Greatest President in US History?

[Creepster]

I have seen the poll up before and it usually asks people to list the top five best Presidents of the United States.

What I am curious about is who was the best president and why. In order to examine this a bit further I am looking for real details not the standard BS I see posted about the presidents, but what truly makes them great. For example to be considered great I feel that you should be at least a two term president. (Yes this rules out JFK, but this is who was the best president not a could have would have should have question. Who knows Garfield or William Harrison might have been great too.) Second I don’t think it is fair to judge any president of the past 50 years. There is not enough of a historical viewpoint on them (In other words people are just too biased one way or the other on them eg Clinton vs Reagan).
Whittling the list down this way leaves us 13 or 14 president if you throw Eisenhower into the mix (he is just at the 50 year mark)

1. George Washington
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. James Madison
4. James Monroe
5. Andrew Jackson
6. Abraham Lincoln
7. Ulysess Grant
8. Grover Cleveland
9. Theodore Roosevelt
10. Woodrow Wilson
11. Calvin Coolidge
12. Franklin Roosevelt
13. Harry Truman
14. Dwight Eisenhower
15. Lyndon Johnson
16. Richard Nixon
17. Ronald Reagan
18. Bill Clinton
19. George Bush

Looking over the list of 14 I find it somewhat hard to determine who was the best president. Some of these are wartime presidents, but does that make you the best President or one born of circumstance? Also I am only looking for what they did as president, not all of the qualifiers they did before becoming president. And please no cut and pastes from a google search. Write your own opinions and facts. We can all do a search on the bio’s of the people if we wanted that.

BTW the reason I am asking this is because I am always amazed at just how much I don’t know about what these people did during their term as president. Some of the previous discussions have intrigued me to get a biography on that person to learn more. Currently I am reading one on Theodore Roosevelt, and he is currently my favorite choice. Mainly because he was a peacetime president who accomplished a huge amount during his Presidency

Anti Trust Act
Increased Activity of US on World Stage and politics ("Speak softly and carry a big stick. . . .”
Panama Canal
Nobel Prize
Great white fleet goodwill tour
National parks program

 

[Adler17]

I hope you mean not the current guy... Oh btw I think we had already this discussion...

Adler

 

[blindside]

I'll have to disgree with the two term requirement. There have been plenty of presidents that served one term and were better than those that served two. Coolidge and Grant should be removed. Coolidge was the laziest, most useless president ever and I believe Grant was pretty corrupt. I'm not sure what Cleveland did but he was part of the chain of presidents that pretty much watched the country fall into decay during the Industrial revolution. And Coolidge took over when the other one died, he didn't get elected twice.

 

[North King]

TR, for his brilliant diplomacy in the Russo Japanese war, his excellent domestic policy as well, and decent foreign policy that didn't involve invading everyone we met.

 

[Creepster]

I'll have to disgree with the two term requirement. There have been plenty of presidents that served one term and were better than those that served two. Coolidge and Grant should be removed.

I could agree to a one term president if the argument were made correctly. I also agree on the fact about Grant not being one of the greatest. The above list is merely a list of Presidents who served two terms or most of two terms. In my opinion Grant does rank well at the bottom for the level of corruptness he displayed during his administration.

 

[Creepster]

I hope you mean not the current guy...

He is not eligible as he is a recent president (less than 50 years). That was one of the problems I had with the other discussion too much emotions and not enough objectivity.

 

[Akhhorus]

A lot of the Presidents listed have no right to be on this list.
Monroe, Jackson, Grant, Cleveland, Coolridge, and Ike arent among the greatest.
I went with FDR slightly over Lincoln.

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

George Washington

*Was president of Constitutional Convention. They trusted him enough to give him that title tells you something.
*Led an outnumbered army against the British and successfully defeated them.
*Served two-terms that setup many traditions of the following presidents.
*Setup the government and run the place successfully putting a great base for the country's next presidents.
*First President.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

The fact that James K. Polk is not on this list means that it is not a serious topic on the matter.

 

[North King]

The fact that James K. Polk is not on this list means that it is not a serious topic on the matter.

Greatest doesn't mean annexed the most territory, or facilitated the greatest imperalist expansion of the USA, or indirectly cuased thousands of deaths for the purpose of expansion. I don't see a problem with excluding him...

 

[Plotinus]

I'd point out that Lyndon Johnson only served a term and a bit, since he took over from Kennedy, which means he won only one election and stood down when he could have stood for another. Evidently Johnson is not eligible here because of the fifty-year rule, but if he weren't, I'd say this would seem a rather arbitrary means of disqualifying him. Surely greatness is at least partly determined by what they did with the situation that faced them, and Johnson achieved a great deal in his term and a bit.

 

[North King]

George Washington

*Led an outnumbered army against the British and successfully defeated them.

*COUGH*

When?

 

[Atlas14]

George Washington because he limited his own power and set the precidence for the presidents to follow. He had been a distinguished general in the American War for Independence, but did not seek to make America some sort of militarized empire. George Washington was very good at diplomacy IMHO, but many would disagree with me on that. Jefferson left Washington's administration because of Washington's neutral stance in the French Revolution, and Alexander Hamilton was pissed at Washington not taking a pro-British stance in the affair.

But anyway, Washington set our country on the right path and had many words of wisdom and advice to give to future presidents.

Jackson should not be up there. He was a disgrace to America and I don't know if anyone could ever convince me of even respecting him. His Native American policy was sh!t, his cabinet members worthless, his knowledge about economy and banks was WORTHLESS, and he held so many prejudices and biases that they could not all be counted. Jackson should have sobered up once in a while to experience reality. He was a decent general, probably overrated, and had a big head about it.

 

[nonconformist]

I'd point out that Lyndon Johnson only served a term and a bit, since he took over from Kennedy, which means he won only one election and stood down when he could have stood for another. Evidently Johnson is not eligible here because of the fifty-year rule, but if he weren't, I'd say this would seem a rather arbitrary means of disqualifying him. Surely greatness is at least partly determined by what they did with the situation that faced them, and Johnson achieved a great deal in his term and a bit.

Johnson inherited Kennedy's legacy though, not his own.

 

[-0blivion-]

Thank God no one has voted Coolidge yet.
Clicked Theo, instead of FDR by mistake

 

[Atlas14]

Thank God no one has voted Coolidge yet.
Clicked Theo, instead of FDR by mistake

I didn't like FDR's isolationist policy very much. He was pissed when Britain and France did nothing to stop Hitler, which he should have been, but he should have gotten off his lazy butt and done something. He should have at least entered the war soon after Britain and France.

 

[-0blivion-]

I didn't like FDR's isolationist policy very much. He was pissed when Britain and France did nothing to stop Hitler, which he should have been, but he should have gotten off his lazy butt and done something. He should have at least entered the war soon after Britain and France.

I agree with all those points. Appeasement and isolationism resulted in a lot of pain and death that was unnecessary

 

[Creepster]

I have never been a fan of Washington being listed as one of the great president's. He did a lot of great things, but I have always wondered if someone else were the first president would we have conferred greatness upon them too. I feel that he is a great president because of circumstances more than anything else.

As for FDR I again am not a great fan, mainly becasue of is second term and trying to pack the courts. How much of what he did during his presidency was again in response to the circumstances. He did try to lead us out of the depression, but never truly managed. It was more due to the second world war than any particular policy of his. His leadership in the begining of the war was weak. He had to wait for someone to attack us to stand up and take a leadership role. The only time he really led was during his first term in trying to get us out of the depression.

 

[Creepster]

The fact that James K. Polk is not on this list means that it is not a serious topic on the matter.

Polk was not listed becasue he was a one term president. I only listed the presidents who were in office for about two terms either elected or inherited. The use of the two terms as in initial qualifier for a great president was a starting point. There might be reasons to argue for a one term president as one of the greatest, please lay it out for us. Again only what they did as president, not before or after.

Again I did not include any president of the past 50 years because there is not enough historical distance between uis and the subject (ie too much emotional baggage)

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Polk was not listed becasue he was a one term president. I only listed the presidents who were in office for about two terms either elected or inherited. The use of the two terms as in initial qualifier for a great president was a starting point. There might be reasons to argue for a one term president as one of the greatest, please lay it out for us. Again only what they did as president, not before or after.

Polk did not run for a second term; he felt that he had accomplished his entire agenda in one term.

In fact he did. In four years, he met every one of his campaign promises. He established an independent treasury, he forced the British to settle the Oregon question with us, he lowered the tariff, and, most importantly, he acquired almost one-third of the present-day United States.

Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado would not be parts of the United States were it not for Polk. Were it not for Polk, we would not have access to the Pacific, nor the cattlelands and mineral resources of the west.