The President seems to like pitching in this image.

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

Thomas Woodrow Wilson came into the office of the Presidency as a man who was an extremely popular governor, a charismatic leader, and a man who had shown, while dean of Princeton University, that he understood how to budget effectively. This, however, was not enough to ensure an easy nomination, as the Democrat party took a little over 40 votes in order to pick Wilson as their candidate for the general election. With Taft and Roosevelt (Teddy) fighting over the Republican nomination, Wilson was able to squeeze in and get elected, with only 41% of the vote. This allowed Wilson to be our 28th President, serving from 1913 until 1921.

While he might have fought against Roosevelt in the election, Wilson saw his position as President in a very similar light – that is, Wilson thought that he was the representative of the people, their will, and their desires. In order to act in the people’s best interests, Wilson quickly started to issue several reforms, most of which occurred in a very short period of time.

Wilson first passed the Federal Reserve Act, which created the central banking system of our country. This act created the Fed that we all know today, and, arguably, led to the dangerous economic situation that resulted in the Great Depression. Following this, Wilson continued to work in the economic issues, passing bills that ended tariffs, creating new loans for farmers, and dealing with child labor (until SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional).

While Wilson was doing well with the economics of his time, he ignored warnings from experts about what his plans would do if the economy changed. Wilson created new standards which were impossible later in the 20s, and that directly led to the Great Depression. Furthermore, his allowance of full labor rights created the unbalanced economy that resulted in the modern-day rescission, as well as the one in the 1980s.

During his presidency, Wilson expressed an odd feeling towards segregation and various racial issues. While he earned the support of African-Americans, he did little to change the systems where governmental offices were segregated. In fact, Wilson basically threw blacks under the bus due to the fact that he thought short-term loss would yield an overall larger, and broader, gain. Frankly, this didn’t work, and showed that Wilson not only didn’t understand how the nation worked, but that he actually was a closet racist.

After ‘dealing’ with the economic reality of America, Wilson went into a political slumber. He continued to do fairly little until the election of 1916 rolled around, when he argued that he kept the nation out of war (World War 1) and deserved to be reelected. While he got the votes needed, and stayed in office, Wilson quickly turned on his word, telling Congress that they must declare war on Germany. Granted, Germany had started attacking our boats, and they were becoming increasingly threatening (including an attempt to get Mexico to overthrow the United States).

Wilson, to his credit, did a fair bit of work dealing with how America would handle the war, and what would happen once the war ended. The best known of this, of course, would be the Fourteen Points. Wilson did his best to ensure that all countries would be treated fairly, ensure that America conducted herself in an acceptable manner, and various other things.

After the war, Wilson attempted to get Congress to approve the League of Nations. This treaty would keep from punishing Germany, and would set up an UN-like system where countries were responsible to each other. With Congress controlled by the Republicans, they rejected the terms, and actually sought to punish Germany.

Wilson was unable to get Congress, nor the people, to support his peace plans. As a result, America punished Germany, and actually set the scene for World War Two. Furthermore, his plans economically, which, at the time, were a good idea, eventually led to the Great Depression. While Wilson tried his hardest (and the best that he knew) to make the country better, his actions ended up harming the nation greatly. For this reason, I believe that spot #23 is a great place in which to put Thomas Woodrow Wilson.

This is one of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-22: ?
23:  Thomas Woodrow Wilson
24: Ulysses S. Grant
25: Zachary Taylor
26: Rutherford Birchard Hayes
27: William Howard Taft
28: Benjamin Harrison
29: James Madison
30: John Calvin Coolidge
31: John F. Kennedy
32: William McKinley
33: John Tyler
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

President Grant in his Army uniform

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

Be honest here, how many of you, before reading the title, knew that Grant’s real name was Hiram? Me, I learned it last year in my Presidents class taught by Charles Smith over at Ohio State, but there are some who might have known from before that. Honestly, this knowledge is rather useless (save for Jeopardy!), as we know Hiram by his chosen (and legally changed) name of Ulysses S. Grant.

Oh, and, by the way, this post signifies the last President from Ohio to get ranked. It is kinda sad that my home state has such mediocre Presidents, but that will change in about 20 years or so…

Ulysses S. Grant came into the office of the Presidency as a war hero, but also known for his strong drinking habit (to call it a habit might be insulting to how much he drank). Grant, upon his election, became the first war hero since Taylor and, upon his reelection, became the first to serve two FULL terms (sorry Abe) since Jackson. Of course, even with his starting benefits and respect, Grant left the office as a disgrace. Before doing so, however, he made three interesting trivia contributions – he was the youngest President elected (at the time) at 46, had held no elected office prior to election (like Taylor again), and he had no Vice President from 1875-77. Either way, Grant was our 18th President, serving from 1869 until 1877.

Along with the earlier trivia facts, Grant, contributed to an important term for the modern day – Lobbyist. While this is not a vital contribution from the Grant Presidency, it is by far my personal favorite (and remember, this is all about me). The term came about after Mrs. Grant kicked the President out of the White House when he smoked his cigars. Instead, he retreated across the street to the lobby of the Hay-Adams hotel where they were more than happy to keep a box of his favorite cigars for him. As Washington has always been an informed town, Congressmen, Ambassadors, and various other annoyances followed Grant into the lobby. Grant hated this, and coined the term lobbyist as one of extreme annoyance and disgust.

Moving onto some of the actual important contributions from the Grant Presidency would be that of his fight against racists. During both his time as the runner of Reconstruction, and that of President, Grant showed great care for both the blacks and the Indians of the south. To try and stop the hatred spewing from whites, Grant attempted to block the KKK and many other para-military organizations that were doing their best to stop black enfranchisement. He even went as far as to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was the nations first civil-rights law. As we know, Grant was sadly unable to stop the racism, and it persisted in the south until the 1960s.

While Grant fought racism against blacks and Indians, there is some speculation that he was an anti-Semite. During the Civil War, Grant issued General Orders No. 11, which targeted many Jews in the south. While Grant claimed that he had not read the order, many people, including the site I just linked to, believe that he was actually opposed to to Jews.

I, however, strongly disagree with this view. Grant has shown time and time against that he actually was perfectly fine with Jews. Several of his good friends were Jews, he appointed a disproportionately large portion of them into governmental positions, and he even tried to make several secretaries of various cabinet positions. I think this is just a case of too many people reading far too into one of Grant’s orders (of which he made several hundred) as a General.

During the Reconstruction of the south, Grant worked on trying to keep civil rights for the newly freed blacks, to keep the Republicans in power, and to end the resentment felt by many southerners. To do this, Grant used a combination of reducing the military presence and giving amnesty (via the Amnesty Act of 1872) to those who fought against the Union. While this worked great at the beginning, in the end, Grant saw his plan fail, as the Democrats took control of almost all of the south, and began repressing the blacks again.

America's economic woes falling ontop of Grant.

At this point, Grant started to become disliked by the majority of America. To make it worse on him, the Panic of 1873 hit, making him hated by all. While the Panic was not Grant’s fault (blame the railroads, various fires, and the Italians for starting it), his response to it did nothing to stem the ensuing depression, nor did it do anything to make the American people confident. Rather, his slow response actually made the depression worse (for the mainstream, it kept the big businesses from dying) and greatly harmed the nation.

It was at this point in his Presidency when the corruption charges started to be brought up against Grant. According to Wikipedia (I know, a great source…) there were about 11major incidents that affected the Presidency. According to my textbooks, there were about 23, so take your pick. Either way, these intense scandals cost Grant what little respect he still had, both among voters at the time, and among future historians (AND ME).

Overall, Grant’s Presidency was marked with promise and a great beginning, but ended in scandal and loathing. Grant left office with his worst ratings, and had to wait until a tour around the world brought his popularity up again to try and get reelected. He was not elected for the third term, and died of cancer (we believe) only four years later, in 1884. Grant was a man who tried to do what was best, but failed. His actions prior to election, and during the first few years, were grand. His action later in office were horrific, and greatly harmed him. As much as I like the man, his terms as President were disappointing. I believe that #24 is a perfectly valid place for Ulysses S. Grant to slide into.

This is one of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-23: ?
24: Ulysses S. Grant
25: Zachary Taylor
26: Rutherford Birchard Hayes
27: William Howard Taft
28: Benjamin Harrison
29: James Madison
30: John Calvin Coolidge
31: John F. Kennedy
32: William McKinley
33: John Tyler
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

President Taylor as our 12th President.

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

Zachary Taylor came into the office of the Presidency in an odd and, at the time, new manner. Instead of being a politician before becoming President, Taylor became the first President to never hold an elected office besides the highest in the land. Taylor was also one of the first Presidents to ride the ‘War Hero’ bandwagon into office. After serving with honor in the War of 1812, the Black Hawk War, the Second Seminole War, and the Mexican-American War, the American population fell in love with Old Rough and Ready. This love quickly made Taylor our 12th President (and the last Whig), serving from 1849 until his death in 1850.

One of Taylor’s most important contributions to the United States was his work with Britain on the Clayton–Bulwer Treaty. While the treaty itself was about what the governments couldn’t do, it is what the treaty did that makes it so important. For starters, it ended the idea that America owned the entire Western Hemisphere (remember the Monroe Doctrine), and got rid of the main force behind the Manifest Destiny movement. Not only did this treaty end America’s goals for an empire, it also is the foundation of our long-lasting, and essential, alliance with the British. America’s closest ally is, and probably always will be, Britain, and Taylor is the reason that this was possible.

Another impact which Taylor brought to America was the creation of the Department of the Interior. While this department was somewhat underdeveloped during his tenure, the department has sense become essential in running the local systems within the nation, allowing the President, and the other cabinet positions, to focus on external, ‘more important,’ threats. While most do not believe that this is an important contribution, the amount done by the Interior Department clearly shows how essential they are.

While he did a few other things (the treaty and the Department of the Interior),Taylor, who served as President for only a little over one year, spent most of his time in office dealing with the issue of slavery. Taylor, who was the last southerner elected until Johnson in the 1960s, was thought to be be pro-slavery. The southern states supported him, assuming that a man from Virginia, and a slave owner (the last to be President), would support their causes. Taylor, however, did the exact opposite, marking a distinct difference between he and most other Presidents at the time.

Taylor advised various territories to ignore the issues brought about by slavery in territories, and instead apply for statehood as soon as they could. He supported the idea that Congress allow the states to join as they wanted to, rather than to dictate which were slave and which were free. Eventually, the Compromise of 1850 came about to handle these issues, but, until then, Taylor clearly showed that he was against the expansion of slavery within the country.

Could Taylor even have mounted a horse at that age?

While he supported the right of the of states, Taylor was an interesting southerner as he strongly opposed the idea of breaking the union apart. Taylor was a strong nationalist, and thought that the preservation of the country was the primary, and most important, issue of his tenure. Not only did Taylor tell states that he opposed their leaving, he actually went as far as to stipulate that if any state (mainly South Carolina, who liked to threaten to leave every few years) tried to leave the union, he would personally lead the army against them:

If any persons take in rebellion against the Union, I will hang them with less reluctance than I hung deserters and spies in Mexico.

Clearly, Taylor had an issue with the idea of breaking the country apart, keeping the issue at bay for a few more years.
Sadly, Taylor died of somewhat controversial causes – some think that he was poisoned, some that he was assassinated, I personally think that he died of what is official, gastroenteritis- after only a year in office. Had Taylor stayed alive, he clearly would have been one of the best Presidents to ever serve in the office. He took up strong positions, even though they lost him support, and always stuck with his guns. Taylor set the stage for our most important alliance, and created a system which allowed the President to focus outwards, instead of inwards. Overall, Taylor had the potential to be #1, but his early death caused him to fall into the middle of the pack, down to spot #25.

This is one of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-24: ?
25: Zachary Taylor
26: Rutherford Birchard Hayes
27: William Howard Taft
28: Benjamin Harrison
29: James Madison
30: John Calvin Coolidge
31: John F. Kennedy
32: William McKinley
33: John Tyler
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

So, my stuff is unpacked, my house in in order, and my textbooks are slowly filtering in. I am finally ready to start this site again, and will be doing so on Monday with the continuation of my Presidents series. My goal is to continue the two-a-week pace until I am done with this series. After that, I will see where I go.

Thank you all for patiently waiting for me, keeping my RSS feed even though it wasn’t used, and, well, just reading. I hope to see you all back on Monday for the next President.

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

For those waiting to try and figure out when I will finally update this again, you are going to need to wait longer. I am currently packing and eventually moving out to Connecticut for law school, and that, along with work (I want text books) is eating up all of my time. I should start posting again once I settle in out there (around the 7th or so), but will update you guys later once I know more.

I am sorry that this is taking away from the site, and I was hoping that it wouldn’t, but this is important for my life, so it needs to be done. Please hang in there with me

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

This is the final installment of ‘Ohio week,’ a week where all the Presidents were from Ohio. On Saturday, we had Benjamin Harrison, on Wednesday we had William Howard Taft, and today we have Rutherford B. Hayes. While there is still one more Ohio President left to play with, rest assured, he isn’t for another two posts (wait, should I have given that away)?

Unlike most other Ohio Presidents, Hayes entered office on controversy. He lost in the popular vote, but won by one Electoral vote. A congressional committee was called and were tasked with coming up with who would be the new President. Hayes worked with southern democrats, creating the Compromise of 1877, which got him enough votes to win the election. This is the first and only time a President has been chosen by Congress. That non-withstanding, Hayes was the 19th President of the United States, serving from 1877 until 1881.

When talking about Hayes, almost nobody discusses his foreign policy; this might be because he doesn’t have much, or it might be because he was rather forgettable. Either way, I like to talk about other countries, so I want to talk about it first – deal with it.

Hayes had two primary events regarding foreign relations that occurred while under his tenure. The first was his attempt at getting the Panama Canal to be complete. While he tried his hardest, the canal was constantly delayed, and was not built until Theodore Roosevelt got it done. His other action as President was to act as a mediator between several South American countries. Hayes ruled fairly and evenly, eventually deciding for Paraguay. This earned the country a fair bit of respect, and got Hayes thousands of schools, departments, and even armies named after him.

Wow, his foreign relations are rather forgettable, never realized that until now – maybe we should move onto his domestic issues. Hayes is probably most known for his mediocre handling of all things domestic. The first of these bumblings occurred during the Railroad Strike in 1877. Railroad workers had walked off their jobs, demanding better pay, and eventually rioted. To restore the order, Hayes sent federal troops into combat with the protesters, shooting on civilians, and killed 70+ people while arresting thousands.

While Hayes’ position calmed the riots and ended them somewhat peacefully (there was a chance of more dead from rioting then shooting), no side was happy with him. The labor movement was scared of the government, and thought that they were no longer protected. The industrialists were scared of bigger riots, like those that occurred in Europe. Either way, Hayes played his hand badly, and he set back labor reform and the labor movement, harming the country in the long run.

Like almost all of the politicians during the late 1800s, Hayes went to work on civil service reform – they all apparently sucked at reforming it. Like the Presidents before him, Hayes did his best to clear house, fire off those who he didn’t think were good service men, and created an executive order which kept federal employees from working in politics or receiving money. Not only did he do this, but Hayes also worked on cleaning the power-houses out, and got rid of many power players.

Frankly, this form of reform was one of the only things Hayes did properly while President. He was able to reform the system and kept the country clean. Hayes did his best to keep advance the system to one where the public actually can trust the workers, which was a great thing. While Civil Service reform is a great idea, and it did wonders for the country, Hayes made one mistake. His take on the power houses was a good thing, but it harmed him when he attempted to reform other areas of the government. Hayes should have handled this more carefully, but, overall, he did much better than other Presidents of the time.

Okay, now it is time to move to the area Hayes is best known for, his handling of reconstruction. Hayes, as part of the Compromise of 1877, was required to alter various parts of the reconstruction project. He removed federal troops, allowed more state control, and basically gave up all of the federal power over the southern states. By withdrawing all protections for black, the Republicans threw the newly-freed slaves under the bus.

I, along with almost all historians, consider this the greatest betrayal known in this country. Hayes, for political reasons alone, did his best to destroy all that his party had worked for. The south started lynching, removing civil rights, and, in some cases, pretty much recreated slavery. Hayes even refused to us the 15th to keep Jim Crow laws at bay. This absolutely disgusts me, and I think that, by doing this, Hayes easily shows why he was a horrific President regarding domestic policy.

Overall, I feel as though Hayes is another difficult President to place (this seems to be a trend when looking at the middle Presidents). While he did great things with foreign policy, well, he didn’t screw up, he messed up when dealing with riots. While Hayes was a good leader when it came to reforming civil service, he really messed up everything when dealing with reconstruction. Frankly, Hayes is lucky that he had some good qualities, as his mistakes could easily place him in the bottom three. As it is, I feel as though #26 is a good spot for Rutherford Birchard Hayes to be placed.

This is one of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-25: ?
26: Rutherford Birchard Hayes
27: William Howard Taft
28: Benjamin Harrison
29: James Madison
30: John Calvin Coolidge
31: John F. Kennedy
32: William McKinley
33: John Tyler
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

Welcome, one and all, to Ohio week. On Saturday, we had Benjamin Harrison, today we have Taft, and on Friday we will have yet another Ohioan (I think you can guess who it is, there are not too many left).

William Taft entered into the office of Presidency after a lifetime of civil service. He served his state and country, finally moving up to the position of Secretary of War for Theodore Roosevelt. While Taft road into office on Teddy’s popularity, he was unable to use any of it to further his positions, and ultimately left the office dejectedly. That said, however, he quickly moved back up in the world, becoming the only person to hold both the Presidency and the Chief Justice of the United States. Taft was our 27th President, serving from 1909 until 1913.

One of Taft’s first acts as President was to create a new form of foreign policy. Taft hated Roosevelt’s big stick policy, and instead thought that we could get partners through trade and financial aid. In other words, Taft thought that the United States could bribe other countries into doing what we want – fyi, we still do this to this day. Taft paid off several countries to do what we wanted and, when that failed, he attempted to install new military leaders, which he then paid off. Frankly, Dollar Diplomacy worked wonders, and it kept many other nations at our call. While it might seem cynical and wrong to bribe nations, it kept the exchanges peaceful, and kept America at the center of power – kudos to Taft for both.

Taft also felt as though world peace was a noble and well thought out gain. To do this, he attempted to make, and have ratified, several arbitration and reciprocation treaties. These treaties ensured that both parties would not enter battles, nor would they work against each other’s interests just for spite.

While this seems like a great idea, and worked well concerning our treaties with England and Canada, this was not a good idea in the long run. Any form of treaty in which we sacrifice our self-interest is dangerous, and to do so for political ploys is idiotic. World peace is an unattainable ideal, and not something that will ever be feasible. Instead of ensuring that nobody messed with us simply because they liked us, Taft placed us in danger by ensuring that we would not mess with others for self-gain, which greatly harms our nation.

Domestically, Taft struggled to find a clear ground on many issues; the most prevalent issue being that of the tariff. Taft wanted the rates lowered, and ignored the fact that this was highly unpopular in his party to do so. He lowered the rate, which his party hated, but didn’t change it enough for the reformers. This meant that he had alienated himself from both sides, and actually harmed the Republican party as he put it all on their plate.

While this change is neither good nor bad, in it of itself, it does indicate a fault in Taft’s leadership. The man could not come up with a position, and instead tried to play it in the middle. This backfired, and really messed up his office. Not only that, but it also shows that Taft was not capable of making hard decisions, and, instead, was a Presidential trifle. This, frankly, colors Taft’s Presidency.

While still on the domestic economic front, Taft was the President that brought us the income tax. While there had been taxes on income before, they were required to be apportioned, or unconstitutional. With the addition of the 16th Amendment, income taxes, that were not apportioned, became Constitutional. While I love this, I certainly understand that there is a fair bit of argument against it – best to leave this area alone.

Another iffy area for Taft would be that of Civil Rights. Taft felt as though blacks deserved rights, but did not believe that the 15th Amendment gave the federal government the right to interfere with state politics. As a result, blacks in southern states were routinely lynched, killed, and mobbed, for the stupidest of reasons (not that there is a smart or good reason). Taft also did nothing as southern states passed law after law keeping their black citizens from voting.

To me, this is appalling. While I understand the fear of trying to use federal power against the south, I can not understand allowing this sort of situation to occur. Taft should have grown some balls, and stood up to the states. He needed to show that the President has the right, and the duty, to keep this sort of thing from happening. Instead, he weakened the office, and kept the country back for another 50 years.

Overall, I feel as though Taft is another interesting placement. While he did some good for the country, most of his actions were more or less ‘mehs.’ Taft was undecided, unexciting, and uneventful, making him an useless President. While he might have been a great justice later, and an overall good politician and American, he was only a mediocre President. Personally, I feel as though #27 is a great spot for William Howard Taft to slide into.

This is one of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-26: ?
27: William Howard Taft
28: Benjamin Harrison
29: James Madison
30: John Calvin Coolidge
31: John F. Kennedy
32: William McKinley
33: John Tyler
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

This, my friends, is where it starts to get interesting. After a bunch of horrible Presidents, but before the great ones, comes a an area of simply mediocre leaders. Some of these men had flashes of genus, others had slight problems while in office, but none of them were grand nor bad. These men are harder to rate, as they don’t logically fit into a line, nor do they really do a whole lot for rating. After all, most of the next people are not even memorable; how do you rate Presidents who really didn’t do anything?

This is where Benjamin Harrison comes into the picture. The grandson of William Henry Harrison, and yet another person from Ohio, Harrison was merely a mediocre President. His rise to power was simply being appointed Senator from Indiana, which he got after losing a gubernatorial election in the state. Harrison won in a contested election against the incumbent Grover Cleveland, who then beat Harrison four years later. Frankly, being the meat in the Cleveland sandwich is probably what he is best known for. Either way, however, Harrison was our 23rd President, serving from 1889-1893.

One of the first things Harrison did in office was to continue reform of the Civil Service system. Like the Presidents before him, Harrison was constantly harangued by people who thought that they deserved jobs, simply because they were of the right party, or because they worked on his campaign. While he turned most of the seekers down, Harrison was unable to actually reject them all. As a result, he did his best to reform the Civil Service system, for a little while anyways.

After attempting to reform the system, mainly by appointing Theodore Roosevelt (Teddy), Harrison realized that congress was not going to go along with his changes. As a result, he stopped attempting to alter the system, and just didn’t fulfill certain locations. While this was not the worst of plans, this wasn’t exactly a great idea, as the problems continued to exist. Harrison missed a golden opportunity to put a stamp on his name, and state what was acceptable and what wasn’t. Instead, he shied away from the political opposition.

While he shied away from opposition when dealing with civil service, Harrison headed right into the heart of the fire when he started to take on the large monopolic trusts that existed. These trusts and monopolies extended across the nation, and strangled many smaller and family-owned companies. They used bribes, illegal activities, threats, and, sometimes, simply buying the transportation system (I am looking at you Rockefeller) to drive the other companies out of business. Harrison thought that this was wrong, and worked with congress to pass the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, something that we still use today.

While this seems like a great move, after getting the act passed, Harrison only utilized it once. Instead, he felt as though it was a state’s rights issue (wait, isn’t this after the Civil War?) and thought that they should take care of it. While the act is now used for good, Harrison ignored any good usage of it. To me, this is appalling, as the large trusts stymied and harmed the intellectual growth of the nation. Sure, goods were cheaper and there was more industry, but without competition, there is no innovation. Harrison refused to use a great tool at his disposal, and really set the nation back a bit.

Harrison’s other attempts at playing in the economic realm were likewise mediocre. Under his tenure, the national surplus grew daily. Instead of putting in reserve systems (like any smart person would do), he thought that it was best to neutralize the money. As a result, he spent and spent, eventually bringing the federal budget over 1 billion dollars, the first time that this had ever happened.

While I can not argue that having too much money is bad (I suppose it might corrupt or something, I have never had that much myself), I do not understand how this was a good idea. The government needs money to function, and a surplus is a good thing, as it makes sure that there is money later. Harrison should have saved the money and used it on a rainy day, instead of investing it is absurd pet projects and various pension systems. Harrison missed yet another golden egg, this time he didn’t preserve the manner in which to keep the country out of debt.

If you thought that his economic and civil service reformations were hair brained, then you must think that his foreign policy policies were absolutely asinine. Harrison had no idea what he was doing when dealing with other nations, and he actually brought the US close to war several times:

• In a battle with Canada over fishing rights near the Aleutian Islands, Harrison had the navy seize British ships. While this could have lead to war, Britain calmly looked around, and agreed to give us a ransom

• When the Dole’s staged a revolt in Hawaii, Harrison quickly attempted to get the nation accepted as a state. While he failed, he severely pissed off the rest of the world, and Spain started chomping at the bit.

• Situations got sour when sailors on leave in Chile got into a fight and were arrested (and some killed). The Baltimore Crisis got interesting when Harrison personally got involved, demanded reparations, and threatened war. Instead of the standard ‘you were on their land,’ Harrison actually tried to get the country to go to war. Calmer heads prevailed, and the President apologized.

As I said, Harrison was an idiot when it came to foreign policy; he was pretty much an idiot on everything else as well. Overall, it is hard to rate Harrison as he wasn’t great, nor was he horrible. While he did some idiotic things, they never really backfired, and he did enough good to avoid being bogged down by them. Sure, he let monopolies stifle innovation, but he also helped create the act used against them today. Harrison exemplifies the middle-ground Presidents – not great, but not bad, and damn hard to place. I believe that Harrison, had he had another term, would have been more interesting, but the simply man was far to simplistic to be President. Overall, I believe that Benjamin Harrison easily slides into the 28th spot, as it is just hard to place him anywhere else.

This is one of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-27: ?
28: Benjamin Harrison
29: James Madison
30: John Calvin Coolidge
31: John F. Kennedy
32: William McKinley
33: John Tyler
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

With James Madison’s posting, today is a great time to point out something exceptionally important. When I first started contemplating the idea of ranking the Presidents, I made sure to explain exactly what the guidelines were. While I made sure to state that I would evaluate things that occurred after their tenure in office, but due to the actual actions done by the President (or his policy), I also made sure to point one thing out. I will rank the Presidents by the things measured will only be from when IN office. Now, with Madison, this is even more important, and it is something to keep in mind when reading this posting.

James Madison is, of course, one of the most important members of our Founding Fathers. Madison wrote the majority of the majority of the Constitution, and he was the main author of the Bill of Rights. Madison also worked on the Federalist Papers, which some of the blogs which I read seem to love. Just as importantly, Madison helped to create the new government, as he, along with Washington, acted to create the precedent that still stands today. That said, none of this matters, as Madison is only being ranked on his Presidential ability. Madison was our 4th President, serving from 1809 until 1817.

One of Madison’s first acts in office was to try and block the First Bank of the US. While he was unable to actually block the bill in the first place, Madison bided his time, waiting for the charter to end. Once it did, he did his best not to let it come back. Madison felt that the bank was Unconstitutional, that it would harm the country fiscally, and that it simply didn’t make any sense in the long run. In his attempt to keep the bank from coming back, Madison split with his cabinet.

Once the War of 1812 rolled around, however, the country realized that it was nearly impossible to pay for this defensive battle without a national bank. While he rejected it in 1814, Madison eventually realized that he needed the bank in order to keep funding the war, and keep the nation stable. As a result, Madison worked on creating the Second Bank of the United States, and actually got it done. This made the nation stable for a short period of time, but ended when the Court found that the bank was Unconstitutional.

Personally, I have a strong problem with any attempt at the Bank of America. Besides the obvious Unconstitutionality of it, there is no way that this system is logical or would work. Sure, Congress has the power to make the coin, but they should not have the power to manipulate the economy as they see fit. The bank allows this, and would create an extremely dangerous precedent. Congress should never have the power to change the economy, never. It is too great a power to wield, and one that is ripe for abuse. In this way, Madison’s flipflopping actually could have led the country right into harm.

Now, we all know the story of Dolly running into a burning White House in order to save a picture of Washington. As this was during the War of 1812, we can also deduce that dear James was President at the time (well, we can deduce it, or, we can simply look at the years). With the British actively working on pressing American sailors into service, Madison felt as though he needed to take the British on, and show them once and for all that we were free. As a result, he went to war, and nearly lost the country before even a half century had passed – a decision that most historians consider one of the worst in the history of the Office.

After starting the war, Madison quickly realized that things were not going his way. The British, along with their allies, won battle after battle, quickly moving their way south of the border. In an act reminiscent of the Burning of Montreal, the Brits even burned down the new capital city of Washington. With the war going against him, almost everything was down for Madison.

That said, Madison had one thing going for him – Andrew Jackson. As Mr. Jackson paraded through the Indians allies, easily defeating them, he set the stage for his eventual rise to Presidency. Not only that, Jackson made sure that the fledgling nation lived to fight another day.

Frankly, I must agree with the decisions and views of most historians – this was one of the dumbest moves ever. Madison, in his effort to be as hawklike as possible, almost cost the country its freedom. Saved from the brink of death, Madison didn’t even realize how close he was, or how scary the situation had been. War with England could have easily been avoidable, but Madison chose to show his balls and think he was tough. Needless to say, this was idiotic, and pretty much showed how horrific this Presidency was.

To be honest with you, there wasn’t a whole lot more that Madison did while in office, so these two events pretty much defined him. Overall, Madison is hard to place in a lineup, as he was a great Founding Father, but a horrific President. This man, attempted to destroy the country, and got damn close to it. On top of that, he placed the economic health of the nation in doubt, as he gave Congress far too much power over the economy. Frankly, I think that it is somewhat nice to place Madison in such a high position, given all that he did to harm the nation. Overall, I believe that James Madison deserves the 29th spot in this list.

This is the fourteenth of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-28: ?
29: James Madison
30: John Calvin Coolidge
31: John F. Kennedy
32: William McKinley
33: John Tyler
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

I am writing this from the road on my iPhone on a trip to check out my new property in Connecticut (for law school). I had thought that I had scheduled automatic posts for both days, but apparently did not. As a result, there will be no posts either tomorrow or on Monday.

I know that this is getting old, but I am sorry. I should be building a backlog of posts soon, so I should be always ready with one on the normal schedule. Look for a post sometime on Wednesday and Friday of next week, so that I can continue the two-a-week President’s postings.

Thanks,
Robert

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

Man, I want that hat.

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

When looking at the Presidents, James Calvin Coolidge is an odd fellow to consider. On one hand, he is a self-made man who slowly worked himself up the political ladders – a very noble achievement. On the other hand, he was a shrewd leader who thought that the government had no right interfering with businesses in any manner – an economically suicidal ideal. Either way, Coolidge was our 30th President, taking over when President Harding bit the dust, and served from 1923-1929.

One of this interesting things that Coolidge did, immediately after being sworn in to replace Harding, was to decide that nothing would be replaced regarding the former President’s policies and people. Even though most of Harding’s cabinet members were covered in corruption, Coolidge believed that the American people should get the Presidency that they elected, and vowed not to change Harding’s policies until he was no longer the elected leader. This is an odd position, but one of extreme character. To put aside one owns views of the world in order to preserve what the people want is a value far underrated in leaders, and something that I hope several others will have.

One of the most notable policies regarding the Coolidge Presidency is his tax policy. His first foray into tax policy occurred when he signed the Revenue Act of 1924. The act was extremely popular with both politicians and the people (a rare feat), and served as a cornerstone in his tenor. The Revenue Act effectively cut the income tax, expanded the estate tax, and reworked the transfer tax (by creating the gift tax). It resulted in far less money coming into the Federal Government, which is something in which Coolidge strongly believed.

Taxes should be lower, and fewer people should have to pay them.

To Coolidge, this simple saying was the most important saying in the world. He attempted, time and time again, to lower the taxes paid by the average American to the Federal government. Along the same lines, Coolidge also attempted to ensure that the public debt would not increase, and, as a condition for this, froze all public spending. This, though somewhat controversial, allowed for the removal of 30% of the national debt, and seemed to be a great indicator that his Presidency was doing the right thing.

That said, however, while people were paying far less to the national government, the states, now stuck with the social projects tabs, were taking in more and more from the tax payers. In fact, in 1927, several states’ budgets passed that of the federal government. In Coolidge’s America, people were becoming more reliant on the state, actually paying more in taxes, and creating an unstable system which could not be sustained. Of course, only a few years later, this bubble popped, leading the country into the Great Depression.

Like taxation, Coolidge believed that the federal government had no place in the world of business. With the sole exception of a tariff, Coolidge acted, and appointed advisers, in ways that would have the smallest impact on business possible. During his term, business could be run in almost any way they wished, invest as crazily as they cared to do, and even make high-risk bets, most of which backfired. This allowed for the companies to grow increasingly big, but, it also eventually led to their collapse, as the unregulated systems ran out of steam. This, again, helped lead the country into the Great Depression.

This is, yet again, a contentious area in which to judge Coolidge. On one hand, his actions clearly brought the nation to the brink of disaster, and actually killed thousands of Americans. On the other, one needs to look at it from his view, where the states are what should police companies. When governor, Coolidge regulated business like God commanded him to. However, once President, he felt that it should be left up to the states to do so, and refused to get involved.

This system would work well if states did their jobs, if companies were not so interdependent on each other, and Americans were not so dependent on companies. In Coolidge’s day, however, this was not the case. States followed his lead and stopped policing, and the people became reliant on companies for their daily livelihood. As a result, when one company crashed, three crashed with it, spiraling the nation out of control. Coolidge’s plan did not work in his time, as it couldn’t.

Overall, it is just as I said at the start of the piece, Coolidge is an odd one to place. In any other environment, where states were properly regulating businesses, and the people were not become relent on state handouts, his plans would have worked perfectly. However, Coolidge was not the right person at the right time, and, as such, his plans had drastic and deadly consequences for the nation (he admitted that he partially blamed himself for the Depression). Had Coolidge served in the 1800s, he easily would have been near the top of the list, but, as he served right before the Great Depression, he is knocked down for his ill-timed views. Overall, I believe that it is clear that his policies harmed the Nation, and that John Calvin Coolidge deserves the 30th spot in this list.

This is the thirteenth of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-29: ?
30: John Calvin Coolidge
31: John F. Kennedy
32: William McKinley
33: John Tyler
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

When Apple first released OS 2.0 and 3.0 for the iPhone, people were able to sync their devices with the Google servers, easily allowing them to access and edit their contacts and calendars. However, when they updated to 3.1, Apple broke the sync, leaving thousands in the dark. After finding workarounds, people were again able to sync their systems, and the world was a better place.

However, after releasing 4.0 on June 21st, Apple, yet again, broke this new workaround, leaving people without the possibility of syncing their iPhone, iPod Touch, and/or iPad to their Google Calendars. After losing all of my calendar information (which has really hurt my productivity), I started to mess around with various settings, finally finding one that, once again, lets me sync my GCalendar with my iPhone. As a nice person, I figured that I should help you out, as I am sure that this is a common problem.

To resync your iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad, simply do the following:

• On your device, go Settings
• Navigate to Mail, Contact, Calendars – Add Account – Other – Add CalDAV Account
• Once in the CalDAV settings, enter the information from the following picture (your username ad passwords should be the ones that you use to access your Google account):

• Tap Next
• Navigate to your device’s Calendar
• Click Calendar at the top left of the screen
• Unselect all but the one under the ‘www.google.com’ header – if you do not do this, you will be able to see events from your GCalender, but not be able to add any.
• If you have multiple calendars on other accounts, simply add them the same way. If you have muliple calendars on one account, go here and select the ones you want on your iPhone. Then, when entering an event, you can pick the calendar it goes on at the bottom of the event editing screen.

At this point, your system should be set up. I would recommend checking with some test events, but everything should connect (it might take a few minutes to transfer from one device to the Google server, and vice-versa). If you add, alter, or delete any event on either your device or your Google Calendar, it should update quickly on the other. Even if you are in airplane mode, when you reconnect, all changed events will show up.This workaround worked very well for me, and I hope that it works well for you too. If it doesn’t, let me know in the comments, and I will try to find out why. Other than that, see you all next time Apple updates their software.

Article first published as How to Sync Your Google Calendar and Your iPhone Using OS4 on Blogcritics.

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

When I am at work, I have to often help my coworkers with their computer issues. Sometimes it is something easy, like they didn’t install a driver (or, worse, didn’t even activate it). Other times, it is something tough, like a problem with compatibility. Either way, I normally have to put down what I am doing, walk over to their office, and actively help them. This is tiring, annoying, and a plain waste of my time (I am lazy, but you all should know that by now). Seriously folks, I really hate having to walk all over the office to fix little computer problems.

This is why PC Remote Access was created, and why Proxy Pro 7 is such a great product. I am able to sit in my own chair, log onto my coworkers computer from my own, fix their issues, and still be a lazy bum. I can gain full control (with their permission, of course), and everything will end up fixed. Plus, to ensure that no nefarious people can get into our computers, Proxy Pro 7 has great security, including “256-bit encryption – the highest in its class”! This saves me time and energy, and lets me hang out in my much cooler office.

Even more, Proxy Pro 7 is really great for working on projects, and presenting those projects to your other offices or clients, within the state, the nation, or across the world. We can look, alter, and share files with one another, run presentations, and/or see how much our productivity has increased (due to the lack of walking). If I need to give a presentation in Taiwan (not that I ever would, but just in case I need to), I can call them up, be put on speaker phone, and show them the entire presentation on their computers. This is amazing, and something that is great for any work environment.

Overall, I am quite impressed with Proxy Pro 7. The concept is good, and I find that it is quite useful and desirable. Certainly, this software fills a ninche in the workforce, and can be highly useful for a company. I recommend that you give Proxy Pro 7 a try today. Odds are, you will end up buying it.

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

Yes, I am aware that this will be controversial, but, as I have said from the start, it is based on performance, not anything else.

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

Some Presidents enter office on their own, with little-to-no-help from their larger family (Obama, Clinton). For others, they enter on their parent’s coattails, hiding behind Daddies friends and using them to create their openings (Bush, JQ Adams). No President exemplifies this coattailing better that John F. Kennedy. Encouraged by his father and his friends, JFK was able to reach the highest office in the nation through little actual ability, though plenty of charisma helped him out. Rather, he mostly used his name, as well as his parental political influence, to reach the office. No matter how he got there, however, Kennedy was our 35th President, serving from 1961 to 1963.

When JFK was elected, he represented a couple of first for the office of the Presidency. He was the first Irish-American elected to office, and he is the youngest ever elected (but not to serve, Theodore Roosevelt has that honor). Kennedy was also the first (and only) Catholic to serve as President (Joe Biden is the only Veep), a fact that was not lost among his opponents. Quite a few Americans did not vote for Kennedy, as they were afraid that he would answer to Rome over the American people. Clearly, this did not occur, and the idea of religion impacting the office diminished quite a bit (until the ‘Muslim’ rumors about Obama).

Before I start to tear one of America’s most loved (clearly America doesn’t know much about Kennedy) Presidents apart, I think I should focus on two of his best areas, Civil rights and the Space Race. JFK was an adamant supporter of Civil Rights, and believed that blacks should be treated as equal citizens with their white counterparts. Working with Martin Luther King Jr., JFK was able to start grass-roots movements in the south to try and get those rights for blacks. He also sent federal troops in to quell various revolts against recent Supreme Court Rulings. Most importantly, Kennedy proposed what became the Civil Rights Act, thus finally protecting blacks.

We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard

Earthrise, the shot that started the Eco movement.

Ahh the space race, where America finally got to start beating the Soviets. After losing the initial satellite race, America needed something to rally behind. Kennedy, sensing this, quickly proposed that within a decade, Americans would be on the moon. This jump-started the entire Space Race, and eventually did get us to the moon. While several people think that space is a waste of resources, I strongly disagree. By creating this system, Kennedy not only started the ecological movement (Earthrise), but he also started a technological boom that created many new innovations. Additionally, the space race was the first step towards getting our species off of this planet, something that we need to do very soon.

Good, we are now done with what Kennedy did well, I can start tearing him apart..

As a devout America Capitalist, Kennedy was deeply concerned with what was occurring in South and Latin America, as the Communistic revolutions spread from country to country. To attempt to keep the ‘evil’ economic system far from America’s shores, Kennedy invoked both the Monroe Doctrine and created the Alliance for Progress, both of which did some good to keep Communism at bay.

That said, as we all know, the attempts to keep Communism away from America did not work too well. After Cuba feel to Fidel Castro’s Communistic revolution, America planned multiple attempts to overthrow the new leader. The plan that ended up being used was the Bay of Pigs invasion, which, didn’t work out too well. Kennedy ordered several hundred ex-Cubans into the island, hoping that they would incite a revolt and get Castro out of power. Sadly, they had no American military support, and were quickly captured and killed. Not only did this embarrass the Presidency, it greatly hindered relations with the Soviet Union, and led to worse situations with Cuba.

Speaking of worst situations with Cuba, another failed attempt at diplomacy was the Cuban Missile Crisis. After U2 bombers discovered missile sites on the island, Kennedy embarked on a public campaign to get the removed. Bringing the nation close to a nuclear war, Kennedy refused to backdown. Eventually, the Soviets removed the missiles, but not before they made us remove some of our arms from Turkey. The entire situation could have been avoided, the near-catastrophe of destroying the planet (see my space race comment) would never had happened, had Kennedy done everything quietly. Instead, he actually harmed our nation by being forced to remove missiles, thus harming our protection for Turkey.

Moving to the eastern hemisphere, Kennedy’s anti-communist policies led to far worse problems then occurred in Cuba. In Vietnam, Kennedy sanctioned the coup against the South Vietnamese President, Ngo Dinh Diem. Viewing Diem as too neutral in the conflict, Kennedy was afraid that he would negotiate with the Communistic north. After a new leader was placed in power. Kennedy continued to add more and more American troops to the battle. Of course, this led to an escalation of the war, eventually costing 60,000+ American lives, and creating the first war that the country has ever lost. Clearly, Kennedy made a mistake here.

As if his interventions in Vietnam were not enough, Kennedy spread his eye over onto the African content. Kennedy believed that these newly emerging nations were the perfect place for a Proxy for the Cold War, and started to invest heavily in the area. Kennedy created governments, toppled countries, and created a large differential in wealth, all in an attempt to take out the Soviets. He started funding and arming troops, which eventually turned around and took out Americans later. While it seemed like a great idea at the time, Kennedy’s actions in Africa actually resulted in the loss of thousands of American lives, and no gain in the war against Communism.

Finally, Kennedy also started to mess with Iraq, in a way that still affects us today. Unhappy with the current government, Kennedy supported to overthrow and take over by the Ba’ath Party, the party that Bush finally got rid of a few years ago. Not only did they support this overthrow, but the American government provided arms to the government to take down the Kurdish rebels, and gave them lists of suspected Communists. Thousands of people on those lists were executed, mostly by Saddam himself. Then, after getting rid of the enemies in their nation, the Iraqis turned on us. Clearly, Kennedy did not understand the concept of blowback.

Of course, as well all know, Kennedy was assassinated before he could do much damage. As there is some controversy over this (though I believe that there was only one assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald), I don’t really feel like getting into it too much. Instead, I will simply say this, by being killed, Kennedy was removed before most people saw the problems from his Presidency, allowing people to continue to love him.

Overall, it seems as though Kennedy had a useless and harmful Presidency, but never saw anything from it due to his death. Like many other Presidents, his death in office helped him, as it has kept people adoring his legacy, even though he royally screwed the nation over. Kennedy brought about Saddam, Bin Laden, and many other groups that attempted to destroy this country, simply because he didn’t understand blowback. Frankly, it is quite lenient to place John Fitzgerald Kennedy at the 31st spot, as he could easily be placed much lower.

This is the twelvth of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-30: ?
31: John F. Kennedy
32: William McKinley
33: John Tyler
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

The 25th President of the United States

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

Like I said back in my Garfield article, I am start to get a bit concerned about Ohio Presidents. Fitting well into the mold of killed-in-office, William McKinley, the “Idol of Ohio,” served as President of this country, and, like most Ohioans, died in office. However, before he died, McKinley did indeed do some interesting things. He was the last President of the 1800s, and was the first of the 1900s. He was the last Civil War veteran to serve. Finally, and most importantly, McKinley’s death allowed Teddy to be elected as President, giving us the youngest President ever. No matter what he did, however, William McKinley was the 25th President of the United States, serving from 1897 to 1901.

The first thing that McKinley did, and one of the things that I dislike the most about his administration, was his handling of the return to American prosperity after the Panic of 1893. While McKinley, for the most part, handled the move well, he placed the country on the gold standard, which, as we later found out, kinda screwed us leading up to the Great Depression. The Gold Standard, which seemed like a grand idea at the time, actually kept the American economy rather stagnate (in reality, not in appearance), thus eventually leading to our ruin.

Another response under the McKinley handling of the panic was to consolidate the majority of businesses within America. As banks, farms, and the manufactures started to join forces and form bigger and bigger companies, the right of the workers, as well as the political power of the companies, quickly changed. Instead of stopping this unamerican and political change, McKinley actually passed legislation making it easier to occur. Off course, we now know that this allows companies to become ‘to be to fail,’ and doesn’t help to improve our economy at all.

While he had some questionable economic policies, most of McKinley’s other domestic policies were actually decent and well thought out. Early in his Presidency, for instance, McKinley presided over the annexation of Hawaii from being its own country to become a member of ours. While this is somewhat contentious now, the inclusion of Hawaii as a state was a huge milestone for McKinley, and also historically important, as without it, we wouldn’t have Obama.

Of course, all of his domestic and economic policies were quickly overshadowed by a major event that occurred during his term – The Spanish American War. As the Spanish were actively beating up the Cubans, McKinley decided to invoke the Monroe Doctrine and send the USS Maine over to keep the peace. Somehow, the Maine exploded, causing Congress to declare war. The war ended in only 100 or so days, yielding America several territories and new island nations – oh, and it led to a great photo-op for Teddy.

While he never actually acted upon his words, McKinley was an adamant supporter of civil rights

It must not be equality and justice in the written law only. It must be equality and justice in the law’s administration everywhere, and alike administered in every part of the Republic to every citizen thereof. It must not be the cold formality of constitutional enactment. It must be a living birthright

While he clearly was opposed to the lynchings and other issues that were occurring in the southern states, McKinley did absolutely nothing to stop it. This, to me, is undefendedable, as, if you are opposed to something, you should do your best to stop it. McKinley had the platform and the views needed, but refused to use either. This was probably one of his biggest mistakes as President.

Overall, it seems as though McKinley had a productive Presidency, but it oversaw a decline in the American economy (although, not seen at the time), as well as an increase in racial tensions in the south. While McKinley had his heart in the right place, his actions towards this tension did nothing to stem it, and actually might have increased it. Overall, McKinley had a chance to be a much better President, though he wasn’t too bad for his time, and slips into the 32nd spot on our list.

This is the eleventh of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-31: ?
32: William McKinley
33: John Tyler
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

Sometimes, it is good to cross political lines to ensure that your name will go down in history. For John Tyler, Jr., crossing from the Democratic-Republican camp into the Whig camp served as his window into the historical office of the Presidency. With his party in a slight decline, John signed on as the VEEP of William Henry Harrison, and served as the second-in-command for only 30 days. After Harrison’s death, Tyler became the 10th President of the United States, serving from 1841-1845.

As I mentioned above, Tyler came into the office as an accident. After Harrison passed away, there was some confusion as to who would take over as President upon his death. Some argued that Tyler was only an acting President, waiting until a new election. Others argued that he was still the Vice President, and that the Presidential Office was still open. Tyler, paving a new path, argued that he was the President, and took control of the office. While this proved controversial for some time (his opponents called him ‘His Accidency‘), Tyler was so authoritative that on June 1, 1841, Congress passed legislation declaring him President. By doing this, Tyler created our Presidential Succession path, which was finally codified into reality with the 25th Amendment.

As he was of a different political party than most of his cabinet, Tyler quickly strode to enforce his view of what should be happening in America. Tyler vetoed massive amounts of legislation (basically, the entire Whig platform, TWICE) thus irking the Whig Party. Soon, all but one member of his cabinet resigned from office, attempting to force the President into resigning as well. Unfortunately for the Whigs, Tyler did not step down, and only increased his current political positions. As a result, the party kicked him out, causing Tyler to join George Washington and Andrew Johnson as being one of three Presidents without a party.

After his cabinet resigned, Tyler started to try and stick people who agreed with his positions into these vacant spots. The Whigs, clearly still upset with him, quickly started to fight back, and kept most of his nominations from gaining office. Though he eventually filled the spots, it took 22 attempts to fill the 6 holes. Not only did it take so much effort, but Tyler kept appointing southerners, creating a geographic divide and rivalry in the country. While this did not cause the Civil War, it certainty advanced the inter-waring of Congress on political and geographical grounds.

After vetoing too many laws, Tyler had fully pissed off the Whigs in Congress. As a result, they started impeachment hearings against him. While the hearings ended up being a dead end, this was the first time in history that a President had had the hearings started against him, and it served as precedent in later impeachment discussions. Not only did they try to impeach the President, but Congress also, successfully this time, overrode one of Tyler’s vetos, marking the first time that this had occurred.

During his Presidency, Tyler was confronted with an open rebellion in the state of Rhode Island. The Dorr Rebellion was caused by the fact that the RI Constitution was over 200 years old, and it did not include the right for white men to vote. During the rebellion, Tyler was asked by the governor to send troops, but he refused. Tyler believed that unless actual violence took place, the people of the state had the right to revolt and demand a new government. This position would come in handy later, when Tyler argued the same thing for the succeeding southern states.

Having been kicked out of his party, Tyler had the great idea to start a new one, where he would be the leader. To do this, he would have to get a new base, and he knew just where to get one – Texas. To get the newly independent country into his own, Tyler employed John C. Calhoun (the man that Andrew Jackson hated) to try and get a treaty signed. The treaty, which would guarantee slaveholder’s rights, was rejected time and time again by the northern Congress. Though he would never get Texas into the country, the treaty was viewed as Texas’ rights by many of the states residents; when they were annexed, the people used these ‘rights’ when they discussed leaving during the Civil War, eventually leading to the state of Texas leaving the country.

Finally, after leaving office, Tyler did the most unforgivable thing imaginable, he served for the Confederate States of America. After the first of the Southern states left the Union, Tyler attempted to create some sort of compromise. When that failed, he started to create the government of the southern states, and was elected to serve in their House of Representatives, though he died before that could occur.

Overall, it seems as though Tyler had an interesting Presidency, though not a good one. Instead of addressing the concerns and issues of the time, Tyler simply fought against his political opponents, wasting both time and tax payer money. Furthermore, his actions generally led to the increase of a chance of Civil War, making him culpable for at least part of that incident. Speaking of the Civil War, while he died before he could serve the Confederacy, this treasonous act clearly marks Tyler as a traitor, and thus, as a horrific President. In the end, there is just no argument that John Tyler, Jr. a traitor, should not go down as the 33rd worst President of the United States

This is the Tenth of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-32: ?
33: John Tyler
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

Ladies and Gents, I am finally a graduate of The Ohio State University. Bio updates, here I come!!

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

In 1970, John Rawls published his seminal work, “A Theory of Justice,” shortly following it up with his longer, and more intensive update, “Political Liberalism.” In these works, Rawls restarted the long-dormant field of political philosophy, and discussed what justice is, how a government can be legitimate, and how public reason can be used in governing. In 1993, Stuart Hampshire released “Liberalism: The New Twist,” a short article that took Rawls to task for various inconsistencies within his works. In this paper, I will examine various issues where Hampshire has a good potential attack, but needs improvement, where Hampshire has a valid argument against Rawls, and the various ways in while Rawls could, conceivably, responded to those arguments.

One of the biggest areas in which Hampshire could knock Rawls down a peg or two, but does not do so, would be in the examination of Rawls’ biases. In various locations throughout his text, Rawls expands upon what he considers to be a just government, not what anybody could consider just. He discusses abortion from a ‘liberal’ vantage point instead of from a general or allowable viewpoint; this allows Rawls, as a liberal, to concluded that it is just to let the woman choose, instead of, as a potential Catholic or conservative, concluding that it is not just to kill any form of life. While this is simply one example, Rawls utilizes similar political-conceptions throughout the piece, clearly showing his biases and how narrowly he defines political reason (read, making it a liberal concept).

While Hampshire clearly points out that Rawls has several ‘liberal’ and hard-set views that seem to indicate a clear-set definition (read bias) of rational though, Hampshire neglects to draw any attack on this basis. Rather, he attacks specific examples of this situation, hoping to catch Rawls in some form of trap. While he does attack Rawls on this basis when dealing specifically with abortion¹, Hampshire neglects to focus on this attack, and leaves it simply as something that could be addressed by a neutral third party. Had Hampshire followed through with this attack, he would have been able to reveal a glowing inaccuracy in how Rawls believes that legitimate governments could be formed (overlapping consensus), and actually drive a wedge under the entirety of Rawls’ logic; instead, he allowed for this to be brushed under the rug.

While Hampshire notices, and, for the most part, ignores, the majority of political biases that Rawls projects, he outright misses the problems that ethnocentrism causes throughout Political Liberalism. In fact, the opposite occurs, as Hampshire seems quite happy, or at least content, that Rawls is American in his viewpoint². While he focused on the political biases as being a problem when dealing with political reason, Hampshire, for some unknown reason, believes that other biases are perfectly acceptable, which is a slight problem.

Obviously, avoiding the hypocrisy here, there are several other issues that rise out of the forms of ethnocentrism that are prevalent in Rawls’ piece. The idea that reason is defined by an American sensitivity removes several valid, and reasonable, beliefs from the table. The American political climate of a republican form of government is found throughout the piece; it is even implied that any other form of a government would be deemed unreasonable, and, thus, the idea, and the creator, would no longer be included in the overall governmental system. This, obviously, leads to the idea that public reason is only inclusive of those who agree, in the main areas, with Rawls, and, only to the countries that practice western concepts of government.

Hampshire outright missed a great counterpoint by ignoring this glaring problem in Rawls’ piece. Rawls relies upon the fact that most of his readers either agree with him in practice, or are willing to accept his beliefs in concept. Obviously, with a diverse people, neither of these can be assumed nor ensured. Had Hampshire attacked Rawls on ethnocentric and western ideals, he would have had a perfect argument, and drawn in far more support from the more conservative members of the world. Furthermore, as Rawls proudly claims that he has been translated into three non-European languages³, his argument, when viewed in the international climate, would clearly take a hit if his American-centered viewpoint was brought the the open. Clearly, Hampshire missed a golden opportunity by not pushing this matter any further than he did.

While there are two glaring holes in Rawls’ work that Hampshire ignores, Hampshire, for the most part, nails Rawls in the other obvious areas of concern. The first area attacked by Hampshire, and probably one of the key concepts for Rawls, is that the deciders in this society will be required to throw out any personal considerations or motives, and must instead focus solely on what is good for the group and the whole⁴. For Rawls’ theory to work, this “imaginary assembly of abstract persons” must act behind a “veil of ignorance” in order to fairly and properly decide upon the issues of the day.

Obviously, there are some looming problems with this approach to public reason, which Hampshire clearly points out. For starters, the group of people will probably come to a concord in terms of how the institutional government is to be made. Secondly, they will probably agree that even the bottom of the hierarchy must be accounted for in their institutions. Finally, according to Hampshire, the group will also probably agree that personal liberty is essential in their society, and have that of a high concern⁵.

While they may agree on these three critical issues, Hampshire still believes that they will fall apart when dealing with the smaller pictures. Hampshire, along with other critics of Rawls’ views, believe that this abstract of people is already biased in that they believe that all men are to be treated equally and freely. They argue that “Without this assumed liberal ideal there could be no constraint that would compel a rational man to prefer liberty to all other human goods, or that would compel him to mitigate, or never to increase natural human inequalities.⁶” Clearly, Hampshire and others believe that rational people will not willingly give up their advantages in order to help unknown strangers, thus placing Rawls’ argument at in a perilous position.

In response, Rawls has collected several theories that attempt to demonstrate “that any reasonable body of men, if they disregarded their own particular interests and characters, would arrive at principles of social justice which would be recognizably liberal.⁷” That is, Rawls believes that even with internal disagreements over what should be tantamount to society, these men should be able to find common liberal grounds in which to pitch their tent. He contends that men will willingly remove some of their power in order to create a stable society (see Hobbes, Locke) and that men will form a bond that they would agree to if they were in the worst position. After all, nobody wants to be locked into a bad deal, and so, these men, aware that their positions in the social hierarchy could change, would chose an overall good deal. This, according to Rawls, would limit the personal biases from coming into account during the concord meeting.

Furthermore, Rawls could easily argue that it would, in today’s society, not be possible for a group of people to not form a liberal agreement concerning their overall governmental institutions. Rawls could argue that this assembly of people would be required to be rational (a perfectly valid assumption and argument), and, as such, they would have certain biases that led to this formation. A rational person, in Rawls’ view, would have a moral decency about them, as well as a desire to advance their society as a whole. This would lead a reasonable person to decide in the manner that Rawls believes to be just, as it would not be ethical to condemn those worse off, nor would it be advantageous to the society to remove certain persons from being able to participate. Furthermore, even those who would take a gamble on their own advantage in the society might consider implementing liberal ideals, as they would better society, thus bettering their advantage as being part of said society.

Hampshire, having already considered this reasonable response, has an answer ready to counter Rawls. According to Hampshire, even those with moral decency might decide in a manner that promotes a non-liberal view of political institutions⁸. While these men could form a version of moral decency that allows for the inclusion of the lower caste in their institution, they might still feel as though they are not privy to certain rights or freedoms as they are of the wrong group, or place those of a select group (his group) higher in the hierarchy. As all humans form hierarchies of betters in their head, and it relies on the perceptions of historical and natural situations, this point of view would be neither crazy nor unreasonable; that said, however, it clearly counters the beliefs that Rawls has.

Rawls, of course, could conceivably come up with various ways in which to answer this argument. For starters, he could easily limit what is rational to fit within his logical framework – that is, he could define reasonable people as those who have a moral compass that encompasses the views Rawls desires. Likewise, Rawls could define reasonable “men and women… [as those who are]… sensitive to the political value of a public life and to the duty of civility as one duty among others.⁹” If people fit within this category and they make up the deciding group, then odds are greatly in Rawls’ favor, and his chances of finding his desired institutions would greatly increase.

Hampshire, to his credit, already has a response ready for this ploy. Hampshire believes that every single grouping of people (Catholics, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Capitalists, Socialists, etc.) will decide what constitutes welfare differently, and will act upon their own biases. As such, even those who are sensitive to the political value of public life will not decide in the same manner, thus dehedging Rawls’ bets. Hampshire also states that even the individual will have their own personal reasons for their decisions in this assembly, and that their conclusion, even if reasoned along the same lines (read their well-being or fear of being cast down), would not always have the same outcome. Essentially, Hampshire is arguing that two people with the same mindset would conceive of vastly different ways to accomplish their goals, including ones that Rawls could not think of. As such, it would not be possible for these people to guarantee the desired outcome.

To respond, Rawls could argue the utilitarian standpoint when trying to find the perfect group of people for his imaginary party. Rawls could, conceivably, “Call on everyone to come together in assessing the consequences of their practices and institutions, as being favorable or unfavorable to the general welfare.¹⁰” By doing this, Rawls would be limiting the scope of the reasonable person, without introducing any personal biases (this would also eliminate the changeable outcome due to internal factions), as well as creating a system that should produce his desired result. Even more, Rawls could argue that these people would be concerned not only with the well-being of the worst off, but that they would be worried about moving back down into that class. If the people making the decisions are either concerned innately for the lower levels of society, or are close to entering one of those levels themselves, they are likely to make that level political active and ensure freedoms for it.

The problem with this, as Hampshire could (though he doesn’t) point out, is that several real historical examples show that men, even if they are rational and desire a favorable outcome for the general welfare, can, and will, create institutions that are far from being Political Justice, or even a democracy. Take, for instance, the case of George Washington Plunkitt¹¹, a political philosopher and one of the district chiefs in the Tammany Hall political machine of New York City. In New York, Plunkitt ran a system where he was always the first on the scene after a fire, made sure that his constituents got food and shelter, and was generally around at all times if anybody needed him. Similar to the Godfather, however, this goodwill was the result of a patronage system. For Plunkiitt, he simply requested that those he helped would vote for his platform and candidates.

This form of patronage most certainly would meet the requirements of general welfare concern and concern over their place in the social hierarchy, but would not produce Rawls’ desired outcome. Rather, it would create an undemocratic system where one person continuously has the upper hand, due to their insistence (and demonstration) that they are the only ones able to help the poor. All those of a lower class, even if they felt as though they could increase in status, would be hesitant to bite the hand that fed them. As such, even these clearly rational people would stick to a system of patronage, simply to protect the current status quo, just in case (which, of itself, is exceptionally rational).

To this point, there is very little that Rawls could state that would counteract this argument or be a valid response to it. While he could argue that it is inherent that rational men would eventually seek to place themselves higher in the hierarchy, there is no guarantee that they would be successful, and, as a result, no guarantee that they would try to change the institutions in order to reach this goal. Likewise, it would be hard for Rawls to argue that these people are not rational, as they are thinking primarily about themselves (those in the patronage upper levels are clearly thinking about general welfare) and their family’s future (those in the lower levels), which is clearly a rational concept. Frankly, on this sort of attack, Rawls would be left defenseless.

With Rawls on the run, Hampshire continued to attack his contemporary, this time when discussing minority rights. “It will quite often happen that… a group of citizens, probably a minority, finds its strongest moral convictions overridden by policies that have been fairly chosen.¹²” Even if they agreed upon the manner in which the decision is made (see the abortion debates from earlier in the paper), these people can not, and will not, accept what they consider an unjust and morally repugnant idea or solution. That said, however, these people are clearly rational at most points, and meet the qualifications needed to be part of Rawls’ deciding group of people. With concerns to their minority rights (similar, logically, to Rawls insistence on the concern of lower class right), they are unwilling to form or join a system where Public Reason overrides what they know to be right.

To this, Rawls could, and indeed does, offer an immediate and logical reply, by defining Public Reason and Political Justice from a liberal point of view; “He [Rawls] is writing about the basic structure of institutions in a just society, not about the choice of policies.¹³” As such, Rawls would contend that it is illogical and improper to attack him on these grounds – after all, he isn’t even arguing anything along these lines. Rawls is not attempting to find a system that allows and takes care of all possibilities, rather, he is looking for something that creates the general framework that he desires.

However, if Rawls was inclined to attack Hampshire’s response instead of retreat in defense, he would have one of two courses to take. For starters, Rawls could argue that most Catholics would agree that the Supreme Court is legitimate and just, and, while they disagree with the decision, will accept it as the law of the land (and then, of course, fight it with new laws). Secondly, Rawls could argue that any person who requires a supreme being in the sky to tell them what to do would be irrational, and thus should be tossed from the equation¹⁴. If the people who do not rely upon rational, scientific basis are kept outside of the formation, or if they are considered irrational and thus do not matter, Rawls is able to create the society that he desires, without any potential problems emerging from these historically volatile groups.

To the first argument, that he was not attempting to create a specific system, rather a set of guidelines, Hampshire has little recourse to argue. He could, however, point out that Rawls is quite specific in other areas, clearly indicating that this is not his attempt at all, but, rather, a smoke-screen in order to prevent Hampshire, or other dissenters, from arguing on this point. To the second argument, Hampshire has room to make an attack back at Rawls. As it is unreasonable to act against your vested interests – and the immortal soul is an important interest – very few rational people would actively do so. The congregation of the church, even if they agreed with the processes that resulted in the decision, would be horrified by the end result. As such, either they irrationally support the decision (thus making them not reasonable, and out of the picture), or they actively fight against it. This, of course, brings conflict into the picture.

Rawls’ third argument has likewise similar issues which Hampshire could easily pick apart. Much like the argument from class, it is hard to find a scientific reason for everything that we do. There is no rational reason to not kill others, except for the contract that we formed to leave the State of Nature (see Hobbes, Locke). Likewise, there is no rational reason as to why doctors should treat people who can not pay an exorbitant amount for their medical care, even if it is bad. However, when one would consider those two examples, they will rarely think that either is acceptable; this unacceptablness is their own biases showing up. As so, it is hard to argue that a society could be formed, let alone formed in a desired manner, that eliminates irrational concepts from the mix. After all, every person in existence has some form of irrational desires or feelings, yet we must include some.

In conclusion, it seems as though Rawls has some clear holes in both his arguments and his basic reasoning to defend his views of Political Liberalism. While Hampshire missed a few very valid points, and sugar-coated many of his other arguments, he clearly was able to find Rawls’ boat and sink it. While there are (essays) some valid responses to Hampshire, as well as various potential responses, it seems as though the Rawlsian camp needs a restart in order to gain validity with these theories. Even with a restart, however, it would be difficult to gain ground, as Hampshire has, very successfully, torn apart almost every argument that Rawls uses, as well as several potential rebuttals. Clearly, Hampshire has Rawls’ number, and was able to point out the folly of his ways.

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

Today, I took my final final at The Ohio State University. On Sunday, I, along with thousands of my peers, will be heading through the ‘Shoe to get our diplomas, and then heading out into the wild-blue yonder in search of better pastures. As with most graduations, gifts are something that are to be expected (and, mom and dad, I really need some stuff before Law School).

Now, some people want watches (which I am planning on getting from my father), some want cars, and some want money. Certain grads, like myself, simply want technology. I am heading off to law school, meeting new people, and living a new life, I certainly want a way to remember it.

This is where Price Spider comes into the picture. Price Spider is a website where you can track the trends in pricing of electronic equipment, like this Sony hxr-nx5u Camcorder. The items are not only priced amazingly low on the site, but it shows you how much you are saving, and gives you great reviews.

Frankly, it is a great deal waiting to happen, so you should really check it out. If you are buying a camera to document your new life, or merely to watch your kid walk across the stage, Price Spider is the site for you.

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

Wow, I am starting to get concerned about Ohio Presidents. Several died in office, and most of the rest simply have some very bad scandals follow them out of the White House. If not for Mr. Taft and his amazingness, I would be sitting here thinking that Ohio has some sort of Presidential curse, even though it has the most Presidents of any state. Sadly, James A. Garfield fits into the curse of Ohio far too well, as he was the first left-handed President (the horror), and, more importantly, became the second President of the United States to be assassinated.

Garfield came into the Presidency as a man with a strong record, and came in believing himself to be an extremely strong leader. As a Major General in the Union Army, Garfield helped to keep the country together. While sitting in the House (Garfield is the only President to be elected out of the House of Representatives), he helped to form the resolution to the 1876 elections, creating the Compromise of 1877. Though he was unable to finish his term, Garfield was elected as the 20th President of the United States, serving for six months in 1881.

Even though his time was cut short and he was unable to accomplish his goals, Garfield set a strong course of action for his Presidency. His first statement in his inaugural address was that of suffrage, clearly setting a strong goal for his Presidency:

The elevation of the negro race from slavery to the full rights of citizenship is the most important political change we have known since the adoption of the Constitution of 1787.

Garfield believed that blacks deserved the exact same rights as whites, and that they were essential to the country. This clearly clashed with most of the thoughts at the time, but is a nice change from some of our earlier Presidents.

Ironically, Garfield also attempted to alter the manner in which people could take civil-service jobs (the irony will be shortly apparent).

The civil service can never be placed on a satisfactory basis until it is regulated by law. For the good of the service itself, for the protection of those who are intrusted with the appointing power against the waste of time and obstruction to the public business caused by the inordinate pressure for place, and for the protection of incumbents against intrigue and wrong, I shall at the proper time ask Congress to fix the tenure of the minor offices of the several Executive Departments and prescribe the grounds upon which removals shall be made during the terms for which incumbents have been appointed.
-source

Believing that Civil Service was corrupt and a place of nepotism and cronyism, Garfield campaigned to have the entire industry revamped. He wanted standards, rules, and hiring/firing protocols to ensure that the public was actually represented and served properly. Sadly, he died before this could be accomplished, but his death did indeed bring around these changes.

While he set great standards, Garfield only had time to really do one thing in office, and it was celebrated on Monday. Garfield, in his one executive order, declared that the 30th of May would be used to celebrate the dead soldiers who had died during the Civil War. While this was not called Memorial Day, it morphed into the tradition that we now know, and that we now celebrate every year. Garfield, drawing upon his warrior roots, thankfully came up with a day in which to show our appreciation to the sacrifices made by those who serve us.

Sadly, on July 2nd, 1881, Garfield was shot by Charles J. Guiteau, and was to die a slow and painful death (10 weeks). Guiteau had campaigned for Garfield, and believed that, as such, he was entitled to a Civil Service position (the irony that I noted above). When his request was denied, Guiteau was so enraged that he sought revenge, and, ultimately got it, by killing the President of the United States. Even though Alexander Graham Bell (another Ohioan) attempted to find the bullet with a metal detector, doctors were unable to find the bullet (due to Garfield, unknowingly, being on a metal-spring mattress), and the President died.

Garfield’s death, however, was not in vain. Due to the assumption that nepotism would get positions in Civil Service had caused the President to be killed, Congress immediately set out to accomplish one of Garfield’s goals. In 1883 they passed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. The act clearly defined qualifications, jobs, and how much cronyism would be allowed at the Federal Levels. While it took his death to get it, Garfield finally got his reform of the Civil service system.

Though he was poised to become a top-ten President, Garfield’s untimely death greatly hindered his location in any sort of ranking; due to not being able to do anything, it is hard to justify placing him in a higher location. Had Garfield lived for a longer period of time, there is no doubt in my mind that I would consider him one of the greatest President, but, alas, that is not to be. In the end, due to his untimely death, James A. Garfield falls into a measly 34th in a Ranking of the Presidents.

This is the ninth of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-33: ?
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other