I have several observations, some of which (I think) bring up issues that aren’t discussed elsewhere in these comments.
First, my high school history teacher taught us that the U.S. had three truly bad presidents. Nixon because he was crooked, Grant because he was dumb (as President, anyway), and Harding was the worst because he was crooked *and* stupid. Interesting to see where they place on this list now. I wonder what Mr. van Hulzen would say about this.
Second point is something no one else seems to have looked at. On that page that shows you the list, you can view the list of historians they asked to participate in this study. The interesting thing here is the people who are missing from the list. There are several participants who’re associated with one or another of the presidents on the list. I think Brooks Simpson edits or edited U.S. Grant’s papers, for instance. But there’s no Michael Beschloss, no Doris Kearns Goodwin, no Jon Meacham, no David McCullough. You could make an argument that James McPherson should be included, though he’s not a true biographer, really. As much controversy as the ranking of the presidents generates, frankly I’m more fascinated by the list of historians involved.
And lastly, I’m fascinated by one thing which has been ignored by most everyone else here. Among recent presidents, Reagan ranks highest. Kennedy is higher, but he’s not really modern any more, since the sixties were a long time ago. Frankly I’m surprised that he’s ranked as low as he is. In days gone by he was the best president after Lincoln and Washington, and maybe FDR. I’ve always put it down to the opposite of what’s happening now with GWB. George will move up the list somewhat (I don’t think he’ll be in the top 10 ever, but it’s important to note that the lowest approval rating ever for a president leaving office, prior to W, was Harry Truman, and he’s ranked #5 on the list), at some point. Kennedy, because of his youth and vigor (which were almost completely manufactured, of course, with his Addison’s disease being concealed from the public) was imbued with all sorts of possibilities, many of which weren’t realistic. In that way he is rather like Obama. Point is he was killed before everyone could figure out that his promise was mostly empty rhetoric, or at least only half-full rhetoric.
Also, it’s weird to include Garfield and the elder Harrison on a list like this. If it were up to me, they would be excluded. Harrison was our oldest President prior to Reagan. On Inauguration day it was cold, and he gave his speech on the White House steps in his shirt sleeves, intending to show how robust he was. Instead he caught cold, it turned into pneumonia, and he died within a month and a half of being inaugurated. How do you rate such a presidency, and compare him with someone who served 4 years, let alone 8. Garfield was shot by a disappointed office seeker very soon after his inauguration too, and died after a prolonged decline. Neither man really did much of anything as President. How do you rate one over the other?
Lastly, to those recalcitrant southerners who somehow thing Lincoln was something less than the best President of the United States, we should review a few facts. First, Lincoln didn’t start the Civil War. Several southern politicians did, mostly because they were upset they lost an election to a political opponent they couldn’t stomach. Other than the sectional element it’s not that different from today. Does anyone really argue, today, that the country would be better off if slavery had continued after the South was allowed to secede? Delusional thinking like this is truly strange. Lastly, there’s the famous observation that before the Civil War, the proper usage (in newspapers and so forth) was “…the United States are going to…” whereas, soon after the war, it became more common to read “…the United States is going to…” The term United States, as the name of our country, changed from plural to singular. A few holdouts from South Carolina notwithstanding, that’s actually a good thing.
