Exceptionally bad take. Even if you insist on putting civil rights on a left/right scale as you clearly do, there are a plethora of other issues to consider.
This is clearly the only reasonable way to view the issue. The real question is why you are so insistent on putting 19th century issues of religion/morality on a 21st century spectrum.
Stop trying to make Protestant supremacism seem woke. It's not woke.
1892, 1904, and 1924 are all defensible answers to this question. 1904 is probably the best one. 1952, 1956, 1912, and especially 1948 and 1976 are all terrible answers, with 1912 as probably the best of a bad lot.
That 1924 is a possible answer really speaks to just how conservative John Davis was, rather than any progressivism on Silent Cal’s part. Although, I suppose the latter did have a surprisingly liberal attitude on civil rights (not just towards African Americans, but also Native Americans in particular).
Coolidge was actually regarded as leaning towards the progressive wing of the Republican Party whilst he was active in Massachusetts state politics (he supported women’s suffrage, laws to cut working hours for women and children and veterans bonuses). On the other hand, he seems to have not regarded it as the proper role of the federal government to be a driver of social reform, nor for the Presidency in and of itself to be ‘activist’. However, it’s arguable that the conservative financial policies that Coolidge is typically associated were in fact primarily driven by the Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon rather than the President himself (it’s also worth noting that Herbert Hoover clashed with Mellon over the extent of his tax cutting proposals).
