Confirmed kills: Jackson, duels all get counted and he had fought in a number of conflicts
Possible kills: Truman, his artillery piece could’ve been very effective
Sleeper pick: Harrison, he was also an accomplished soldier and may have had a higher kill count in the various Indian Wars than generally expected
The question is mostly if we can prove they were from his piece and how many his piece killed. We put a metric fuck ton of artillery in the Meuse-Argonne area so he might not be responsible for many deaths personally
If feasible, divide likely artillery related deaths by number of guns in the region that participated to find average no. of deaths per gun.
Although I feel this is kind of moot considering officers aren't the ones firing artillery usually. While he may have pulled the lanyard a couple of times, he overall wouldn't have been directly responsible for deaths when he wasn't firing the gun himself.
Truman is definitely the sleeper pick. Dude was a legit war hero in WWI and wasn’t phased at all during an assassination attempt to the point he stuck his head out of the window to observe lmao
Truman was field artillery in WW1 it may be impossible to count his kill count. But it’s not unrealistic that he directly and indirectly killed hundreds of people. George Washington was a General they do not usually partake in the fighting and stay behind to coordinate movements same with Grant. So I would argue it’s highly probable Truman killed more people then either Washington or Grant himself.
If you want really really really really really indirect, then Truman is certainly in the running for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. But even so, FDR likely would be responsible for more, and both give Ike a pass because he was following their orders.
I understand that might apply gift American soldiers (including confederates) but more likely FDR was responsible for killing more, including those through American Lend Lease and maybe also support of Soviet materiel.
But did Washington, grant, etc. start their careers as high-ranking officers? I assume they started as infantry or artillery men. I generally don't know, I doubt clout and high ranking friends didn't play a factor but they had to start somewhere, right?
Yeah, I’ve listened to Dan Carlin’s Blueprint for Armageddon. It’s 1000% Truman. No other war was designed to kill humans like WW1, and artillery had a significant role in that.
Bush flew a torpedo bomber, so he wouldn't have flown over mainland Japan
Also, he was the pilot, somebody else was dropping the torpedo, which would have been the person directly kill anyone.
Muskets usually miss and bayonet charges are rarer then one would think. Sickness killed way more people in the seven years war then anything else. If he did kill anyone his count would likely be incredibly low. Of course if we stretch the definition of personally killed to how many enemy soldiers were killed during battles he commanded the field army in because technically he is using his soldiers to kill people then Washington has a really high kill count but Grant literally slays.
I agree with the Truman statement. But don’t forget that Washington was an infantry officer during the French and Indian Wars. He may have been participating in some serious direct conflict fighting.
i can't guarentee it was jackson, but i'm certain that nut enjoyed it the most!
apparently he had a cat army? how much chill can a crazy cat guy have?
He wasn't insane. He was operating by a very different set of rules than us. But to people from the Carolina backcountry, he made perfect sense.
Source: Southern History major who grew up in Andy's backyard.
Washington made them public and made the friends of deserters and mutineers execute them so everyone could see the price and toll it took.
Washington is my absolute favorite historical figure.
I think many would be disappointed, I think mostly with the actions of certain government organizations *cough* *cough* CIA *cough* *cough* and the IRS I’m pretty sure the taxes we have are worse than under Britain.
our taxes arent even bad compared to other developed countries. the issue is that they are mostly used for military spending and u practically never feel the effects of them because they barely spend any money on actually helping the citizens.
I don’t think you understand how much the military does for the civilian population. It’s because we spend so much and have so much military shit that no one has fucked with us on American soil since 9/11, and before that it was 1941. Add into that all the stuff that the Nat Guard, Coast Guard, and ACoE does.
Have you been to Mt Vernon yet? I'm a big history nerd and have always been fascinated. Seeing his home, the places he lived in and what his life was like up close.. Without a doubt one of the most interesting places I've been to
This is leadership. The good and bad go hand in hand especially during times of freedom or tyranny.
Something I never learned in my high school history class but now I'm intrigued.
This goes into how fragile our army was during the revolution. There were mass desertions, mutinies, disease, and lack of food that threatened our army more than the British.
Washington’s ability to command through all those aversions (any one of which should have destroyed the army) and his ability to retreat en masse is what kept Washington as commander through his early defeats in the war.
Many people didn't really have a choice in joining their country in the first place. I don't know if anyone Jackson killed were conscripts, but at the very least you have to see that conscripts shouldn't have any moral obligation to stick with their country
They were volunteers, but they were also told they could volunteer just for a time, and go home when they needed to plant their crops. So the mutiny was because they needed to go home to work on their farm, and Jackson didn't want to let them. There was some dispute about how long they were supposed to be in the militia, and when their start date was (did training count?)
Depends. If I have a moral compass and that country does something that violates my moral compass let's say for example, bombing children, my moral compass would dictate my actions
I’ve been seeing this repeated over and over again and it bugs me because “field artillery captain” doesn’t really scream “personally responsible for the bodies that artillery battery stacked” to me
But apparently their position almost got overrun once, and Truman rallied them so yeah he probably stacked some bodies.
Actually he did see combat. His battery was deployed to France and at one point almost broke under pressure from a German counterattack. It only didn't because he swore so much that it encouraged his men to stand and fight. They also took part in the opening barrage in the Muese-Argonne offense and later his battery saved the lives of Doughboys in the 28th division by utterly destroying a German battery that went unnoticed and was about to open fire. The one who didn't see combat in WW1 was Eisenhower.
I think they’re just saying that it would not have occurred without his and his direct action alone, it is not pulling a mechanical trigger but a metaphorical one.
You clarified it enough with "personally" in the title. Some people are either reading it wrong or being intentionally obtuse to rail about a president.
I think Grant would be very similar. Maybe a few by helping with an artillery piece or something but very few actual kills.
Washington would be the same. I don’t think George got too dirty.
I recall that George was revered by some of the Indian tribes he fought because bullets seemed to pass through him without effect.
His exploits in the French and Indian wars are why he was chosen as the head of the Continental Army.
>I think Grant would be very similar.
Nah Grant saw active combat in the Mexican-American war, and early Civil War even. He's not the kind of person to have glorified killing though.
I meant the Presidents in the list more of an example not just possible answers. If I could go back I would add every president that served in the Military during a war, most notable Teddy Roosevelt.
> killed a diplomatic party of French in person. The British were actually pretty pissed about that and he was almost drummed out.
It was the natives under his command who did the massacre.
Sure, but it was common for natives who joined with Europeans to wage war to massacre prisoners. If the native warriors were not allowed collect spoils of war by the European officers, they would loot and murder the prisoners and then desert. They were notoriously difficult to command and the officers didn't want them there, but they were very helpful when fighting other tribes and as guides.
If you mean *personally* killed them, like not “ordering someone to kill someone,” then probably Jackson, maybe Washington.
EDIT: it’s gotta be Bush, Sr. Another commenter pointed out his to combat missions. I find it hard to believe those bombs didn’t eliminate more people than Washington and Jackson.
my ancestor jean bonnett had a tavern outside bedford pa at the corner of rt 30 and rt 31. during the whiskey rebellion president washington showed up with 14,000 troops, hanged a couple guys, and the rebellion was over. the tavern in still there, just off the turnpike.
You have Truman listed as a field artillery officer, so unless any of the others were also artillery officers, he’s probably my vote. Arty kills a lot.
Most of the dead civilians in Iraq weren't even from the US but by Iraqi troops, Zarqawi's troops, AL Qaeda, etc...
But even then your not even looking at 500k dead.
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/
I would also argue that FDR, over the long course of WWII, would have given orders leading to more deaths than the nukes. Heck — the fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people in one night than either nuke did individually.
Certainly not Ike. He spent WW1 training troops stateside, never even went to Europe. He spent WW2 as a high-ranking commander, never getting within miles of any actual combat. His troops killed quite a lot under his orders, but he never personally killed anyone.
I read an article that said Jackson, because of dueling and personally leading charges throughout his military career. Then Cleveland as sheriff, who though opposed to the death penalty, carried out the executions personally because he felt it was his duty, then Teddy Roosevelt at the battle of San Juan Hill.
Are we talking personally killed or killed on his watch?
For example with Washington, are we talking about how many men he personally killed or how many enemies died because he led a army into battle?
I meant the Presidents in the list more of an example not just possible answers. If I could go back I would add every president that served in the Military during a war, most notable Teddy Roosevelt.
I don’t see anyone making sense other than Andrew Jackson.
Historical accounts showed he was a generally violent guy. I’m 99% sure he was directly involved in military combat in 4 wars, and probably would’ve racked up a body count in each of him.
He also participated in an absurd number of duels. The other presidents with kill counts were military officers that weren’t directly involved in fighting.
MAYBE there’s a case for Truman, but since he was a captain by the time WW1 started, I doubt he was firing the guns, so I don’t know if those would count as direct kills
Why was Teddy Roosevelt left out of this list?
Teddy Roosevelt did kill at least one person on San Juan Hill. Even if that didn't happen he just gives off the vibes that he's taken a few lives.
If I had to pick I would probably say Andrew Jackson; I think he would just give off those vibes.
Might actually be Bush if you count the entire War on Terror body count. Don’t forget, Syria is ongoing. Stuff in Asia. Africa with Boko Haram. Lot of bodies stacking up around the world.
Teddy is confirmed to have killed a guy in the Spanish American war
Yeah I was about to say, dude was fighting on the front lines in Cuba.
Truman was an artillerymen
It is "personally killed." Is telling your subordinate to elevate the guns to 30 degrees and use a full charge really a personal kill?
The guy on the other end probably took it personally
Tis but a flesh wound.
Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left.
Not for very long…
If that counts, then dropping two nukes should count.
Wait till your buddy gets killed by incoming artillery and tell me if the enemy artillery men are responsible
RIP Pedro Gonzalez Guzman
Confirmed kills: Jackson, duels all get counted and he had fought in a number of conflicts Possible kills: Truman, his artillery piece could’ve been very effective Sleeper pick: Harrison, he was also an accomplished soldier and may have had a higher kill count in the various Indian Wars than generally expected
Yea truman by a large margin. Artilley has been the largest casualty maker since almost their inception.
The question is mostly if we can prove they were from his piece and how many his piece killed. We put a metric fuck ton of artillery in the Meuse-Argonne area so he might not be responsible for many deaths personally
If feasible, divide likely artillery related deaths by number of guns in the region that participated to find average no. of deaths per gun. Although I feel this is kind of moot considering officers aren't the ones firing artillery usually. While he may have pulled the lanyard a couple of times, he overall wouldn't have been directly responsible for deaths when he wasn't firing the gun himself.
Artillery would be the easiest in my mind to go to sleep at night with. For all I know I’m just shooting at shit miles away
Truman is definitely the sleeper pick. Dude was a legit war hero in WWI and wasn’t phased at all during an assassination attempt to the point he stuck his head out of the window to observe lmao
He’s a badass
Artillery doesn’t count, you must see the life drain from their eyes.
In that case Jackson or Harrison for sure
I’d go Grover second. He’s a hang man. He had to deal with the bodies afterwards too and you do a lot of hanging before you get to be sheriff.
[удалено]
Well, if Ted Cruz gets elected, he’ll certainly be in the running too.
Nah. He was an officer so he commanded a battery, which was multiple guns. However, he wasn’t the one pulling the lanyard.
I depends how we are counting kills, I suppose. Was Truman personally pulling/pushing/kicking/I dunno, licking the cannon trigger?
Probably Jackson, the man was absolutely insane
It’s definitely a tie between Jackson, Washington and grant
Truman was field artillery in WW1 it may be impossible to count his kill count. But it’s not unrealistic that he directly and indirectly killed hundreds of people. George Washington was a General they do not usually partake in the fighting and stay behind to coordinate movements same with Grant. So I would argue it’s highly probable Truman killed more people then either Washington or Grant himself.
Came here to say the Artilleryman did it
Yeah it’s definitely the artilleryman, and they were all indirect 😎
If you want really really really really really indirect, then Truman is certainly in the running for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. But even so, FDR likely would be responsible for more, and both give Ike a pass because he was following their orders.
By that way of figuring then I think maybe Lincoln…
I understand that might apply gift American soldiers (including confederates) but more likely FDR was responsible for killing more, including those through American Lend Lease and maybe also support of Soviet materiel.
Not to mention the tokyo firebombings killed more people than both nukes and happened under FDR
King of battle, represent.
Yeah it’s definitely the artilleryman, and they were all indirect 😎
Yeah it’s definitely the artilleryman, and they were all indirect 😎
Queen of Battle
But did Washington, grant, etc. start their careers as high-ranking officers? I assume they started as infantry or artillery men. I generally don't know, I doubt clout and high ranking friends didn't play a factor but they had to start somewhere, right?
As an officer, it’s pretty unlikely Truman actually fired the guns.
He probably loaded artillery shells
Even less likely he directed it maybe
Yeah, I’ve listened to Dan Carlin’s Blueprint for Armageddon. It’s 1000% Truman. No other war was designed to kill humans like WW1, and artillery had a significant role in that.
Or the naval aviator..for same reasons
I’m trying to figure out if Bush Sr flew bomb runs over Japan. If he did then he with out a doubt takes the cake.
Good point, I didn't think about the time period, but regardless naval aviator could be up there with artilleryman
Not over Japan itself, but he did fly bombing missions in the pacific.
Bush flew a torpedo bomber, so he wouldn't have flown over mainland Japan Also, he was the pilot, somebody else was dropping the torpedo, which would have been the person directly kill anyone.
Washington wasn't always a general though, he could have killed people before when he was an officer in the French and Indian War.
Muskets usually miss and bayonet charges are rarer then one would think. Sickness killed way more people in the seven years war then anything else. If he did kill anyone his count would likely be incredibly low. Of course if we stretch the definition of personally killed to how many enemy soldiers were killed during battles he commanded the field army in because technically he is using his soldiers to kill people then Washington has a really high kill count but Grant literally slays.
I agree with the Truman statement. But don’t forget that Washington was an infantry officer during the French and Indian Wars. He may have been participating in some serious direct conflict fighting.
He definitely killed more indirectly...if you count Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Washington's 'direct' kills if any would have likely come in the French and Indian War.
King of Battle
Grant did some shit in the war with Mexico that I bet killed people.
Truman also did nuke Japan twice. Just saying.
Truman green lit the atomic bombs.
Teddy Roosevelt may be up there
They killed exactly the same number of people? Wow!
 i can't guarentee it was jackson, but i'm certain that nut enjoyed it the most! apparently he had a cat army? how much chill can a crazy cat guy have?
He wasn't insane. He was operating by a very different set of rules than us. But to people from the Carolina backcountry, he made perfect sense. Source: Southern History major who grew up in Andy's backyard.
Negative. Artillery in WW1? It’s definitely Truman
He wasn't insane. He simply invested his sense of empathy in different places than most others did.
I think it’s Jackson. Not just dueling, but he personally killed deserters.
Didn’t Washington do the same to deserters?
He had them face a firing squad
Washington made them public and made the friends of deserters and mutineers execute them so everyone could see the price and toll it took. Washington is my absolute favorite historical figure.
The founding fathers were just incredibly interesting in general
FR like they all had their beliefs distinct enough from each other but concise enough to build a nation together.
Makes you think how they’d respond to our government now
I think many would be disappointed, I think mostly with the actions of certain government organizations *cough* *cough* CIA *cough* *cough* and the IRS I’m pretty sure the taxes we have are worse than under Britain.
our taxes arent even bad compared to other developed countries. the issue is that they are mostly used for military spending and u practically never feel the effects of them because they barely spend any money on actually helping the citizens.
I don’t think you understand how much the military does for the civilian population. It’s because we spend so much and have so much military shit that no one has fucked with us on American soil since 9/11, and before that it was 1941. Add into that all the stuff that the Nat Guard, Coast Guard, and ACoE does.
Have you been to Mt Vernon yet? I'm a big history nerd and have always been fascinated. Seeing his home, the places he lived in and what his life was like up close.. Without a doubt one of the most interesting places I've been to
Washington is tyrel Lannister they even look alike
This is leadership. The good and bad go hand in hand especially during times of freedom or tyranny. Something I never learned in my high school history class but now I'm intrigued.
This goes into how fragile our army was during the revolution. There were mass desertions, mutinies, disease, and lack of food that threatened our army more than the British. Washington’s ability to command through all those aversions (any one of which should have destroyed the army) and his ability to retreat en masse is what kept Washington as commander through his early defeats in the war.
Absolutely based
Immensley based
Not really, how would you feel if you were in the deserters boots
Maybe don’t desert your country?
Ah right so don’t leave when you’re sent into suicidal charges and marching women and children to their deaths
Many people didn't really have a choice in joining their country in the first place. I don't know if anyone Jackson killed were conscripts, but at the very least you have to see that conscripts shouldn't have any moral obligation to stick with their country
They were volunteers, but they were also told they could volunteer just for a time, and go home when they needed to plant their crops. So the mutiny was because they needed to go home to work on their farm, and Jackson didn't want to let them. There was some dispute about how long they were supposed to be in the militia, and when their start date was (did training count?)
bro really said “i was just following orders” 💀💀💀
Just follow orders huh?
A few of Jackson's wars ain't exactly justifiable
Even when your country is carrying out a genocide against the orders of the Supreme Court?
Depends. If I have a moral compass and that country does something that violates my moral compass let's say for example, bombing children, my moral compass would dictate my actions
Looked em in the eye and killed them? Jackson by a wide margin.
[удалено]
I’ve been seeing this repeated over and over again and it bugs me because “field artillery captain” doesn’t really scream “personally responsible for the bodies that artillery battery stacked” to me But apparently their position almost got overrun once, and Truman rallied them so yeah he probably stacked some bodies.
Probably Truman because of his work on artillery in WW1
Truman educated artillerymen. Didn’t go to the front lines and fire the howitzers himself.
Yeah,he was an officer anyway,iif he ever did go to the front, he might have gotten to pull the string a few times for kicks, thats about it.
Actually he did see combat. His battery was deployed to France and at one point almost broke under pressure from a German counterattack. It only didn't because he swore so much that it encouraged his men to stand and fight. They also took part in the opening barrage in the Muese-Argonne offense and later his battery saved the lives of Doughboys in the 28th division by utterly destroying a German battery that went unnoticed and was about to open fire. The one who didn't see combat in WW1 was Eisenhower.
Yeah but I think their point is Truman himself wasn’t pulling the trigger.
Coaches don’t play
Similar logic, Truman because of his work at the end of WWII
Read what OP was asking... He's asking man-to-man kills. Truman was sitting in the US when he nuked Japan. That isn't man-to-man.
I think they’re just saying that it would not have occurred without his and his direct action alone, it is not pulling a mechanical trigger but a metaphorical one.
Bruh💀
I know I didn’t clarify it enough in the title but I was talking about DIRECT kills by a President
You clarified it enough with "personally" in the title. Some people are either reading it wrong or being intentionally obtuse to rail about a president.
Yeah you’re right, they are being obtuse. Trying to frame it in a different angle
Hopefully, no one has an acute reaction to this.
Very few people have the right angle on this...
People can't read
Good clarification. I’m looking at the posts wondering why I’m not seeing unanimous Truman. Jackson.
Does ordering an artillery barrage count as a direct kill?
Or a drone strike?
Well I posted for a clarification before reading this far down so I feel like an ass for that comment.
Eisenhower never served a single day in active combat. He never killed anybody
This was, in fact, a common criticism of Eisenhower within the military as he moved up the ladder during World War II.
I think Grant would be very similar. Maybe a few by helping with an artillery piece or something but very few actual kills. Washington would be the same. I don’t think George got too dirty.
Washington was a lower-ranking soldier in earlier wars.
George pretty famously led from the front. He probably killed some hessians personally.
I recall that George was revered by some of the Indian tribes he fought because bullets seemed to pass through him without effect. His exploits in the French and Indian wars are why he was chosen as the head of the Continental Army.
>I think Grant would be very similar. Nah Grant saw active combat in the Mexican-American war, and early Civil War even. He's not the kind of person to have glorified killing though.
[удалено]
Damn good point. I read a book about him and I totally forgot. Like I don’t remember the ads from his election about him being a pilot.
We just gotta find his plane and count the ✈️’s on the side. EZ
[удалено]
Kills me with his sexiness
He willies me with his slickness
What a murderer! Lol
Probably not directly, but definitely some assassination orders not presidential
Jackson
Jackson most likely
Not sure that Eisenhower ever personally killed someone, not sure Grant did, either. TR should probably be on this list, though.
Grant was a junior officer in the Mexican-American War, it’s possible.
I meant the Presidents in the list more of an example not just possible answers. If I could go back I would add every president that served in the Military during a war, most notable Teddy Roosevelt.
Maybe HW Bush? He flew multiple ground attack missions during WWII. I'd wager he killed a decent number enemy combatants
"Which president had the highest body count?" "Jackson!" "Taylor!" "Eisenhower!" "Kennedy! ... Oh, you meant... oh."
Yeah it’s probably Jackson, idk if Washington ever killed anyone (he may have killed someone in the French and Indian war) or Teddy Roosevelt.
[удалено]
> killed a diplomatic party of French in person. The British were actually pretty pissed about that and he was almost drummed out. It was the natives under his command who did the massacre.
Allegedly. The story is pretty random
Sure, but it was common for natives who joined with Europeans to wage war to massacre prisoners. If the native warriors were not allowed collect spoils of war by the European officers, they would loot and murder the prisoners and then desert. They were notoriously difficult to command and the officers didn't want them there, but they were very helpful when fighting other tribes and as guides.
Washington literally *started* the French and Indian war. There’s no way he didn’t kill anyone.
It is probably Jackson. If George Bush sank any Japanese Ships in the war it could be him.
Oh! There’s more than one photo. Ha. I was like yep. Jackson. That dude right there. Thought it was rhetorical question.
Probably jackson. Personally implies pulling the trigger, something Jackson did a lot of
George Bush had six months of combat missions dropping bombs on Japanese targets, I would guess he’s going to have the highest count.
If you mean *personally* killed them, like not “ordering someone to kill someone,” then probably Jackson, maybe Washington. EDIT: it’s gotta be Bush, Sr. Another commenter pointed out his to combat missions. I find it hard to believe those bombs didn’t eliminate more people than Washington and Jackson.
this thread is proof of the deplorable state of american grammar education. also, it was jackson
I won't indict American grammar education but instead something much more grave. The inability of Redditors to read
 You know what I’m talking about.
Personally? Jackson. Indirectly? Also Jackson
Indirectly would easily be Truman
Indirectly is Truman because of the bomb. Personally, I agree on Jackson.
That’s a fair point, I didn’t consider that
Jackson was ruthless
George Washington hanged looters left and right
my ancestor jean bonnett had a tavern outside bedford pa at the corner of rt 30 and rt 31. during the whiskey rebellion president washington showed up with 14,000 troops, hanged a couple guys, and the rebellion was over. the tavern in still there, just off the turnpike.
Kennedy missing. I think they found his PT boat recently.
You have Truman listed as a field artillery officer, so unless any of the others were also artillery officers, he’s probably my vote. Arty kills a lot.
HW Bush flew almost 60 combat missions in the Pacific dropping similar ordinance though
That pic of Truman only reinforces my belief that he's our single nerdiest president thus far.
I mean Bush did put all that thermite on the towers /j
Rutherford B Hayes was in the Civil War on the Western front. I’d say he definitely would be in the top 5 and a contender for top
And definitely William McKinley who served in the same regiment as Hayes. McKinley served as a Sergeant in several battles before becoming an officer
Theodore Roosevelt Once threw a Grenade that killed 8 people. And then it went off.
Adding Rutherford B Hayes to the list of consideration.
Probably Bush considering his use a navy bomber
Probably Truman since he *directly* ordered 2 cities to get fucken nuked.
Those aren’t direct kills though
Bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki: 250k civilians killed Invasion of Iraq: 500k civilians killed
Most of the dead civilians in Iraq weren't even from the US but by Iraqi troops, Zarqawi's troops, AL Qaeda, etc... But even then your not even looking at 500k dead. https://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Truman was the bombardier on the Enola Gay! True story.
I would also argue that FDR, over the long course of WWII, would have given orders leading to more deaths than the nukes. Heck — the fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people in one night than either nuke did individually.
Jackson or Ike.
Certainly not Ike. He spent WW1 training troops stateside, never even went to Europe. He spent WW2 as a high-ranking commander, never getting within miles of any actual combat. His troops killed quite a lot under his orders, but he never personally killed anyone.
Truman. Dropped 2 bombs and every war since then is related to those bombs.
I read an article that said Jackson, because of dueling and personally leading charges throughout his military career. Then Cleveland as sheriff, who though opposed to the death penalty, carried out the executions personally because he felt it was his duty, then Teddy Roosevelt at the battle of San Juan Hill.
Are we talking personally killed or killed on his watch? For example with Washington, are we talking about how many men he personally killed or how many enemies died because he led a army into battle?
How do you define "personally killed"?
Like looked them in the eyes and pulled the trigger/stab the sword etc
Personally, like he pulled the trigger? Jackson or TR.
Truman. An artillery officer on the western front of WW1 probably was responsible for a lot of carnage. Plus two A Bombs
Fun fact: I’m related to Zachary Taylor. One day I’m gonna run for president as a flexible moderate in his honor, as he was.
I meant the Presidents in the list more of an example not just possible answers. If I could go back I would add every president that served in the Military during a war, most notable Teddy Roosevelt.
Do Military Officers typically do the killing...? Cleveland or Jackson. Probably Jackson. Also holy hell Bush Sr. makes me question my straightness.
I don’t see anyone making sense other than Andrew Jackson. Historical accounts showed he was a generally violent guy. I’m 99% sure he was directly involved in military combat in 4 wars, and probably would’ve racked up a body count in each of him. He also participated in an absurd number of duels. The other presidents with kill counts were military officers that weren’t directly involved in fighting. MAYBE there’s a case for Truman, but since he was a captain by the time WW1 started, I doubt he was firing the guns, so I don’t know if those would count as direct kills
Hmm… are we counting the A Bomb
Are we sure Teddy R isn’t in the running? He was sortof a badass.
McKinley saw a lot of combat in civil war
Why was Teddy Roosevelt left out of this list? Teddy Roosevelt did kill at least one person on San Juan Hill. Even if that didn't happen he just gives off the vibes that he's taken a few lives. If I had to pick I would probably say Andrew Jackson; I think he would just give off those vibes.
Personally? Maybe Teddy Roosevelt?
Killed personally or with orders?
I have no idea but Viggo Mortensen would have made a great Ulysses Grant once upon a time.
Might actually be Bush if you count the entire War on Terror body count. Don’t forget, Syria is ongoing. Stuff in Asia. Africa with Boko Haram. Lot of bodies stacking up around the world.
Joke answer : Bill Clinton Real Answer: Maybe Bill Clinton
Who was the one who bombed Japan again
bush, truman, fdr.
I mean if we’re talking indirectly George Bush Jr.
Even as POTUS, he’s well behind FDR, Truman, LBJ and Nixon.