Well I’d put Harding much higher certainly above FDR. And Dirty Harry The White Obama much lower (I’m sure you guys remember how I feel about him).
My primary criterion is harm done to constitutional government. I can’t even rank Carter and Johnson worse than FDR in that regard.
Decent Conservatives
Reagan (KO of Soviets puts him ahead of Cal)
Coolidge
Taft
Harding
Middling
Ike
TR
Bush Sr.
Ford
Awful Crumbums
JFK
Hoover
Clinton
Wilson (The Grandaddy of Socialism)
Truman (White Obama)
Jimmuh
LBJ
FDR
TR is an interesting case, he certainly made some good reforms but may have gone too far in some cases. His 1916 platform was disgusting. Some freepers quote him, others name him as high RINO scum. McKinley (didn’t see much of the 20th Century) is also an interesting case. He’s been blasted around here by some for occupying the Phillipines.
I find it much harder to rate 19th Century Presidents as it’s harder to relate to the issues of the day and none of them were socialist scumbags.
I suppose there’s not much Buchanan (or Pierce) could have done to forestall civil war. But at a time in history that called for leadership he offered less than nothing.
I wish that the South had seceded when Southerner Andrew Jackson was President, seems to me he was crazy, he might have scared them back into the union.
I’m not sure if Andrew Johnson deserved to be removed from office but I wish he was (or that Hamlin was renominated in 1864). The failure and abandonment of reconstruction was the worst thing to happen politically in the 19th century. Perhaps “Radical Republican” President Ben Wade could have succeeded.
Had SC led a secession movement on Jackson’s watch, he supposedly claimed (or alleged) he’d have hanged the leaders of such a movement (that was more or less directed towards his VP John C. Calhoun, who led the Nullifiers).
As for Andrew Johnson, my position is I agree he had the right to fire his Cabinet members (after all, if a President doesn’t have that authority, he’s reduced to a figurehead). The Radicals were looking for any excuse to remove him from office, and that was a pretty odious reason. Senate President Pro Tempore Benjamin Wade didn’t make himself look good during the proceedings (especially openly casting a vote to make himself President) and there was the claim that the reason some of the Republicans voted “not guilty” was because they didn’t want Wade as President.
As it was, Wade would’ve only been President for less than a year had impeachment been successful (and it would’ve been unlikely Wade would’ve been nominated, as Grant was the leading choice). Grant was actually pressured into choosing Wade as his VP running mate, but he shot that idea down. Wade lost reelection for 1869 as it was, since OH voters elected a Dem legislature, and they replaced Wade with Allen Thurman (of whom would also later go on to be President Pro Tempore and was actually President Grover Cleveland’s running mate during his unsuccessful run for reelection in 1888 — at the age of 75 !).
As for Reconstruction itself, as Grant himself noted, for it to have been fully implemented (at least with respect to assuring Black Civil Rights), it likely would’ve required a permanent military presence in the South and would’ve sparked another war. The North no more wanted to have that happen than the South was to have a repeat. If the Republicans had pressed that, they’d have swiftly been defeated at the next election. It was going to end one way or the other after 1876, especially with the corrupt bargain. A President Tilden WAS going to end the occupation, period. Hayes was “allowed” to win without a Democrat challenge (the Democrats held the House) because he agreed to also end the occupation of the Southern states.
As I was discussing the issue with my father several days ago, Blacks were screwed one way or the other. Northern Whites, no matter how allegedly “tolerant” they were, were going to put back on the uniform to spill blood to guarantee Black rights, period. They may have been sympathetic for them, but from far away. It’s always easy to be sympathetic and “high minded” to causes far removed from your neck of the woods.