The Democratic Pantheon
Sep. 23rd, 2005 06:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stoutfellowAt Democratic Party events - fundraisers, debates, what have you - it is usual, I think, to take a moment to remember and honor the great Presidents who have come from that party. The list of names is generally the same: Thomas Jefferson; Andrew Jackson; Woodrow Wilson; Franklin Roosevelt. Of late, Harry Truman has been more and more frequently named, and John Kennedy gets an occasional mention; but I'm going to stick with the big four.
I am a Democrat, and I foresee no likelihood of changing my party affiliation. Nonetheless, I think about that list and sigh.
Thomas Jefferson. Most educated USAns know the story. Jefferson was a very intelligent man, thoughtful and inventive (and, I must admit, occasionally a bit of a crackpot). His ideals, as voiced in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere, are worthy of honor, and his achievements as President were not negligible. But there's a major blot. Despite his declarations concerning the rights of man - despite the words of the original draft of the Declaration, which denounced the slave trade in no uncertain terms - he was himself a slaveholder, and never in his life made any move to free his slaves. (That he fathered a child on one of them seems very likely, as well, but this adds little more to the essential crime.)
Garry Wills, in Inventing America, gives a number of reasons, both practical and philosophical, for Jefferson's actions - or, rather, his inaction. If Wills' arguments are accepted (and I am told that the book has been strongly rebutted, though I haven't read the rebuttal yet), it may be possible to understand Jefferson; but it is very hard to honor him.
Andrew Jackson. This is the toughest one for me to swallow. Andrew Jackson is the one US President whom I will describe, unhesitatingly, as evil. It is not merely his bigotry against American Indians (though that is bad enough). It is not merely that he, more than any other man, was responsible for the Trail of Tears (horrifying though that is). It is his defiance of the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the Cherokee that seals his position in my Hall of Shame. We - the European immigrants who founded this nation - told the Cherokee, here are the rules we play by. The Cherokee learned those rules; they played by those rules; and they won. And then Old Hickory kicked the board over.
It may seem a little thing. (Cheater! Cheater!) But this kind of defiance of the rule of law strikes at the very heart of the state. Differences on policy matters are one thing, but I find that I cannot tolerate violations at this level. If Jefferson was complicit in the greatest crime this nation ever committed (and Jackson was, as well), Jackson was deeply involved in the second greatest. He was an evil man, and it shames me to see him honored.
Woodrow Wilson. Again, it is possible to honor his ideals, though I am a bit dubious about his championing of the national principle at Versailles. But there are two major strikes against him, in my eyes. First, it seems unquestionable that he was a racist. One might reply that most white USAns of his era were racists, by today's standards, and that may be true. But racism is not a yes-no matter; it admits of degrees, and from what I have read Wilson was a particularly virulent specimen. (As an example, segregation in government agencies increased during his tenure, apparently at his direction. He was a classmate and friend of the author of The Clansman, the pro-KKK tract that was adapted as the infamous film, Birth of a Nation; and Wilson saw, and approved, that film.) Second, there is the matter of the Palmer raids. Late in Wilson's presidency, after the war, Attorney General Mitchell Palmer struck hard at dissident groups of all kinds, indiscriminately, in one of the worst violations of civil rights in this country's history. Now, I'll admit that it was a frightening time; Communists had seized power in Russia and - temporarily - in Hungary, and there had been uprisings in Hamburg and elsewhere. It had not been so many years since the murder of a US President at the hands of a terrorist, and so, perhaps, one can understand an overreaction. But it was an overreaction; in hindsight, it seems clear that the US was never in significant danger from that generation of revolutionaries. And, again, understandable though it may have been, it makes it hard to admire Palmer, or the President who appointed him.
Franklin Roosevelt. Here, at last, is someone I can, for the most part, respect. His private life may have been open to question (and I stress the "may"; I do not know enough to judge), but I am not particularly concerned about that. It is his public actions that I judge him by, and, in the main, I approve. His proposal to pack the Supreme Court may have been an overreach, but it was, I think, constitutional, and in any event it went nowhere (except, perhaps, to cow the justices a bit). The one major stain on his presidency, of course, is the internment of the West Coast Japanese-Americans during World War II. I find it hard to attribute this to anything but racism, and it does diminish FDR's standing in my mind. I consider him, unlike the other three, a great and admirable man, but there is definitely clay in the mix.
I suppose that I shouldn't complain too much. No party - no country - can produce much if anything in the way of unalloyed heroes. Still, it grates.
I am a Democrat, and I foresee no likelihood of changing my party affiliation. Nonetheless, I think about that list and sigh.
Thomas Jefferson. Most educated USAns know the story. Jefferson was a very intelligent man, thoughtful and inventive (and, I must admit, occasionally a bit of a crackpot). His ideals, as voiced in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere, are worthy of honor, and his achievements as President were not negligible. But there's a major blot. Despite his declarations concerning the rights of man - despite the words of the original draft of the Declaration, which denounced the slave trade in no uncertain terms - he was himself a slaveholder, and never in his life made any move to free his slaves. (That he fathered a child on one of them seems very likely, as well, but this adds little more to the essential crime.)
Garry Wills, in Inventing America, gives a number of reasons, both practical and philosophical, for Jefferson's actions - or, rather, his inaction. If Wills' arguments are accepted (and I am told that the book has been strongly rebutted, though I haven't read the rebuttal yet), it may be possible to understand Jefferson; but it is very hard to honor him.
Andrew Jackson. This is the toughest one for me to swallow. Andrew Jackson is the one US President whom I will describe, unhesitatingly, as evil. It is not merely his bigotry against American Indians (though that is bad enough). It is not merely that he, more than any other man, was responsible for the Trail of Tears (horrifying though that is). It is his defiance of the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the Cherokee that seals his position in my Hall of Shame. We - the European immigrants who founded this nation - told the Cherokee, here are the rules we play by. The Cherokee learned those rules; they played by those rules; and they won. And then Old Hickory kicked the board over.
It may seem a little thing. (Cheater! Cheater!) But this kind of defiance of the rule of law strikes at the very heart of the state. Differences on policy matters are one thing, but I find that I cannot tolerate violations at this level. If Jefferson was complicit in the greatest crime this nation ever committed (and Jackson was, as well), Jackson was deeply involved in the second greatest. He was an evil man, and it shames me to see him honored.
Woodrow Wilson. Again, it is possible to honor his ideals, though I am a bit dubious about his championing of the national principle at Versailles. But there are two major strikes against him, in my eyes. First, it seems unquestionable that he was a racist. One might reply that most white USAns of his era were racists, by today's standards, and that may be true. But racism is not a yes-no matter; it admits of degrees, and from what I have read Wilson was a particularly virulent specimen. (As an example, segregation in government agencies increased during his tenure, apparently at his direction. He was a classmate and friend of the author of The Clansman, the pro-KKK tract that was adapted as the infamous film, Birth of a Nation; and Wilson saw, and approved, that film.) Second, there is the matter of the Palmer raids. Late in Wilson's presidency, after the war, Attorney General Mitchell Palmer struck hard at dissident groups of all kinds, indiscriminately, in one of the worst violations of civil rights in this country's history. Now, I'll admit that it was a frightening time; Communists had seized power in Russia and - temporarily - in Hungary, and there had been uprisings in Hamburg and elsewhere. It had not been so many years since the murder of a US President at the hands of a terrorist, and so, perhaps, one can understand an overreaction. But it was an overreaction; in hindsight, it seems clear that the US was never in significant danger from that generation of revolutionaries. And, again, understandable though it may have been, it makes it hard to admire Palmer, or the President who appointed him.
Franklin Roosevelt. Here, at last, is someone I can, for the most part, respect. His private life may have been open to question (and I stress the "may"; I do not know enough to judge), but I am not particularly concerned about that. It is his public actions that I judge him by, and, in the main, I approve. His proposal to pack the Supreme Court may have been an overreach, but it was, I think, constitutional, and in any event it went nowhere (except, perhaps, to cow the justices a bit). The one major stain on his presidency, of course, is the internment of the West Coast Japanese-Americans during World War II. I find it hard to attribute this to anything but racism, and it does diminish FDR's standing in my mind. I consider him, unlike the other three, a great and admirable man, but there is definitely clay in the mix.
I suppose that I shouldn't complain too much. No party - no country - can produce much if anything in the way of unalloyed heroes. Still, it grates.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: The Democratic Pantheon
Date: 2005-09-24 03:23 am (UTC)I agree with you about Jackson's faults, and there are other criticism to be lodged against him, though none of the magnitude of his dispossession of the Cherokees -- with all its attendant horrors -- in defiance of the law and the Supreme Court. For example his court-martial and possible hanging (I forget how far things actually went) of two British subjects in Florida could have started another war with Britain.
And yet. If it hadn't been for Jackson's ferocity, could he have acomplished what he did? If he hadn't won the battle of New Orleans, we might not have the country we do in which to curse his sins. If only he could have had all his virtues and abilities without his -- I agree -- evil.
As to Franklin Roosevelt, I don't know just how much blame he deserves for not being a good economist, but the truth is that he wasn't one. The New Deal may have given people hope, and the belief that the government was doing something, thus saving the country from a socialist revolution, a military coup, or something similarly drastic, but it didn't end the Depression; it probably worsened it. Again, that's a rant for another day.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 03:28 am (UTC)We have also had a few decades of biographers looking for the clay. A relief, to be sure, from sugar-coating, but perhaps still not balanced.
The Dem I felt closest to and whose approaches to problems I sympathized with was Jimmy Carter. A very good man. Not, IMHO, a very good president.
I guess I won't run after all.
Re: The Democratic Pantheon
Date: 2005-09-27 03:47 am (UTC)Well, the others might have, but Vermonters don't recognize any from Silent Cal. :<) . .
And there is a point - how much better a rep would the current office-holder have if he were as taciturn? :<) . .
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 07:53 am (UTC)One thing to keep in mind with Wilson is the impact of his stroke on his presidency. I am uncertain to the extent he ever recovered from it. Doesn't have any effect on the issues you raised, besides Palmer, but I think it worth keeping in mind.
I'll agree about Jackson, with regard to the Cherokee and Supreme Court. However, to some degree this (not the SC), and the charges of racism, are connected to their time. If one was to examine all major US political figures prior to 1900, how many of them would be acceptable? I suspect very very few.
To toss in another though, think about figures on the US money.
Unit: Figure (Party)
Penny: Lincoln (Republican)
Nickle: Jefferson (Democrat)
Dime: F Roosevelt (Democrat)
Quarter: Washington (N/A)
Half-Dollar: Kennedy (Democrat)
Dollar Bill: Washington (N/A)
2 Dollar Bill: Jefferson (Democrat)
5 Dollar Bill: Lincoln (Republican)
10 Dollar Bill: Hamilton (N/A or Republican)
20 Dollar Bill: Jackson (Democrat)
50 Dollar Bill: Grant (Republican)
100 Dollar Bill: Franklin (N/A)
Looking at that chart, and ignoring the Eisenhower, Susan B and Sacajewea dollars, every Democrat on your list is also on that one (save Truman). Not much room for other highlights of the party, is there?
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 10:54 am (UTC)True enough. But that's why I focused on really egregious stuff - not garden-variety racism, but actively reversing previous progress; not "I hate redskins", but actively seeking to destroy them; not just slaveholding, but slaveholding accompanied by rhetoric about "all men...".
every Democrat on your list is also on that one (save Truman).
Wilson?
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 10:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-02 04:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-02 04:46 pm (UTC)