Have other presidential campaigns seen such shenanigans?

Words said about or to presidents of the past

by Pat Laster

 

                Ever wonder if all the name-calling, mud-slinging, false-claims-accusations of this presidential campaign and even during a regular term is a modern phenomenon? Indeed not.

              Dean Acheson, Secretary of State under President Truman said in June, 1952, on the presidential candidacy of Dwight D. Eisenhower:

           “I doubt very much if a man whose main literary interests were in works by Mr. Zane Grey, admirable as they may be, is particularly well-equipped to be chief executive of this country, particularly where Indian affairs are concerned.”

             Abigail Adams, wife of John Adams in a letter to her husband in 1777 wrote:

“In the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”

Henry Adams, historian, from The Education of Henry Adams, 1906 opined:

“That, two thousand years after Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, a man like Grant should be called—and should actually and truly be—the highest product of the most advanced society, made evolution ludicrous. One must be as commonplace as Grant’s own commonplaces to maintain such an absurdity. The progress of evolution from President Washington to President Grant, was alone evidence enough to upset Darwin.”

              Nicholas Biddle, banker, said in 1831 about President Jackson soon after Jackson’s attack on the Bank of the United States, which Biddle headed: 

“This worthy President thinks that because he has scalped Indians and imprisoned judges, he is to have his way with the Bank. He is mistaken.”

Ambrose Bierce, writer and wit, in The Devil's Dictionary (1881-1911) said:

“Presidency, n. The greased pig in the field game of American politics.”

            Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, wrote in The Image, 1962:

“Our most admired national heroes—Franklin, Washington, and Lincoln—are generally supposed to possess the ‘common touch.’ We revere them, not because they possess charisma, divine favor, a grace or talent granted them by God, but because they embody popular virtues.We admire them, not because they reveal God, but because they reveal and elevate ourselves.”

           John Branch, senator from North Carolina and secretary of the navy (sic) under President Andrew  Jackson, said in a letter to him in 1828:

“If elected, which I trust in God you will be, you will owe your election to the people, Yes Sir, to the unbiased unbought suffrages of the independent, grateful yeomanry of this country.

“You will come into the Executive chair untrammeled, free to pursue the dictates of your own judgment.”

             The following accolade by Heywood Broun, journalist, calls FDR

“The best newspaperman who has ever been President of the United States.”

             Roscoe Conkling, senator from New York and a corporation lawyer, is supposed to have said this in 1883:

 “I have but one annoyance with the administration of President (Chester) Arthur, and this is, that, in contrast with it, the Administration of Hayes becomes respectable, if not heroic.”

Pat Laster here: Times haven’t changed much regarding presidential politics, have they?

NOTE: Information from THE MORROW BOOK OF QUOTATIONS IN AMERICAN HISTORY by Joseph R. Conlin (Wm Morrow & Co. Inc., 1984). Regarding copyright, this book is also available for reading online.            #

c 2012 as a column and blog by Pat Laster dba lovepat press