 18th of 42 Presidents.

Martin Van Buren, 1837-1841: Van Buren was much more than Jackson’s puppet.  In many ways he was more Jeffersonian than Jefferson ever was.  Van Buren avoided a repeat war with Britain and at least forestalled a war with Mexico.  Van Buren resolved the economic depression he inherited from the Jackson administration without an increase in government expansion.  Van Buren had a gifted mind for the intricacies of politics, but unfortunately did not have the forceful personality of his predecessor to always get what he wanted.  Where Van Buren especially failed was in his reluctance to end the Indian wars; and as a supposed abolitionist in earlier years, he went along with the institution of slavery as President and was openly willing to compromise with southern interests (and received notoriety in the Amistad case where he appeared willing to send freed slaves back to slaveholders in Africa).  Thus, Van Buren’s Presidency was a mixed blessing.  RANKING: 17th of 42 Presidents.

William Henry Harrison, 1841: Harrison had an ambitious agenda that would have included undoing many of the policies implemented during the Jackson and Van Buren administrations – in particular, Harrison desired to reestablish the federal bank.  Harrison had the promise of doing something special in the White House so it is indeed unfortunate that he (1) rode his horse to the inauguration, and (2) gave the longest inaugural speech in history out in the rain.  Harrison served exactly one month as President, and much of that he spent ill in bed.  RANKING: 19th of 42 Presidents.

John Tyler, 1841-1845: Tyler, the “Accidental President,” was the first and possibly most outspoken “States Rights” President.  His drive for the annexation of Texas was in great part due to his desire to expand the institution of slavery to areas where it could not be meddled with by abolitionists in the north.  (This has been partially excused by apologists because it was thought that the spreading of slavery out would alleviate desires of secessionism by slave states.)  Tyler wanted to expand commercialism to Hawaii and Asian markets, and was accused of desiring this so that the United States could exploit the resources and citizens of those territories.  Tyler’s inability to comprehend the full significance of slavery (and he was as blind to the horrors of slavery as any President ever) should be his legacy - rather than being the first Vice-President to take the office of the Presidency due to the death of his predecessor.  RANKING: 37th of 42 Presidents.

James Knox Polk, 1845-1849: Polk’s Presidency was a mixture of good and bad and as such has been overly praised by the historians who admire activist Presidents - without paying attention to what that activism represented.  Polk did decrease tariffs which increased trade between the U.S. and other nations.  At the same time, he was an expansionist and could be described as our first true imperialist President.  All the baggage that comes along with imperialist policies was present during his administration.  Polk could have easily lost the war with Mexico if not for the fact the U.S. had good military leadership – including a General named Zachary Taylor, soon to be sitting in the White House.  And for all his warlike posturing against Britain and his actual sending of troops to Mexico, Polk completely shied away from the major domestic issue of the day – which was slavery.  RANKING: 29th of 42 Presidents.

Zachary Taylor, 1849-1850: Though barely literate, Taylor was an intelligent and pragmatic man.  Though not a visionary, it was tragic that his Presidency was cut short.  Taylor was nominated by the Whigs, despite that party having little idea where Taylor actually stood upon the issues.  But if the Whigs had thought Taylor would lay down to the party establishment, they were badly mistaken.  In the little more than a year he sat in office, Taylor did everything in his power to basically dismantle the party.  Though a slave owner, he did not appease the south with his “moderate” stand on the issue, and Taylor offended the south even more by moving to have California and New Mexico added as free-states.  Taylor, unlike his predecessor, had no desire to create complications by having the U.S. become entangled in foreign affairs.  Taylor has been badly underappreciated by peers and the historians, and could have been one of our best early Presidents - if he had only lived.  RANKING: 10th of 42 Presidents.

Millard Fillmore, 1850-1853: The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 that Fillmore signed into law right away was an indication that he was an entirely different President than Taylor.  Fillmore wanted to save the Whig Party by appeasing all sides and throwing in the towel on the slavery issue.  Fillmore did continue the policies of Taylor in one respect in that he continued the policy of not becoming entangled in foreign affairs - with one great exception: Admiral Peary was sent by him to Japan to open up relationships between the two nations – to this day no one is sure why Fillmore thought such a move was necessary.  But Fillmore did show a surprising streak of tolerance by his acceptance of Mormons as citizens of the United States.  This may be the one thing that he did do right during his administration.  RANKING: 36th of 42 Presidents.

Franklin Pierce, 1853-1857: One of our least-known Presidents that, more than Buchanan should be remembered for doing nothing to avert the pending Civil War.  (As an aside, Franklin Pierce was the only President to say “I solemnly affirm” rather than “I solemnly swear” at his inauguration - possibly due to religious doubts.)  And though claiming in his inaugural address that the slavery issue was “at rest,” Pierce may have exasperated matters by not taking any stance as to whether Kansas or Nebraska should be free or slave states when entering into the union.  Pierce said that he preferred to let the settlers of those territories settle the matter for themselves.  Pierce’s nonchalance concerning slavery in these territories was unprecedented since every other President followed the dictates of the Missouri Compromise – implemented in 1820 and abolishing slavery in states purchased through the Louisiana Purchase.  Pierce unwittingly split the Democratic Party by this decision (or indecision), and ultimately many Democrats fled to the new Republican Party.  Through his policies, the United States annexed a large number of islands in the Pacific.  Through the infamous Onstead Manifesto, the Pierce administration more or less threatened war in order to entice Spain to sell the island of Cuba.   Fortunately, Pierce was forced to abandon the plan when Pierce’s idea of turning Cuba into another slave state became public knowledge.  Pierce was not a popular President as he had over half of his vetoes overridden.  Some historians have said that Pierce was indecisive.  He was not indecisive, but most of his decisions (even ones not made while under the influence of bourbon) have now been shown to be disastrously wrong.  RANKING: 41st of 42 Presidents.

James Buchanan, 1857-1861: Buchanan has so often been touted as our worst President that one almost feels sorry for him.  Buchanan felt the south could not legally secede from the Union, but that the north had no constitutional recourse to take military action to prevent this from happening.  Pronouncing his belief in governmental restraint at a time when the nation was pulling itself a part was probably the wrong message to send to the public.  Buchanan was convinced that the Dred Scott decision (probably the worst decision ever made by the United States Supreme Court) would sufficiently put the south at ease.  Though claiming that a state like Pennsylvania had the right to remain a free state, Buchanan at the same time claimed the need of such states to respect the desires of her slave state “sisters.”  Buchanan even went so far as to blame northern abolitionists for the tensions between the north and south.  Under Buchanan, the economy of the south prospered while the north met severe economic times.  And during his final days in office, Buchanan had the privilege of seeing large numbers of federal troops surrender to the seven states known as the Confederate States of America.  Buchanan, consistent to a fault, did nothing.  Rumor has it that Buchanan needed a shot of brandy to steady his nerves before his inauguration.  One shouldn’t be surprised by this.  Probably Buchanan’s only defense could be that he recognized how bloody a Civil War would be if the Union fought to stop secession.  War never did come about during his administration.  RANKING: 40th of 42 Presidents.

Abraham Lincoln, 1861-1865: Whatever personal demons plagued the man (and there were many), Lincoln was the closest we ever had to a gifted statesman and politician of character.  Though always sounding self-assured when making his pronouncements, he questioned his own assumptions and was willing to grow as a leader.  Lincoln’s personal history was distorted by the fairytale perception of him in Carl Sandburg’s biography.  The man that sat in the White House during the entire course of the American Civil War could at times be ruthless.  Using his war powers as an excuse, Lincoln suspended civil liberties, ordered a blockade that placed most of the citizens of southern states in a situation of economic deprivation and imprisoned Confederate sympathizers without trial.  As charismatic as Lincoln was as a public speaker, he was also willing to face public criticism, put political aspirations aside and risk forever losing half of the nation on a principled stand against slavery.  RANKING: 1st of 42 Presidents.

Andrew Johnson, 1865-1869: Johnson was a decisive and stubborn man who suddenly inherited the worst job in the world when his predecessor was assassinated.  Johnson was in fact so decisive that he had more vetoes overridden than any other President in history.  Reconstruction did not go smooth under his tenure.  Nobody wanted Johnson as President in either the North or the South and he made matters worse by having few diplomatic skills.  Johnson did try to appease both sides but he failed in this pursuit.  In fact, many thought Johnson left the south off of the hook and put the former slaves in almost as bad of a situation as if they still were owned.  Probably Lincoln would have handled the cleanup following the Civil War better, but we will never know that for sure.  And maybe nobody that took the office of Presidency would ever have been up to that task.  RANKING: 25th of 42 Presidents.

Ulysses Simpson Grant, 1869-1877: Since graft has been such a significant indicator for ranking of Presidents, it’s no surprise that the Grant administration has been consistently listed low by the scholars.  But the historians have been absurdly short-sighted by putting the Whiskey Ring on par with the passage of the 15^th Amendment.  Grant was the first civil rights President and, for all practical purposes, the last true one until LBJ became President.  The corruption during his administration cannot be understated because it did lead to economic turmoil by allowing a great deal of speculation in silver and gold.  And the sheer number of scandals is significant.  But Grant was far ahead of his time in his dealing with minorities (especially blacks and American Indians) and in his determined effort to keep religious interests from influencing governmental interests.  For whatever its worth, Grant was an intelligent and decent man who drank too much and trusted too much in those he appointed to cabinet positions.  He certainly was not a failure as President.   RANKING: 9th of 42 Presidents.

Rutherford Birchard Hayes, 1877-1881: To return the favor of winning three contested states in the 1876 Presidential election, Hayes then proceeded to dismantle reconstruction policies that were prevalent under the Grant administration.  There would be no more significant efforts to help blacks better their lives in the south until after the 1960s.  Appearance wise in any case, Hayes distanced himself from the scandals that plagued the Grant administration.  Hayes implemented legislation that disallowed government workers from participating in political campaigns and created various civil service reforms.  Because of this he is now called an honest President.  That does not make up for the so-called Compromise of 1877.  RANKING: 28th of 42 Presidents.

James Abram Garfield, 1881: Garfield spent almost as much of his Presidency greatly incapacitated by a bullet wound as he did actually governing the United States.  His most noteworthy achievement in the time he did serve was in calling for civil service reform legislation.  Ironically, it was an assassin’s bullet that made this legislation deemed necessary.  Other than some squabbling inside the cabinet during his administration that Garfield was able to resolve, Garfield’s Presidency up to the time of the assassination seemed relatively uneventful.  Garfield was probably one of the most intelligent of men to ever assume the Presidency.  A Major Brigadier General and War hero in his early thirties, he purportedly could write in Latin and Greek simultaneously with one pencil in the left hand and another in the right, and he was a gifted mathematician as evidenced by a corollary he added to the Pythagorean Theory for which he receives full credit.  He died before his fiftieth birthday.  RANKING: 20th of 42 Presidents.

Chester Alan Arthur, 1881-1885: Because Arthur’s name was on the lips of Garfield’s assassin at the time that Garfield was shot, Arthur came into office under the auspices of suspicion.  Perhaps because of this his agenda was never greatly different from that of Garfield.  Arthur, originally a Stalwart (Republican’s that believed in political patronage or the Spoils’ system) ended up being a champion of civil service reform.  Arthur went against his own party’s wishes and attempted to lower tariffs.  He had a mixed record on civil rights in that he signed in the first immigration law, but also signed a law excluding Chinese immigrants from coming to America.  Arthur called for reform concerning treatment of American Indians, but he did next to nothing to eliminate the use of Jim Crow laws.  Arthur was never re-nominated, which was probably just as well as he would die only a few years later from Bright’s disease.  However, his reputation leaving office was better than when he came in.  RANKING: 21st of 42 Presidents.

Grover Cleveland, 1885-1889, 1893-1897: Grover Cleveland vetoed 414 bills during his first term alone, more than twice the number of vetoes issued by all other Presidents before him.  Besides his vetoes, Cleveland also lowered tariffs possibly making him our most fiscally conservative President ever.  Cleveland was willing to take on his own party by his opposition to “free silver” and by his intervention in strikes (which angered labor unions).  When it came to personal character, however, Cleveland resembled another President, Bill Clinton, who would take office a century later.  Rather than go off to the Civil War Cleveland hired someone to go in his place (which was legal at the time).  Cleveland fathered an illegitimate child which was used against him in Presidential campaigns. (“Ma, ma, where’s my pa?  Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha!”)  Sadly, when it came to race relations Cleveland was still a product of the times.  Cleveland saw no reason to return to the age of reconstruction, actively sought to eliminate Chinese immigration, and signed into law the Dawes Act (which allegedly was to alleviate the poor conditions of Indians on reservations, but is now seen as a means of further depriving the Indian Tribes of their land).  If not for his disappointing record in this area, Cleveland would have had a legitimate chance to be known as a great President.  RANKING: 5th of 42 Presidents.

Benjamin Harrison, 1889-1893: Harrison was mostly known as the President stuck between the two separate terms of Cleveland.  Claiming to be an honest man who avoided the mistake of placing his friends in positions of high-office (though he had a pension for pork-barrel spending and mostly dismantled the civil service reforms enacted under Cleveland), the economic depression that occurred during his single term doomed him to losing to Cleveland in their Presidential rematch.  How much the depression was due to Harrison’s support of high, high tariffs is debatable.  Trade in the 1890s was not as important as it is today.  He did preside over what was called the billion dollar Congress where U.S. Treasury reserves were almost depleted.  Harrison was not the worst on civil rights of any President in that he did open the doors for Chinese emigration and did speak out about lynchings of blacks in the south (though he never stepped up to end the practice).  Overall, Harrison should be known for implementing economic policies that were borderline catastrophic.  Despite being a Republican and viewed as pro-business, Harrison (unlike Cleveland) was incapable of saying No to most spending requests.  RANKING: 34th of 42 Presidents.

William McKinley, 1897-1901: He was not the first President to speak on a regular basis to God, but he certainly was the one that claimed to hear the voice of God the most often.  McKinley appointed many an old friend to cabinet positions, issued in gold as currency and raised tariffs to such a height as to make global trade increasingly prohibitive.  But even this domestic agenda showed more foresight than his desire to “civilize” the remainder of the world.  Though his unwillingness to improve domestic matters concerning race relations in the United States might have seemed uncharitable, his determination to rescue the damned in Cuba, Hawaii and the Philippines under the banner of Manifest Destiny and American Imperialism made Christianity appear unpalatable almost everywhere.   RANKING: 39th of 42 Presidents.

July 26, 2010

© Robert S. Miller 2010

Also see:

Part I: http://arcticshores.blogspot.com/2010/12/ranking-of-presidents-how-historians.html

Part III: http://arcticshores.blogspot.com/2010/12/ranking-of-presidents-part-iii.html

Ranking of Presidents: How the Historians Have it Wrong - Part III

(Also see Parts I and II.  See below comments for analysis.)

Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-1909: Roosevelt was a maverick who happened to be the youngest and perhaps most energetic man to ever take office.   Since Lincoln, no other President (not even McKinley) extended the authority of the Presidency as much as Roosevelt did – for better or worse.   Roosevelt, at least in domestic matters, governed like a progressive (a label he later endorsed when attempting to regain the Presidency in 1912).  Roosevelt intervened in strikes that were said to have favorable outcomes for the laborers; he busted up trusts; he introduced some of the first consumer protection acts; and he was the foremost environmentalist to ever take office.  Concerning foreign policy, he was not much different from McKinley in that he believed America should play a major role in helping out developing countries – whether they actually desired such aid is debatable.  But construction of the Panama Canal did begin during his administration.  Roosevelt also negotiated a peace between Russia and Japan for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize.  And the nation did become a world power under his and McKinley’s earlier administration.  Roosevelt’s current historical image seems safe.  How he will be viewed in the future is dependent in part on how one views the desirability of a strong executive branch, whether one feels that imperialist policies have ultimately brought on a legacy of good or ill feeling towards the U.S., and whether the environmental movement that owes so much to Roosevelt will continue in its ascendency.  RANKING: 7th Best of 42 Presidents.

William Howard Taft, 1909-1913: Taft’s Presidency did not depart from that of Roosevelt’s as much as we are led to believe.  Taft pursued trust busting much in the manner of his predecessor, continued in providing economic aid to Latin American countries, and introduced other initiatives such as civil service reform and a federal income tax that Roosevelt probably would have endorsed.  What Taft lacked was the charisma of Roosevelt along with a voice that made clear what his objectives were.  Where Taft broke with Roosevelt (and where Taft was most certainly correct) was in the need for an independent judiciary which Taft supported and Roosevelt denounced.  This resulted in a split in the Republican Party and Roosevelt then started his own Progressive or Bull Moose Party.  Taft never greatly desired being President and only later achieved his “dream” job of being Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Taft was a gifted jurist rather than politician.  RANKING: 22nd of 42 Presidents.

Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1921: If only Teddy Roosevelt or William Howard Taft had stood aside during the election of 1912 and allowed the other candidate to defeat Wilson!  Due to marked personality flaws and a desire to become President of the United States, an intelligent and priggish boy named Thomas Woodrow Wilson grew up to be an extremely dangerous man.  Wilson was not incompetent – he may simply have been a megalomaniac.  This was apparent almost immediately in his Presidency as evidenced by his novel decision to intervene in Mexico in 1913.  Wilson was first elected because of a divided Republican party and reelected by asserting that he kept us out of war.  His legacy is dubious in almost all aspects.  Despite his reputation for progressive leanings, Wilson was born in the south and had no sympathy for the former slaves or descendents of slaves - as evidenced by the prevalence of Jim Crow laws during his administration and by Wilson’s own declaration that Birth of a Nation was a realistic film.  And American involvement in World War I, the “war to end all wars” that resulted in the deaths of more than 100,000 American soldiers, came about primarily because of Wilson’s instigation.  In response to his critics, Wilson pushed through the Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 primarily to jail pacifists such as Eugene Debs.  His handling of peace negotiations following the war were also bungled in that he failed to include Republicans in on his plans to form a League of Nations - virtually assuring that U.S. involvement in the organization would be struck down.  When Wilson proposed his Fourteen Points, the Prime Minister of France, Georges Clemenceau, reputedly stated that the “good lord only had ten.”  Such was the man named Woodrow Wilson and his ego.  Wilson's promises for his country were completely inconsistent with the actual policies implemented during his administration - and were completely inconsistent with reality.  He was our most disastrous President.  RANKING: 42nd of 42 Presidents.

Warren Gamaliel Harding, 1921-1923: Teapot Dome is probably the most overblown scandal in U.S. history, at least as far as political fallout.  Outside of those that had a vendetta against Secretary of Interior, Albert B. Fall, who accepted bribe money for otherwise legal oil leases, nobody viewed Harding as culpable.  Compared to so many other political scandals, this one remains relatively mild.  As evidenced by Coolidge being so easily elected in 1924, Harding would have been just as easily reelected if he had not suddenly died in 1923.  Harding campaigned on a promise for a return to normalcy (a slogan that historians have much panned), but Harding did as much as any President could to keep such a promise.  Harding and Coolidge were probably the least hawkish of all modern Presidents.  Harding brought the country out of a deep economic depression that he inherited, modernized a number of domestic programs in response to ever increasing technology, and was proactive (at least for his time) concerning Civil Rights and Civil Liberties by pushing through anti-lynching laws (to the dismay of the KKK), signing into law the first major federal welfare legislation (which is surprising for a President considered fiscally conservative), and freeing Eugene Debbs who President Wilson had jailed for sedition.  Harding was probably not the most intelligent man to ever hold the office, probably was a bit too public about choosing of his mistresses (especially since he probably had a jealous wife) and may not have taken into account the greed of all of his cabinet members, but he also made few major blunders as President.  RANKING: 13th of 42 Presidents.

Calvin Coolidge, 1923-1929: Silent Cal deserves credit for being an uninteresting President.  More than any President in the last hundred years he was adverse to government involvement in just about everything.  So it was said, he even economized on dinners held at the White House.  Coolidge was considered enough of a straight arrow that nobody questioned him as to whether he was as corrupt as other members that came out of the Harding administration.  Though often accused of being unsympathetic to the plight of workers and farmers, he certainly was advanced for his time concerning his sympathies for minorities.  The Klan lost much of its influence during his administration and American Indians were finally granted full citizenship because of his signature.  If Coolidge did have a flaw, it was in regards to his global thinking.  In essence, he was an isolationist that did not see the coming storm in Europe.  Also, he supported high tariffs that restricted trade and that some historians feel may have contributed to the future economic woes.  Coolidge was indeed lucky to leave office when he did, though he had already announced his decision not to seek another term a year or more before it was necessary.  With his laissez-faire attitude towards government intervention in economic matters, there’s a good possibility that he would not have handled the Great Depression much differently than Hoover.  However, his political instincts were sounder than those of Hoover and he likely (for how little he spoke) inspired more confidence.  RANKING: 16th of 42 Presidents.

Herbert Clark Hoover, 1929-1933: With an IQ that was estimated to be around 180, Hoover seemed incapable of grasping the problems of his time.  Neither Hoover nor his policies were primarily responsible for the Great Depression.  The Great Depression was a longtime in coming and its causes too myriad to ever be attributed to one man.  Yet Hoover’s perceived reaction to the crisis could be described as less than lackluster, and this almost brought America to its breaking point.  Hoover may have made matters worse by continuing to support high tariffs in the midst of the depression.  His actual economic policies late in his Presidency, implemented to stimulate the economy, were remarkably similar to those that Roosevelt implemented in the New Deal, but these came only after Hoover’s popularity waned.  Hoover’s policies towards other items such as civil rights were largely vacant.  RANKING: 35th of 42 Presidents.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933-1945: How one rates FDR as President in large part depends on how that person answers two particular questions: (1) Did the New Deal Policies passed during his administration render in an era of economic recovery? And (2) Did Roosevelt (or Truman) sell-out Eastern Europe to Stalin at Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam just prior to the end of the war in Europe in 1945?  Both questions are largely unanswerable because the issues are too complex and intricate.  Only Jackson and Lincoln stirred up as much controversy as FDR did as President, but detractors of Roosevelt must be disconcerted by the former President’s enduring popularity.  He won four elections by a landslide when faced by both the worst depression the United States has ever encountered and by World War II.  Whatever one thinks of his policies, Roosevelt inspired the populace like no other President ever.  That he took liberties with the Constitution and also interred Japanese-Americans for reasons of ethnicity only, will be a large blight upon his Presidency.  Roosevelt’s great ambitions for the nation at times should have been placed in check, and there was probably too little opposition to his policies.  Still, he did better than anyone but Lincoln in bringing the country through some terrible times.  Should Roosevelt have limited himself to two terms?  At the brink of the worst war the world had ever faced, I can’t blame him for running again – and again.  One remaining legacy of his long Presidency that can’t be understated was the selection of justices he made to the Supreme Court.  Outside of his selection of Frankfurter, who had to have been a disappointment to Roosevelt, several of his choices sat on the court for decades and implemented his agenda (especially during the future Warren court).  RANKING: 2nd of 42 Presidents.

Harry S. Truman, 1945-1953: What is one to make of Harry Truman?  The man that said he felt like “the moon, the stars and all the planets” had fallen upon him after FDR’s death surprisingly became one of the most decisive if not bullheaded Presidents ever.  He ordered the dropping of the two Atomic bombs, forced the end of a contentious railroad strike by threatening government control, implemented the Berlin Airlift to aggravate the Soviets, desegregated the troops, took on Joseph McCarthy (admittedly not successfully) and fired MacArthur.  Truman was also colorful as evidenced by the letter he sent to a music critic that dared disparage the singing of Truman’s daughter, Margaret.  Outside of charges made by McCarthy that the administration was populated by Communist agents, there was little reason to believe the administration was corrupt.  There was a significant amount of government spending that went on during his administration as federal debt as compared to GDP was at the highest level ever.  To be fair, this was in part due to the end of World War II and the beginning of the Korean War during his administration.  Probably no President so unpopular after leaving office has had his reputation so greatly restored.  This is in part due to Merle Miller’s biography of Truman called Plain Speaking, which American Heritage magazine re-titled as Plain Faking for its rewriting of history.  Nevertheless, Truman’s Presidency had exceeded most expectations of him.   RANKING: 8th of 42 Presidents.

Dwight David Eisenhower, 1953-1961: Like Harding did more than thirty years before, Eisenhower issued in another era of normalcy.  (Since 1929, the United States had faced the Great Depression, World War II, the beginnings of the Cold War and the Korean War.)  Some historians suggest that nothing bad happened during his Presidency.  It was an era of good feeling as the 1950s is a decade remembered fondly.  Critics, on the other hand, would suggest that nothing changed, either.  Eisenhower let others take an active role in bringing down McCarthyism, did nothing to enhance civil rights (though he did order Little Rock high school to desegregate), and did not lessen Cold War fears.  Ironically, Eisenhower by accident did speed along desegregation by appointing two of the Supreme Court’s most liberal justices, William Brennan and Chief Justice Earl Warren.  Eisenhower was not an exciting President as was Kennedy who replaced him, but if not popular with the scholars Ike was incredibly liked by the populace throughout his Presidency.  RANKING: 11th of 42 Presidents.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1961-1963: Kennedy became President on the backs of dead Chicago voters.  A charismatic and youthful looking man with beautiful wife and children, it was he and not Nixon that was the true Imperial President.  Kennedy was more progressive in image than he was in fact.  He actually supported tax cuts.  He was reluctant to involve himself in the civil rights issues of the day, and it was Johnson that actually got the movement going - at least on a federal level.  His greatest actual achievement on a domestic level was to aspire to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade.   Concerning foreign affairs, Kennedy liked to flex his muscles.  Had he lived, Viet Nam may have ended up being his legacy instead of being placed in the lap of LBJ.  It was the glamour of the man and his contribution to popular culture that make him more than average as a President.  RANKING: 15th of 42 Presidents.

Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1963-1969: Johnson enlarged the federal government more than any President, aggressively pursued a platform of civil rights and won the most lop-sided election by popular vote in U.S. history, but he will always be remembered for the escalation of the conflict in Viet Nam.  Whether one agrees or disagrees with the domestic programs of The Great Society, one has to admit that Johnson was brilliant in getting his agenda through.  Yet ultimate politician that he was with the ability to charm, out-maneuver and even strong-arm his opponents, he was never able to reassure a public that turned on him concerning a foreign policy that went very bad.  Unlike his opponent in the 1964 election, Johnson understood that he could not deploy his full arsenal in Southeast Asia without angering China and risking a far larger conflict.  However, he so desperately wanted to save face by not pulling the troops out and admit defeat that he continued a military policy that would neutralize but never defeat the enemy.  As a result, the war went on so long that the United States lost fifty-thousand soldiers in the conflict.  Once the protestors came out in force, Johnson was to become a lame-duck President.  He even faced extreme criticism in his own party by the likes of Bobby Kennedy (soon to be assassinated) and Eugene McCarthy.  At least from the perspective of liberal historians, if not for Viet Nam Johnson would have gone down as one of the all-time greatest Presidents.  RANKING: 26th of 42 Presidents.

Richard Milhous Nixon, 1969-1974: Nixon was probably the most politically opportunistic President ever.  From possibly fabricating documents when he was still in Congress to frame Alger Hiss to never facing prosecution for the Watergate break in, Nixon resurrected his political career on many occasions.  And contrary to his assertion in 1962 after losing the race for the California governorship, the press would have many more years to kick Nixon around.  Nixon was socially conservative, but an economic pragmatist - at least during his Presidential tenure.  Revenue sharing, wage and price freezes, and his call for comprehensive health insurance demonstrated that he was borderline fiscally progressive.  Even liberal historians like to credit Nixon with his accomplishments in foreign affairs, but I believe Nixon gets too much credit in this area.  The reason why Nixon does not share more of the blame with LBJ for our Southeast Asia escapades was because of a cynical move on his part.  To thwart the protests concerning the Viet Nam War, Nixon ended the draft and lowered the voting age shortly before the 1972 election.  This allowed him to continue his war policies in Asia unhindered by the youth movement until the end of his Presidency, and it also insured that he would win re-election by a landslide.  After the firing of Archibald Cox and several other special prosecutors, the release of the Nixon tape with the corresponding 18 minute gap gave the press – never too fond of Nixon – and Congress the opportunity to drive him out in disgrace.  RANKING: 31st of 42 Presidents.

Gerald Rudolph Ford, 1974-1977: Well, Gerald Ford was Gerald Ford.  A former football player and gifted athlete, he was portrayed by the entertainment world as being a klutz.  Ford was a political moderate and his only controversial action as President was to pardon Richard Nixon - when Ford had not yet completed his first month in office.  Most historians now report this as a good decision on Ford’s part in getting Watergate behind us, but they gloss over that this could have been a part of a corrupt deal and caving in to political pressure.  Ford entered office with the economy tanking, and it continued to tank during his two years as President.  His WIN (Whip Inflation Now) campaign did nothing to prevent stagflation.  As the only Commander and Chief never to appear on a winning Presidential ballot, Ford’s chief asset as President was to be a bromide following the turbulent years of the 1960’s and early ‘70s.  RANKING: 23rd of 42 Presidents.

James Earl Carter, Jr., 1977-1981: Behind that smile was a personality engaging only to Lillian, Rosalyn and Amy Carter.  Whatever folksy aspirations he claimed to envision for this country were perceived as being wrongheaded or pretentious.  Carter was a remarkably intelligent and decent man with no political gifts.  Apologists for the malaise speech he gave during his Presidency fail to impart the true significance of this speech.  As he did throughout his Presidency, Carter was incapable of sending a clear message to the public as to what he sought to accomplish.  The Misery Index was incredibly high during his single term.  RANKING: 33rd of 42 Presidents.

Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-1989: Like Franklin Roosevelt was to conservatives, Reagan was anathema to most liberals.  Yet next to Roosevelt, Reagan left office as the most popular President of the 20^th Century.  Reagan’s agenda was extremely short, but it still was ambitious.  There were two basic items he wanted to accomplish: (1) he wanted to reduce the size of government; and (2) he wanted to do all he could to eradicate the influence of global Communism.  Though the government is as big as it ever was, Reagan did at least influence the debate and put tax cuts to the forefront of every political campaign.  And though he didn’t end Communism, Reagan played a major role in the bankrupting of the Soviet Union by upping the stakes on military spending.  Reagan never appeared as power-hungry, and perhaps that’s why his relaxed approach to the office resonated.  The folksy image was a tad put-on, but he came across to most of America – even some Democrats - as a likeable man.  His social agenda, basically fodder for the left, may have been a bit of a smokescreen to attract members of the religious right.  Where he had the strongest input in regards to domestic affairs concerned his appointments to the court.  Agree or disagree with him, Reagan will be known as the politician that changed our political outlook back towards right-leaning policies.  RANKING: 4th of 42 Presidents.

George Herbert Walker Bush, 1989-1993: The elder Bush must still regret defying the press to read his lips when he pledged there would be no new taxes.  His inability to capitalize on the good feelings prevalent in the country following the Reagan years led to eight years of a Democratic Presidency to follow.  He was simply another career statesman and uninspiring President.  RANKING: 27th of 42 Presidents.

William Jefferson Clinton, 1993-2001: We had eight prosperous years under his Presidency.  Too bad Clinton did not learn more discretion because in no prior Presidency did marital indiscretions become so newsworthy.  He may well have been the most gifted communicator ever to hold the office, but he has never convinced anyone on the right or the left that he was passionate about the issues – though that’s not necessarily all bad.  The Rhodes Scholar came off as being a likable and even capable buffoon.  RANKING: 14th of 42 Presidents.

George Walker Bush, 2001-2009: Bush was not the worst President we ever had, but he did blunder in such a way that a great opportunity to impact global policy was lost.  In part, this was due to his inability to communicate his message in a manner that influenced the electorate.  One problem in evaluating Bush is that it may still be too early to judge him.  We really won’t know the full effect of the Iraq War for another fifty years.  We do know that Saddam is now dead, and we also know that we were never able to find WMDs.  Also we won’t know how much of the economic crisis should be placed on the policies of the Bush administration.  There is a debate by economists concerning this, but unfortunately many of those arguments are politically motivated and not influenced by actual analysis.  Bush probably will go down as our most controversial President since Nixon.  His reputation will never be vindicated, but he likely will not remain as unpopular in the future as he was when he left office.  RANKING: 32nd of 42 Presidents.

Barack Hussein Obama, 2009-: It’s still too early to make more than an educated guess on how Obama will be judged in the future.  As the first racial minority in office, he will go down as a significant historical President.  He will be remembered for passage of National Healthcare, but even fifty years from now there will be arguments about the merits.  Some will say that his agenda was the most aggressive since LBJ or FDR.   Others will say he was not responsive to his constituents.  He will be criticized by the right for attempting to do too much and by the left for compromising on what he managed to pass – or not pass.  The danger in micro-managing - which his critics feel this President is prone towards - is that too little may be achieved in the end.  UNRATED: Too early to know.

July 26, 2010

© Robert S. Miller 2010

Also see:

Part I: http://arcticshores.blogspot.com/2010/12/ranking-of-presidents-how-historians.html

Part II: http://arcticshores.blogspot.com/2010/12/ranking-of-presidents-part-ii.html