Maybe, but a lot of the judgments of Presidents people make are ideologically-based, and there's much disagreement based on one's ideological preconceptions. Pierce and Buchanan were awful Presidents by much more objective and pragmatic criteria: they presided over the country's decline to civil war, so I don't have any trouble rating them as the worst.
It is astonishing to consider the diametrically opposed factions within both the Democrats and Whigs up to that point that had to keep their members “happy.” It would be the equivalent today of keeping San Francisco Anti-War Moonbats and Wisconsin Union Thugs in the same party with Jesse Helms and Sarah Palin Conservatives.
Why so astonishing? The Democrats were like that right down to the 1970s or so, and something similar was true of the Republicans. Parties just weren't as ideologically homogeneous as they are today.
I agree with you about Massachusetts and you explain things well. Things looked a little different at the time, though. We take an ideological polarization for granted that must have come as a shock to people who lived through it.
Yes, quite so. Although I do get a kick out of contemporary historians (especially of a left-wing ilk) trying to use "liberal" vs. "Conservative" on Presidents of that era and earlier. Those ideological labels as we know them today simply don't apply to those times. I can't really begin to label political figures (Presidents in this case) on such a scale until around 1892/96 and after, when the modern roots were coming more into focus (i.e. Cleveland was the "last" Conservative Democrat President).
"Pierce and Buchanan were awful Presidents by much more objective and pragmatic criteria: they presided over the country's decline to civil war, so I don't have any trouble rating them as the worst."
My point above being that it would not have mattered who occupied the office for the bulk of the 1850s, since what was coming was coming. Only difference would've been the speed towards what was coming. Winfield Scott vs. Pierce was negligable. Frémont vs. Buchanan, and the former probably would've seen it happen 4 years earlier (and likely that Lincoln would never have become President, and we'll never know how Frémont would've handled such a crisis).
"Why so astonishing? The Democrats were like that right down to the 1970s or so, and something similar was true of the Republicans. Parties just weren't as ideologically homogeneous as they are today."
Perhaps astonishing isn't the right word so much as "baffling" is. At least to me. I'm not naive on the subject, as I do know that both of the parties did have a decent presence across the ideological spectrum, although the dominant wings were asserting themselves before the '70s, though the Watergate babies really did a number on the Democrat party and managed to force (or force out) center-right members leftward. To elaborate why I chose the words "astonishing/baffling" is that it seems counterproductive to have a substantial chunk of one party opposed to what the rest of the party wants, you end up having constant internecine battles except during times of relative calm/prosperity. Of course, in a way, when both parties were counterbalanced within, it prevented the country from going off the deep end (hence you had your sane and rational folks balancing out or outvoting the nutters).
There have, of course, been purges of one ideology going back to the 19th century. Some more notables being the Silverites/Socialists who decided to take over the Democrat party with the 1896 race, led by the Bryans and the Altgeld moonbats, forcing out the Bourbon/Gold Democrats of Cleveland. The 1912 split between the Taft Conservatives and Roosevelt Progressives. The 1928 tempest between the pro- and anti-Catholics opposed to Al Smith (which, interestingly, would portend the direction New England would go in the long run towards the Democrats). The late '30s abortive purge by FDR to sack Conservative anti-New Dealer Democrats. The three-way split in 1948 between National Truman Democrats, Ultraleft Wallace Progressive Democrats and States Rights Democrats under Thurmond. The 1964 split between the Eastern Establishment Liberals under Rockefeller/Scranton, et al and the Goldwaterites. And, of course, the slow-burn build-up between 1968-1976 within the Democrats to move out the Conservatives/War Hawks and transform it into a McGovernite party.
That all begs the question, had we kept a balance within the parties, would that have staved off such divisions we see rising in the country, amped up post-1994 ? Now that the GOP has the bulk of Conservatives and moderates (with a smaller nuisance smattering of pro-big government RINOs), it has allowed the Democrats to completely jump off the deep end with no internal counterbalance to cool off their insane spending/gov't expansion and decadent social policy stances. Perhaps yes, perhaps not. This might be exactly like the 1850s again, what was coming was coming and it didn't matter entirely who was in charge, except to determine the speed of which we were headed towards this ultimate calamitous event. History does indeed have a nasty habit of repeating itself, and far too many folks have a nasty habit of not knowing history.