1. George Washington - all that he did to keep the army together as well as not accepting the kingship that was offered. 2. Lincoln have to be tops.

Honest abe- freed slaves. Enough said.

Honorable mention; JFK, FDR, Washington.
Dishonorable mention; Nixon, Carter

Yes, almost bill Clinton. I liked him lol

When considered as great men, Jefferson is way up there, but not necessarily as President (not that he was a particularly bad President). Jefferson specified that only the following should be placed on his tombstone:

Here was buried Thomas Jefferson

• Author of the Declaration of American Independence and of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom
• Father of the University of Virginia

No mention that he served 8 years as President of the United States.

I think he was a not-good President. Louisiana Purchase was a plus overall I suppose, but the Embargo was a disaster, and he massively undermined the banking and military capabilities of the United States. Madison continued these policies and led the country into the very ill-advised War of 1812, after which the Republicans (Jeffersonian Republicans, not Lincoln Republicans) learned that Hamilton wasn't a crazy dude plotting tyranny with his Federalist program.

Jefferson is one of my favorite and most fascinating figures of the 1700s and early 1800s. But not a particularly good President. Hell, in his own memoirs, he listed his authorship of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and his founding of the University of Virginia (which was meant to be a beacon of knowledge in South, contrasted against the "party school" William and Mary, as it was perceived at the time) as the things he was most proud of, not his tenure as President.

Andrew Jackson has to be one of the most overrated Presidents of all time, and is potentially in the bottom quintile on the list IMO. Indian Removal, abuse of patronage, the destruction of the nation's financial system, support for slaveowners and slave catchers... not a list many can be proud of. About the only thing good I can associate with Jackson is his call to abolish the Electoral College... but he didn't even get it done!

I think Jefferson was much better president than you claim, although not great president (but definitely great in other ways). Blaming him for the War of 1812 is ridiculous. Yes the embargo was unpopular, but Jefferson did that instead of declaring war on England, and tried to avoid war the best he could. There was no real choice for Madison to go to war with in 1812 since England was attacking US merchant ships and impounding US sailors at sea.

Didn't I just say that in my previous post? Jefferson specified exactly what was on his tombstone, and no mention of being President. But that doesn't mean he was a bad President, but he just didn't think ceremonial power or titles were all that important.

I will definitely agree with you about Jackson. One of the worst US Presidents. He illegally forced Indians to be moved to the West, and then when the Indians appealed to the Supreme Court and won, Jackson said "John Marshall [US Supreme Court Chief Justice] has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" Any President who failed to enforce a Supreme Court ruling in modern times would have been summarily impeached.

No, I wasn't blaming him for the War of 1812, but I can see how that could be read. What I mean is that his policy decisions were poor, and Madison continued those poor decisions. He then led the US into war when it wasn't prepared

Eh, debatable. There was still decent room for diplomacy, and the US had been on decent terms with Britain before 1800, but the diplomatic option was partly derailed by War Hawk Congressmen in the West (who were convinced of British collusion with Indians in lands they coveted), and by large Irish immigrant contingencies in Baltimore and New York who were major Republican constituents. The US might have been driven to war anyway, but that was a war of choice, and they chose a really bad time to declare it. Had the US not fought the war and still continued the ill-advised Embargo, the situation likely would have resolved itself after Waterloo anyway, since the Napoleonic Wars were the primary reason for the Embargo anyway.

Madison/the US certainly had a casus belli with Britain, but just because one is justified in going to war doesn't always mean it's wise to exercise the option.

Yes, obviously the War of 1812 was caused by the war between England and France (Napoleon) and the desire of the US to remain neutral in that conflict. But the British actions against US merchant ships was clearly a blatant act of war (which included impressing thousands of US sailors into the British Navy) and there was no way that the US could continually ignore that.

I don't understand why you are blaming Jefferson for any of this. According to this site, Jefferson tried to improve the US miliary readiness, but Congress did not go along:

"President Jefferson realized the gravity of the growing tensions with Britain and wanted to take preparatory measures. He developed a plan of defense to bolster the American forces, which included reorganizing state militias and building 74-gun ships. Congress was however, only mildly interested in supporting Jefferson's proposals." http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/people/jefferson.html

War was declared against Britain during the Madison administration and not during Jefferson's term.

hands down FDR, its not even close

An unprecedented four terms of turning a country on the brink of disaster into the worlds most powerful economic and military force. During his term unemployment dropped to 2%. It was b/c of FDR and his military leaders decisions before and during WW2 that the USA was able to secure themselves as the worlds greatest power in arguably the most important time in world history

I think if you do some objective research, you will find that the economic woes and unemployment problem remained during his first two terms in office until WWII started. Citing unemployment numbers during WWII is absurd since the entire country was mobilized in the war effort (nothing like happens today when the US is at war).

Of course I easily could find some negative economic and even military policies of FDR just like any past president . I think if you weigh his successful new deal programs and ability to choose excellent military leaders with his minor flaws you will find he was our most important president.

Bottom line with FDR were his numbers tho. The 2% unemployment was the lowest in the USA's history. Russia's entire country was also mobilized for war yet they turned into a mess after WW2. FDR was smart to choose Eisenhower as GOA who kept the USA out of the Battle of Berlin and away from the Euro theater of war until Normandy. These choices alone are enough to warrant FDR as a top 3 president. At least in terms of turning the USA into the worlds greatest power, not to mention saving millions of American and British troops

I have not argued that Jefferson declared war. Reread what I said.

At a considerably lower rate, but yes to an extent.

FDR and Lincoln have to be considered the top 2 IMO because of the depth of the problems they faced and the political skill they exhibited in solving them.

I already explained to you that unemployment under FDR only decreased as the US started ramping up for WWII with massive military spending. Here are the numbers by year (using two different methods (Lebergott and Darby) available at the time):

The New Deal programs had little effect on unemployment. Comparing Russia with the US is ridiculous, since Russia was invaded by Germany and suffered 20 million deaths in WWII (not a typo) and many millions of injured. Since they were a communist economy that also explains their inability to transition from a war time to peace time economy.

If you want to argue that FDR was a great leader and president because of WWII, that is much more solid ground to stand on, but please don't tell us that he lowered unemployment to 2% because of his New Deal (or other) policies.

However, one must also consider that FDR interned Japanese American citizens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes...can_internment) and tried to subvert the US Constitution by packing the US Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-packing). In addition, there are some who think FDR deliberately provoked Japan in to attacking Peal Harbor.

I read what you said. I still don't understand how one can criticize Jefferson for the War of 1812 (unless you happen to be a British Citizen). If you are not criticizing Jefferson regarding War of 1812, then why is it mentioned with regard to whether Jefferson was a good president?

There are some legitimate criticisms of Jefferson, especially dealing with the spread of slavery into the new territories during his administration. However, please remember that no president is a dictator, and the president cannot act unilaterally.

Aside from cutting it in half you mean?

FDR did not decrease unemployment to 2% prior to ramping up for WWII. In 1938, after 6 years in office, unemployment rose to 19.0%, up from 14.3% in the prior year. I am not blaming FDR for the Great Depression, but to say he lowered unemployment to 2% is absurd.

As far as the New Deal, it did have some impact on unemployment, but most of the improvements in unemployment were due to other reasons. That is not an argument for or against the New Deal, just a matter of what really happened.

[emphasis mine]

When I look at the statistics you provided, I see a steady reduction in unemployment throughout FDR's first term in office. Are you suggesting the US started ramping up for WWII in 1933? FDR actually cut military spending during his first term of office.

I see a reduction in unemployment in seven of the eight years of his first two terms, a net reduction of unemployment over those two terms of more than 50% and a decrease in rate in that time span of over 12 points. How many US presidents can claim a better record?

All of that was before US entry into the war. Arguably the effects of military spending on unemployment rates only began to be signifcant in 1940. So if it wasn't military spending that was primarily responsible for drops in unemployment for 6 of the first eight years, and, as you say "The New Deal programs had little effect", are we to presume that the significant drops in unemployment were due to the then-prevailing favourable economic circumstances that FDR was fortunate to inherit?

When an event like the stock market crash on 1929 occurs, an then the Great Depression with unemployment in excess of 20% it is not surprising that unemployment slowly reduces over a number of years for no particular reason. It was still very high by 1937 (14.3%) and increased significantly in 1938 to 19.0%. Do you blame that on FDR? The fact is that the president does not have as much influence as most people think on the economy. But even if you do think FDR has a lot of influence, it took WWII to end the depression, even if things were slowly getting better.

I already admitted that the New Deal had some (but minimal) impact on unemployment. But I was responding to the claim that FDR reduced unemployment to 2%. That is what I was objecting to. And any unbiased historian knows it was WWII that led to the reductions on unemployment to 2% levels, and also reductions a few years before that in the military build-up prior to the US entry into the war.

The US began significant military buildup prior their entry in WWII, partially to support Great Britain, but also for internal reasons.

Regarding the reduction in unemployment in years prior to that, anytime you have a significant economic event like the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the beginning of the Great Depression, things just work themselves out over a number of years without the government doing anything. In the case of FDR, the New Deal has some effect, but not very much.

Much more important than the New Deal was regulation of banks and investment firms so that the events of the stock Market Crash of 1929 would not occur again and that confidence in the US economic system could be restored. These things included the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 to separated consumer banking from investment banking, creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to insure bank accounts, SEC increase of margin requirements, etc.

You can give FDR his fare share of credit for the above changes in legislation (although the President can only sign legislation passed by Congress). But to give FDR credit for reducing unemployment to 2% is absurd and what I was objecting to.

So what happens when you compare the employment performance of countries that had programs like the New Deal with those that didn't? The impression I have is that in most cases the countries with positive programs like the New Deal outperformed those countries that didn't address the issue. IDK how we can tell what proportion of the increase in employment in the US was due to government programs and how much was due to this natural progrssion you refer to. If we cannot quantify this attribution, then we cannot validly make statements like "The New Deal programs had little effect on unemployment."

The statements of yours that I reponded to were: "unemployment under FDR only decreased as the US started ramping up for WWII." followed by "The New Deal programs had little effect on unemployment". This despite the fact that the statistics you provided show the rate being cut by 1/3 (Lebergott) to 1/2 (Darby) during a time of decreased military spending but with many of the elements of the New Deal in place.

I don't think there was a claim that the New Deal reduced unemployment to 2%. The observation was made that unemployment was reduced to 2% during FDR's time in office, which is correct. Of course the elimination of the last 7% of unemployment is directly tied to WWII, but the first 14% or so wasn't. Furthermore, the build-up in US military spending which really began in 1939 (2.5 years before US entry into the war), and started significantly affecting unemployment in 1940 (1.5 years before the war), was driven by FDR and his administraton, contrary to prevailing public opinion and the resistance of congress. FDR deserves credit for the US rearming as fast as it did, and even more so for its initial ramp-up in spending which significantly benefitted Britain's war effort. So even though it wasn't the New Deal per se that led to the last 7% (Darby) or so of reduction, it was FDR's policy leadership, which verged on the illegal, that led to the timing of about 5% of the last 7% (Darby) drop. Really only the last 2-3% of the drop in unemloyment occurs as a direct result of actually being at war. If FDR hadn't started the ramp-up early, the inevitable war would have eventually resulted in attainment of similar employment levels, but most of the war-spending-related employment growth was achieved earlier than the formal entry of the US into the war because of FDR's policy leadership.

I don't understand what you are referring to in this fragment.

I'll agree with the argument that a portion of the unemployment drop was just things naturally working themselves out. FDR's policies were obviously not the only factors influencing the unemployment rate. However, I don't see you supporting your repeated claim that his efforts were insignificant.

I agree with you that unemployment being reduced to 2% at some time was due to the war. As long as the war occurred and involved the US, the rate would have eventually fallen to about this level. That the vast majority of the war-related reduction took place as far before the war as it did is directly attributable to FDR.

Wait, he wasn't?

I am not opposed to the New Deal. But it did not reduce unemployment significantly, I don't care what you say because it is just not historically accurate. The New Deal did help some, but there are other far more important reasons why it was a good idea, and as I mentioned the other regulatory things that were done regarding the financial system were far more important.

The gradual decrease in unemployment after the Great Depression reached it zenith was the result of the passage of time, just like any other economic downturn. It was a worldwide depression, and was not so easy to fix. But if you want to give FDR credit after 6 years in office for reducing unemployment from 24.9% down to 19.0% in 1938 (right before the WWII build up), then fine, you may do so.

Here are some excerpts from a history website:

Was the New Deal a success?

Whether the New Deal was a success or not, depends on the definition of success. Did the New Deal eliminate unemployment and turn America around? No. Did the New Deal eliminate poverty? No. It would be easy to run off questions such as these with an economic bent and come up with the answer no. However, an analysis of whether the New Deal was a success or failure requires a larger scope of questioning than simply looking at economic statistics.

The historian William Leuchtenburg believed that only World War Two got America out of the Depression. Arthur Schlesinger claims that the New Deal only got the wheels of industry turning but no more. Economists who attacked the New Deal claimed that all the acts introduced by the New Deal were short-term policies and that there was no long term planning for America's future. In one sense, they felt, that those who had come to rely on the New Deal were being conned as all the evidence pointed to the fact that at some time in the near future, they were likely to be made unemployed once again - after all, there were only so many trees you could plant and lakes in which to stock fish.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...al_success.htm

If it is not historically accurate, you should be able to cite multiple sources that agree with your position, while there are no significant sources that disagree. I don't say that the New Deal's impact on unemployment was either significant nor insignificant, because I think the isssue is debatable and not concluded. You are the one taking the position, but you aren't backing it up.

Not far more important regarding short-term effects on unemployment, but certainly more important for long-term econonic stability.

Please show the work that supports the bolded conclusion. I also want to give him partial credit for it going to 9.9 in '36 from 20.6 in '33, and down to 8.0 before the US entered the war. And partial responsibility for the rise in '38.

I don't think your excerpts present a fair summary of the article. My reading of the article is that it says, "On the one hand ...., but on the other hand...," without reaching a definitive conclusion. Just like my position. It outlines objections to the effectiveness on the part of opponents, but fails to establish that these objections are the consensus view.

I think we can both agree that the worldwide econonic situation had an impact on US unemployment rates, and that FDR's policies had an impact. I can even conceive that policies would have less impact in some circumstances than other economic factors. However, I haven't seen enough evidence to support the conclusion that only one of the two was signficiant. I'm not going so far as to suggest your statement is wrong. Merely that it has not been established as correct. My feeling is that FDR's policies had more impact on timing of changes than in the eventual levels reached. But for somebody living through the Depression, as my father did (but not in the US), a change in employment levels two years ahead of when laissez-faire policies would have achieved a similar result, is still a signficant impact.

The economy has cycles that rarely have anything to do with presidential actions. When a major event like the Great Depression happens (right before FDR), then eventually the problems usually work themselves out without any action. But in this case, the actions to restore confidence in the financial system (FDIC, higher margin requirements of stock purchases, Glass-Stegal Act, etc) had a big effect, much, much more than the New Deal. That doesn't mean that the New Deal was not worthwhile, but highly over-rated by most historians.

The ramp up to WWII (partly to help Britain) happened several years before the US actually entered the war, and that is unemployment went down before 1941. It may be distasteful to think that the economy only recovered when millions of people were killed in war, but that is often what happens. The real miracle is that there was not runaway inflation after WWII due to massive US borrowing during the war, or conversely that there was not another depression once the peace was obtained (probably because the Cold War and Korean War followed on shortly after WWII).

Dangerous and faulty economic assumption here. "Taking no action" is indeed a type of action, one that can have disastrous consequences, as in the case of the international community and the economic crisis in Europe broadly, and the Weimar Republic specifically. Belief in the "business cycle" is built into many economic models, but it's hardly settled science, and taking no action has a set of risks all its own. It's largely neoliberal ideology rather than mainstream economic thought that maintains that the market is inherently self-correcting.

Those things were all part of the New Deal. Overrated how? Salvaging capitalism at a time when worldwide faith in liberal democracy was fading rapidly was a pretty big deal. It's difficult to overstate how much pull alternative modernities like fascism and communism had in the 1930s.

The second-worst economic downturn in the last 100 years clearly had something to do with presidential action - deregulation by Clinton for instance. Compare for instance the soundness of the Canadian banking system (Named most solid national banking system in the world by the World Economic Forum in each fo the last five years) and the lack of a housing price collapse in Canada. The Canadian economy is highly dependant on the US economy, but government policy in Canada has protected Canadians from many of the extreme effects felt in the US.

Arguably the Great Depresson was exascerbated (if not caused) in the US by the failure of governments to have enacted things like "FDIC, higher margin requirements of stock purchases, Glass-Stegal Act, etc." before the crash.

But with a lot of damage until they are worked out. The major effect of the New Deal measures was to change the timing of the working out so many of those most negatively affected were not affected for as long as they would have been if FDR had not intervened.

Nobody is arguing that natural economic cycles or FDR's other measures had no effect. What I am taking issue with is that you continue to claim that the New Deal measures were of negligible impact, without supporting your case. All you do is say that other things had an impact. Of course they did. But the reality of the New Deal's impact is not negated by whatever impact these othr measure had any more than the impact of the other measures is negated by the New Deal. I'm not even trying to make a case that the New Deal measures were as important as the passage of time or the other policy initiatives. I'm just saying you shouldn't claim the New Deal was of little impact if you can't provide something to support your statement.

Maybe in the past. Current historians and economists seem to be almost evenly split on the issue of the effectiveness of New Deal Measures. Some argue that some of the New Deal measures made things worse. You are taking a position on a matter on which there appears to be no consensus. Unlike the economists and historians who take a postion on one side or the other of the debate, you provide no backup for your position.

The sources I recently read all seem to agree that the spending ramp-up began in 1939, therefore the follow-on effects on employment would be seen in 1940. In 1939, unemployment had declined to 11.3% from 20.6% in 1933, according to Darby. So roughly half the eventual decline from the peak was clearly not due to military spending. Furthermore, there is no reason to conclude that all the reduction to 4.2% in 1942 was due soley to military spending. Policies and economic circumstances that were effective at reducing unemployment in FDR's first and second terms didn't just go away.

While the fact that unemployment bottomed out at 1.2% is clearly due to the war, it is probably unreasonable to atttribute more than about 5% or 6% of the total drop of 19.4% to the war.

That depends on what you mean by "the economy recovered". By many measures, the economy was well on the way to recovery before the ramp-up in military spending. A number of indicators had reached the average from the 1920's, (though not the peak numbers of 1928).

A Keynesian would not think it a miracle, and would think the relative robustness of the post-war economy was perfectly understandable and predictable.