Who Would've Been A Better President Had They Lived...

Which One

  • William Henry Harrison

    Votes: 9 28.1%
  • James Abram Garfield

    Votes: 23 71.9%

  • Total voters
    32

Soundgarden

Banned
The two shortest reigns as U.S. Presidents were William Henry Harrison and James A. Garfield with a combined term of 7 months. Lets say they were able to complete their terms. Who do you think would be better at their job and why? I'm not too familar with them, but from what I heard, Garfield's reign seemed promising. What are you thoughts?
 
I'm voting for Harrison because Garfield was replaced by Chester Arthur who was a decent president. John Tyler, OTOH was a fucking awful human being and later an out and out traitor, and I don't believe all that many in the CSA were traitors.
 

Japhy

Banned
Garfield was a Radical Republican who supported Civil Service Reform. Pro-Civil Rights and Pro-Good Government is the perfect combination for the time. So in and of himself he's a much better president to have.

That said there can be a sound argument for the fact that Chester Arthur was a highly successful President in and of himself, a Moderate-Leaning Radical Republican who did pass civil service reform, while John Tyler is the only President whom ever committed Treason, and whom made the horrific decision to annex Texas. Though in his case we cannot really be sure that WH Harrison might not have annexed the breakaway state himself.
 
Chester Arthur was James Garfield lite, which should say a lot about the man.

Over the course of eight months, Garfield managed to unite the bickering factions of the Republican Party into a force to be reckoned with. The culmination of this was the resignation of his Congressional opposition, Roscoe Conkling. In addition, he advocated universal education (though the extent of which has been debated) and the death of patronage.

All in all, a surviving Garfield is likely to accomplish a lot in office. He probably wins re-election by an even wider margin.
 
Top