#20 of 39:
Grover Cleveland (22nd and 24th president)
1885-89 and 1893-97
Democrat
ABOVE: "Though the people should support the government, the government should not support the people." - Grover Cleveland, vetoing a bill that would have helped farmers in Texas suffering from a drought. You think a statement like this would get you elected nowadays?
Grover Cleveland was the man of "no." Much like #21 below on this list, he loved the veto. How much did he love it? Before Cleveland there was a total of 205 vetos; Cleveland vetoed 414 bills in his first term alone. The thing is, during a time when politicians said "yes" to almost anything, "no" wasn't such a bad word. In fact, it took a lot of courage in the late 1800's to say "no" to what now we would call pork barrel projects that were seen as business as usual during this time. He was an equal opportunity naysayer, too. His consistent political philosophy was that government needed to ensure a level playing field and stay out of the way. He refused to do favors for big business and the railroads or for farmers and war veterans. Government aid to those in need "weakens the sturdiness of our national character." In other words, this is a country of people making their own way without government handouts. Cleveland is notable for being the only president to serve non-consecutive terms.
Pros:
* Cleveland restored a firm, powerful hand in the White House after a string of weak Chief Executives
* Cleveland was by most accounts an honest man who was not involved in the rampant corruption of the day, and he refused to favor any one sector of society, regardless of their power
* Cleveland was somewhat successful in slowing the rush to redeem devalued silver for gold in the U.S. Treasury (gold vs. silver was actually one of the most important issues of the day)
* In taking a lead role in negotiating the border dispute between Venezuela and British Guyana, Cleveland reasserted the president's lead role in foreign policy (Cleveland purposely tried to freeze Congress out of the process), a precedent that has been maintained ever since. Also, after this incident, the United States and Great Britain ceased to have issues with each other and formed a very close relationship that served both well in the next century
Cons:
* Cleveland used federal troops to end the Pullman Strike of 1894. While I am no fan of unions, there were some serious grievances to be addressed at this time
#19 of 39:
Rutherford B. Hayes (19th president)
1877-81
Republican
Hayes was a very good man who couldn't get much done. But he tried, and in many cases (such as in treatment of Indians and other minorities), he was way ahead of his time. He was remarkably candid when he stated that "our Indian wars have had their origin in broken promises and acts of injustice on our part," essentially apologizing for #21 below. He proposed increasing funding for Indian education, land grants for the tribes and citizenship. He fought racist legislation restricting Chinese immigration. He spoke passionately about increasing education opportunities for Black Americans and linked education reforms to voting rights. All of this was very noble, but Hayes's main problem is that he actually accomplished very little, unable to get Congress or much of the country behind his plans.
Most historians remember Hayes for being the man who ended Reconstruction through a rather dubious bargain. In the election of 1876, Democrat Samuel Tilden was leading in the popular and electoral votes. But there were 19 disputed electoral votes (Louisiana, South Carolina and (surprise!) Florida). A fifteen man commission comprised of congressmen and Supreme Court justices determined the outcome, and voting strictly down party lines, all 19 votes, and therefore the election, were given to Hayes. To quell Democrat cries of fraud, Hayes agreed to end Reconstruction.
Pros:
* Hayes was a morally strong president who spoke out against discrimination against Indians, Blacks, and immigrants, and he proposed programs to help these groups
* Attempted civil service reform, prohibiting federal employees from being involved in political campaigns
* Hayes battled Democrat attempts in Congress to pass laws prohibiting the federal government from sending federal troops into the South to protect Black voting rights
Cons:
* Hayes was able to actually accomplish very little for the minority rights that he championed
* Hayes was elected under dubious circumstances
* Specie Resumption Act of 1875
11 comments:
Dez--
Sorry I didn't comment on Jackson. Not sure what to say about him, honestly. I also find much to dislike about him. Still, I'm not sure he should go below Hayes and Cleveland. Surely some measure of a presidential term in office is how much was actually accomplished? Jackson, unlike Cleveland or Hayes, accomplished quite a bit. The counterargument of course is that most of what he accomplished was bad for the country. (After all, Hitler also accomplished a lot.) The open question--one I can't answer--is to what extent did Jackson's achievements better the country? And I don't know the answer.
Jackson's presidential "stock" has fallen dramatically in the past twenty years or so. In the past, I think he was overvalued; now I'm not sure he's not undervalued. (The reverse, I think, is true with Truman: undervalued during his life, he's now almost revered.) In both cases, I'm not sure the pendulum hasn't swung too far the other way.
All I know about Jackson is what the AP History books say, and that's probably not enough to make an impassioned defense of his presidency. In some ways, though, I think that what these lists rank are the extent to which the people in office make a difference--the extent to which they impose their will, their personality, on the country. By that definition, Jackson was a far more influential man than many of the people you have above him. (There's no "Age of Cleveland" after all.)
Good points, ANCIANT. As far as my criteria, I definitely put value in how the person accomplished his goals and how he influenced his time, but I also judge those accomplishments as far as whether they were positive or negative. I think that Jackson's legacy is somewhat negative. Even some of the things he is still celebrated for I am not a huge fan of (such as mass democracy and celebration of the common man). I am somewhat of an elitist myself.
I think it is sometimes difficult to know how much impact one's failures have on future generations. Hayes seemed to be on the right side of some important issues and, although he was unsuccessful in getting his measures passed during his Presidency, his attempts may have paved the way for future legislation.
I also appreciate Cleveland's focus on ensuring an even playing field. I think there is a need for government handouts in some cases, but it is difficult to do this in a way that does not favor one group over another and it is important to do it in a way that TEMPORARILY helps those in need without creating a system that encourages people to rely on the government rather than helping themselves. Based on Dez's summary, I think I like Cleveland and Hayes ahead of Jackson if you focus solely on their Presidency and not the whole of their contributions to the nation.
Dez - when you say you are an elitist, in what respect to you support elitism? Is it only the elites who should be able to hold certain offices or is it only the elites who should be able to vote? And how do you qualify to be a member of the elite?
In the sense that Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and George Washington were elitists. There are certain individuals that are natural leaders. It is not necessarily based on wealth (or at least the status in which you are born, as Hamilton was a self-made man who came from very humble beginnings). Even Jefferson with all of his agrarian Republic talk felt that a certain enlightened group should lead the country. So in that sense. It was Jackson who really changed our political culture away from that.
Hamilton, Adams, Washington and other Founders created a Republic, but also feared too much democracy and created safeguards against Jacksonian mob rule and demagogery (as Brad put it). Democracy is good, but in restricted doses. That is why we have an Electoral College as opposed to directly electing our presidents. These are safeguards against the masses.
OK, but did anything really change with Jackson? We still have the electoral college, although there are plenty of people who believe it should be abolished. Are you saying that the political culture moved away from that concept, but the safeguards are still in place in case the public tries to elect an idiot?
Yes. The political culture changed forever with Andrew Jackson. More people participated in voting and following politics than ever before with Jackson, he was the first real "man of the people" to be elected, and not an elite, educated political leader. Ever since Jackson, being a "Washington outsider" and man of the people has held much cache. He conducted the first modern political campaign, and therefore forever changed campaigning.
The Bank of the U.S. was the elitist institution, but it helped to stabilize the economy. What would have happened had Jackson not killed it? He directly affected the economy for the next 100 years (negatively). Also, the Indians definitely would say things changed under Jackson.
Another point I would make, about Nixon (I know, wrong thread) is that, to my way of thinking, this kind of list should try to answer the question who would we want to be president again? So, for example, if you were given the choice between making Nixon president or J Q Adams, you'd choose Nixon (because he was higher on your list).
I'm not sure, however, that I would pick Nixon to be president over JQ Adams. Or, MV Buren. Or Tyler. Maybe even Fillmore. (I'm assuming, by the way, that when we pick these presidents they're somehow translated into our era--they know how to use email, etc etc). Nixon's character and personality are dealbreakers, foe me. Whereas though JQAdams was puritanical and austere and had probably not much in the way of personal charm, he was a good man. I would rather him be president than Nixon.
Interesting way of looking at it. I haven't been thinking along those lines. I have been simply looking at what they accomplished, the circumstances in which they served and how they responded to those issues, and most importantly, the impact of what they did, both positive and negative. With Nixon, despite his considerable failures, he also accomplished some pretty important things. JQ Adams, by contrast, did not. Hence the rankings. I'm really looking at results, good and bad, and balancing them for that president and then comparing them with the others for rankings. There are certainly some intangibles as well, especially within the Top 10 when we get there.
ANCIANT - That is a VERY interesting way to think about it (though AJ should rank lower if that's the case as he and Nixon had some awfully similar negative character traits). ;)
As far as Cleveland and Hayes go, I think you got them backwards, Dez. Cleveland accomplished far more of substance than Hayes did, regardless of Hayes' good intentions. I mean...you're talking about the #1 Democratic President in terms of economic success.
Post a Comment