Greatest President in US History?

Who is the greatest US President in History

  • 1. George Washington

    Votes: 32 13.3%
  • 2. Thomas Jefferson

    Votes: 19 7.9%
  • 3. James Madison

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4. James Monroe

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5. Andrew Jackson

    Votes: 6 2.5%
  • 6. Abraham Lincoln

    Votes: 64 26.6%
  • 7. Ulysess Grant

    Votes: 3 1.2%
  • 8. Grover Cleveland

    Votes: 2 0.8%
  • 9. Theodore Roosevelt

    Votes: 42 17.4%
  • 10. Woodrow Wilson

    Votes: 4 1.7%
  • 11. Calvin Coolidge

    Votes: 3 1.2%
  • 12. Franklin Roosevelt

    Votes: 56 23.2%
  • 13. Harry Truman

    Votes: 7 2.9%
  • 14. Dwight Eisenhower

    Votes: 3 1.2%

  • Total voters
    241
George Washington, being the first president is always hard. Plus that some nobles in Europe were even betting on how long the Republic would last :p and for washington to take over... great man, great man.
 
Atlas14 said:
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 doubt that FDR could be considered an Isolationist. There was a major movement against any US involvement in WWII and FDR didnt want to alienate half the country. FDR was the one who did the lend-lease with Britain, despite major objections from the Congress and the Public. FDR couldnt get involved without a great reason and expect to stay President. He would have lost the next election.
 
North King said:
Somebody voted for Woodrow Wilson? That biased, racist, filthy jerk? :vomit:

The Federal Reserve System and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act are two big contributions from Wilson to America. Don't underestimate them, especially the former.

Also, since you're a liberal, you should note that he was the first major liberal institutionalist to be President.
 
Somebody voted for Woodrow Wilson? That biased, racist, filthy jerk?

He is also the only president to hold a PhD and the passage of the League of Nations bill probably would have been accepted by the senate if he didn't have a stroke.

Despite the problems with the UN he is the man with the idea that started the organization and it is arguable that if the US had entered into the league of nations perhaps the severity of the Second World War might not have been as bad.
 
Creepster said:
He is also the only president to hold a PhD and the passage of the League of Nations bill probably would have been accepted by the senate if he didn't have a stroke.

Despite the problems with the UN he is the man with the idea that started the organization and it is arguable that if the US had entered into the league of nations perhaps the severity of the Second World War might not have been as bad.

and the only President who was openly a member of the KKK.
 
Atlas14 said:
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 think he did try as hard as possible, but congress blocked every move until Pearl Harbor.
 
North King said:
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...
Greatest means doing the best for American citizens exclusively. Most Native Americans at the time were not citizens, so why would it factor in on how good he was for the strength of the country?

Also why would it matter if we had no causus belli versus Mexico? We were vastly superior in force of arms, and the war time anexations are obviously significant to our country. If we won the war, how is it that it was a bad move? Surely you don't wish to bring morality into play? :lol:
 
Greatest means doing the best for American citizens exclusively. Most Native Americans at the time were not citizens, so why would it factor in on how good he was for the strength of the country?

Also why would it matter if we had no causus belli versus Mexico? We were vastly superior in force of arms, and the war time anexations are obviously significant to our country. If we won the war, how is it that it was a bad move? Surely you don't wish to bring morality into play?

I personally don't see how nearly wiping out Native Americans was a great accomplishment. It also shows the president's true character. It would be like a 30year old beating up on a 10 year old. Just because you can doesn't mean you should do it. Im not trying to bring moral stuff into this, but this is about greatest US presidents and such a shameful act as working to diminish the Native Americans is not exactly something to be proud of. It is more of sh!tty character rather than a moral arguement.
 
Big Civil War fan and therefore always had a soft spot for Lincoln.

Had a tough job ahead of him, he had to re-unify the country, fight a war, keep Britain and France neutral and watch his back at home against southern supporters, pacifists and the political opposition.

A non military man he was patient and diplomatic with his generals getting rid of the troublesome ones (although in some cases it took a while) and sticking faithfully to the ones who had proved themselves. I think he always had a good grasp of the strategic situation as well.

The North's railroads and industry grew quite considerably during his reign as the Americans spread further westwards.

Must admit though, my knowledge on a lot of the others is limited. But Abe is my kind of guy.
 
SeleucusNicator said:
The Federal Reserve System and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act are two big contributions from Wilson to America. Don't underestimate them, especially the former.

Also, since you're a liberal, you should note that he was the first major liberal institutionalist to be President.

He was a racist, biased scum, who deliberately fired African American employees of the government and also happened to be a warmonger who invaded multiple nations.

He was no liberal. :rolleyes:

Mescalhead said:
Greatest means doing the best for American citizens exclusively. Most Native Americans at the time were not citizens, so why would it factor in on how good he was for the strength of the country?

That's your definition. Not mine, not nearly.

Also why would it matter if we had no causus belli versus Mexico? We were vastly superior in force of arms, and the war time anexations are obviously significant to our country. If we won the war, how is it that it was a bad move? Surely you don't wish to bring morality into play?

Actually, unlike the American "patriots" on this board who have no regard for human dignity or rights, I DO bring morality into play.
 
I can't vote for FDR because of the Internment Camps, which were a disgrace to America.
 
it's gotta be FDR. he got us out of the great depression and did alot during ww2. his bravery showed anyone can make a contribution to this country. he helped save us from one of the worst events of this country's history.
 
Ack, some of the people up there shouldnt even be in a book about Presidents.
Next couple points to destroy the rest of the list. The first five presidents shouldnt be up there either, because only one of them did anthing during his actual presidency to help the country-Jefferson-the rest were just place holders should something happen. Also Lincoln cant really be counted, most people just vote for him because he was the President during the Civil War, but had any other Republican be elected the South still would have succeded and the war would have been relatively the same as Lincoln had little to do with the actual planning of the war. Also I noticed a few people baseing there choice on things that some of these Presidents did before they were President, as I said before you cant really base an opion of a President based on things they did before becomeing President.

Anyways my choice would Teddy Roosevelt. Reasoning, he was and still is the best enviormentalist President. He set up some of the first enviormental laws and to this day set up the most nationial park space of any President. Also had some decent domestic and foriegn policy. Also had he won the 1912 election against Taft and Wilson, we would have been better prepared for WW1 and possiblely entered and ended the war sooner.
 
Holy *#&$!

How can you not have Reagen in there!! :eek: He is the best president ever, I wish he was president today! He was so awesome, you can't avoid him! Especially compared to the other guys in that poll!
 
Teddy Roosevelt - for his great domestic policies and reforms, and for showing the corporations and trusts of the day that hey could not do anything they wanted. He had a very energetic personality and did what he thought was best for the nation instead of sticking to partisan guidlines. Yet he was also a man of many contradictions, but overall he was a great president. It was a pity that he didn't win in 1912 due to Taft's partisan blockade of his nomination and then his switch to the progressive party which resulted in a divided republican base which let Wilson win. :rolleyes:

Oh and the Great White Fleet was an awesome spectacle aswell ;)

Edit: Oh the Panama canal too, I mean even though he dumped the dirt on columbia and ignored them and used a Panama rebellion as an excuse to build it, it still revolutionized world travel and commerce.

Forgot another thing which I as an advocate of the separatin of church and state support:

he firmly believed in the separation of both institutions and thought it both sacrilegious and unconstitutional to have 'In God We Trust' on U.S, currency (he tried unsuccessfully to have that legend removed).
 
Huzzamaster said:
Holy *#&$!

How can you not have Reagen in there!! :eek: He is the best president ever, I wish he was president today! He was so awesome, you can't avoid him! Especially compared to the other guys in that poll!

Reagan is not listed because he is too recent. I purposely left out all presidents within the past 50 years. There is too much political bias on those choices and it isn't really worth comparing them yet, (it would be a Reagan vs. Clinton discussion :)) We can start another poll in 2036 to see how he is viewed then. Besides it takes some time for some policies to truly be understood as to what effect they have on the country. (social security, National Parks program, National Highway system)
 
Got to go with Teddy ;)
 
Top Bottom