[On Franklin D. Roosevelt:] Second-class intellect, first-class temperament.

Holmes’s remark is generally reported as a private assessment of Franklin D. Roosevelt made in the early 20th century, when Roosevelt was rising in Democratic politics and moving in elite East Coast circles that overlapped with Holmes’s own. It reflects the kind of candid, epigrammatic judgments Holmes was known to deliver in conversation and correspondence about public figures. The line is typically presented as Holmes’s shorthand evaluation of Roosevelt’s mental powers versus his personal qualities—an appraisal offered informally rather than as a public statement, and later repeated by others as an anecdote about how contemporaries sized up FDR before his presidency.

The quip contrasts “intellect” with “temperament,” implying that Roosevelt’s analytical or scholarly capacity was, in Holmes’s view, merely adequate, while his character—confidence, resilience, charm, political instinct, and steadiness under pressure—was exceptional. Holmes’s phrasing also suggests a judicial cast of mind: a clipped verdict separating cognitive brilliance from the practical virtues needed to lead. Read historically, it captures a recurring theme in evaluations of Roosevelt: that his effectiveness derived less from theoretical depth than from emotional intelligence, adaptability, and an ability to project assurance—traits that can matter more than raw intellect in democratic leadership.

Second-class intellect; first-class temperament.