Actually, none of the three you listed were very good presidents. They merely have the best propoganda, and are lived by historians who strangely consider expanding the power of the presidency to be a good thing rather than a violation of their oath of office.
Washington was a huge hypocrite with a huge ego. He probably would have served in the British army instead of leading the revolutionary troops if they had been willing to give him a commission. He was not even close to the best general we had in the revolutionary war, as his plans were usually so complicated that they could only actually be implemented through pure luck. He was the largest land owner in the world, not based on having homesteaded land but because being the surviving member of the team that surveyed Ohio he was given title to many lands that were already occupied. He very much wanted a strong government to help him push the Indians off his land and collect rack rent from the being who actually worked it. The lands he more directly controlled were of course worked by a great number of slaves, whom he did not treat well and did not opt to free. In addition to being a slave master and land lord, he was a crony capitalist. He was a major investor in the country's largest whiskey refinery, and supported legislation that would crush all of its competitors. In the Whiskey Rebellion he proved that he did not care about the principles of the revolution, but was more than willing to lead armies against his fellow Americans on the frontier who had no more meaningful representation in their legislatures than the colonists had in Parliament to force them to pass taxes which were much higher than the British had ever exacted. During this campaign he literally fell off his high horse, injuring his back and making it painful for him to stand for public appearances. Near the end of his 2nd term he was under an investigation which showed that we has either corrupt or too incompetent to keep several of his subordinates in line. He did not refuse power based on any principle, but because an early retirement was seen as the only way preserve his legacy.
While is it a good thing that Lincoln freed the slaves (originally only in areas where his order carried zero weight), that was not his goal. He was even willing to support a constitutional amendment which would have guaranteed that slavery could never be abolished in states were it still existed when he took office. He may have personally opposed slavery, but his views would still qualify his as a strong White Supremacist. He preferred to deport all of America's Black population back to Africa, and accepted the support of many Free Soilers whose main motivation for preventing the spread of slavery was a belief that no Black persons (free of slave) should ever be allowed to live in any of the states formed in the Western territories. The Confederates were definitely bad guys, but the Union was not much better. While the Confederate leaders were motivated by paranoia over preserving and expanding slavery, the North did not care much about human rights but rather wanted the power to continue collecting taxes in the South to fund infrastructure projects meant to benefit capitalists in the North. Through most of the war, he continued to enforce the Fugitive Slave Acts. Those laws exceeded their constitutional authority in compelling citizens of free states to help track down suspected slaves (including those who were actually born free), but the fact that the Constitution did include a fugitive slave clause was already made it an immoral document. I would have supported the early secession movement of Northern states that wanted nothing to do with such slave patrols. Lincoln however cared too much about notions of "national greatness" to do the right thing. He antagonized the South into war, in much the same way that he had previously in his Spot Resolutions criticized the US government for antagonizing Mexico into war. He could have chosen to negotiate peaceful terms by which the Confederacy could purchase the Federal property within their borders, but instead chose to goad them into the bloodiest of wars. He then chose to unconstitutionally impose martial law on much of the country, suspending the writ of habeas corpus himself instead of asking Congress to do so as the founding document permits in times of emergency.
FDR should be considered the 3rd worst (after only Woodrow Wilson and Andrew Jackson), not the best 3. He did not deserve one term, much less 3. He did the opposite of almost everything he campaigned on doing, and seems to have been motivated by a strong need to be seen as doing something rather than to make sure what he was doing was actually beneficial. He campaigned on staying out of WWII and on intervening less in the economy than Hoover, and then rushed in the opposite direction. He almost certainly made the Great Depression worse, and made it last much longer than it would have without his intervention. His programs often worked at cross purposes, leading to extraordinary economic waste. He subsidized production but let the produce rot or burned it rather than allowing it to be sold to starving people. Things only ever appeared to improve under his because he cooked the books, releasing wildly inaccurate numbers to to public. He was basically a Fascist (not nearly as bad as Hitler, but not unlike Mussolini), whose policies forced industries to form cartels and keep prices high and wages low. Most of the New Deal was blatantly Unconstitutional.
It is hard to say if the country has ever had a truly "good" president. The least bad were probably Calvin Coolidge and Grover Cleveland, but I have problems with them too.
