Though Washington probably could have launched a bid for absolute power with considerable support (especially from the conservative wing of the Federalist Party), this is largely a popular myth, in part cobbled together from later sources trying to make Washington into a sort of latter-day Augustus. Much of the populace was indifferent to his Presidency, many Jeffersonians opposed him, and Washington was reviled in large sections of the poor, rural West (where events like Shays' and the Whiskey uprisings had taken place).

This is History, not Politics.

Anything passed Bill Clinton is too close for the history forum. Speaking of Bill, i think he should rank pretty high. Maybe im too much in favor of balanced budget and economics, but i always considered very highly due to his economics policy.

Lincoln gets no.1 by default for me, i say default because his presidency is unlike any other and the circumstances are very strange. Anyhow, he did very well. He gets my no.1

FDR for sure can't be no.1. I can't consider the US being a ''prosperous nation out of the depression'' by 1939. Things had slightly improved but it seems too small for ''The greatest us president''. In ww2, yes he did well(appointing Nimitz in charge of pacific = brilliant) but i think it's more due to the army then roosevelt himself. I ain't saying he's bad, it's just not the top guy.

The founding fathers are always a tough question because the circumstances of washington,John Adams,TJ,Madison and Monroe are so different from what the later guys have, it's hard to judge, and they all seem to have good records with one or two big mistakes. Washington policy mistakes, JAdams nearly got in war with france for silly reasons, TJ was doing so well until the embargo..., madison 1812 and the second bank, monroe 1819 depression...

Lincoln here then, takes no.1 by default.

1.Lincoln
2.Clinton
3.TJ but he could be lower due to his silly embargo.
4.Washington. The whole ''could have became king but didn't'' is just making him Cincinnatus and boosting washington's aura.
5.Polk

Boy isn't this thread a dog's breakfast. It's almost impossible to answer the question at hand objectively because we'll all be guilty of politically spinning our choice one way or another. I find it impossible to pick anyone other than FDR personally. But to be honest it would be useless to re-list all the reasons why if fundamentally there are people who disagree that he alone pulled us out of the Great Depression and guided us through World War II. Lincoln may have ended slavery but surely that was inevitable anyway. The fate of slavery was determined on the battlefield, not in the Emancipation Proclamation. If the South had won, that piece of paper would have meant dick. Also with respect to slavery, we were well behind the times. It would have happened naturally anyway. Additionally, I personally refuse to hastily lionize the Founding fathers as is so popularly the case as I see them as largely self-serving traitorous and in many respects hypocritical aristocrats. I have a very hard time determining what is romanticized propaganda (Chopping down Cherry Trees, "I can not tell a lie", "no taxation without representation", "Give me liberty or give me death" etc) and what is fact so I can't vote for many of the early presidents.

The clear answer must be FDR.

It's an interesting post because what bar must be reached in order for a president to achieve greatness? What issues of our time will prove to be defining moments like the abolition of slavery, or the signing of the Constitution? One might point to 9/11. But these topics are so politically charged nowadays that it's almost impossible to make that distinction objectively. All you have to do is mention the name Clinton and you're liable to be rebutted with "Lewinsky". Answer Bush, and people will say "Weapons of mass destruction. The farther back in history you go, the less scrutiny the presidents had to deal with. The Lewinskies, the Read my Lips, no new taxes... all of it is less likely to be recorded by history. We only hear of the monumental **** ups like the Teapot Dome Scandal and Credit Mobilier.

Anyways, impossible to answer.

Cliffs: Lincoln overrated since slavery's end was "inevitable". FDR super-awesome because only he alone could end the Great Depression. Random hating on "Founding Fathers".

Your typical fourth-rate college US History instructor would be proud.

That's all cute and everything, but I must have missed where you offered up your own enlightened version of how things went down. Afterall, I said in my last post that it's impossible really to make this kind of objective decision without one's own political ideology polluting the decision making process.

For me, I am a proud socialist at heart. If there were ever a case study demonstrating how prudent socialism can work, FDR's administration would be it. So I admit that my decision is somewhat biased. It's always going to be when you ask someone to, in essence, pick a favorite.

So did you plan on contributing to the thread yourself or were you just gonna do the easy thing and just criticize everyone else's views?

Umm, this thread started before your post, you know.

I need some money...can I have some of yours?

Lincoln is consistently rated highly by many histories but I am a bit confused as to why. Lincoln said if he could have avoided the war without freeing slaves, he would have. This seems to suggest that keeping the southern states of part of the Union was of greater importance than freeing the slaves (In fact the Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves in states still loyal to the Union). He also greatly increased executive power far outside of the limits set forth in the Constitution, through actions like the suspension of habeas corpus.

Of course winning the Civil War which led to the freeing of slaves is obviously a great thing, but he also happened to be the one in power when the Civil War actually broke out. But it seems if any other man had been president and won that war then he would have been hailed as the greatest president of all time instead of Lincoln. Also, from all I remember, Union casualties far outnumbered Confederate casualties despite the North having an overwhelming advantage in technology and manpower. If anything I would think Lincoln did a poor job of managing the war/selecting the right generals. Feel I have to be missing something though.

George Washington.

I have a special appreciation for the ability of this man today for a couple of reasons. Look at the warnings he gave us in his farewell address. Hang on to your isolationism. Beware the power of political parties. That was more than 200 years ago, and rings more true than ever today.

Washington was the glue that held this young country together when it otherwise might have collapsed. There was a true sense of togetherness under Washington that started falling apart exactly the day he died. Before too long after that, the country had split into a fierce partisan divide that only went to show how much the country relied on his leadership.

Abe Lincoln was the best and its not even close... just ask Bill O Reilly

The north took the position originally that it was not trying free the slaves. Lincoln was elected without appearing on the ballot in most southern states on a platform of not extending slavery, free land in in the west (presumably for poor farmers not slave owners), protectionism (bad for southern agricultural exporter and manufacturing importers, and internal improvement (good for northern business). The deep south was not willing to accept this. There was a booming cotton and slavery based economy there. However, slavery would not have been immediately threatened if the south had not seceeded or agreed to a compromise solution before the war or early in the war.

Lincoln's quote implies freeing the slaves was done for military purposes and helped him win the war. This was probably true in that it disrupted the southern economy, allowed the north to recruit freed slaves as soldiers, and made it harder politically for foreign powers to help the Confederacy.

The north went through a series of incompetent generals in the eastern area. Also, the southeners were generally experienced markmen, horsemen, and so on. Lincoln did manage the conduct of the war very effectively though.

I have to take you to task on this, while I agree that some of the blame can be put on LBJ we can never have this conversation without mentioning the real culprits....McNamara and Westmoreland.

Actually, TR came back because he believed that Taft had betrayed him.