In which presidential elections would you have the most difficult time deciding?
My personal answers, in chronological order:
1800. It is very difficult to say who I would favor in this election but I know that I am definitely not voting for Hamilton's pick slavocrat Charles C Pinckney. Aaron Burr supported women's suffrage and abolishing slavery, which is interesting, but seems pretty opportunistic. He also actively fought against the Jay Treaty's ratification in the Senate by pushing to shelve it, renegotiate its terms, and force Britain to pay for stolen property. I sympathize with that because Burr helped clarify the separation of powers in the handling of American diplomacy and wouldn't rule him out in 1800. Then John Adams was a good president, although at that time all I would know is that the US was engaging France in negotiations and news of the Treaty of Mortefontaine did not reach the US until AFTER election day - if it did then I would have voted for Adams. I would have despised the Alien and Sedition Acts, 3 of which were still in place by election day (the Friends Act already expired). Then Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence and Declaration of Rights of Man but was a terrible Secretary of State and Vice President. I would be debating between Jefferson and Burr right up until election day, and probably swayed by whichever propaganda I am hearing from either side. The pamphlet exposing the Sally Hemings affair came out in September of 1802, well after election day. Had it been released beforehand, I would have voted definitely for Burr.
1808. This is a tough one. The Embargo Act was terrible for the economy and James Madison literally wrote it. However, it did help prevent a war. Despite pledging to overturn that act, Charles Coteworth Pinckney is once again my last choice for being a member of the slavocracy and a former Hamilton stooge. James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights and inspired much of the US Constitution, and was a pretty good secretary of state. However, he was also a slaveowner and major partisan and was nominated in a rig nominating caucus. I possibly would want to vote for James Monroe or George Clinton if they were on the ballot in my state, or write them in. If I cannot vote for either of them in the state I was in, I might be tempted to vote for Pinckney to protest the Embargo Act and how Madison was nominated. But Jefferson was extremely popular and Pinckney didn't really have concrete issues he was running on, as far as I know. Please tell me more. Would I want to risk a Madison or a Pinckney presidency by voting Monroe or Clinton?
1880. In the GOP convention, I would have been happy to see neither Blaine nor Grant be nominated, but a little disappointed to see Arthur as the VP pick, a man known for "legally" embezzling funds from the Port Authority, so much that President Hayes (a man I would have supported in the convention) fired him. Garfield also had a tricky history, throwing out the votes of entire counties in Louisiana during the 1877 debacle, voted against the KKK Act of 1871 due to executive concerns, and supported restricting Chinese immigration. He also had forced fraudulent treaties upon plains Indians. However, he was progressive on civil service reform, having supported Hayes in those efforts, and championed voting rights and education for African-Americans. Then there is James B Weaver, a former Republican, who ran as a Greenback and favored an 8-hour workday, racial inclusion safety regulations in factories, an end to child labor, and the end of wage slavery. But he also criticized the use of the army to police Southern polling stations in his first speech in the House. I also would be unsure about Greenback policy versus hard money. Then the Prohibition Party would probably be my last choice in this election. Or the Democratic candidate Winfield Scott Hancock, who I would have appreciated as president being the winner of the Battle of Gettysburg. However, his career afterwards included instigating Indian wars and burning Indian villages and supporting Johnson's appeasement to racist southerners, issuing an order that ingratiated himself with the secessionist white population when he was serving in the south during Reconstruction. His running mate also voted for the Kansas-Nebraska Act. So I know I am not voting for either of these last two picks. Do I risk a Hancock presidency which could be disastrous for civil rights right after reconstruction had ended by voting for Weaver?
1896. Similar to 1880, I would not have a strong enough stance on monetary policy, which was the main issue in this election. However, McKinley was much more of an imperialist and favored high tariffs, two issues that would make me lean towards Bryan. But Bryan also would bring in the Democratic establishment which was against the civil rights movement that was still on life support in the GOP. McKinley ended up being not good for civil rights, but I wouldn't know that then. There was the prohibition party again, which I would not vote for. Since McKinley had the backing of big money and the robber barons, I would probably vote for Bryan. But I am not sure, as I would be very opposed to the anti-labor rhetoric of the McKinley campaign and probably vote for the socialist candidate Matchett, taking the risk of a McKinley presidency which might not be terrible for civil rights.
1908. Another election featuring Bryan, this time against William H Taft. Taft was embedded with the imperialist movement as governor of the Philippines and War Secretary, but he had the Teddy Roosevelt endorsement which would have been huge. Unlike 1896, I definitely don't think I would have voted for Debs over clear progressive candidates. This time Bryan had become better on civil rights, but he had not yet vocally supported suffrage as he did later in life. I probably would have favored Bryan's anti-imperialism, but Taft said he was going to continue TR's trust busting and progressive regulations. So I would lean Taft but be undecided until election day.
1956. This one I have no idea because they are both so good. I normally say Stevenson, but Eisenhower would have been one of the best presidents of my lifetime then, with a good science and infrastructure policy. Operation Ajax did not become known to the public until the late 70s, and I probably would have known about Eisenhower's support for the new authoritarian regime in Guatemala but would have supported the rest of Ike's foreign policy such as withdrawing from Korea and the Suez crisis. I also would have supported his pick for SC in Earl Warren who ruled Brown v Board of Ed, and nothing controversial in Vietnam happened in Ike's first term. However, Eisenhower did not send troops to enforce desegregation until 1957, after the election. On the other hand, the bulldozing of communities to build the highway also wasn't until after the election. His domestic policy was also flawed, with Operation Wetback, support for the Red Scare, and a lackluster environmental policy. And his EO targeting LGBT members would have bothered me. Stevenson also no longer had a Dixiecrat as a running mate and would have been great for denuclearization and world peace, as he would be later in his career. My last choice would definitely be T Coleman Andrews, the segregationist candidate, but I have no clue who my first choice would have been.