Another Presidential Review

I have a great interest in the American presidents: I've written about Chester Arthur, Ronald Reagan, Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover on this very blog. I have even published my rankings of them here. Today, I will look at a president who is far more famous for his accomplishments prior to the office. This man, the "Father of the Constitution," served as the fourth president, from 1809-1817. Three of these years, 1812-1814, were quite traumatic to the young nation.

These years, of course, covered an aptly-named war in which the United States fought to reinforce its independence: the War of 1812. The United States was able to fight off an offense from the British. The war itself was necessary, as Madison realized: the British had essentially been abducting American sailors. The way in which it was fought was ignominious. The U.S. was ill prepared to enter the war, and was only able to hold off the British long enough that they grew weary of the war too. In the process, the ill prepared Americans allowed the British to march straight through Washington, DC, as the Madisons fled the White House just before it burned.

The British were held off, but Madison had failed in his role as Commander in Chief. When Madison's administration is analyzed, his actions prior to 1809 must be ignored, which marks President Madison as average at best.

My Ranking of the Presidents

A long, long time ago, I had a blog. The purpose of this blog was to survey people and achieve a ranking of the presidents. That fell by the wayside, at least in the rather inefficient method of a blog. I achieved my goal in other ways, but I will postpone the publishing of that. Here are the rankings I developed by first grading each, then ranking them all within the grades. Only the rankings appear here.

1. George Washington
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Theodore Roosevelt
4. Ronald Reagan
5. James Polk
6. Dwight Eisenhower
7. Harry Truman
8. James Monroe
9. Thomas Jefferson
10. Andrew Jackson
11. Franklin Roosevelt
12. John Adams
13. Chester Arthur
14. William McKinley
15. Calvin Coolidge
16. Grover Cleveland
17. William Taft
18. George H. W. Bush
19. John Q. Adams
20. Rutherford Hayes
21. John Kennedy
22. James Madison
23. Richard Nixon
24. Zachary Taylor
25. John Tyler
26. Woodrow Wilson
27. Lyndon Johnson
28. Gerald Ford
29. Benjamin Harrison
30. Herbert Hoover
31. Andrew Johnson
32. George W. Bush
33. Bill Clinton
34. Ulysses Grant
35. Martin Van Buren
36. Millard Fillmore
37. Warren Harding
38. Jimmy Carter
39. James Buchanan
40. Franklin Pierce

Exceeding Expectations: Chester Alan Arthur

On July 2, 1881, tragedy struck the United States as Charles Giteau, 39, shot President James Garfield, 49. Seventy-nine days later, on September 19, the president was dead from his wounds.

During this time, a man who had been prominent in politics for the past ten years slipped quietly away from the public view, not wanting to draw attention to himself as the president suffered. This man was the vice president, Chester Alan Arthur, 51.

Arthur was almost vice president by mistake. A political follower of prominent New York Senator Roscoe Conkling, Arthur became Collector of the Port of New York in 1871, a well paying position. However, his association with Conkling would lose him his job seven years later. Two years after that, in 1880, the Republicans needed to nominate a president. They chose Garfield, an unpopular decision with Conkling and his followers, known as the Stalwarts. To appease the Stalwarts, the Republicans wanted their vice presidential nominee to be one of them. Although Arthur was not their first choice, he accepted when the position was offered. The Garfield-Arthur ticket would go on to win the 1880 presidential election. Ten months after the election, Arthur was president.

The Stalwarts were the last remaining supporters of the idea of a spoils system, where rather than selecting qualified candidates, party bosses would pick those politically helpful to them. Arthur himself had supported the concept prior to obtaining the presidency. However, once in office, his attitude changed, and on January 16, 1883, he signed the Pendleton Civil Service Act. Federal employees were to be chosen on merit, not political grounds, or any other attribute of a candidate besides his merit for the job.

Arthur's term was also marked by the somewhat unfortunate Chinese Exclusion Act, but Arthur vetoed the original version which demanded a 20-year ban on Chinese immigration, and it had been reduced to 10 on the copy which he signed.

A final event of Arthur's term was the beginning of a buildup of the American Navy, as Arthur proposed appropriations which would begin its expansion.

Overall, Chester Arthur's term was a success, especially considering the lack of any positive expectations for his term. He could have easily opposed a bill which basically fixed the broken way in which federal employees were selected; his efforts reduced the effects of a racist bill; and he recommended an expansion of naval appropriations. The years after the assassination of President Garfield could easily have turned disastrous, but under Arthur's guiding hand, those years were rather serene and improved the functioning of the American government. He is one of our most underrated presidents.

The Election of 1860, the Constitution, and Southern Secession

I attend a small university deep in the south of Virginia. That means that my friends down here who read this may villify me. But as I tell them, I can't help it.

The election of 1860 indirectly triggered one of the biggest disasters in United States history. Out of four major candidates, Abraham Lincoln was elected president with 39% of the popular vote in the nation, and 0% of the popular vote in the South. Realizing that they no longer had power to elect a president, and fearing that, because he was a Republican, Lincoln would try to end slavery, the South seceded. James Buchanan's indifference did not help either.

I will now digress for a moment. The Electoral College was created to form a buffer between the voters and the most powerful office in the nation. Since votes were counted by states, not by individual, the main result is that states elect the president, not the people. It is my impression that because, as states, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Lousiana, and Texas, would be ruled by a president they did not elect, they seceded.

Well, guess what. The other states did elect the president, and thus the states as a whole elected the president. Lincoln got a majority of the electoral vote, after all. Just because the Southern ones did not vote for the winner does not mean they could secede. Secession was, in part, the South throwing a fit that they could not have a say in the election of the president. If Lincoln had not been elected, but, say, Breckenridge had, the South would not have seceded.

I derived this analysis one day last month, because I thought I needed a good reason why secession was ridiculous. I still wanted to share it because I had never seen it before.

However, I found a better explanation today, while researching for this piece, and it needs to be mentioned. The Constitution explicitly prevents secession.

In full, here is Article VI of the Constitution of the United States:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

----------

What is important here? It is the third paragraph. Read that and try to tell me that secession is provided for in the Constitution. Basically, all members of all 3 branches of the government - legislative, executive, and judicial - "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." By seceding, the Southern states were clearly removing their support for the Constitution that their elected and appointed officials had promised to support.

It would be easier if I just showed you where I found this reasoning. The logic in this piece here is crystal clear, makes perfect sense, and can not be denied. It was part of a research project by secondary school students in Wisconsin, but that does not take away its reasoning - after all, they got it straight from our Constitution.

The only way to support secession is through the Declaration of Independence, but guess what - that's not the law of the land.

Reagan, the Soviets, and the End of the Cold War

Many conservatives regard Ronald Wilson Reagan as a hero for bringing about the end of the Cold War. Many liberals believe that the U.S.S.R. would have fallen without any aggressive action by the United States, and that Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev's admission of this was the reason why the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended.

The truth is probably somewhere in between.

Communism as it was practiced by the Soviets was untenable. They could not endlessly support both their military prowess and their impoverished people, and at some point the collapse would be inevitable. Many think that by recognizing this, Gorbachev, and his policies of glasnost and perestroika, brought about the end of the Soviet Union.

So what was Reagan's role, then, if it was Gorbachev who initiated the reforms inside his own country and brought about the window needed to bring down the Soviet Union?

Reagan became president of the United States on January 20, 1981. Mikhail Gorbachev became General Secretary of the Communist Party on March 11, 1985. For over four years, Reagan battled not Gorbachev, but Konstantin Chernenko, Yuri Andropov, and Leonid Brezhnev.

Upon entering office, Reagan decided that the best way to end the Soviet Union was to build up an "arms race" to the point where the Soviets could not carry on without starving their own people. This was a new approach, as beforehand emphasis had been on controlling the buildup of nuclear weaponry with a series of Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties. This policy, however, could not guarantee that the American and Soviet governments would limit their weaponry, and provided room for one side to take advantage of the other. Reagan changed U.S. policy to a buildup which would hopefully bankrupt the U.S.S.R.

The likes of Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko perceived Reagan's build up as a threat, and in response, they built up their arms. This was exactly the plan: before long, the Soviets would be compromising the well being of their people merely to keep up with the United States.

Reagan's other idea, the Strategic Defense Initiative (dubbed "Star Wars" by critics), would ideally protect the United States from a nuclear strike if the Soviets sent one. The Soviets regarded this, too, as a threat - the U.S. could stop a Soviet strike and then send a devastating one over to the U.S.S.R. in response to the initial strike.

The Soviets were at their breaking point when Gorbachev took over, and began looking to negotiate with Reagan, as well as initiate reforms within his country. Reagan decided that now was the time to negotiate.

So if the Soviet Union would have ended anyway because the system did not work, and because eventually a Soviet leader would realize this, why does Reagan deserve any praise?

The answer: Reagan accelerated the end of the Cold War. He recognized that the Soviet leaders in the first term of his presidency would not easily allow the United States an upper hand in military arms, even if it meant abandoning the people of the U.S.S.R. Had Reagan continued the policies of the presidents before him, it would have taken much longer for the Soviets to reach that point where they could not maintain their military and their people. In that case, who knows how much longer the Soviet Union would have lasted? Who knows how many more people the Soviet regime would eliminate? Who knows how much longer the people of both the United States and the Soviet Union would have lived in uncertainty?

Reagan most definitely deserves praise for accelerating the demise of the Soviet Union. It is absurd to disregard his role in the end of the Cold War when looking back at, and analyzing, his presidency.

Additional Reading:

Wallace, Chris. Character: Profiles in Presidential Courage. New York: Rugged Land, 2004.

Chapter 11, "The Zero Option: Ronald Reagan and the Soviet Union," pp. 206-232 is about this topic.

Failure: Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, and the Great Depression

Many history textbooks condemn Herbert Hoover for twiddling his thumbs while the United States suffered from a Great Depression. Then, a hero emerges: suddenly, behind the strong leadership, active approach, and brilliance of Franklin Roosevelt, the United States began to slowly but surely bring itself out of the depression. Some books will admit that the depression did not end until World War II, but almost always he is given credit for alleviating it with his new approach.

History textbooks will not tell you the truth. Both Hoover and FDR took an active approach to ending the depression, and both of them failed.

It's a well known story. On October 24, 1929, people began to sell their stocks in large numbers. On October 29, 1929, the bottom fell out: people were only interested in selling stock, not buying, and prices tumbled. The Great Depression was under way.

Most people realize that Hoover did not start the depression. It's a misconception, however, that he did nothing to try and help it. Rather, he signed a lot of legislation in an attempt to alleviate the situation. He signed the first Federal unemployment assistance in history into law with the Emergency Relief and Construction Act. According to Wikipedia, he "[established] the Federal Home Loan Bank system to assist citizens in obtaining financing to purchase a home." Wikipedia also states that he "increased public works spending." He signed the Agricultural Marketing Act and the Reconstruction Finance Act. This all occurred over the course of four years. Unfortunately for Hoover, the depression continued to worsen. By 1933, about one out of four Americans were without a job. This can probably be attributed to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, a bill signed ("reluctantly" says Wikipedia) by Hoover in 1930. This was Hoover's huge mistake, one not made by Roosevelt. Clearly, however, it is absurd to suggest that Hoover sat by idly during his presidency while the nation suffered.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt was elected to replace Hoover. During the campaign he had promised a very vague "new deal." It became clear soon after the election what he meant. It is pointless to go through every act FDR created: everyone knows he was active in trying out his plan to help the economy. What is important is the details. (For Hoover, it was important to state the multitude of legislation he passed; for FDR, it's well known he signed a multitude of legislation.)

Between 1933 and 1940, Franklin Roosevelt tripled taxes - all types of taxes - when people needed money. He also demanded that crops and farm animals destroyed and killed - when people needed products to sell. The Cato Institute, a libertarian organization, asks ten "Tough Questions for Defenders of the New Deal" in this article. And in this article, the New Deal is revealed to have harmed the poorest Americans. A few things here are quite amusing. FDR raised taxes on almost everything, among them tires ("including tires on wheelchairs"), electricity, and radios. FDR had polio, which confined him to a wheelchair, yet he taxed tires on wheelchairs. And those famed Fireside Chats? As the article points out, "Yes, to hear FDR's 'Fireside Chats,' one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity!"

Read the two articles above carefully. FDR's economic policies did far more harm than good.

Why then, you might ask, is FDR renowned for his responses to the Depression, while Hoover is condemned? The answer is simple: political skill. Herbert Hoover was best known as a Stanford engineer. He was not a politician. The only political office that he ever held prior to being president was Secretary of Commerce, a position to which one gets appointed. Franklin Roosevelt, however, served as Governor of New York prior to becoming president. His political skill was recognized as early as 1920, when he was the Democratic vice president nominee. He never won a presidential election by less than 333 electoral votes. Roosevelt was also a far better speaker. Fireside Chats, inaugural speeches, "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself," "a day that will live in infamy." Hoover has, well, nothing. FDR skillfully used his abilities to make people think that his programs were working. Hoover was not able to do so. But if you read the work and numbers provided by Cato, it's clear that FDR harmed more people than he helped. But they thought they were doing better thanks to FDR.

Many people admire FDR today for the same reasons. They learn from their parents and grandparents. Students learn from history textbooks, written by professors who, for the most part, are liberal and admire another legacy FDR left: that of a government that tries to use its power to help its citizens. Of course, this legacy would not have been possible without his political skill. They use FDR and his high status to support their liberal views of today.

Hoover and FDR both took an active approach to government in order to get the U.S. out of the depression, and both failed.

What a Nuisance!

Well, Daylight Saving Time (DST) started early this morning. What a useless invention.

Basically all it does is confuse us. How many times have you had plans to go somewhere the first Sunday of DST and realize you were an hour late because you had forgotten about moving the clocks forward?

In this article from 1998, the author explains that losing an hour of sleep is similar to losing three hours to jet lag. You might as well have flown from New York to Los Angeles.

According to Wikipedia, "the disruption in sleep patterns . . . correlates with a spike in the number of severe auto accidents."

And if you're a farmer, you probably despise it. As Wikipedia states, animals do not change their behavior to correspond to DST (although you probably could have figured that out), so changing the time twice a year only serves as a major inconvenience in agriculture.

This was all Benjamin Franklin's idea. For a brilliant man, this was sure a lame one.

Harry Truman on His Predecessors

If you read my other blog, you know that I have a great interest in studying the American presidents. Apparently one of these men, Harry S. Truman, was either asked or chose to talk about his opinions on his predecessors.

I make this assumption based on a site I found via another blog. As you look through each of the presidents on this page, all of them who preceded Truman (except for Garfield), as well as Truman's successor Eisenhower, have a quote about them by Truman.

His favorites were Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt. He disliked almost everybody else, and most of his dislike was put on William Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Grant, Coolidge, and Eisenhower.

I find this tidbit appropriate in light of my study to analyze the presidents.