|
Back then, it was the party of conservative and wealthy types. Here's a brief synopsis of each Presidency:
Andrew Jackson was a complete POS but there are two things in his favor. First: he looked upon the Bank of the United States and saw in the bank's director an unelected person with no accountability to the public, and extraordinary power. Jackson took it upon himself to take the Bank down, and he succeeded. Second: prior to Jackson, electoral college members were selected by state legislatures. Jackson believed the people should make the choice for President, not the state legislators, and it is truly because of Jackson that we got popular vote. He was a horrible man; a murderer, a nearly psychotic disciplinarian, and a cold-hearted racist. But he did a couple things.
Whereas Martin Van Buren did basically nothing in his term, which contained a recession which probably wasn't his fault.
James K Polk instigated the war with Mexico and we all know the result: America nearly doubled in size with all the land acquired. The war was popular. It was opposed by a freshman congressman from Illinois on moral grounds. Abraham Lincoln lost reelection and wouldn't get elected to any office until 1860, over ten years later. Polk also resolved - through negotiation this time - a long contested border dispute with the British Empire over the Oregon territory. This shows Polk was ABLE to use negotiation to successfully resolve international disputes, but deliberately provoked war with Mexico. He was a very successful President, but not a good man. Incidentally, I believe he was the first President to ever be photographed.
Franklin Pierce ended the Missouri compromise and this arguably set the table for the civil war. Another racist scumbucket.
James Buchanan won for the same reason as Pierce: the opposition was in extreme disarray. This was the first time the new Republican party would field a candidate, for the Whig party was toast. He was selected as a person with neither northern nor southern sympathies. Buchanan decided secession was wrong but war to prevent secession was also wrong. So he sat and did nothing.
Andrew Johnson vetoed a host of civil rights bills; it is quite likely that if Lincoln had not been murdered, the civil rights of a century of African-Americans would not have been infringed nearly so much. Because of this one man, it took another century. He believed the black man to be obviously inferior and worked hard to prevent equality. He was trampled a bit, I admit, by a congress trying to limit a powerful executive. But this is one of the worst Presidents in the nation's history, and that's saying a lot.
But that brings me to Grover Cleveland, who is my favorite. He was a reformer. In a remarkable four year period, he went from being Mayor of Buffalo, NY to governor of the state to the Presidency, and his first term wasn't bad. Whereas other Presidents used the power of appointments for political reasons, Cleveland based his appointments on merit and ability. Normally, the first thing a new President would do is fire everybody; that way, all his friends get jobs. Cleveland wouldn't fire Republicans who were doing a good job; he hired Democrats when those Republicans retired. He nationalized - seized as government assets - a great deal of important land from those nasty railroads. Cleveland kept the country on the gold standard to keep American currency stable in the eyes of Europe. It can't be argued that the stability of American currency laid the groundwork for the skyrocketing economic growth of the next generation, although it wasn't a causal factor. He too was racist; he wanted to assimilate native Americans and signed in law an act which stated any Chinese immigrant who leaves the country can't come back. He was a conservative, in favor of limited government, and we know what such people are like. But in some ways, he was ahead of his time.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
