From 1840 to 1890, scholars seem to agree that the US had a long stretch of terrible presidents (excepting Lincoln and Polk). What are the prevailing theories that explain why the electorate was choosing bad presidents for roughly 50 years?

by GortMaringa

I'm also interested in whether or not the factors at play during that time have any analogous factors acting today.

I tried to think about why this may be: I thought that maybe since this time frame came on the heels of the Second Great Awakening, that there may have been some cultural influences. Or perhaps that there might have been a lot of trying to appease diametrically opposing groups with candidates who were in the "middle" of the issues at the time (that contributed to the Civil War).

But I'm more interested in what historians think about this. For reference, Wikipedia has a table that collects various scholar rankings of presidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States#Scholar_survey_results

NoMoreNicksLeft

What standards are used to judge "best" presidents in a historical sense? How do historians disentangle their own political biases from these standards?

Billiamohoughie

Gosh where to begin! This is a little disjointed as I’m trying to fit a bunch of branches in one skinny trunk, but I’m also wanting to challenge the terrible label… On the whole, these Presidents were middling, not terrible. I'm going to start with Richard C. White: "Political parties mattered far more than presidents, but these parties were not particularly ideological. They tapped deeper loyalties that arose out of (identity politics of the 19th century). People became Democrats or Republicans because of who they were more than because of the principles they espoused." White in his Oxford series has a running theme of "the sufficiency of the common vs insufficiency of the uncommon."
But to answer the question, historians of the 19th century have a much different appraisal of the 19th Century presidents than an aggregate of scholars/political scientists do. It's why Grant is having a love affair, Arthur is getting some love, and it's why probably Andrew Johnson and Rutherford B Hayes will be reexamined (to perhaps say they were terrible!). Yet, while 19th century historians want to take a more critical look at the presidents and elevate the time and their Presidents, it does not mean that the rankings should be changed. These Presidents were middling. Yet, let’s take a look at why they get knocked with being terrible As a collective:

  1. Corruption & Political Divisions: Every four years was a different tale of corruption, whether in the nominating process, in the Executive Office, in the nominating process, in the local exploits of the party of power… Yet, for most of the time, the Executive and Legislative branches were often split. It was hard to pass sweeping legislation. Meaning, so much of the “corruption” was not as sexy as we think of today. It was political partisanship. The spoils system wasn’t as nefarious and undemocratic as usually spoken of. It was the death of James Garfield that changed the spoil system.
  2. Take Buchanan and Johnson. They immediately look bad in comparison to Lincoln, and most importantly, they clearly were not up to the task of resolving the divisions. They did not have the moral arc to confront the change from slave labor to free labor. With Johnson, it’s almost a reversal of a bold direction for the country.
  3. Aloofness: Many of the presidents were aloof, some rumored to be drunks. A president like Pierce was a drunk due to seeing his son die. Often times, in these rankings, they are comparing a Grant to a modern president… It’s why with Brands and others you are seeing a Grant renaissance.
  4. Not giving enough “credit” to certain issues of the 19th century: a. Indian Wars: The Civil War ends. War does not. But it seems many texts jump from Civil War to Spanish-American War to WWI and to WWII. So in these rankings, they don’t get the bonus points… b. Building of American infrastructure & A New American Way of Life We forget tariffs, canals, railroads, mail routes, judicial circles, supply routes, emigration routes, confronting Chinese immigration, developing towns, and a list of other “internal improvements” dominated the legislative cycle. c. Reconstruction had many successes and possibilities, and yet, it was all but dismantled. But to some degree, it was done according to political engagement. The results might be worth ranking low, but the political process was working according to the inputs. The common American wanted competency. (Disenfranchisement, illiteracy, political grafts, inequality, dangerous classes, etc… limited who would consistently have a voice). d. Presidents were growing presidential power e. Immigration & White Supremacy: It’s always the toughest question, do you knock a historical actor for having an immoral view, even if at the time, it was accepted? f. Wage Labor Taking Over America and Urban America f. Overall, you are seeing a theme of these… The Gilded Age, like today, was a time of sweeping changes. The real detriment is that the overall health of the nation seemed to be suffering with regular panics, poor health, the entrenchment of Jim Crow, etc….
  5. Sources: Reformer and critics dominate the primary sources. Historians like sexier topics. So the time and presidents are forgettable. The sexier public figures were not politicians or never became President.
  6. Electoral Process & Citizenship: Huge turnout, great enthusiasm for voting. Politics were entertainment. You were born into a party. The press was political.
    Overall though, these Presidents are clearly middling at best. The public wins the spotlight, and constantly, historians find themselves asking wondering what if Lincoln lived, or what if a president had the courage of a Lincoln. For me and others, the Gilded Age is a great example of how the common produces wins, not a President creating a Great Society.