Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic The Presidents of the United States ranked by historians

I found this list , where historians rank all American Presidents from George Washington to George W. Bush. Washington, America's first President, is the second best U.S. President ever, according to that list. Abraham Lincoln, unsurprisingly, is voted number one, the best ever.



Number 43 George W. Bush is not number 43 on the list, which only features 42 names anyway. (Why? Oh, but wasn't there a President who died so soon after his inauguration that maybe the historians decided not to include him?) The man at number 42 is James Buchanan. Poor guy.



But if George W. Bush is not number 42, he is pretty far down on the list anyway.

Bill Clinton at number 15 has moved ahead six places since the last ranking in 2000, and John F. Kennedy has advanced from number 8 to number 6. Ronald Reagan at number 10 has squeezed into the top ten list by moving ahead slightly, and George H.W. Bush at number 18 and even Gerald Ford at number 22 have also advanced. But Jimmy Carter at number 25 has slipped three places, and Richard Nixon has slipped from 25 to 27.

How meaningful or interesting is a list like this? Well, clearly the list does not represent the 'truth' about the overall performances of the Presidents of the United States. It represents the opinions of a number of historians, whose agenda, if they have one, is one I don't know.

But I thought it was interesting all the same.

Ann

Could the -1 be because Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms? He was 22 and 24.

The quick-dying president was William Henry Harrison who died after only a month in office. He is on the list but I think his rating must have been based on potential.

And whatever each of us may think about our most recent president Bush, we are still too close for this particular ranking to have any real meaning.

Bob

In August 1864 if the list of the top 16 presidents were released, one month before Abraham Lincoln was re-elected, Lincoln would have placed #16 on that list.

In early August of 1864, President Lincoln was despised by many who were tired of three bloody years of war with over 300,000 dead on the Union side and another 250,000 on the Confederate side. Lincoln, himself, knew he was headed towards a major electoral defeat. The Democrats hated him and ran George B. McClellan, Lincoln's nemesis who was twice chosen as commander of the Army of the Potomac by Lincoln and twice removed by Lincoln. They considered Lincoln to be a tyrant, who singlehandedly revoked habeas corpus, illegally raised an income tax, and even expelled a Democratic Congressman, Clement Vallandingham, to Canada for disagreeing with him. Lincoln was the dictator who didn't respect the rights of the American people, spying on them and holding secret trials of his enemies.

The Republicans wanted someone else who could bring a quick end to the war, regardless of the result. The South simply couldn't be conquered with an intractable foe who out-thought the Northern leaders every step of the way despite having far inferior numbers and resources. After all, Lincoln had appointed a long line of failed commanders who were novices next to Robert E. Lee, hero of the Confederacy. Even his current chosen leader, General Ulysses S. Grant, had failed to dislodge Lee from Petersburg, losing 60,000 troops in a single month, including 12,000 alone in 15 minutes during a frontal charge at Cold Harbor. Union soldiers were so demoralized that they pinned their names onto their uniforms so they could be identified after they had died. One soldier's diary was even recovered at Cold Harbor where the last entry written that day was, "Today, I was killed."

Lincoln was a failed president, destined to go down in history as the worst president in American history.

Does any of this sound at all familiar? Any feelings of déja vu?

So what changed for Lincoln? In September of 1864, General William Tecumseh Sherman took Atlanta, the first major break in the stalemate that had cost tens of thousands of lives that summer. The unexpected victory suddenly gave hope to the North that the war could actually be won. The surge in Union forces, composed of three armies, the Armies of the Ohio, the Cumberland, and the Tennessee, soundly defeated Confederate General John Bell Hood and forced him into retreat. Lincoln, propelled by a huge turnout by Union soldiers themselves, won re-election handily, this despite his own party having turned against him and demanding he end the war at all costs, believing victory to be impossible just a month before.

A few months later, Grant's army finally starved out Lee's Army of Northern Virginia and forced him to abandon Petersburg and Richmond. The end was near. After a chase, federal cavalry finally boxed in Lee's army at Appomattox Courthouse, where Lee finally surrendered, for the most part ending the Civil War.

For winning the war and freeing three million people in bondage, Lincoln has catapulted to the top of the list. But ironically at the time, Lincoln would have ranked right at the bottom. History has a way of taking perspective after a few decades after seeing the long-term effects of a president's policies.

Decades from now, Jimmy Carter will continue to plummet as his policies led from disaster to disaster, from Iran to Afghanistan to the misery index. Reagan's will continue to rise even though he was also despised by half the country when he left office, his major contribution being the toppling of the Soviet empire. Bill Clinton will also head downwards as his presidency will be seen as entirely irrelevant, having done nothing in his eight years in office but allow the seeds of al Qaeda to grow through his inaction. If you believe I'm being partisan about Clinton, so be it. But only eight years removed from his tenure, can anyone here name even one noteworthy thing he did in his entire eight years in office to even be considered on the list? I can. He passed welfare reform, which has promptly been undone by Obama's stimulus package.

With George W. Bush having effectively freed 50 million people in two countries and having defeated al Qaeda in Iraq and prevented terrorist attacks in this nation, we will see where he stands a few decades from now. I have a feeling that, like Lincoln, he will be moving upwards on the list considerably. I agree that we are far too close to the now former president to judge him, historically, without the prism of partisan politics.

I agree that it is far too early to really judge George W. Bush's impact as a President, but I think you are also far too quick to dismiss Bill Clinton, Roger. Yes, I agree that those historians are nothing more than a bunch of people having an opinion - a somewhat more informed opinon than the average Joe, but just an opinion, nevertheless. Still, I think it's worth pointing out that those historians like Clinton better now than they did eight years ago, and they rate his international dealings higher than they did in 2000. In the category 'International relations' Clinton is at number 16, well above average for an American President, and five places higher than eight years ago.

Ronald Reagan is at number 8 on this particular list, George H.W. Bush is at number 9 and Richard Nixon is at number 11. All well-deserved, because these three Presidents performed admirably when it comes to international relations, if you ask me. I agree that Reagan, Bush Senior and Nixon all out-performed Bill Clinton in this particular category.

George W. Bush, however, is number 41 on this list, with only William Henry Harrison, the President who almost wasn't there, behind him. Yes, I agree that future generations may take a completely different view of George W. Bush. But for all we know, their appreciation of Bill Clinton may continue to grow, too.

Ann

Let me say a few more words about George W. Bush. He invested so much of his energy and efforts into the Iraq war. If Iraq turns into a long-term success story, and it still might, then future generations may think highly, maybe even very highly, of George W. Bush's international relations. (Please note, however, that if the situation in Iraq permanently stabilizes while the overall situation in the Middle East keeps deteriorating, then future generations may say that Bush spent billions of dollars and a few thousand American lives solving the wrong problem.)

What about George W. Bush's handling of the American economy? The economy took an extremely sharp downturn on Bush's watch. During Clinton's presidency the economy soared. The historians rate Clinton as the third best President ever when it comes to economic management, whereas they place George W. Bush at number three from the bottom of the list.

Yes, future generations may look at George Bush's international relations so much more favorably than many people do today. But in my opinion, there is little chance that future generations will ever give George W. Bush's economic management a passing grade.

Ann

I like what you said, Roger. I agree that we are too close (in time) to the presidency of George W. Bush. I think history will find him to be a better president than what he is now felt to be.

After taking a quick peek at the list, it seemed to me that those at the top of the list are the most well-known presidents. So I have to wonder if the historians who voted on this had that in mind.

I'm actually surprised that George Washington was 3 (2000) and 2 (2009) on the list. Yes, he was the father of the country, but I have to wonder about a man who wouldn't shake hands with people. Now this was in the days where the idea of germs was unknown (or pretty much unknown) so he wasn't doing this to avoid germs - he thought he was 'too good' to shake hands with people.

I'm also surprised that Andrew Jackson was rated 13th since he was responsible for one of the worst things to happen in American history - The Trail of Tears. With my Cherokee heritage, I have always had bad feelings towards this man even though he died many, many years before I was born.

Martin Van Buren made the list at 31 and 30. At least he was low on the list, but should he be even lower? He put out an extermination order on an entire religious group. And what kind of person orders the lawful murder of so many people?

And what about JFK? Should he be so high on the list? Is he there because of the so called Kennedy dynasty? Is he there because he was assassinated? Yes, he was a popular president and he was handsome. He also almost threw the world into nuclear devastation. It could also be argued that he saved the world from nuclear devastation.

Oh, I'm sure I could say more because I'm a bit of a presidential history buff, but I really should be in bed.

Oh, and I see Ann has posted since I started my post. I think we might be too close in time really judge Bill Clinton's presidency either.

And we also need to remember that the US president is not a king. Sometimes the things that happen during a president's administration should more be blamed on the Senate and the House of Representatives than on the President. The judicial, legislative, and executive branches of the US government are considered (at least in theory) to have equal power. I rather think that the judicial branch has gained too much power.

Wow. We were not required to learn more than a handful of the American Presidents here in Swedish schools, but at least I recognize all the names of all the Presidents, even if I know next to nothing (or frankly, nothing) about many of them. That is to say, I recognize all the names but one! You have had a president named Martin Van Buren??? I had absolutely no idea!

Ann

Yes, we had a president named Martin Van Buren. And he had red hair, but it looks like it had turned white or gray in this pic.

The following is my thoughts on various parts of the list, being somewhat of an amateur historian.

It is funny to see where presidents end up ranking historically. Lincoln, Truman, and JFK were considered failures at the times they were in office. Truman had even been written off in the 1948 elections as having lost to Governor Dewey.

JFK was losing his re-election bid, forced to fly to Dallas to save Texas for the Democrats despite having native son Lyndon Johnson on the ballot with him. That trip, of course, was his last as he was killed in Dallas. JFK was the original conservative supply-sider, successfully reducing the top tax rate from 92% to 70%. But he's also responsible for the Bay of Pigs and US entry into Vietnam, though on the plus side of his ledger is the Cuban Missile Crisis. i expect as more time passes, JFK's ranking will drop as his assassination plus this nation's fascination with Camelot will fade eventually.

Frankly, I'm surprised to see Bush 41 rated as high as he is, placing 18'th on the list. He was considered a failure, having presided over the "worst economy of the last 50 years." He did free Kuwait, for which he earns most of his consideration.

I have observed, that with the singular exception of the Great Depression, economics really plays no role in a president's historical standing. Economies come and go despite presidents, usually, and history reflects that. No matter your opinion on Bush 43's handling of the economy, in thirty years, nobody's going to care, so it won't even play a role.

Ironically, the Great Depression somehow enhanced Roosevelt's standing, despite having enacted policies that historians now consider to have lengthened and deepened the Depression. I will give him top marks for his political handling of the Allied powers up until US entry into WWII and for his handling of the war itself. Without the Great Depression, I would have ranked FDR #3. With it, I would place him close to the middle of the pack as far too many of his negative economic policies are still with us today.

Note that Calvin Coolidge presided over the Roaring 20's, one of the biggest periods of prosperity this country has ever seen. Yet despite that, he is ranked #26, which goes to show how little economics usually matters.

Eisenhower was eighth on the list, again a major surprise. Eisenhower was personally popular, having been a hero during WWII, but was a disaster for his own party, presiding over some of the biggest Republican losses in electoral history. Personally, I liked Ike but his presidency wasn't much to note. His, like Bill Clinton's, was primarily a do-nothing presidency.

Another huge surprise is Lyndon Johnson, widely considered incompetent for having badly botched the Vietnam War and leaving office in disgrace. I suppose the Great Society is responsible for some of his popularity, but the GS is now widely considered a $6 trillion failure, having done nothing to actually solve poverty.

Woodrow Wilson is another surprise at #9. While he did preside over victory in WWI, he was primarily responsible for botching the aftermath of the war. Extreme punitive measures against the Axis powers, and Germany in particular, plus his weakening of US and international resolve led to disarmament on the part of the Allies and the rise of Adolf Hitler. If he had acted differently, perhaps 50 million people wouldn't have died in WWII.

John Adams, I think, should rate much higher as he successfully avoided a war with France that his country could ill afford at the time, still recovering from the American Revolution.

I would have placed Thomas Jefferson as #3 overall on this list, much of it for his foreign policy in his handling of the Barbary pirates and the Louisiana Purchase.

Though I'm a great fan of US Grant, placing him 23'rd on the list is a travesty. His was an administration wracked with scandal, though he himself was untouched by it personally. The scandals made him ineffective, leaving Grant to say about himself that he wasn't up to the job.

I do have to agree with the assessments of Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan. Buchanan did nothing to bring the country together when it was on the verge of civil war, leaving all the heavy lifting to his successor, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln's successor was arguably worse in the aftermath of the Civil War, with the only accomplishment of his term being the purchase of Alaska from Russia.

I would place Rutherford B. Hayes right there alongside Johnson and Buchanan. He was a man who had lost in the popular vote to Samuel Tildon, but became president in a deal in the House of Representatives where the Republicans got their man in exchange for the end of Union occupation of the South. Because of that agreement, Hayes was a totally ineffective president.

Classicalla, I agree with you on Andrew Jackson. I think he's rated higher than he should be. His Trail of Tears ranks right up with FDR's internment of Americans with Japanese ancestry, yet that's had no effect on FDR's rating.

As for George Washington, I think he's rated a bit high, too, but not for the reasons you express. Washington, in trying to be too apolitical, left his cabinet officers to fight amongst each other to the detriment of his government. In particular, he left John Adams to fend for himself while Alexander Hamilton battled it out with Thomas Jefferson. As a military leader, he was superb. As a political leader, Washington left a lot to be desired. Even though people would still have voted him king after eight years, there were many corners of America who were happy to see him step down. Washington's popularity, like Eisenhower's, comes entirely from the time before he became president. If I were to use a single term to describe Washington's presidency, it would be "rudderless."

Roger wrote:

I understand your characterization of Washington, Roger, and a president who behaved today as he did then would indeed deserve the appellation. But we have to take into account that Washington was the first president. He had only a very vague framework to guide him in his new job. There was no precedent for him to follow. If he seems ineffective in our lens of hindsight, we must remember that he was the trailblazer.

And he knew it. He was the one who decided that he would be introduced in public as "The President of the United States" without all that exalted and honorable and high-and-mighty claptrap that accompanied introductions of royalty. He was trying to be something no one else had ever been, and he wanted to make sure that he didn't run everything and force his successors to have to do the same thing. If it didn't work out as well as we (or he) would have preferred, it was surely his responsibility but not his fault. The fault lies - at least partly - with the men who allowed partisan politics to overwhelm their patriotism.

And the handshake thing? We have to remember that at that time the handshake was to their society as the Hollywood kiss is to ours. It was a familiar, almost intimate gesture, and Washington was a reserved man. He didn't shake hands with anyone who wasn't close to him. He would take his wife's hand or his children's hands when they met, and perhaps the hand of a few very close friends, but he didn't offer his hand to just anyone, be they pauper or prince. His view was that physical contact such as touching hands lost its "specialness" if given to just anyone. Just as a kiss between two Hollywood people means nothing today, Washington saw the handshake as an intimacy which lost its meaning if repeated too often. It wasn't because he thought himself "better" than other people. Remember also that the formal bow was, at this time, the socially accepted form of greeting between equals. And he rarely, if ever, failed to bow to others when meeting them, especially for the first time.

And I believe, like Roger, that Bill Clinton's presidency will eventually be recognized as one of the lesser times in our history.

Classicalla wrote:

I'm puzzled by a couple of things. The Trail of Tears - the forced ejection of the Cherokee Nation from Georgia to Oklahoma to get them away from the newly discovered Georgia gold deposits - began in 1838, during Martin Van Buren's administration. While Andrew Jackson's antipathy towards native Americans is well documented and his racism is evident to any casual student of his life, I don't understand why he's blamed for this tragic event.

I also don't know what religious group Martin Van Buren ordered to be exterminated. I haven't found any mention of that in the quick looking I've done since I read your post. The closest I've come is a mention of Van Buren refusing to help the Mormons when they were forced out of Missouri in 1839, but I don't think that's what you meant. Can you clarify that for me? I want to know the truth.

I'm surprised GW is listed [and I haven't looked at this particular list but have looked at many like it over the last several years]. Clinton has only been on the lists I've seen in the last 2-3 years. It's too soon to know whether Bush was a good president, a bad one or somewhere in between. We know what we think right now, but let's face it, it's probably based on very incomplete information because we *aren't* privy to everything he was and I really don't think we'd want to be. Barring complete meltdown in the Middle East that is directly traceable to him [as opposed to some other reason - like there's never truly been peace in the region], I think he will rise in the ranks as time gives us perspective, but that's MHO . Bill Clinton wasn't entirely responsible for the economy of the 90s and Bush isn't entirely responsible for the current one [iirc it was Clinton/friends who pushed for the subprime mortgages in the first place but don't quote me on that as I can't readily put my hands on the articles etc]. Presidents aren't kings and have to work with Congress and others to get things done.

As for FDR... Only a year or so after FDR's fourth inauguration and subsequent death, Dems in Congress put forth the 22nd Amendment calling for limits of 2 terms [or 10 years total if one took over for another president]. /shrug/ Read into that what you will... Of course, HR 5 this year calls for the repeal of it, but that's another issue all together .

Carol

Terry,

Andrew Jackson was the one who signed the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and began the process of moving the Indian tribes to what is now Oklahoma. It was a process that took many years, but it was started in 1831 during his presidency. The Cherokee were the last to be removed in 1838.

As for George Washington, I agree with you somewhat. Washington was a trailblazer, setting many of the standards future presidents would follow, such as the two term voluntary limit, the simple title of Mr. President, and the lack of pomp and circumstance normally reserved for royalty. Still, as a manager, which is much of what a president does, he allowed far too much infighting and accumulation of personal power by unelected people under him. It was also under him where the Supreme Court obtained much of its power that it has today, a power not necessarily given to the court by the Constitution. Those issues, to me, knock him down a few notches. I'm not putting him at the bottom of list by any means, but #2 is not where I'd place him. That, of course, is just IMO.

My personal favorite is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Although I'm probably the oldest person to hang around these boards, I'm not old enough to remember Roosevelt in person - I mean really! But when I look at pictures of him, the mere sight of him gives me a good feeling. I feel that I'm looking at a good and dedicated person, the best kind of father figure, the sort of President who will not let his country down. And he will not let other countries down either.



It's interesting that perhaps the only other President I can think of who had this kind of incredible charisma is Ronald Reagan.

Ann

You may have something there. I noticed that most of the presidents rated at the bottom were the ones between Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln and between Grant and Teddy Roosevelt, none of them household names. I'm sure there's a popularity contest of sorts going on with only a portion of the rankings based on actual performance in office.

For instance, Lincoln deserved much of his bottom-dwelling ratings during his years in office. Most don't know that he was a meddler in military affairs, much like Lyndon Johnson was during Vietnam. Lincoln wanted a say in everything, despite the fact that he had never served as a military leader. He was in the Kentucky militia for a while but had no experience leading soldiers. His micromanagement was not very appreciated by his generals. One of the Union's finest generals, General John Reynolds, refused appointment as commander of the Army of the Potomac because of Lincoln's meddling. Unfortunately Reynolds was killed only a few months later as commander of the First Corps at Gettysburg. As army commander and not corps commander, he would not have been at the front, so his loss was a tragedy. As army commander, he may have been the one man who could have beaten Lee consistently. But history will never know.

George Meade eventually did at Gettysburg, but much of it had to do with luck and a brain freeze by Lee when Lee ordered Pickett's Charge towards the Union center on day 3. If Meade hadn't fortuitously sent Gouverneur Warren to unprotected Little Round Top just to see what was happening on his left flank while he himself was busy paying attention to Lee's secondary attack on his right flank, Lee would have destroyed the entire Union Army on the second day of battle. The war would have been lost in 1863. Instead the heroic stand by the 20'th Maine and its commander, Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, saved the day after Warren, without authority, rushed the regiment into battle after seeing the danger.

Lincoln was also responsible for appointing a long line of failures to the command of the Army of the Potomac. Among them was George McClellan who was afraid of his own shadow and wouldn't act unless he outnumbered the Confederates at least 2-1, squandered his advantages in the Peninsula Campaign and at Antietam where a full 40,000 of his soldiers did not even participate because McClellan was afraid that he would be attacked soon by troops that didn't exist. Lee's entire army at the time numbered 35,000. Ambrose Burnside was another horrible appointment, a man widely considered to be among the worst military leaders in world history, having overseen the Union massacre at Fredericksburg and the disastrous mistakes he made at the Battle of the Crater and at Antietam.

On the other hand, Lincoln was a master politician who had an iron will, refusing to back down even in the face of universal opposition. Without his firm grasp, he could easily have folded to pressure and lost the Civil War when the war seemed hopeless at times. For that, he gets put near the front of the line. Of course, if Lincoln had had the press that Bush 43 had today, Lincoln would have been impeached by 1862 for things far more egregious than the far milder Patriot Act or wiretapping or military tribunals people rave about today. Lincoln, unlike Bush, threw his opponents in the press in prison. I find it amusing that the press today somehow compares President Obama with Lincoln when it was Obama's immediate predecessor who had far more in common with President Lincoln than he could ever hope to have. Lincoln was the unpopular dictator who did as he pleased without regards to the opposition, trampled all over the Constitution, and stubbornly refused to listen to people who demanded he end the unpopular war without victory. Yet Lincoln is rated #1. Hmm.

I wonder if those historians read the recent article in Time Magazine naming Clinton as one of the top 25 people responsible for the current state of the economy.

I'd take that with a grain of salt, considering they rated FDR 3'rd and 5'th. It's pretty widely held today that FDR lengthened and deepened the Great Depression and gave us the twin Ponzi scheme time bombs of Social Security and Medicare that will bankrupt our children and grandchildren. Apparently these historians didn't get the memo otherwise FDR would be ranked 41'st or 42'nd, economically, with Herbert Hoover taking up the last slot with that Smoot-Hawley Act.

Roger, thanks for the clarification on Jackson and Van Buren. I went back and did some more research and verified what you wrote, along with learning a few more details. Apparently Van Buren was a party hack who worked for the good of the then-new Democratic Party instead of the good of the nation.

Ann wrote in reference to Franklin Roosevelt:
That's largely why he was reelected in 1936. Despite a number of his social programs going down in flames and a real lack of progress on the international and national financial situation, he looked like a President. He spoke like a President. So people voted him back in as President. It certainly wasn't because he was effective.

When campaigning in 1940, the unemployment rate - which had been around 25% during his first campaign in 1932 - was around 20%. Not much of an improvement. And there was a second sharp contraction of the money supply (meaning, another recession within the Depression) in 1938 which severely damaged the fragile recovery. Most economists today assign the responsibility for that recession to FDR and his policies, along with the responsibility for prolonging the Depression. Hoover, of course, gets the blame for initiating it.

Just because someone looks like a leader, it doesn't mean that person really is a leader. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims and waddles like a duck, it's probably a duck. But it may not be Presidential material. John Dillinger was, by all accounts, a friendly and personable man with classic good looks. But he was a murderer and a thief. Judging someone by his or her appearance is always dangerous.

Here's a thought. If Herbert Hoover had been the one with the charisma, FDR probably would be a footnote in history as the governor of New York who'd had polio. Then we'd have had more opportunities for announcers to call him "Hoobert Heever."

From my historical perspective, I would never have voted for FDR in 1932 or 1936. By 1940, I would have voted for him because of his strong performance on the international front. From Lend-Lease to the creation of the Flying Tigers, FDR had to balance an anti-war public with the risk of having American allies defeated in the war America had not yet joined. China had been invaded in 1931 and had already been fighting for a decade before America joined. With no obligation to Chiang Kai Shek and the Nationalist Chinese, FDR still supported them financially and militarily to the best of his ability.

Long before war was declared in September 1940, the Axis powers were already on the move, conquering most of Europe and the Pacific. The only thing that stood in the way of the collapse of all free nations was FDR. He helped the British to hang on by the skin of their teeth even after France was defeated as the lone outpost in a now hostile Europe until help could arrive in the form of US soldiers. Without the British and the bases from which we flew daytime and nighttime raids against Nazi Germany and from which we launched Operation Overlord, the war in Europe would have been far more difficult, if not unwinnable. The world owes a huge debt to FDR for his foresight and dedication towards preserving freedom.

As for his economic policies, they could hardly have been worse.