Well, sure, but that wasn’t the question.
Interesting thread, BTW.
Grant is a fascinating and excellent answer.
Grant was a failure at most things he did in life up to being President, except for being a soldier. As a soldier, he was a phenomenon, a man of seemingly limitless moral and physical courage, and naturally gifted as a commander. The manner in which he gave orders is still used today as a model for officers to follow.
His Presidency I’m not as well read on as you obviously are, but reading through his memoir once, I remember his rejoinder against those who wanted to deny the vote to blacks because they weren’t educated enough to make informed choices; his feeling was that while that was probably true, if they didn’t get the vote right away they never would. He was, of course, 100% correct.
To both you and Milkman, yeah, I understand the position, but they were pretty brutal. Warfare wasn’t an abberation, but rather a constant a way of life for the tribal people, and even when the larger groups made peace, there was always some smaller branch who went out and started something. Then the Americans went “Oh, the Indians are out there killing us!” and went out and killed them, and then the eventually the Indians were half killed off again. And then the cycle started again. But frankly, the small groups who started something were often after little more than plunder and killing, being nothing more than bandits.
To me, Garfield is right up there with them, as per all the earlier posts on him, but no one ever thinks of him. If he’s been able to serve longer, who knows how much better known he would have been.
I know that George the Younger claims to have read certain books, but he doesn’t strike me as having the intellect that would naturally pursue these particular books on his own. He may have read Camus in college and and made an attempt at some of the others, but generally he would be in way over his head. I have given him credit for probably being on the higher end of average in his intelligence with an IQ of about 110 max. His communication skills make him seem even less intelligent.
It’s all in the criteria (I love that people’s perceptions of Bush can’t be changed by little things such as facts, though). Weren’t Bush’s grades higher than Gore’s? Is anyone here going to argue that Bush is, in fact, smarter than Gore? Well, of course, the first thing people will do is dispute the grading system or come up with excuses, but…see what I mean about criteria? Bush is dumb because people need to believe that Bush is dumb. Simple as that. Even if we come up with hard-and-fast rules, people will still dispute the results if they don’t match their preconceived beliefs. Please note the Clarence Thomas dig that is utterly divorced from reality.
I don’t put Bush as the most intellectual. I’d put him somewhere in the middle, perhaps even in the lower middle. I would certainly not put him at the bottom of the list.
In any case, Teddy Roosevelt would be my nomination for way up on the list.
And, hey! Salt! I just picked that up (Alton Brown recommends it), and it is **quite **fascinating.
From Linda Gottfredson, co-director of the University of Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society:
“I recently converted Bush’s SAT score to an IQ using the high school norms available for his age cohort. Educational Testing Service happened to have done a study of representative high school students within a year or so of when he took the test. I derived an IQ of 125, which is the 95th percentile.”
Among 20th century presidents the most intellectual would probably be TR, Wilson, and Hoover.
The lest intellectual would probably be FDR, Harding, and Ford.
I’m just now watching the 2003 documentary Stupidity. Most of the last half is a vapid attack on Bush, using examples of his various misstatements, which in combination with MTV-style editing and dumbed-down commentary leads me to conclude that the makers of a documentary about stupidity are operating on the assumption that the audience are morons.
Anyway, intellectualism isn’t necessary to be president, nor is it a sure-fire predictor of who will be a good or bad president.
Sad but true. Adams, Adams, Hoover and Carter (to name a few) were running on all eight cylinders but didn’t get terribly far.
I’m surprised no one has yet mentioned John Quincy Adams. I recall reading somewhere that historians (or somesuch critters) were inclined to name JQA Most Smartest Prez. From what little I know about him, that may well be correct.
Harry Truman is the only president in the last 100 years that didn’t go to college yet he loved Classical music and read Latin for kicks.
James A. Garfield not only was ambidextrous but could write Greek with one hand and Latin with the other simultaneously. He once worked out a new proof of the Pythagorean Theorem while half-attending a House floor debate.
My pics:
MOST INTELLECTUAL
Thomas Jefferson (hands down winner)
Teddy Roosevelt (spoke 6 languages [most of them self-taught], voracious reader, good writer- wrote most of his own speeches)
James Garfield (covered the walls of his study at his home in Greek cryptograms at one time= also the last president born in a log cabin, incidentally)
LEAST INTELLECTUAL
Dubya (anyone who answers “Jesus” when asked his favorite political philosopher is covering for having no idea who some worthwhile political philosophers are)
Andrew Jackson (self-taught lawyer but proudly defiant of anything “elitist” other than money and that included “unnecessary” education)
Ronald Reagan (his own son [Ron Jr.] and hand picked biographer [TR scholar Ed. Morris] called him “intelligent but intellectually lazy” with a preference for simple answers over complex-but-truer ones)
Very intelligent but not particularly intellectual:
Jimmy Carter (too much Baptist baggage perhaps)
Truman
FDR
How about Franklin Pierce? NH’s only president, and a complete dud as president. Gerald Ford wasn’t especially brilliant, but he managed OK. I’d have to agree-Andrew Jackson was the worst-his abolition of the the National Bank was a huge mistake.
I don’t know. Jackson had an adopted son (Andrew Jr.) and a bunch of foster children/wards, and Jackson made sure they all had good educations. Andy Jr. went to Davidson Academy and then the University of Nashville. The rest of his foster sons all went to either West Point or other colleges (except Lyncoya, who Jackson unsuccessfully tried to get into West Point. They wouldn’t take him because he was Native American)
Even though Jackson wasn’t well educated, he respected education in others.
I love to read non-fiction on audio book. I notice that W’s reading list is heavily available on audio book, including one of my favorites, The History of Salt. But I kid, I didn’t really like The History of Salt. The thing with audio books is that you can either pay attention or not (I suppose dead trees is the same). I read mine during driving time. I find it suspicious that W supposedly reads so much yet mangles the English language so badly. I believe he just has a reading list for publicity purposes and couldn’t hope to test to a C level of comprehension of any of them. Maybe he has them on while on the treadmill.
I’m going to add Lincoln here. I’ve recently been “reading” a lot about him on audio books, and it is very clear that he was thoroughly familiar with virtually all the classics. In reviewing the Lincoln/Douglas debates it seems clear to me that he also had a great legal mind and a gift for politics.
And as to FDR, he didn’t go around selling himself as a pointy head, and if he was one, he kept mum about it, but I’m almost certain that he was very well educated. He simply knew too much about diplomacy and economics at the start of his presidency to come to any other conclusion. He always kept his thinking very much to himself, not including his wife or any aides. Never tipping his hand until actually making a decision is a mark of political genius IMHO.
That rocks.
Yes, I mentioned the log-cabin bit in post #17. But Garfield really is my man. You’ve got your Jefferson and your Carter and many others, and not to take anything away from them, but Garfield was such a fascinating character. A pity he was cut so short. What a raw deal.
Which points to how public education has changed in the past century. My father, born 1913, was obliged to study Latin in high school. These days they seem to be doing well if they can teach children to read road signs.
Indeed you did; apologies.
Have you read the book Assassination Vacation by Sarah Vowell? A large part of her “travelogue” is on sites associated with Garfield and Guiteau. Very good book (though she needs to release a version with photos or else have a website).