I don't know if, as my headline suggests, this is the last word on the presidential rankings published by C–SPAN during the weekend.
But I read something today that did provide an answer — sort of — to a question I asked, in a roundabout way, the other day.
A CNN.com article has summarized the survey's findings — and suggests that it was appropriate that Abraham Lincoln finished first on the occasion of the bicentennial of his birth.
The article acknowledges, however, that Lincoln also finished first in the survey that was conducted in 2000 — so the fact that he finished first in the latest survey does not appear to be, in any way, connected to the 200th anniversary of his birth.
Lincoln's occupation of the top spot may be the most obvious coincidence, but there are a couple of other ironic anniversaries that haven't — as I recall — been mentioned in any of the articles I've read about the survey, whether those articles appeared in blogs or sites run by professional news organizations.
For example, this year is the 100th anniversary of the conclusion of Theodore Roosevelt's presidency. Roosevelt was ranked fourth in both the 2000 and 2009 surveys.
And, in 1809, the year that Lincoln was born, Thomas Jefferson's presidency came to an end. Jefferson was ranked seventh on C–SPAN's list.
Anyway, the "question" to which I referred had to do with why Ulysses S. Grant jumped from 33rd in the 2000 survey to 23rd in the current one.
Grant's traditionally low marks may be due, as CNN wrote, to the corruption of others in his administration and the record of the Reconstruction effort over which he presided.
But a Howard University historian observed that Grant may be "getting a bounce" from the additional attention that has been paid to Lincoln in his bicentennial year.
"Grant won the war for Lincoln," the historian said. "A new look at the totality of his career may be improving his presidential stature."
I still think, as I mentioned the other day, that Grant may be getting more credit for his support for civil rights and his opposition to the kind of violence practiced by domestic terrorists like the Ku Klux Klan. But Grant's role in winning the Civil War was something I overlooked, largely because it is not something I consider part of his presidential record.
I also mentioned the other day that Bill Clinton is viewed more favorably in the current survey than he was in the one that was conducted in his last year in office. At the same time, I observed that recent presidents should be excluded from such rankings until history has had an opportunity to adequately assess them.
Which brings me to a point made by another historian: "Bill Clinton and Ulysses S. Grant aren't often mentioned in the same sentence — until now. Participants in the latest [survey] have boosted each man significantly higher than in the original survey conducted in 2000. All of which goes to show two things: the fluidity with which presidential reputations are judged, and the difficulty of assessing any president who has only just recently left office."
Incidentally, there was another major shift in the presidential rankings that I didn't mention in my post on Sunday.
Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, who was Grant's successor, fell from the 26th spot in 2000 to the 33rd spot in the current survey. The reasons for that shift are unclear — although Hayes was sort of the George W. Bush of the 19th century. He lost the popular vote, as Bush did in 2000, but won the electoral vote by a single vote after a congressional commission worked out a deal instead of putting the decision in the hands of the House, as required by the Constitution.
To this day, Hayes is the only president whose election was decided in this fashion.
Democrats referred to Hayes as "Rutherfraud," much like many Democrats referred to Florida as "Fraudia" after the disputed 2000 election.
I don't know if this had any bearing on Hayes' fall in the rankings, but liquor was banned at White House functions during his presidency, largely because Hayes' wife, Lucy, was opposed to it. She was nicknamed "Lemonade Lucy," ostensibly because lemonade — or something equally bland — was served at formal dinners, giving rise to the statement that "water flowed like wine" at the Hayes White House.
How much is a rare bee worth?
50 minutes ago
1 comment:
Mickey,
This post was not about the economic stimulus package.
But, as long as you bring it up, let me ask you a couple of questions.
Would "reducing regulatory burdens" make the products from the Peanut Corp. safer to consume? Would YOU be willing to consume those products?
I doubt that you will return to this blog or answer my questions, but if you do, I will be interested in reading what you have to say.
Post a Comment