why were presidents of the late 1800's generally weak or unimpressive?

Answer 1

Because the people who got them elected wanted them to be weak and unimpressive. Presidents elected in the late 1800s generally were handpicked by the wealthy "lions of industry" who controlled the country financially. They wanted presidents who would allow them to keep making lots of money.

Another reason is that candidates were often judged by what they had done during the Civil War. So, a person who had fought in the war (and who had been an officer) was almost automatically accorded greater respect than a person who had not. This led to some very so-so candidates.

Answer 2

Presidents In 1800s

Answer 3

First, for some perspective

* though Hayes to Cleveland (and perhaps McKinley) are often dubbed "the forgotten presidents", how many strong presidents can you name between Jackson and Lincoln?!

* some recent scholars have begun to reassess this period, and those who presided, and suggested that they may have contributed a bit more than they are typically given credit for

* our notions of the what the Presidency is "supposed to be" are often shaped by a combination of Lincoln (who HAD to do more to handle the unparallelled crisis he faced) and the 20th century Presidency, as the international power of the U.S. emerged, and esp. since FDR, with a strong expectation of an "activist" President, involved in many areas of policy 19th century Presidents rarely if ever touched. I'm not saying either is "wrong" -- but that we should not judge men for failure to fit a 'job description' that did not exist at the time!

An excellent little article that considers the shifting views of scholars about this period (and may answer your question far better than I could) is
"The Gilded Age" by H Wayne Morgan - AH 35, 5 (1984)
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1984/5/1984_5_42.shtml


Insofar at they were "unimpressive" -- I think it's more a matter of the nature of the OFFICE and particular factors of that era that WEAKENED it, making it difficult to carry out policies they DID want to pursue. What contributed to THIS?

I disagree that the "lions of industry" somehow managed to control the powerful political factions of the parties to handpick these folks -- I see no strong evidence of this.


Here are a few factors:

1) sensitivity to sectional divisions after the Civil War

2) the two major parties were VERY evenly split and ALWAYS competitive, so that it was difficult to maintain a majority; in particular, the House of Representatives was constantly changing hands. Thus Presidents frequently lacked strong Congressional support.

Something of that idea is conveyed in the following snippet from Hayes's diary, reflecting on his first year in office:

"We are in a period when old questions are settled and the new are not yet brought forward. Extreme party action, if continued in such a time, would ruin the party. Moderation is its only chance. The party out of power gains by all partisan conduct of those in power."
http://www.ohiohistory.org/onlinedoc/hayes/chapterxxxvi.html

3) ENORMOUS changes in society, esp. rapid industrialization and urbanization (accompanied by the growth of the labor movement), and a huge influx of immigrants that took time to assimilate. Such things presented a host of new problems all at once.