I think both of us paid attention in History class (I have a degree in it), and know that. But thanks for stating the obvious. I was going to mention that myself, but its sort of moot, since without the compromise, there wouldn’t be a President to rank and I figured that anyone participating in this discussion would have the basic historical understanding of how this country was founded that it would be insulting to point that out.
I admittedly don’t have the economic data to back it up but my barstool hypothesis is that slavery wouldn’t have been challenged until the 1890s at the earliest, which is when the industrial economy began to spread. I point to industrialization because as the industrial economy began to grow, that would have pulled laborers off the farms and into factories. The competition for good labor would have been tight. That by itself is no guarantee that this would have ended slavery, but it would have put a lot of pressure on an economic system that had been established for centuries. Certainly, an industrial labor force that was interested in promoting collective bargaining would have had problems with slavery.
This is an unwarranted slur. Attack the post, not the poster.
Of course, you are both right. The founding fathers faced an insoluble problem and they didn’t solve them.
Oh, I don’t quarrel with his bona fides on Reconstruction and Civil Rights. That’s not my issue with his presidency. Even at the time, it was known that his managerial style was poor and he (likely negligently) permitted a massive amount of bribery, kickbacks, and other corruption in his administration.
This wasn’t some later invented Lost Cause narrative–which I’m not sure how it would relate to the Lost Cause narrative—it was bemoaned at the time by not only the Democrats, but by other Republicans. He floated the idea of running for a third term but was disabused of that notion by his own party.
read somewhere at first LBJ stayed in a place with a lot of congress people. He would brush his teeth at night 3 or 4 times to meet more people.
One complication with lists like this is, are they rating presidents by how great they were, or how good they were? And are all of the historians even agreeing on that?
“Great” and “good” can be very different concepts. As an example, Jackson was one of our greatest presidents, but he was also one of our worst: He was extremely effective at getting done the things he wanted done, and hugely changed our society as a result, but the changes he wanted were all bad.
At least with this survey, they break it down by “individual leadership characteristics,” such as “administrative skills” and “moral authority.”