Europeans often ask, and Americans do not always explain, how it happens that this great office, the greatest in the world, unless we except the Papacy, to which any man can rise by his own merits, is not more frequently filled by great and striking men? In America, which is beyond all other countries the country of a “career open to talents,” a country, moreover, in which political life is unusually keen and political ambition widely diffused, it might be expected that the highest place would always be won by a man of brilliant gifts. But since the heroes of the Revolution died out with Jefferson and Adams and Madison some sixty years ago, no person except General Grant has reached the chair whose name would have been remembered had he not been President, and no President except Abraham Lincoln has displayed rare or striking qualities in the chair. Who now knows or cares to know anything about the personality of James K. Polk or Franklin Pierce? The only thing remarkable about them is that being so commonplace they should have climbed so high. . . .

. . . Besides, the ordinary American voter does not object to mediocrity. He has a lower conception of the qualities requisite to make a statesman than those who direct public opinion in Europe have. He likes his candidate to be sensible, vigorous, and, above all, what he calls “magnetic,” and does not value, because he sees no need for, originality or profundity, a fine culture or a wide knowledge. Candidates are selected to be run for nomination by knots of persons who, however expert as party tacticians, are usually commonplace men; and the choice between those selected for nomination is made by a very large body, an assembly of over eight hundred delegates from the local party organizations over the country, who are certainly no better than ordinary citizens.

Source: James Bryce, The American Commonwealth (London: Macmillan, 1888), 1:100, 102–3.

As a public man, considering the splendid record that he made, he will be put in the same class with Washington and Lincoln—one of the three great Presidents that this country has had. His greatness was justified by his exceptionally strong character and his many intellectual gifts. He was a man of great moral strength, and having the advantage of a fine intellect he thought seriously and deeply upon all subjects, and, having reached a conclusion, particularly as to a principle of morals or religion, or public weal [welfare], he was uncompromising. He agreed with David Crockett that the first thing was to determine what was right and then to do that thing.

What he was in public life he was equally in private life; strong in his views, tolerant in method, but uncompromising in principle. Most of his time was spent in promoting education and philanthropy—work which entailed sacrifices of his time and personal convenience, without fee or hope of reward beyond the desire to do that which was useful and good. These occupied, when not in public life, most of his time, so that when we look over his career, though he reached the proverbial three score and ten years, it is not to be measured by years alone, but by his splendid deeds and lofty ideals which affected all who came within the range of his influence.

Source: “All Washington Mourns, All Flags at Half Staff in Tribute to Dead Statesman,” New York Times, June 25, 1908, 5.