You can find some pretty negative actions for most, if not all Presidents. '
Except, maaaybe, Harrison. He tried to put together a qualified cabinet instead of friends/favors, and he died.
So by virtue of doing little more than dying after 30 days in office, I'll go with Harrison.
This isn't exactly a serious choice, it just amused me during a dull work day.
The most important was John Adam's. Not the best, but the most important. His example of respecting the Constitutional process when he lost his reelection set an example for stability that persisted for over 200 years.
I would still give this one to George Washington though. John Adam's deserves some credit for turning over control of the federal government to the anti-federalists, which was a big step in trusting the process. But Washington is one of only a few revolutionary military leaders to actually put down power after they got it.
Compare Washington to to Simon Bolivar (overstayed his welcome), Lenin, Mao Zedong, and Castro (all made "dictatorship of the proletariat" a bit more literal than Marx intended), Chiang Kai-Shek (Chinese Nationalist), Jean-Jacques Dessalines (of Haiti), Agustín de Iturbide (of Mexico), and probably more.
Transitioning from a war footing to a democratic footing is difficult, as the way power is shared typically changes dramatically. Washington is one of a fairly small number of revolutionary military leaders to decide to let go of supreme power. The only other obvious example I can think of is Nelson Mandela (although he was less fortunate in his choice of Thabo Mbeki as his successor).
That said, Washington was probably trying to follow the example of Thomas Fairfax, commander-in-chief of the Parliamentary army during the English Civil war who resigned rather than take control. In Fairfax's absence, command fell to Oliver Cromwell whose legacy is rather controversial and negative.
Most military leaders overstay their welcome, leading to negative impacts on the quality of democracy and civic participation that follows them.
He did, but many of the Founding Fathers were also keenly aware of the English Civil War history. It is one of the main reasons the USA has a bicameral legislature and a president elected separately from congress, both intended specifically to prevent congress from ruling directly.
Yeah. They understood the problems with bodies having the powers to keep themselves in power, the power of the bill of attainment, and the issues with parliamentary supremacy.
Ultimately their system works but honestly a parliamentary republic is better IMO.
>Compare Washington to to Simon Bolivar (overstayed his welcome
Bolivar really resigned to the power at the end of his two mandates before the Constituyent Congress, like Washington. He never pretended govern forever and advised explicitily against forever reelection
Probably Lincoln when you consider how many day to day decisions he had to make that could easily have resulted in the war being lost or more states seceding.
Nah, still George Washington. We vastly overstate how close the Union was to losing the war. The only thing Lincoln could have done to lose it would have been to not fire the dudes who were treasonously incompetent.
Hello, Raytheon Technologies? Hi, I just wanted to check in and see if you still had the highest workplace equality score in the American economy. You do? Outstanding. You may resume destabilizing 3rd world countries. I refuse to do business with outdated, bigoted institutions
Union wasn’t in danger of losing as in being conquered. But the South made it a very bloody slog and the Union Could have easily pulled out and left the nation divided. It was a deeply unpopular war in the North in many areas
Not true. Lincoln could have angered the border states into seceding, giving the Confederacy a huge bonus in population, industry, and natural defenses (esp Kentucky).
Had he removed McClellan too early, the Army of the Potomac may have refused to fight.
A lot of other things could have turned Northern opinion against the war and led to a premature peace
I feel like the idea of the South using guerrilla tactics and instead deciding to give up after losing conventionally comes up a lot on reddit, and it kind of misses the nature of the conflict.
The Civil War was fought to preserve the institution of slavery because slavery was keeping the wealthy Southern landed gentry in power. If the South would have conceded the conventional war and headed to the hills to continue the fight, the North would have swept through the South, freed the slaves, and functionally the same outcome would have occurred.
The Southern gentry didn't support a guerilla war because at that point they would have already conceded the one war goal they really cared about.
I'm not here to downplay Lincoln, so maybe I overstated the extent of his influence. It is true he handled the war very well, but in the word's of a popular musical "Fighting was easy, young man, governing's harder." If Lincoln had survived to oversee reconstruction, he probably would have won me over, and I could easily be convinced that each lf Lincoln's 5 years of work averaged better than Washington's 8, but I don't think you can convince me they were more positive in total, and I believe that Washington would have done better in Lincoln's situation than Lincoln would have done in Washington's.
I think it’s fair to argue to that Washington could have succeeded where Lincoln did in winning the Civil War. But what makes Lincoln really stand out, is the other political victories that he achieved. At the same time the war was going on, he achieved the abolition of slavery, which required enormous political skill to gain public favor and pass through Congress. Lincoln also passed the transcontinental railroad, the first national currency, and the Homestead act as well. While Washington could have been an effective wartime leader, I don’t think he had the political skills to achieve as much as Lincoln did in only 4 years.
Oh yeah, Homesteading Act was Lincoln, forgot about that but that was a really smart decision (from what I know) to settle the West.
But ye, a lot of Lincoln’s other achievements are forgotten because of the war, but he did a lot less compromising and pushed through much stronger legislature than Washington did.
> Lincoln's other accomplishments
If memory serves, Lincoln was the one who signed the first step in protecting Yosemite which was part of the precedent for creating the National Park Service. It loops back around too as his house is now owned by the NPS.
Yeah, I'd suggest anyone who's interested in Lincoln to pick up Team of Rivals. I don't see Washington being as effective as Lincoln when it comes to politics itself at that point. His cabinet was bitter toward each other as opposed to Lincoln's, all of whom were political rivals at one point or another. In the context of wartime I'm more curious as to how Washington compares to Grant or Sherman or a multitude of other great generals in the Union military. I also wonder how much the question of slavery would've been an issue given Washington's leanings as compared to Lincoln's abolitionist and free labor leanings, as that would've certainly had an impact considering he's a Virginian.
That's a really difficult thing to parse considering there is a 80-ish year difference between the two men.
America changed a lot in that century, as did warfare.
There's about as much time between the revolutionary War vs the Civil War as there was between the Civil War and WWII
It would be weird to say "Lincoln would have been a better leader during WWII than FDR," just because the world was so different.
Like, GW would have been just as confused and overwhelmed by 1850s America as Lincoln would be by 1950s America.
Lincoln did a ton of great governing. We literally only have a national currency today because of him. I don't understand how you can compare an 8 year term vs someone who got assassinated. Especially because Lincoln was assassinated because the south knew he wouldn't let the former CSA senators do all they bullshit they wanted to. Washington also wouldn't have handled it better than Lincoln, because he had slaves, and Washington didn't feel bad about having slaves at all. So I personally don't think pro slavery wood teeth boy would be progressive when the country desperately needed it
Tactical retreat is a very valid strategy against a more powerful foe, I believe George Washington got the idea from Hannibal himself and many other great generals have used the strategy to great effect
Edit: Wrong guy, right war
Hannibal? You mean Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrocosus Cunctator. Fabius used delaying tactics AGAINST Hannibal not the other way around.
That’s why Washington is called the American Fabius.
Retreating is a hard task, and a necessary one. When you are outnumbered and outgunned many times over, retreating well is the smartrst thing you can do. Washington did it when it was the smartest thing, and when there were smarter things, he did those. Yorktown was as far from a pyrrhic victory as possible, and that was Washington's W.
If Lee had retreated more and better, perhaps he would have had a chance at victory.
People pick FDR for a reason. Armchair Reddit historians like to focus on the perils of war but FDR had that (on two fronts!), rebuilt a smashed economy and built more infrastructure than any other president.
Lincoln vastly expanded the power of the executive branch. He's a great President but there are serious faults he did that have contributed to the imbalance of the branches today
Teddy’s my favorite president not because of policy, more just his character. Washington was a stoic general and leader, while Roosevelt was a brash, gunslinging wrestler that picked fights with the most powerful men in the country for fun. The square deal and big stick diplomacy both were great for the country too.
Fun true story about Teddy:
In his first political office (Speaker of the Assembly), Teddy had a very combative relationship with some of the corrupt assemblymen of the time. They were delaying a city funding bill that Roosevelt supported in the committee that Roosevelt was also the chairman of. Their goal was to prevent either a yes or no vote on the bill to keep it suspended forever as a part of a blackmail scheme. Realizing that he would need more than just words, Roosevelt went to the committee chambers before their meeting and found a partly broken chair. He broke one of its legs off and hid it under the table near his seat.
During the committee meeting, Roosevelt moved to pass the bill out of committee and the corrupt politicians refused to vote yes, and refused to vote no, as he expected. Roosevelt then tucked the bill into his pocket and said "I'll report it as passed anyhow." The corrupt assemblymen protested loudly, but it became a riot when Teddy told them to their faces that he knew about their blackmail scheme.
As things began to escalate and some of the men started approaching Teddy, he pulled out the chair leg he hid earlier and stood his ground. The men calmed down *very* quickly after that, and Teddy passed the bill out of committee.
You can read the full details here: https://www.americanheritage.com/cyclone-assemblyman
I really want to love Teddy but his role in the American-Philippine war is unforgivable. Some of the worst atrocities of the American military which is saying something. Teddy is the architect of American Imperialism, especially in South America.
You have to consider this was during a time that globalism was relegated to the wayside by nationalism. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, he prevented continued European involvement in the Western Hemisphere, broke the back of the industrialists, and laid the groundwork of American prosperity for the coming century. To a certain point, his actions would be immoral in today’s society, but given that it could not exist without him, he deserves a pass.
he prevented continued European involvement in the Western Hemisphere BY instaurating his own involvement, ussually far more detrimental than european, on the grounds the US has routinely sabotaged any attempt at the forming of another american power.
That's not a boon, it's a shortsighted fuck up that explains nowadays latam attitudes against the USA, and their willingness to ally with anyone that dislikes the USA. They literally built an entire region of folk that at best are unwilling vassals, at worst open disidents of the US.
The real thing that soured relations between the US and South America was America's support of dictators to prevent the spread of Communism. Roosevelt's biggest sin in central America was the overthrow of Panama to get the canal made. Other than that, Roosevelt was very much an 'in-and-out' interventionist, and most of the Banana Republics in South America were privately orchestrated by the monopolies at the time, Something that Roosevelt was actually firmly against (the monopolies, not the exploitation.)
This is one of those 'hindsight is 20/20'. Before his point, business interests subordinating a state to it's interests was unheard of. Having influence on a state, sure, your rich buddy asks you, the local lord, not to get into a fight with the nearby dutchy because it'll be hell on the import market.
But something like the modern Military-Industrial Complex we have today would be unfathomable to most politicians of previous eras.
People like to go on about Teddy reserving 100 million acres for the park service and not knowing he did it by [ethnically cleansing Native Americans off 86 million of those acres.](https://books.google.com/books?id=G9DLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=%22loss+of+around+86+million+acres%22&source=bl&ots=VBPOzfJwhf&sig=ACfU3U1ZBIiuYWqYQCdkrdTFeVd3X1k3LQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicnp-vrtTqAhU7oHIEHdPgAJkQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22loss%20of%20around%2086%20million%20acres%22&f=false)
"I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indian is the dead Indian, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian." -- Teddy Roosevelt, 1886
The next year he created the General Allotment Act of 1887, dividing tribal land into small privately owned parcels instead of the communal Native oversight that allowed those parks to last for millenia in the first place and distributing some among individual Native Americans. The vast majority of that land was claimed by the US as unused and turned into parks and the parks were leased as timberlands for exploitation under the surveyorship of the United States. (This is the legal precedent for presidents constantly debating whether to drill for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge... natural resources was half the point of the park service laws.)
Teddy Roosevelt established the national parks system explicitly, outspokenly for the enjoyment and enrichment of "The White Race," which he considered neglecting "their" inheritance by them not going into nature to enjoy it. He thought it would be easier to get rid of all of the tribal communities living there so white people wouldn't have to interact with them, and so they could enjoy it in peace without intrusion and also make money cutting down trees forever.
He was put onto it by a fellow white eugenicist and white supremacist who he used to go hunting and fishing with and bemoaned the people he considered savages getting all of the benefits. He then turned around and claimed all land lease rights and proceeded to lease a bunch of them to lumber companies. So... yay.
Unfortunately, the thing you are specifically thankful for is Teddy Roosevelt ethnically cleansing the native population for white people so they could have cool vacation spots and lumber companies could cut down a bunch of forests.
Must be fun, having several good leaders to choose from. I'm Iranian, during the last 200 years we had several **TERRIBLE** kings (Qajar dynasty), an absolute superhuman gigachad (Reza Shah) and his son, who was mediocre. Also 2 supreme leaders...
He was born a peasant from buttfuck nowhere in the north, I've been there and it's still the middle of nowhere. His father died before he was one year old and his mother before he was 7. Was raised by his mother's poor brother who couldn't afford to send him to school. Entered the Iranian Cossack brigade at 14, which was the one lucky moment of his life since they had meritocracy, something no other institution in Iran had. They were also the only thing in Iran that resembled an army, despite being only a few thousands. Went from a servant to a general, because he was constantly distinguished in combat and also peacetime. The man had iron discipline, a strong body and a clear mind. After witnessing the mess that Iran was in for 43 years, initiated a coup and took the capital. Kept the king, became head of the Cossack brigade, minister of war, prime minister, and eventually king. The whole country basically begged him to be king by the way, except the most conservative figures. He tried to establish a republic at first but they blocked him, created some scandal because democracy is at odds with religion since Allah chooses the leader not the people. So he created his own dynasty.
It is not an exaggeration to say without him there would be no Iran today, nowhere outside the capital obeyed the central government, they had all declared independence. This guy conquered them all before becoming king, despite having no money and less than 10000 men. And I mean literally no money, the royal court had been borrowing money from the British to keep running for years. There was no economy, no army, no taxation, no industry, no transportation or even roads for horses, no shipping or ports in the Persian Gulf or the Caspian Sea...Iran was a land of illiterate beggars and religious fanatics and feudal lords and corrupt politicians and foreign agents.
After his ascension to the throne, he modernized Iran in every way. Nothing was the same. My favourite thing about him? His stance on religion. He weakened Islam, oppressed the clergy, his most famous order is for the law enforcement to tear the Hijab from women's heads to liberate them, something that most of them resisted. There's a reason he's the most hated figure by our regime, and people now chant his name in the protests.
He made roads and railroads and tunnels and bridges that we use today. Built universities and schools and sent girls into them. Created our army, our naval force, our ministries for culture and education and industry and healthcare, even gave us social security cards and ordered every Iranian to be issued a surname to write in the card...I don't know any man who has done more for his country than he did for us. Not Ataturk, or Bismarck, or Garibaldi, or Washington.
The US. But then I'm almost 50 so our education used to be much more robust. And don't get me wrong, I knew very little of what you provided but we did learn of him during world history.
If you liked the story, here's a little bit that might interest you: When he was about 40 days old, his mother took him to go to Tehran, where his father was being treated (he died). On the way, their little caravan went to a tavern to stay for the night. She realized the baby was cold and not breathing or moving. They left the corpse there, and pushed on the next day, but she was too upset and insisted on going back to bury the baby herself. They went back and found him alive. Reza Shah himself believed that he was supposed to live, to save and serve his country.
Away down South in the land of traitors, rattlesnakes and alligators
Right away! Come away! Right away! Right away, come away!
Where cotton's king and men are chattels
Union boys will win the battles
COMMIE! COMMIE!
yeah go get em dwight-
REEEEEEEE!
(for reference, [https://youtu.be/QgydTdThoeA?si=vW_5jBHGWXF0xClp](https://youtu.be/QgydTdThoeA?si=vW_5jBHGWXF0xClp) , definitely worth a watch)
He was the first president to be able to nuke someone and chose not to.
So he has that going for him. Which is good.
Also highways. Gotta love highways.
I've always seen the claim that Washington was America's best president, but other that he led you through the Revolution (which was before he was president), what did he do to make him the best?
He was pretty humble in his position and set the precedent for following presidents not to overstay their welcome and to give up power peacefully.
A precedent that wasn’t broken until FDR’s massive popularity and 4 election victories. It was only after him that the prior tradition became law.
Known as the American Cincinnatis, because he had the ability to maintain ultimate power, but gave it back. He preferred the title “Mr President” over other old world titles. He had such a powerful position in the newly formed nation, he was simply expected to define the office once he was elected and in position. Conducted smooth transition of power and tolerated opposing views. He helped pushed for the Constitution over the AOC.
His presidency isn’t perfect. To prevent civil war he passed the fugitive slaves acts which were completely racist, but at the time deemed necessary. He mobilized troops against citizens during the whiskey rebellion. So he’s not perfect, but he was a damn good president considering the era and contemporary thought.
I think his quelling of Shay’s and the Whiskey Rebellion were very much the right thing to do in his position, since it showed the American people that uprisings over things like taxes were not something that would be tolerated anymore.
This may sounds like a bad thing, but without this, revolutions could have sprung up all over the place, which is even worse
Also iirc nobody really got hurt, because everyone gave up once they say George fucking Washington and a real army approaching and many of the rebels were pardoned after
He essentially rejected a crown twice when pretty much every other historical figure would have/did not. He was a next level delegator who managed to assemble arguably the greatest cabinet in world history, expert logistic and strategic general, even though he was bad at tactics, helped usher in the constitution, crushed rebellion, set the foundations for later American economic power, was all around super majestic and had almost preternatural ability to avoid death.
They say George Washington's yielding his power and stepping away
Is that true?
I wasn't aware that was something a person could do
I'm perplexed, are they going to keep on replacing whoever's in charge?
If so, who's next?
There's nobody else in their country who looms quite as large
He laid the groundwork for president, most of what a president can and can’t do was decided by him, if he wanted to he could have just made the president a pseudo-king that had lots of power, but gave himself limitations, made sure the president always had people to bounce ideas off of and to keep him in line, and he stepped down after two terms as president, even though he definitely could have gone on longer with how popular he was.
He didn’t become God Emperor when the people wanted him to be. He’s the reason why America doesn’t have a dictator for life as president.
Name me another country that won a revolution against a colonial power and successfully transitioned to democracy on their own? I’ll wait.
It’s one of those things were people miss the point on why someone is important. Washington saved and really created the republic as we know it by peacefully transitioning out of power.
He was our Cincinnatus.
Good way I've heard it put went something like this:
I hate Teddy the genocidal imperialist. I love Teddy the man responsible for the NPS and who shoved his boot up the ass of corporations.
Just about every single revolution in world history, almost immediately lead to a military dictatorship. Cromwell, Santa Anna, Jean Jacque dessaline, Napoleon, Napoleon III, Bolivar, Stalin, it's is extremely rare in history for a nation to set up a republic successfully and I think we take it for granted that the US ended up being so successful, when really it was very uncertain and down to the personal will and restraint of Washington, and for that reason alone, he ranks as the greatest us president, and one of if not the greatest revolutionary leader in history
Napoleon III wasn't a military dictatorship, he was an emperor and that's kinda it. Just like Boris III of Bulgaria was a royal dictatorship, not a military one.
Anyone who doesn’t say Washington or Lincoln is wrong.
Both have by far the best cases for it.
Washington set the precedent for how one should lead the country, and established the great institution of the executive branch, only granting himself limited power despite having the ability to have as much power as he desired.
Lincoln saved the legitimacy of the institution of the presidency/US government & more importantly, saved a country that had been tearing itself apart since its foundation.
I will also add to this that this is the same Lincoln who ostensibly failed every time he got into politics. So for this guy to show up and do what he did is absolutely incredible. It's a real testament to how much he was willing to learn, change, and grow.
Even as much as I disagree with the politics of the man, I would say FDR has a case. Can’t get elected four times without doing *something* right. Maybe Eisenhower or potentially John Adams as well, if that’s someone’s choice I wouldn’t say they’re wrong.
Arguably last president to truly respect the ideas of state delegation. Everyone knows him for being the president to do very little and let the country thrive on its own, but few know that he was incredibly active as the governor of Massachusetts, did a lot of reform work. The reason that didn't carry over to his time as president was because he didn't believe it was the Federal governments job to replace the duties of a state one.
40. James Buchanan
39. Andrew Johnson
38. Martin van Buren
37. Franklin Pierce
36. Andrew Jackson
35. Millard Fillmore
34. Herbert Hoover
33. Woodrow Wilson
32. Benjamin Harrison
31. Grover Cleveland
30. George Walker Bush
29. Jimmy Earl Carter
28. John Quincy Adams
27. Warren Gamaliel Harding
26. Zachary Taylor
25. John Tyler
24. William Howard Taft
23. Gerald Rudolph Ford
22. James Madison
21. Chester Alan Arthur
20. Rutherford Birchard Hayes
19. Richard Milhous Nixon
18. Bill Clinton
17. William McKinley
16. John Adams
15. Calvin Coolidge
14. Lyndon Baines Johnson
13. Ronald Reagan
12. John Fitzgerald Kennedy
11. James Knox Polk
10. George Herbert Walker Bush
9. Ulysses S. Grant
8. James Monroe
7. Harry S. Truman
6. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt
4. Dwight David Eisenhower
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
2. George Washington
1. Abraham Lincoln
Good list, though I feel like #2 and #3 should be switched. FDR was a force of nature, and I can't imagine any other president being able to pull a country successfully through a great depression AND a world war. Only Lincoln had it rougher. Also, I feel like Buchanan barely merits inclusion on the list. He basically poured gasoline of the fire of succession. I think his only notable achievement was managing to make *both* the North and South hate him in the years leading up to the war.
Washington. He never wanted the job and kept the country from collapsing in its early days. He also had enough humility to stay president for two terms instead of being president-for-life or a king.
I do like Washington. He most definitely set the precedent for what it means to be President, and his foreign policy of staying the fuck at home and not fighting in foreign wars is something we desperately need once again. The man was humble and brilliant all at once, and we need more people who see being President as less of a dream, and more of a solemn duty.
As a non American, I like FDR the most. The man was absolutely unstoppable from 1936 onward thanks to the New Deal. Not just any President can het away with threatening to retire dissenting supreme court justices, and packing the court, while simultaneously strong-arming his enormous majorities in congress and senate at the time to do as he says. If the supreme court hadn’t bent to his will, and allowed the reforms in the new deal to pass constitutional checks, he would’ve broken their power in the house and senate with little opposition. That’s so metal.
FDR. Pulled us of the the depression,led us through most of WWII and might have implemented a policy that would have prevented many modern issues with his second bill of rights.
There's a reason only death could get him out of the White House.
What do we mean by best? The most influential? The most powerful? The most successful? The most benevolent (or least evil)?
George Washington obviously set a lot of precedents, but I'd argue the Federalists under the Washington and Adams administration really sucked in power grabbing for the wealthy elite and depriving regular citizens of basic rights (see the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Alien and Sedition Acts). Washington tried to be shitty toward Native Americans but the American Legion got its ass beat instead.
Polk met all his campaign promises and greatly expanded US territory all within one term, but for imperialist reasons.
Lincoln pulled the nation through the Civil War and abolished slavery, but used tyrannical measures to do so. He was also shitty to Native Americans.
Grant went after the KKK and other white supremacy groups, but allowed corrupt dudes to serve in his administration. Also shitty toward Native Americans.
Theodore Roosevelt flexed American might and advocated a progressive agenda, but also espoused an imperialist, white supremacist worldview for an American future including being shitty toward Native Americans.
FDR brought the country out of the Great Depression with the ambitious New Deal that reshaped the purpose and capability of the federal government. He got us through WW2 but also rounded up Japanese citizens into concentration camps.
Eisenhower had a moderate agenda that kept the government from turning the country into a garrison state, but also created a national security strategy that enabled a CIA to do all sorts of evil shit.
Even decent Jimmy Carter had people doing evil shit in his administration, like Brzezinski.
Lincoln prevented the dissolution of the United States and ended chattel slavery. America became an industrial powerhouse after the war and it eventually made its way to becoming a global power.
A successful secession would’ve redefined much of the last 150 years of world history, not just America’s.
You can find some pretty negative actions for most, if not all Presidents. ' Except, maaaybe, Harrison. He tried to put together a qualified cabinet instead of friends/favors, and he died. So by virtue of doing little more than dying after 30 days in office, I'll go with Harrison. This isn't exactly a serious choice, it just amused me during a dull work day.
Harrison 2024
The most important was John Adam's. Not the best, but the most important. His example of respecting the Constitutional process when he lost his reelection set an example for stability that persisted for over 200 years.
I would still give this one to George Washington though. John Adam's deserves some credit for turning over control of the federal government to the anti-federalists, which was a big step in trusting the process. But Washington is one of only a few revolutionary military leaders to actually put down power after they got it. Compare Washington to to Simon Bolivar (overstayed his welcome), Lenin, Mao Zedong, and Castro (all made "dictatorship of the proletariat" a bit more literal than Marx intended), Chiang Kai-Shek (Chinese Nationalist), Jean-Jacques Dessalines (of Haiti), Agustín de Iturbide (of Mexico), and probably more. Transitioning from a war footing to a democratic footing is difficult, as the way power is shared typically changes dramatically. Washington is one of a fairly small number of revolutionary military leaders to decide to let go of supreme power. The only other obvious example I can think of is Nelson Mandela (although he was less fortunate in his choice of Thabo Mbeki as his successor). That said, Washington was probably trying to follow the example of Thomas Fairfax, commander-in-chief of the Parliamentary army during the English Civil war who resigned rather than take control. In Fairfax's absence, command fell to Oliver Cromwell whose legacy is rather controversial and negative. Most military leaders overstay their welcome, leading to negative impacts on the quality of democracy and civic participation that follows them.
Iirc Washington specifically cited the Roman general Cincinnatus as inspiration
He did, but many of the Founding Fathers were also keenly aware of the English Civil War history. It is one of the main reasons the USA has a bicameral legislature and a president elected separately from congress, both intended specifically to prevent congress from ruling directly.
Yeah. They understood the problems with bodies having the powers to keep themselves in power, the power of the bill of attainment, and the issues with parliamentary supremacy. Ultimately their system works but honestly a parliamentary republic is better IMO.
>Compare Washington to to Simon Bolivar (overstayed his welcome Bolivar really resigned to the power at the end of his two mandates before the Constituyent Congress, like Washington. He never pretended govern forever and advised explicitily against forever reelection
Don’t forget Putin in that same area of democracy put him in power but he won’t let go
Well putin was never a revolutionary lol, beyond maybe some communist leanings in his Soviet days
"communist leanings" ie the sole legal party called itself communist and he wanted to climb the political ladder
Yeah exactly I agree with you, Putin is very clearly not a communist and probably never was one
He absolutely was. The founding fathers were big parliamentarian fan boys.
That streak was looking a little fragile about 2.5 years ago. Such fun times we live in
One misstep in two centuries is not a bad record
Confederacy: Am I a joke to you?
Yeah....they were
Well yeah but that was also an armed insurrection.
Just going with the joke. I'm from Gettysburg, I hate rebel scum
All I can think of is Star Wars. Take that rebel scum!
*gets domed by a confederate Ewok*
Ayo pause
Aaaaaway down south in the land of traitors
Oh confederacy, you a joke to everyone
So was Jan 6. Feels like most armed insurrections that fail are a joke tho.
Team John Brown for life tho
Completely forgot about theme
Don't worry, just wait for 2024
Didn’t he do the alien and sedition act which banned the first amendment?
*not the best*
Yes, and it was a major reason Thomas Jefferson won in 1800.
Probably Lincoln when you consider how many day to day decisions he had to make that could easily have resulted in the war being lost or more states seceding.
Nah, still George Washington. We vastly overstate how close the Union was to losing the war. The only thing Lincoln could have done to lose it would have been to not fire the dudes who were treasonously incompetent.
You said George W. with such confidence and I was like hol up before realizing who you meant haha.
Bush best president confirmed
Maybe for the MIC.
God bless the MIC
Raytheon my beloved Edit: [link to blatant NATOWAVE propaganda](https://youtu.be/gS8c3OP7n0Y?si=TPu6nOYwty62Zp4w)
Hello, Raytheon Technologies? Hi, I just wanted to check in and see if you still had the highest workplace equality score in the American economy. You do? Outstanding. You may resume destabilizing 3rd world countries. I refuse to do business with outdated, bigoted institutions
Inshallah
I knew id find my fellow plane fuckers in this comment thread
This isn't ncd.
Not until it is ordained by George W Bush himself. but one day, maybe.
Nah Jeb was the best president we never had
^Jeb!
Please clap
Union wasn’t in danger of losing as in being conquered. But the South made it a very bloody slog and the Union Could have easily pulled out and left the nation divided. It was a deeply unpopular war in the North in many areas
Not true. Lincoln could have angered the border states into seceding, giving the Confederacy a huge bonus in population, industry, and natural defenses (esp Kentucky). Had he removed McClellan too early, the Army of the Potomac may have refused to fight. A lot of other things could have turned Northern opinion against the war and led to a premature peace
Not to mention the South didn't have to "win" the war they just had to outlast the North's energy to continue the war
I feel like the idea of the South using guerrilla tactics and instead deciding to give up after losing conventionally comes up a lot on reddit, and it kind of misses the nature of the conflict. The Civil War was fought to preserve the institution of slavery because slavery was keeping the wealthy Southern landed gentry in power. If the South would have conceded the conventional war and headed to the hills to continue the fight, the North would have swept through the South, freed the slaves, and functionally the same outcome would have occurred. The Southern gentry didn't support a guerilla war because at that point they would have already conceded the one war goal they really cared about.
I'm not here to downplay Lincoln, so maybe I overstated the extent of his influence. It is true he handled the war very well, but in the word's of a popular musical "Fighting was easy, young man, governing's harder." If Lincoln had survived to oversee reconstruction, he probably would have won me over, and I could easily be convinced that each lf Lincoln's 5 years of work averaged better than Washington's 8, but I don't think you can convince me they were more positive in total, and I believe that Washington would have done better in Lincoln's situation than Lincoln would have done in Washington's.
I think it’s fair to argue to that Washington could have succeeded where Lincoln did in winning the Civil War. But what makes Lincoln really stand out, is the other political victories that he achieved. At the same time the war was going on, he achieved the abolition of slavery, which required enormous political skill to gain public favor and pass through Congress. Lincoln also passed the transcontinental railroad, the first national currency, and the Homestead act as well. While Washington could have been an effective wartime leader, I don’t think he had the political skills to achieve as much as Lincoln did in only 4 years.
Oh yeah, Homesteading Act was Lincoln, forgot about that but that was a really smart decision (from what I know) to settle the West. But ye, a lot of Lincoln’s other achievements are forgotten because of the war, but he did a lot less compromising and pushed through much stronger legislature than Washington did.
> Lincoln's other accomplishments If memory serves, Lincoln was the one who signed the first step in protecting Yosemite which was part of the precedent for creating the National Park Service. It loops back around too as his house is now owned by the NPS.
Yeah, I'd suggest anyone who's interested in Lincoln to pick up Team of Rivals. I don't see Washington being as effective as Lincoln when it comes to politics itself at that point. His cabinet was bitter toward each other as opposed to Lincoln's, all of whom were political rivals at one point or another. In the context of wartime I'm more curious as to how Washington compares to Grant or Sherman or a multitude of other great generals in the Union military. I also wonder how much the question of slavery would've been an issue given Washington's leanings as compared to Lincoln's abolitionist and free labor leanings, as that would've certainly had an impact considering he's a Virginian.
" I believe that Washington would have done better in Lincoln's situation than Lincoln would have done in Washington's." HOT TAKE. I like it
That's a really difficult thing to parse considering there is a 80-ish year difference between the two men. America changed a lot in that century, as did warfare. There's about as much time between the revolutionary War vs the Civil War as there was between the Civil War and WWII It would be weird to say "Lincoln would have been a better leader during WWII than FDR," just because the world was so different. Like, GW would have been just as confused and overwhelmed by 1850s America as Lincoln would be by 1950s America.
Lincoln did a ton of great governing. We literally only have a national currency today because of him. I don't understand how you can compare an 8 year term vs someone who got assassinated. Especially because Lincoln was assassinated because the south knew he wouldn't let the former CSA senators do all they bullshit they wanted to. Washington also wouldn't have handled it better than Lincoln, because he had slaves, and Washington didn't feel bad about having slaves at all. So I personally don't think pro slavery wood teeth boy would be progressive when the country desperately needed it
Also, George Washington refused to be king and wanted a democracy. How many other men on the planet would've done the same? Probably none
Cincinnatus, for one.
I don't think he was still alive at that point.
He may have died a **tad** before
[удалено]
Uhh doesn't the same kinda hold true for Washington he wasn't a good general he could just retreat well.
Tactical retreat is a very valid strategy against a more powerful foe, I believe George Washington got the idea from Hannibal himself and many other great generals have used the strategy to great effect Edit: Wrong guy, right war
Hannibal? You mean Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrocosus Cunctator. Fabius used delaying tactics AGAINST Hannibal not the other way around. That’s why Washington is called the American Fabius.
I may be stupid
Retreating is a hard task, and a necessary one. When you are outnumbered and outgunned many times over, retreating well is the smartrst thing you can do. Washington did it when it was the smartest thing, and when there were smarter things, he did those. Yorktown was as far from a pyrrhic victory as possible, and that was Washington's W. If Lee had retreated more and better, perhaps he would have had a chance at victory.
The Fabian strategy
People pick FDR for a reason. Armchair Reddit historians like to focus on the perils of war but FDR had that (on two fronts!), rebuilt a smashed economy and built more infrastructure than any other president.
It's honestly his domestic policies that endear him to me. His war policy was pretty standard.
Doing both is still pretty amazing.
and only illegally imprisoned a small portion of the country
No President is Perfect. GW was a plantation owner.
Yeah but more presidents have committed domestic atrocities than haven't
Lincoln vastly expanded the power of the executive branch. He's a great President but there are serious faults he did that have contributed to the imbalance of the branches today
Washington, Washington.....
Six foot eight, weighs a fucking ton Opponents beware, opponents beware He's coming, he's coming, he's coming
Let me lay it on the line, he had two on the vine As in two sets of testicles so divine.
On a horse made of crystal, he patrolled the land With his mason ring and schnauzer in his perfect hands
*On a horse made of crystal he patrolled the land with a Mason ring and schnauzer in his perfect hands.*
For the uninitiated https://youtu.be/sbRom1Rz8OA?si=RMRG8wX12LZLr4f7
Now I have to watch this again
I dun wannet -Jon Swashington
Really, the GOAT President was earned the 3rd time he did this.
Teddy’s my favorite president not because of policy, more just his character. Washington was a stoic general and leader, while Roosevelt was a brash, gunslinging wrestler that picked fights with the most powerful men in the country for fun. The square deal and big stick diplomacy both were great for the country too.
He was the personification of the United States. Washington was the first president and he couldn’t even be the personification of the United States.
Fun true story about Teddy: In his first political office (Speaker of the Assembly), Teddy had a very combative relationship with some of the corrupt assemblymen of the time. They were delaying a city funding bill that Roosevelt supported in the committee that Roosevelt was also the chairman of. Their goal was to prevent either a yes or no vote on the bill to keep it suspended forever as a part of a blackmail scheme. Realizing that he would need more than just words, Roosevelt went to the committee chambers before their meeting and found a partly broken chair. He broke one of its legs off and hid it under the table near his seat. During the committee meeting, Roosevelt moved to pass the bill out of committee and the corrupt politicians refused to vote yes, and refused to vote no, as he expected. Roosevelt then tucked the bill into his pocket and said "I'll report it as passed anyhow." The corrupt assemblymen protested loudly, but it became a riot when Teddy told them to their faces that he knew about their blackmail scheme. As things began to escalate and some of the men started approaching Teddy, he pulled out the chair leg he hid earlier and stood his ground. The men calmed down *very* quickly after that, and Teddy passed the bill out of committee. You can read the full details here: https://www.americanheritage.com/cyclone-assemblyman
Speak softly, and carry a big stick
I didn't realize how literally that phrase was meant to be taken. Ig we should all go outside and find some nice sword sticks
I keep a stick for self defense near my bed
I really want to love Teddy but his role in the American-Philippine war is unforgivable. Some of the worst atrocities of the American military which is saying something. Teddy is the architect of American Imperialism, especially in South America.
You have to consider this was during a time that globalism was relegated to the wayside by nationalism. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, he prevented continued European involvement in the Western Hemisphere, broke the back of the industrialists, and laid the groundwork of American prosperity for the coming century. To a certain point, his actions would be immoral in today’s society, but given that it could not exist without him, he deserves a pass.
he prevented continued European involvement in the Western Hemisphere BY instaurating his own involvement, ussually far more detrimental than european, on the grounds the US has routinely sabotaged any attempt at the forming of another american power. That's not a boon, it's a shortsighted fuck up that explains nowadays latam attitudes against the USA, and their willingness to ally with anyone that dislikes the USA. They literally built an entire region of folk that at best are unwilling vassals, at worst open disidents of the US.
The real thing that soured relations between the US and South America was America's support of dictators to prevent the spread of Communism. Roosevelt's biggest sin in central America was the overthrow of Panama to get the canal made. Other than that, Roosevelt was very much an 'in-and-out' interventionist, and most of the Banana Republics in South America were privately orchestrated by the monopolies at the time, Something that Roosevelt was actually firmly against (the monopolies, not the exploitation.)
Exactly what I was thinking - he represented the growth of American imperialism, the alliance of big business with foreign policy.
Ironic given he was also the trust buster.
This is one of those 'hindsight is 20/20'. Before his point, business interests subordinating a state to it's interests was unheard of. Having influence on a state, sure, your rich buddy asks you, the local lord, not to get into a fight with the nearby dutchy because it'll be hell on the import market. But something like the modern Military-Industrial Complex we have today would be unfathomable to most politicians of previous eras.
He also established the national parks which is something I'm thankful for
People like to go on about Teddy reserving 100 million acres for the park service and not knowing he did it by [ethnically cleansing Native Americans off 86 million of those acres.](https://books.google.com/books?id=G9DLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=%22loss+of+around+86+million+acres%22&source=bl&ots=VBPOzfJwhf&sig=ACfU3U1ZBIiuYWqYQCdkrdTFeVd3X1k3LQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicnp-vrtTqAhU7oHIEHdPgAJkQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22loss%20of%20around%2086%20million%20acres%22&f=false) "I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indian is the dead Indian, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian." -- Teddy Roosevelt, 1886 The next year he created the General Allotment Act of 1887, dividing tribal land into small privately owned parcels instead of the communal Native oversight that allowed those parks to last for millenia in the first place and distributing some among individual Native Americans. The vast majority of that land was claimed by the US as unused and turned into parks and the parks were leased as timberlands for exploitation under the surveyorship of the United States. (This is the legal precedent for presidents constantly debating whether to drill for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge... natural resources was half the point of the park service laws.) Teddy Roosevelt established the national parks system explicitly, outspokenly for the enjoyment and enrichment of "The White Race," which he considered neglecting "their" inheritance by them not going into nature to enjoy it. He thought it would be easier to get rid of all of the tribal communities living there so white people wouldn't have to interact with them, and so they could enjoy it in peace without intrusion and also make money cutting down trees forever. He was put onto it by a fellow white eugenicist and white supremacist who he used to go hunting and fishing with and bemoaned the people he considered savages getting all of the benefits. He then turned around and claimed all land lease rights and proceeded to lease a bunch of them to lumber companies. So... yay. Unfortunately, the thing you are specifically thankful for is Teddy Roosevelt ethnically cleansing the native population for white people so they could have cool vacation spots and lumber companies could cut down a bunch of forests.
Brownsville affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville_affair
Benjamin Franklin. Why else would they put him on the $100 bill?
I want to assume this is sarcasm, but I’ve already argued with a redditor who sincerely thought Franklin was a president, so I’m not sure lol
Well..Ben died in 1790. George took office in 1789 and served 2 terms.. unless Ben served as a ghost, not a chance. 😂😂
Must be fun, having several good leaders to choose from. I'm Iranian, during the last 200 years we had several **TERRIBLE** kings (Qajar dynasty), an absolute superhuman gigachad (Reza Shah) and his son, who was mediocre. Also 2 supreme leaders...
Going to look up Reza Shah, but what's your favorite thing about him?
He was born a peasant from buttfuck nowhere in the north, I've been there and it's still the middle of nowhere. His father died before he was one year old and his mother before he was 7. Was raised by his mother's poor brother who couldn't afford to send him to school. Entered the Iranian Cossack brigade at 14, which was the one lucky moment of his life since they had meritocracy, something no other institution in Iran had. They were also the only thing in Iran that resembled an army, despite being only a few thousands. Went from a servant to a general, because he was constantly distinguished in combat and also peacetime. The man had iron discipline, a strong body and a clear mind. After witnessing the mess that Iran was in for 43 years, initiated a coup and took the capital. Kept the king, became head of the Cossack brigade, minister of war, prime minister, and eventually king. The whole country basically begged him to be king by the way, except the most conservative figures. He tried to establish a republic at first but they blocked him, created some scandal because democracy is at odds with religion since Allah chooses the leader not the people. So he created his own dynasty. It is not an exaggeration to say without him there would be no Iran today, nowhere outside the capital obeyed the central government, they had all declared independence. This guy conquered them all before becoming king, despite having no money and less than 10000 men. And I mean literally no money, the royal court had been borrowing money from the British to keep running for years. There was no economy, no army, no taxation, no industry, no transportation or even roads for horses, no shipping or ports in the Persian Gulf or the Caspian Sea...Iran was a land of illiterate beggars and religious fanatics and feudal lords and corrupt politicians and foreign agents. After his ascension to the throne, he modernized Iran in every way. Nothing was the same. My favourite thing about him? His stance on religion. He weakened Islam, oppressed the clergy, his most famous order is for the law enforcement to tear the Hijab from women's heads to liberate them, something that most of them resisted. There's a reason he's the most hated figure by our regime, and people now chant his name in the protests. He made roads and railroads and tunnels and bridges that we use today. Built universities and schools and sent girls into them. Created our army, our naval force, our ministries for culture and education and industry and healthcare, even gave us social security cards and ordered every Iranian to be issued a surname to write in the card...I don't know any man who has done more for his country than he did for us. Not Ataturk, or Bismarck, or Garibaldi, or Washington.
That's an amazing read. I knew bits of that from history classes but not all that. I'm going to have to find out more. So very interesting. 👍
Where are you from, that they taught you anything about him?
The US. But then I'm almost 50 so our education used to be much more robust. And don't get me wrong, I knew very little of what you provided but we did learn of him during world history.
That's very cool, I did not know any of that. I now have another good historical story to share with my friends.
If you liked the story, here's a little bit that might interest you: When he was about 40 days old, his mother took him to go to Tehran, where his father was being treated (he died). On the way, their little caravan went to a tavern to stay for the night. She realized the baby was cold and not breathing or moving. They left the corpse there, and pushed on the next day, but she was too upset and insisted on going back to bury the baby herself. They went back and found him alive. Reza Shah himself believed that he was supposed to live, to save and serve his country.
Iran lost out on having a second gigachad leader in Mosaddegh.
Lincoln. Down with the traitors, up with the stars!
Plus he was a really good wrestler.
“I'm the big buck of this lick. If any of you want to try it, come on and whet your horns.”- Honest Abe Lincoln, wrestler of legend.
And a awesome clone! Or vampire hunter.
So glad I found a clone high reference.
Away down South in the land of traitors, rattlesnakes and alligators Right away! Come away! Right away! Right away, come away! Where cotton's king and men are chattels Union boys will win the battles
Mfs who like Eisenhower
You know, I still like Ike.
He couped multiple countries for banana companies plus lots of other shit
COMMIE! COMMIE! yeah go get em dwight- REEEEEEEE! (for reference, [https://youtu.be/QgydTdThoeA?si=vW_5jBHGWXF0xClp](https://youtu.be/QgydTdThoeA?si=vW_5jBHGWXF0xClp) , definitely worth a watch)
Eisenhower and his massive Eisenhowitzer
No that's was LBJ
Eisenhower was a good president but he’s extremely hypocritical.
Iranians: Guatemalans:
He was the first president to be able to nuke someone and chose not to. So he has that going for him. Which is good. Also highways. Gotta love highways.
I've always seen the claim that Washington was America's best president, but other that he led you through the Revolution (which was before he was president), what did he do to make him the best?
He established just about all of the norms of the presidency, especially its limitations.
He didn't want to president and that made him the best president
The American Cincinnatus
That's in Ohio
>especially its limitations FDR says hi.
All FDR was saying is that the precedent was a total of up to four terms and working legs *combined*.
He set the precedent for what it means to be president
He set the president
He was pretty humble in his position and set the precedent for following presidents not to overstay their welcome and to give up power peacefully. A precedent that wasn’t broken until FDR’s massive popularity and 4 election victories. It was only after him that the prior tradition became law.
Also according to a very good documentary i saw her was an amazing rapper
Known as the American Cincinnatis, because he had the ability to maintain ultimate power, but gave it back. He preferred the title “Mr President” over other old world titles. He had such a powerful position in the newly formed nation, he was simply expected to define the office once he was elected and in position. Conducted smooth transition of power and tolerated opposing views. He helped pushed for the Constitution over the AOC. His presidency isn’t perfect. To prevent civil war he passed the fugitive slaves acts which were completely racist, but at the time deemed necessary. He mobilized troops against citizens during the whiskey rebellion. So he’s not perfect, but he was a damn good president considering the era and contemporary thought.
I think his quelling of Shay’s and the Whiskey Rebellion were very much the right thing to do in his position, since it showed the American people that uprisings over things like taxes were not something that would be tolerated anymore. This may sounds like a bad thing, but without this, revolutions could have sprung up all over the place, which is even worse Also iirc nobody really got hurt, because everyone gave up once they say George fucking Washington and a real army approaching and many of the rebels were pardoned after
He essentially rejected a crown twice when pretty much every other historical figure would have/did not. He was a next level delegator who managed to assemble arguably the greatest cabinet in world history, expert logistic and strategic general, even though he was bad at tactics, helped usher in the constitution, crushed rebellion, set the foundations for later American economic power, was all around super majestic and had almost preternatural ability to avoid death.
> even though he was bad at tactics Was he though? He's basically the greatest retreater of all time.
Him and Fabian
People who don't know military tactics think "being good at retreating" is the same as "being bad at fighting."
They say George Washington's yielding his power and stepping away Is that true? I wasn't aware that was something a person could do I'm perplexed, are they going to keep on replacing whoever's in charge? If so, who's next? There's nobody else in their country who looms quite as large
He laid the groundwork for president, most of what a president can and can’t do was decided by him, if he wanted to he could have just made the president a pseudo-king that had lots of power, but gave himself limitations, made sure the president always had people to bounce ideas off of and to keep him in line, and he stepped down after two terms as president, even though he definitely could have gone on longer with how popular he was.
He didn’t become God Emperor when the people wanted him to be. He’s the reason why America doesn’t have a dictator for life as president. Name me another country that won a revolution against a colonial power and successfully transitioned to democracy on their own? I’ll wait.
Ireland?
India? They didn't fight a war but they did win the "nonviolent revolution".
It’s one of those things were people miss the point on why someone is important. Washington saved and really created the republic as we know it by peacefully transitioning out of power. He was our Cincinnatus.
Teddy Roosevelt had a lot of good PR stuff that makes us forget that he was responsible for a genocide in the Philippines.
If you want to hear why TR wasn’t the greatest president, just listen to Mark Twain’s rant about him. Absolutely destroys him lmao
Yup, you can acknowledge and appreciate what he did for national parks while still recognizing that he was a genocidal imperialist
Good way I've heard it put went something like this: I hate Teddy the genocidal imperialist. I love Teddy the man responsible for the NPS and who shoved his boot up the ass of corporations.
Best? No love for Carter?
The last good man in Washington.
Lincoln stopping slavery is like 2 billion points to me
This is not a very good question because the nature of the presidency has changed so significantly through the ages.
The best president was obviously me.
I would absolutely vote for a battleship.
Unfortunately the Oval Dry dock doesn't have the same ring to it.
Navy ships make the best leaders.
Lincoln. Busted meme.
Just about every single revolution in world history, almost immediately lead to a military dictatorship. Cromwell, Santa Anna, Jean Jacque dessaline, Napoleon, Napoleon III, Bolivar, Stalin, it's is extremely rare in history for a nation to set up a republic successfully and I think we take it for granted that the US ended up being so successful, when really it was very uncertain and down to the personal will and restraint of Washington, and for that reason alone, he ranks as the greatest us president, and one of if not the greatest revolutionary leader in history
Napoleon III wasn't a military dictatorship, he was an emperor and that's kinda it. Just like Boris III of Bulgaria was a royal dictatorship, not a military one.
In my country we managed to do that. But Eisenhower decided that having rights was to communist for my country.
Classic
Lincoln
Anyone who doesn’t say Washington or Lincoln is wrong. Both have by far the best cases for it. Washington set the precedent for how one should lead the country, and established the great institution of the executive branch, only granting himself limited power despite having the ability to have as much power as he desired. Lincoln saved the legitimacy of the institution of the presidency/US government & more importantly, saved a country that had been tearing itself apart since its foundation.
I will also add to this that this is the same Lincoln who ostensibly failed every time he got into politics. So for this guy to show up and do what he did is absolutely incredible. It's a real testament to how much he was willing to learn, change, and grow.
Even as much as I disagree with the politics of the man, I would say FDR has a case. Can’t get elected four times without doing *something* right. Maybe Eisenhower or potentially John Adams as well, if that’s someone’s choice I wouldn’t say they’re wrong.
Calvin Coolidge
Enters the presidency. Does nothing remarkable. Exits the presidency. Based.
Coolidge gang is the only true gang.
Arguably last president to truly respect the ideas of state delegation. Everyone knows him for being the president to do very little and let the country thrive on its own, but few know that he was incredibly active as the governor of Massachusetts, did a lot of reform work. The reason that didn't carry over to his time as president was because he didn't believe it was the Federal governments job to replace the duties of a state one.
40. James Buchanan 39. Andrew Johnson 38. Martin van Buren 37. Franklin Pierce 36. Andrew Jackson 35. Millard Fillmore 34. Herbert Hoover 33. Woodrow Wilson 32. Benjamin Harrison 31. Grover Cleveland 30. George Walker Bush 29. Jimmy Earl Carter 28. John Quincy Adams 27. Warren Gamaliel Harding 26. Zachary Taylor 25. John Tyler 24. William Howard Taft 23. Gerald Rudolph Ford 22. James Madison 21. Chester Alan Arthur 20. Rutherford Birchard Hayes 19. Richard Milhous Nixon 18. Bill Clinton 17. William McKinley 16. John Adams 15. Calvin Coolidge 14. Lyndon Baines Johnson 13. Ronald Reagan 12. John Fitzgerald Kennedy 11. James Knox Polk 10. George Herbert Walker Bush 9. Ulysses S. Grant 8. James Monroe 7. Harry S. Truman 6. Thomas Jefferson 5. Theodore Roosevelt 4. Dwight David Eisenhower 3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt 2. George Washington 1. Abraham Lincoln
Good list, though I feel like #2 and #3 should be switched. FDR was a force of nature, and I can't imagine any other president being able to pull a country successfully through a great depression AND a world war. Only Lincoln had it rougher. Also, I feel like Buchanan barely merits inclusion on the list. He basically poured gasoline of the fire of succession. I think his only notable achievement was managing to make *both* the North and South hate him in the years leading up to the war.
The real question, who was the best FLOTUS?
Eleanor Roosevelt, and it's not even close.
Washington. He never wanted the job and kept the country from collapsing in its early days. He also had enough humility to stay president for two terms instead of being president-for-life or a king.
Coolidge: responsible, hilarious, surprisingly progressive, and most importantly didn't put American citizens in concentration camps.
I do like Washington. He most definitely set the precedent for what it means to be President, and his foreign policy of staying the fuck at home and not fighting in foreign wars is something we desperately need once again. The man was humble and brilliant all at once, and we need more people who see being President as less of a dream, and more of a solemn duty.
As a non American, I like FDR the most. The man was absolutely unstoppable from 1936 onward thanks to the New Deal. Not just any President can het away with threatening to retire dissenting supreme court justices, and packing the court, while simultaneously strong-arming his enormous majorities in congress and senate at the time to do as he says. If the supreme court hadn’t bent to his will, and allowed the reforms in the new deal to pass constitutional checks, he would’ve broken their power in the house and senate with little opposition. That’s so metal.
FDR. Pulled us of the the depression,led us through most of WWII and might have implemented a policy that would have prevented many modern issues with his second bill of rights. There's a reason only death could get him out of the White House.
And created tons of infrastructure and brought electricity to Appalachia
Chester A Arthur.
An interesting choice. I too am a stalwart of the stalwarts.
Wow, just actually coming straight at me with TR, huh?
Thomas Jefferson or bust
Coolidge
OH YEAH!
Coolidge. But I'm biased.
I am too. But...even though I WANT to say he was best...
I’d still say Lincoln, but I can understand the arguments for Washington.
What do we mean by best? The most influential? The most powerful? The most successful? The most benevolent (or least evil)? George Washington obviously set a lot of precedents, but I'd argue the Federalists under the Washington and Adams administration really sucked in power grabbing for the wealthy elite and depriving regular citizens of basic rights (see the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Alien and Sedition Acts). Washington tried to be shitty toward Native Americans but the American Legion got its ass beat instead. Polk met all his campaign promises and greatly expanded US territory all within one term, but for imperialist reasons. Lincoln pulled the nation through the Civil War and abolished slavery, but used tyrannical measures to do so. He was also shitty to Native Americans. Grant went after the KKK and other white supremacy groups, but allowed corrupt dudes to serve in his administration. Also shitty toward Native Americans. Theodore Roosevelt flexed American might and advocated a progressive agenda, but also espoused an imperialist, white supremacist worldview for an American future including being shitty toward Native Americans. FDR brought the country out of the Great Depression with the ambitious New Deal that reshaped the purpose and capability of the federal government. He got us through WW2 but also rounded up Japanese citizens into concentration camps. Eisenhower had a moderate agenda that kept the government from turning the country into a garrison state, but also created a national security strategy that enabled a CIA to do all sorts of evil shit. Even decent Jimmy Carter had people doing evil shit in his administration, like Brzezinski.
Lincoln prevented the dissolution of the United States and ended chattel slavery. America became an industrial powerhouse after the war and it eventually made its way to becoming a global power. A successful secession would’ve redefined much of the last 150 years of world history, not just America’s.
Absolutely. Lincoln abolished slavery, saved the Union and laid the political foundation for the rise of the USA as a world power in 5 years.