What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[The Brain]

These always tell us more about our time than the actual Presidents, but it feels very unlikely that any 19th century presidents (except Lincoln) will make the top 10

That not just presentist bias - it's due to the fact that with the exception of Lincoln there weren't that many good 19th century presidents after Monroe.

Sure. But I think the change in racial politics and how we view slavery and Manifest Destiny especially sink the few other successful 19th century presidents.

I think this is a shift even in the last 20 years. I don't think we would have articles now about a "Jacksonian moment" without quite a lot of caveats and contextualising.

Jacksonian moment? "-Bubbles no! He's for me!"?

[The Larch]

Trump is 4th from the bottom, in case anyone is curious about it. Below him are Pierce, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan.

He's dead last on "Moral Authority" and "Administrative Skills".

[Sheilbh]

Duncan mentioned something similar on Twitter, he said that Jackson used to be a fixed presence at #5 in the past, but in recent days historians have dropped him off a cliff because of a change on how he's viewed and that has created a bit of a vacuum in the lower part of the Top 10.

Yeah - I think Jackson was the one I was thinking of, but I think there were a few late 19th century presidents who were pretty admired/respected. That may have been about other issues like taking on corruption etc - but I think is now probably overshadowed by expansion to the West and what that meant for the native Americans.

Similarly I think the Spanish-American War is now possibly viewed differently than it used to be?

[The Minsky Moment]

Sure. But I think the change in racial politics and how we view slavery and Manifest Destiny especially sink the few other successful 19th century presidents.

I think this is a shift even in the last 20 years. I don't think we would have articles now about a "Jacksonian moment" without quite a lot of caveats and contextualising.

There was very fierce moral criticism of Polk and Jackson in their day.  You don't need to invoke 21st century woke standards to criticize the DC slave trade and native genocide - that conduct that horrified many in the 1800s. 

As for Manifest Destiny and the war with Mexico, recall what one of the better 19th century presidents had to say:

Generally the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation [of Texas] was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory. Texas was originally a state belonging to the republic of Mexico. . . . An empire in territory, it had but a very sparse population, until settled by Americans who had received authority from Mexico to colonize. These colonists paid very little attention to the supreme government, and introduced slavery into the state almost from the start, though the constitution of Mexico did not, nor does it now, sanction that institution. . . . The occupation, separation and annexation were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union.

[Habbaku]

No love for Polk, the Napoleon of the stump.

Also belongs nowhere near the list, nor even in the office.

[Habbaku]

As for Manifest Destiny and the war with Mexico, recall what one of the better 19th century presidents had to say:

[alfred russel]

Sure. But I think the change in racial politics and how we view slavery and Manifest Destiny especially sink the few other successful 19th century presidents.

I think this is a shift even in the last 20 years. I don't think we would have articles now about a "Jacksonian moment" without quite a lot of caveats and contextualising.

Why do you won't think it won't change back to the progressive interpretation of history looking more on class terms (which tended to lionize Jefferson and Jackson as being against the more capitalist federalists/emergent whigs)? Or much more likely to some new paradigm?

Probably not in the next 10 years, but I'd bet on a new paradigm emerging before most of us die.

[The Larch]

Duncan mentioned something similar on Twitter, he said that Jackson used to be a fixed presence at #5 in the past, but in recent days historians have dropped him off a cliff because of a change on how he's viewed and that has created a bit of a vacuum in the lower part of the Top 10.

Yeah - I think Jackson was the one I was thinking of, but I think there were a few late 19th century presidents who were pretty admired/respected. That may have been about other issues like taking on corruption etc - but I think is now probably overshadowed by expansion to the West and what that meant for the native Americans.

Similarly I think the Spanish-American War is now possibly viewed differently than it used to be?

Checking the rankings the ones that have gone down from the top positions in recent years are Wilson (used to be 6th in 2000, is now 13th), Polk (was 12th, is now 18th) and Andrew Jackson (was 13th, is now 22nd).

On the opposite sense, Eisenhower has climbed from 9th to 5th, Reagan from 11th to 9th, Monroe from 14th to 12th and Grant from 33rd to 20th.

[Sheilbh]

Why do you won't think it won't change back to the progressive interpretation of history looking more on class terms (which tended to lionize Jefferson and Jackson as being against the more capitalist federalists/emergent whigs)? Or much more likely to some new paradigm?

Probably not in the next 10 years, but I'd bet on a new paradigm emerging before most of us die.

Oh it definitely will. As I say I think it always reveals more about the present than anything about those presidents.

All I'm talking about is the foreseeable, but the future will be a different present with different frameworks and priorities in their analysis and have different conclusions for sure.

As for Manifest Destiny and the war with Mexico, recall what one of the better 19th century presidents had to say:

Sorry - that's me using a wrong term. I meant the general colonisation of the West not just the Mexican-American which has always been controversial.

[The Minsky Moment]

Similarly I think the Spanish-American War is now possibly viewed differently than it used to be?

The war itself was not horribly unjust; the follow up war against the Philippines was.

[alfred russel]

Sure. But I think the change in racial politics and how we view slavery and Manifest Destiny especially sink the few other successful 19th century presidents.

I think this is a shift even in the last 20 years. I don't think we would have articles now about a "Jacksonian moment" without quite a lot of caveats and contextualising.

There was very fierce moral criticism of Polk and Jackson in their day.  You don't need to invoke 21st century woke standards to criticize the DC slave trade and native genocide - that conduct that horrified many in the 1800s. 

As for Manifest Destiny and the war with Mexico, recall what one of the better 19th century presidents had to say:

Generally the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation [of Texas] was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory. Texas was originally a state belonging to the republic of Mexico. . . . An empire in territory, it had but a very sparse population, until settled by Americans who had received authority from Mexico to colonize. These colonists paid very little attention to the supreme government, and introduced slavery into the state almost from the start, though the constitution of Mexico did not, nor does it now, sanction that institution. . . . The occupation, separation and annexation were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union.

That is a perspective that isn't untrue but it is also the case that the Texas Revolution was sparked by Santa Anna revoking the constitution of Mexico and half of the rest of Mexico also revolting.

[The Minsky Moment]

On the opposite sense, Eisenhower has climbed from 9th to 5th, Reagan from 11th to 9th, Monroe from 14th to 12th and Grant from 33rd to 20th.

Ike and Reagan have benefitted from the modern GOP's descent into idiocy - which makes them look even stateman-like in comparison; for Reagan in particular it has taken some of the harder ideological edge off.  Reagan's awful response to the AIDS crisis seems to have gone into the memory hole. His credit for handling the Cold War has been solidified into historical orthodoxy, which partly is deserved and partly is a failure by historians to use probabilistic reasoning (i.e. there is good reason to think that Reagan's conduct materially increased the risk of nuclear catastrophe in the 81-84 period which is a negative even if that bad outcome wasn't realized).

Monroe had the benefit of favorable domestic and foreign context and was good at not screwing up - he's the kind of guy that will always rise when others fall.

Grant is an interesting case.  The corruption issues are not insubstantial but I suspect that historians may view the debate on civil service reform (where Grant was on the "wrong" side) in a more nuanced and contextual manner - in a similar way that present day analysts are rediscovering the virtues of pork-barrels and logrolling. Grant is probably benefitting (deservedly) from his principled defense of freedmen, and is not getting enough demerit on monetary policy in this second term.

[Sheilbh]

Ike and Reagan have benefitted from the modern GOP's descent into idiocy - which makes them look even stateman-like in comparison; for Reagan in particular it has taken some of the harder ideological edge off.  Reagan's awful response to the AIDS crisis seems to have gone into the memory hole. His credit for handling the Cold War has been solidified into historical orthodoxy, which partly is deserved and partly is a failure by historians to use probabilistic reasoning (i.e. there is good reason to think that Reagan's conduct materially increased the risk of nuclear catastrophe in the 81-84 period which is a negative even if that bad outcome wasn't realized).

He's another one which I think will change - I see more about the AIDS crisis in recent years percolating into mainstream awareness. It used to be something that I think was fairly limited to LGBT writers/historians.

I think what you say will continue to mean he does well - plus I think historians don't want to basically rate every Republican since Ike (except for Bush I) negatively. I suspect in the future Reagan's response to AIDS will come more to the fore and his rating will drop.

[The Larch]

Similarly I think the Spanish-American War is now possibly viewed differently than it used to be?

The war itself was not horribly unjust

*grumble grumble* So what about Hearst? *grumble grumble* What about the Maine? *grumble grumble*

[The Minsky Moment]

Similarly I think the Spanish-American War is now possibly viewed differently than it used to be?

The war itself was not horribly unjust

*grumble grumble* So what about Hearst? *grumble grumble* What about the Maine? *grumble grumble*

I can see why you might see it differently