Civil War Experience

Not long ago, I was discussing with my friends the effectiveness of commanding generals as presidents. But that's another blog.

This blog begins with the effectiveness of a single general. Ulysses S. Grant, the nation's 18th president. He was the greatest Union general of the Civil War, and one of the top generals in our history. However, as president, he proved to be a poor judge of character and was generally ineffective. In fact, I would argue that he was the worst president of the Gilded Age (which includes Grant through McKinley).

And so this got me thinking, could greatness in the Civil War be inversely proportional to greatness in the Executive Branch?

The next president, Rutherford B. Hayes, reached the rank of brigadier general and was brevetted major general by the end of the war. He was wounded 5 times. He had some military successes. And, like Grant, he was a pretty poor president.

Next up is James Garfield. He became a brigadier general sooner than Hayes and worked as Chief of Staff under Rosecrans, commander of the Army of Cumberland. Garfield was a good president until he got shot. So he actually didn't get much done.

Chester Arthur was too, brigadier general. He was eventually quatermaster general for New York. He saw no combat, but his years of organizing New York to send troops to battle are often said to be his best. He was, however, removed from the position in 1863 for political reasons. As president, he had two major positive accomplishments, one major poor decision, and was otherwise uneventful. He probably ranks as the second best Gilded Age president, behind...

Grover Cleveland, who dodged the draft by paying for someone else to go. This man is probably the greatest Gilded Age president, as I have already said.

Benjamin Harrison reached the rank of... you guessed it... brigadier general near the end of the war. He's not a stand out commander, and he's not a stand out president.

William McKinley was the last president to have experience in the Civil War. He actually fought under Hayes. Go figure. He reached the ranks of Captain and brevet major. Now, I can't tell you exactly what they are, but they're lower than brigadier general, I can tell you that. This man brought back power to the Executive Branch and is generally considered the first modern president.

Now, to rank these men by order of success in the Civil War:
1. Ulysses Grant
2. Rutherford Hayes
3. James Garfield
4. Chester Arthur
5. Benjamin Harrison
6. William McKinley
7. Grover Cleveland

And by success as president:
1. William McKinley
2. Grover Cleveland
3. Chester Arthur
4. Benjamin Harrison
5. Rutherford Hayes
6. James Garfield
7. Ulysses Grant

So, no it's not a perfect correlation. But I think there's something to be said for Civil War successes vs. Presidential successes.

Presidents' Day

...is quite possibly the most worthless holiday we have in the United States.

It sprung from celebrations of Lincoln's Birthday (on February 12) and Washington's Birthday (on February 22) and so now Presidents' Day is celebrated on a Monday in February, I suppose the third Monday, and we all get a three-day weekend instead of two days off.

But this is not my problem with the upcoming holiday. My problem is people don't celebrate the presidents. Not once have I heard of someone preaching about the greatness of Abraham Lincoln on this holiday. Nor have I seen someone wearing a George Washington t-shirt.

If we're getting this day off, why aren't people celebrating even these greatest presidents?

But in addition, people further shun the lesser presidents. Maybe they'll think of Washington and Lincoln, maybe even the Roosevelts. But what about the Millard Fillmores and the William McKinleys and the Benjamin Harrisons of our land? Isn't it their holiday too?

But people don't celebrate any of this. So why should this holiday still exist?


That being said, on Monday I'm wearing a Chester Arthur t-shirt and posting multiple blogs about some of the presidents who get no love.

What Would Presidents Do? Christmas attempted bomber

December 25, 2009 a man attempted to set off a bomb on a plane in the United States that had come from the Netherlands. How would past presidents react to this act of terrorism?

Andrew Jackson would go to this man and beat him senseless with his cane. Then he would challenge the man to a duel to take place a week later, which Jackson would win and kill the terrorist. He would then proceed to seek a complete war against Terrorism and subvert Congress' decision to not allow such a war by going ahead and sending troops and subsequently he would be impeached.

William McKinley would move with caution. He would not seek military action until he was forced to by public opinion. Currently the public isn't too big on the idea of sending more troops so McKinley would not go to any war. How things would progress after that would be out of US control, but McKinley would probably stay a popular president.

Theodore Roosevelt would pull out his big stick by moving toward a war. However, how he would go for a war against a somewhat intangible group is unclear. He would definitely take some action because negotiations and diplomacy would be worthless.

James Buchanan would seek allies in a war against terrorism. But he would only do this after an official declaration of war by Congress because he won't overstep Constitutional bounds. If he gets a declaration, all signs point to him being a wonderful diplomat. He should be able to find allies and make treaties well.

Barack Obama finds himself in a difficult position because he recently called for a surge in Afghanistan but the newer and possibly more relevant front is Yemen. If he calls for even more troops, the public will disapprove. If he chooses to reroute the Afghanistan surge to Yemen, he may be viewed as indecisive. Thus he's in quite the predicament for now. If he's lucky, he issue will blow over a bit and the decision to focus on Afghanistan will turn out well for both his popularity and the welfare of the country.

We'll see how he goes about the issue in time.