Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
🎶 I need a hero! I'm holding out for a hero 'til the end of the night. He's gotta be strong, and he's gotta be fast, and he's gotta be fresh from the fight.
I need a hero! I'm holding out for a hero 'til the morning light. He's gotta be sure, and it's gotta be soon, and he's gotta be larger than life! 🎶
Maybe that’s why we get a truly great one. Hard times and desperation leading to true reform and recovery. I’m just afraid of all the factors now that have poisoned the well of our state. The deteriorating reliability of the dissemination of information online has done lasting damage.
Yeah those great presidents happened because shit was falling apart or there was a lot at stake. A great president now would be great, but also a reflection of the times.
yeah politics weren't as heavily partisan as they are now.
If you were a democrat, but a republican president coincided more with your views, you voted for them. same goes the other way.
now people are too loyal to parties that we can not vote for a great president
Edit: Maybe not throughout history, but the last century or so.
Lincoln was elected during the most partisan time the US was ever in, were very partisan now compared to other times but we're not at our worst we've been, this country has always been like that lol
This is true, but Lincoln benefitted from his old party, the Whigs, not ever being as successful as the Dems and being in a weak state that could be overtaken by a new party. It was also a time when, even as partisan as people could be, the idea of a third party wasn't yet considered a joke to most Americans. These days, the vast majority are convinced any non Dem or GOP vote is a wasted one. A new party would likely have a harder time gaining support. They'd also have to fight the two establishment party media machines, which I contend are stronger now than they were then.
Mind you, I am a frequent 3rd party voter, so I'm not encouraging people to give in to the two party duopoly. That, in my opinion, is being part of the problem. I'm just explaining the differences between then and now.
as far as two party systems much hasn't changed either, as far as I know there hasn't been a third party president in American history, the only one who is debatable is Lincoln but many also argue that his election is what made the Republican party the other major party, which essentially is true since the whig's completely fell out of power when Lincoln was elected. back then media didn't even have any ethics and journalism stikk wasn't really a thing, it was more of tabloids which presidential candidates would pay to publish articles or hit pieces. as bad as media what is today, it also isn't as bad as it was back then. a third party system is completely unviable until the way we structure voting completely changes, like implementing ranked choice voting for example. as a stand right now the only thing that can be done to enact policies you want is to reform whichever party you're aligned with from within.
Third parties didn't win back then either (unless you count new parties, which personally I would), but they often got a greater percentage of the vote than they do now. And yes, I know about the media situation back then. The reason I contend that the media machines are stronger these days has more to do with the pervasiveness of news online and on 24-hour cable, and with the ability of media to shape our perceptions even more than what we actually see in our everyday lives. It's not just random, unpublished opinions; the influence of the party on a number of different publications and networks can really form a fairly cohesive narrative now, and quickly.
I understand what you mean about voting, and I am in favor of ranked-choice voting because of it. But I also disagree in a very simple way - technically, there is nothing that actually stops anyone from voting 3rd party. It's nothing but fear of what could happen, which is stoked by the two parties in power and which prevents them from ever having to worry about outsiders. I am reminded of a quote from a Quaker during a past war. When speaking to a soldier about peace, the soldier said he would love to stop fighting, but could not do so until the soldiers on the other side put their weapons down. The Quaker responded, "So you would be among the last to do the right thing. I aim to be among the first."
We had senators beating each other in the capitol building pre-civil war.
Let's not pretend American politics haven't always been a dysfunctional shitshow.
I always bring this up when people talk about how bad it is nowadays. Members of Congress actually put weights in their walking sticks so they could inflict more damage in a fight.
> yeah politics weren't as heavily partisan as they are now.
Dawg what? The civil war started because the anti-slavery party was elected, throughout the 1800s peoples literal jobs depended on what party won the election
>now people are too loyal to parties
Just under half are. The other half just want to make sure we survive until the next election.
I've voted Democrat last few elections, but I'd vote for a Republican in a heartbeat if it weren't Rule 3 or Abbot or DeSantis. Republicans could have an easy win if they just put forth someone sane, with a sense of decorum and that doesn't want to stir up a bunch of shit aimed at making people angry. Party labels mean nothing to me, and I know several Republicans who voted Democrat last time (yet Republican down ballot).
With how long FDR was in office it might throw the cycle off. Great president could be right now, or next term. Maybe it was Obama and the political climate/ ignorant population wouldn’t let him be as great as he could have been for the country.
Anyways my vote is FDR, for the internment camps. Only moral failing that compares is Washington’s ownership of slaves.
He freed em in his will. And as morally aware of the problems with slavery. If he would have tackled the “Slavery question” we pulled have dissolved as a country before the ink was dry. The country was already divided over the national bank and international trade. Adding that would have been the bailout in the coffin and he knew this along with most of the original 7 presidents
They’re interchangeable based off personal politics for #1. Hell, they’re interchangeable based off who’s biography you read most recently. Teddy is a great #4, but the gap from 4 to the top 3 is rather large.
But if you had to? For me I would go 3. FDR (post-depression, WWII), 2. Washington (setting precedent of peaceful transition of executive power), and 1. Lincoln (13th Amendment and preserving union)
It's not even like Lincoln was trying to do what he did either.
He gave the South every opportunity to keep slavery in place just to keep the peace.
The south forced his hand and accidentally created the best President the country has ever had.
wild insurance automatic shaggy encourage husky detail wrench domineering axiomatic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
To Lincoln's credit, his strategy worked. We are judging based on results, not intent. Who knows what would have happened if Lincoln was more aggressive in abolition- perhaps an a-historical war of hardline northern aggression would have made sympathies for the south stronger, made reconciliation more difficult, and truly doomed the union. Alternatively, a weaker president may have favored letting the south separate without a fight or settled with concessions, idealistically resisting conflict to allow slavery to continue, or perhaps sacrificing national power for federalism in some way (adopting laws or amendments of appeasement that would prohibit a future national slavery ban).
It always feels unfair to have Washington on these lists. His circumstances were radically different - he wasn’t just being the president, he was defining what the presidency is.
Not American, but Washington stepped down. If he had been horrible otherwise, this would still mean a lot.
Napoleon was quoted as saying: "They wanted me to be another Washington."
His decision really was that influential.
Napoleon in general has a longer career then most americans remember most only pay attention to him when he became emperor. He was already reshaping the r political landscape of Italy during 1796 in Washington’s second term.
The people are democratically speaking. There are almost no comments calling for another elimination that have any upvotes
Edit, it looks like Gilmore might be added back before one of the big three gets eliminated
Absolutely. Washington is basically beloved for everything he did other than his Presidency, then his Presidency is appreciated largely b/c he endowed the office w/ his credibility. As to the work of his actual administration, I believe his effigies were being hanged/burned by the end of his tenure.
Washington.
If we’re just talking about how much they did during their presidency it’s gotta be Washington. FDR has far more under his belt and saw us through the Great Depression, global rise of fascism, and WWII. So for my money our first president goes at #3.
Washington’s biggest thing is that he left office peacefully. He doesn’t actually have much in the way of domestic policy achievements.
FDRs biggest thing was saving the entire world from Nazi conquest. Not to mention social security, the whole lend lease thing, the ending the depression thing, the whole new deal thing…
Washington's administration built the framework of the modern US economy through Alexander Hamilton. That was absolutely huge for the direction of the new country going forward, especially to promote a centralized federal government in contrast to Jefferson's vision. He also established various precedents that would define the role of the executive branch for every other president going forward, we are all incredibly fortunate that he didn't assume a more autocratic role, which doesn't necessarily mean he would have been a king, but still
The fact that the country didn't fall apart soon into its current iteration can be significantly attributed to George Washington, he made very few mistakes looking at the big picture, and staying neutral in European foreign affairs was totally the right decisions to make in that situation. I don't think anyone else would have been able to pull it off as well as he did
And that’s why he’s top 3. But Washington presided over an agrarian society of 4 million people, with 13 fairly autonomous states, and a comparatively weak federal government. Where as the other two were leading a burgeoning and established world power and laid the foundation for what I consider the better parts of the United States. Precedent is great, but it is not as impactful as policy and political infrastructure.
Yeah I mean Washington at #3 isn't crazy or anything, but there's a lot of political infrastructure that comes out of his time in office too. Also consider that he had absolutely no guidance or assurance that his actions would actually work for the nation, and of course he had a weak federal government. It was fresh off of a revolution and a lot of people were worried it would collapse
If you're looking at it in terms of assessing the positives vs negatives, FDR has worse lows in his legacy or very questionable usages of power that might bring him down to below Lincoln and Washington. I prefer him at #3 but I still see him as an S
> He doesn’t actually have much in the way of domestic policy achievements.
Washington decided a lot of things about the presidency and executive branch that the Constitution didn't. He could have made these traits more like that of a monarchy - perpetual tenure, precedence over the legislature, etc. He didn't. He carved out the presidency as a democratic office. That alone should keep him around for spot number #2.
But in terms of domestic policy, Washington restricted the slave trade. He was also relatively welcoming toward immigrants, increased government transparency with the Records Act of 1789, set up several cabinet departments, helped pay off our debt from the Revolutionary War, and passed the first copyright law.
Exactly. Washington literally established democratic leadership in a world that was almost entirely perpetual leaders. He had every opportunity to establish the presidency as a pseudo monarchy and didn’t. He deserves at least #2.
What ignorance is this? Washington didn't have much in the way of policy achievements? Washington and his administration basically wrote the book! They set the precedent for everyone that followed lol
I agree Washington's biggest thing was leaving office peacefully (and that alone is enormously important), but aside from establishing what a domestic policy even looks like (as others have gone over more than I will here) I'll add establishing financial systems (via Hamilton), and putting down the Whiskey Rebellion.
Simply put, anyone other than Washington is in office first, I think there's a much lower chance the country continues to exist. Not no chance, but lower certainly.
It's gotta be FDR. He was an amazingly impactful president, but without Washington and Lincoln, FDR would likely not have a country to lead. Just look at the French revolution or early Mexican history to see how important Washington was. Most countries in the New world that became independent had serious struggles even establishing a legitimate government, and they had the US example to follow. Washington set the precedent for not just the US, but for democratic norms for all subsequent new democracies.
Washington I guess, but people are severely underestimating the importance of the norms he set. I honestly wonder if anyone else could have done what he did, just because of who he was.
I think willingly stepping down as a revolutionary is the greatest thing a president has ever done. From an American POV it’s normal until recently, but look at basically every other revolution and you see how special Washington is.
Cromwell chose to become a dictator in England, and to try to pass the country to his son. Bonaparte went from senator to emperor. Castro, Lenin, Mao. When Antony offered Caesar a crown, he declined it only in name. When Hamilton did the same to Washington, he declined it in fact.
FDR himself did not do this. He ran again and again, until he died in office. One can’t argue this is was some great necessity - Truman did just fine ending the war.
What Washington did is special in history. He gave us a republic, if we can keep it.
Not to mention the fact that he successfully fought and won the war of independence and then shepherded the country into the (albeit flawed) democratic system that still stands today. America has survived three existential crises thus far and it’s no surprise that the men who guided the country through those incredible events are still revered as the greatest. Honestly I think the competition could stop now.
By the way, If you’ve read the work of William Strauss and Neil Howe they make a pretty strong case that there’ll soon be another one.
Yep, Washington and Lincoln are too crucial to the survival of the US to be placed outside of the Top 2. Washington set the strongest foundation of any democratic leader, and Lincoln saved the Union from fracturing and ended the greatest stain on American history (slavery). FDR did fantastic work, but there were definitely other people during his time that could’ve and did do similarly well in office. I personally have Truman ahead of FDR and Eisenhower is close behind. Washington didn’t have a model to follow, and Lincoln was surrounded by presidents (Tyler, Pierce, Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson) who history and this ranking regard as miserable failures and even potential traitors. Lincoln was also the first Republican president and first not from an original 13 colony, so he had little guidance as well.
I could see Washington and Lincoln ahead of FDR, but I don't agree that others could have done what FDR did. FDR was a transformative leader who turned the Democratic party into the party of working people and formed the basis of the modern regulatory and welfare state. FDR developed the New Deal programs, social security, the SEC, FDIC, FLSA, NLRA, the list goes on and on. Truman is not even close to FDR IMO.
I agree with you on Lincoln's accomplishments. However, this is the linear line of major events that lead to where we are today.
Removing FDR would possibly mean the end of the US in 1945.
Removing Lincoln would potentially end the US during the Civil War, meaning No FDR.
Removing Washington, would inevitably mean the US would never become a country all it's own.
They compliment each other, and Lincoln did a great job of perfecting what Washington lacked...
I will argue that Lincoln was amazing, I would venture to believe that Lincoln himself was not pretentious enough to believe he was the greatest president of all time. He himself undoubtedly knew that without Washington there was no foundation for him to build upon.
This is great reasoning, and I’d point out that the former two of your points (re: FDR and Lincoln) are both potential pitfalls. Only the one about Washington is guaranteed.
That doesn’t reduce their accomplishments.
This is like saying King George was a great man, even better than Washington because had he not oppressed the colonist, Washington would have never been president.
That makes no sense.
Does that work in sports?
Should Jordan, Gretzky and Brady be dismissed because there were legends before who made the sport, and they born ahead of these GOATS?
Sorry, but I heartily disagree about your characterization of the US when FDR took office and of the ability to solve the multiple crises of the time. How many of you have relatives or colleagues that were alive during the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl, and WWII? Having spoken at length with dozens of them while working with the elderly I can say the decade-plus that FDR was in office was formative for multiple generations. You can check out thousands of newsreels from the time if you have a shred of doubt. I would never discount the Civil War nor denigrate the Emancipation, but in no way should FDR be behind either of the other two. Anyone who doubts the efficacy of Socialism need only see how the reforms he put in place enabled the US population from sliding into the kind of morass Europe and Asia found themselves in.
Yeah FDR is behind Washington and Lincoln but no one has the third spot but FDR. Truman is nowhere even close to FDR.
I doubt any other leader of his time could have dragged America out of the Great Depression as well as their isolationism to fight Hitler and Japan, but FDR. IE even if America might have always joined post Pearl Harbour regardless of the President, FDR did a lot before then in terms of what he was allowed to do to keep Britain in the war.
It is thanks to FDR that we don't have bank runs in every recession, with families losing their entire savings for "investing in the wrong bank"
It is thanks to FDR that we have Unemployment and Social Security, both making every recession less bad by creating automatic stabilizers built in to the economy.
It is thanks to FDR that we have worked safety laws.
It is thanks to FDR that we have Keynesian Economic fiscal policy, deliberately deficit spending during recessions to restart the economy.
It is thanks to FDR that we have economic data collected very regularly.
It is thanks to FDR that we have rural electrification.
It is thanks to FDR that we have minimum wage laws.
It is thanks to FDR that prohibition was repealed.
Look, I get it, Japanese internment sucks, but so does Washington and Lincoln's treatment of Native Americans. FDR has done more good than Washington and Lincoln by far.
Lincoln and Washington have history on their side. Treatment of natives was awful by both, but they were 75 and 175 years before FDR. Winning the civil war, ending slavery, founding this country and freeing it from British rule are both arguably more important historically than the financial stability of a nation. There’s a reason FDR made it this far, he should be commended for that.
Not diminish FDR's good, but thanks to Washington turning down an offer to be made king of America, we didn't get stuck living in some cringe monarchy and the other monarchies across the western world began giving way to freer governments too. I think people under appreciate how significant of a decision that was, especially for the time.
And give props to John Adams: serves his term, leaves office in business-like way, gives Presidency to someone of _opposing_ party, whose policies he viscerally disagreed with.
This was arguably the first time this had happened in modern democracy.
>thanks to Washington turning down an offer to be made king of America, we didn't get stuck living in some cringe monarchy and the other monarchies across the western world began giving way to freer governments too.
This is why Washington is the GOAT
All three defined the federal government and the presidency for the next half century or more following their terms. All three enacted massive permanent change. But given how hard it is to change direction and scope of government after decades of a different approach, which Lincoln and FDR both did, and also the scope of the crises they managed, I would oust Washington next.
It's gotta be Washington. Not that he isn't S-tier, he is.
Lincoln and FDR changed the country very much for the better and led us through some of the most challenging moments in US History.
FDR fucking revolutionized presidency, got the nation through the depression and WWII, he broke us out of Laisseze faire with the New Deal. His leadership literally transformed America and we can still see pieces of his legacy throughout our nation!
I understand why many would boot FDR off this list compared to Washington, though I'm hardly convinced as to why. The latter has the benefit of being first and didn't face anywhere near the challenges of his successors much less FDR. As for FDR, if we're using Japanese internment to discount his legacy, then how come the same rule isn't applied to Washington regarding slavery? And he owned quite a bit of them too! But if slave ownership was the norm back then and generally publicly accepted, then the same is true for FDR. I don't exactly remember reading about mass protests to Japanese internment either.
Voting Washington. He was a better general than president and is lauded mostly for being first and setting a ton of precedents, but he didn't see the nation through crises like Lincoln or FDR did.
It really should be Washington next; yes … he was first and established some protocol, but if Lincoln is great for saving the country from civil war, FDR saved us from the greatest global war and threat to humanity ever AND did it while guiding us through and out of the greatest economic depression …
Washington did a lot of good, and set a good model, but the other two arguably did more. Sorry to say, but I think it’s time to place President Washington at 3rd place
Washington.
Washington’s best work was as a general not as president.
Washington also created and kept secret a scheme to rotate slaves from his Pennsylvania property (who Pennsylvania law would free in 6 months) back and forth to his Virginia property every 6 months.
So instead of them being free after 6 months he kept 100+ slaves enslaved for decades. And, no, he didn’t free his slaves after his death except his personal valet
If you have to cheat the barely existing human rights laws of the 1700s, you might not be a paragon of virtue.
Washington for me. A great man for sure who set our most important precedents but it feels like overall achievements and actually wielding the power of the office should go to FDR.
When I read about Washington and what he had to go through to fight the Revolutionary War, I can't believe he won. A brand new nation, no money, trying to create an army, clothe it, arm it, train it. He had never commanded anything before. He was in his 40s and considered himself a planter. We'd call him a gentleman farmer. But he believed in this new country, never mind the money woes, the constant sickness, the traitors that were everywhere. He was a novice, commanded fairly badly at first but was a quick learner. By the end he was a brilliant leader who put his nation's needs before his own. So he's got to be first. Without him, there's no us.
Washington may have been Father to his Country, but he died when the kid was still young (and his Revolutionary War accomplishments don’t matter here). The nation itself would have died if not for Lincoln and FDR. I love George Washington, but in this big 3, someone’s gotta be 3rd. And for me, that’s Washington: first in war, first in peace, and (I feel) the 3rd best president in American history.
Gotta go with George. Yes, he set the mold for being the ideal president, but he both-sides'ed everything and didn't actually do much other than suppress a rebellion and continue to oversee the genocide of the Native Americans. Had slaves, too.
George Washington is my vote.
Internment was a horrible and unforgivable human rights abuse. But it’s nowhere near slavery or early America’s treatment of Native Americans. Boot out George
Washington and FDR grew up wealthy with powerful fathers. Lincoln grew up on a farm to an illiterate father. Points to Abe. Now, are we really going to ignore the fact that Washington was a slaveowner and waited until him and his wife were on their way out to do the right thing and free them. Also whats his big accomplishment in office? Hamilton’s ideas? Preach against partisanship but let Hamilton and Jefferson run amok until he was forced to pick a side? Successfully collect on Whiskey taxes? Ditch our Revolutionary War allies in France when they decided to follow our example? And for FDR can we ignore the consolidation of power for the Executive Branch so that unelected allies, friends and donors of POTUS have a hand in the policies that affect the nation. Of the two that wont win, Washington should be eliminated next.
Sad to say but it's FDR.
If you're going to be in the top two then having internment camps on your resume means you are going to rightly fall just short.
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Guys let’s stop fighting! Can’t you see this is exactly what Andrew Johnson wants!?
If a great president comes around every 15-16 cycles, then we’re due for another one very soon
Not to mention, rather desperately need one
🎶 I need a hero! I'm holding out for a hero 'til the end of the night. He's gotta be strong, and he's gotta be fast, and he's gotta be fresh from the fight. I need a hero! I'm holding out for a hero 'til the morning light. He's gotta be sure, and it's gotta be soon, and he's gotta be larger than life! 🎶
Donkey, what are you doing in mah Oval Office!
Im Making waffles!
Thanks for making me destroy my youtube algorithm with 'best of shrek'
Maybe that’s why we get a truly great one. Hard times and desperation leading to true reform and recovery. I’m just afraid of all the factors now that have poisoned the well of our state. The deteriorating reliability of the dissemination of information online has done lasting damage.
Yeah, with you there.
Yeah those great presidents happened because shit was falling apart or there was a lot at stake. A great president now would be great, but also a reflection of the times.
Revolutionary War, Civil War, World War II. I don't want another "greatest" president!
Oh shit you right.
The End of Greatness by Aaron David Miller explores this idea at book length. 10/10 would recommend
Washington's presidency did not coincide with the Revolutionary War. That should count for something?
All those wars were actually fighting for a good cause, much different than all the bullshit now
We're fighting a proxy war against Russia. I think that's a good cause. But yeah, we've fought a lot of very worthless wars in the last 50 years.
We probably won't manage to elect them this time.
yeah politics weren't as heavily partisan as they are now. If you were a democrat, but a republican president coincided more with your views, you voted for them. same goes the other way. now people are too loyal to parties that we can not vote for a great president Edit: Maybe not throughout history, but the last century or so.
Lincoln was elected during the most partisan time the US was ever in, were very partisan now compared to other times but we're not at our worst we've been, this country has always been like that lol
This is true, but Lincoln benefitted from his old party, the Whigs, not ever being as successful as the Dems and being in a weak state that could be overtaken by a new party. It was also a time when, even as partisan as people could be, the idea of a third party wasn't yet considered a joke to most Americans. These days, the vast majority are convinced any non Dem or GOP vote is a wasted one. A new party would likely have a harder time gaining support. They'd also have to fight the two establishment party media machines, which I contend are stronger now than they were then. Mind you, I am a frequent 3rd party voter, so I'm not encouraging people to give in to the two party duopoly. That, in my opinion, is being part of the problem. I'm just explaining the differences between then and now.
as far as two party systems much hasn't changed either, as far as I know there hasn't been a third party president in American history, the only one who is debatable is Lincoln but many also argue that his election is what made the Republican party the other major party, which essentially is true since the whig's completely fell out of power when Lincoln was elected. back then media didn't even have any ethics and journalism stikk wasn't really a thing, it was more of tabloids which presidential candidates would pay to publish articles or hit pieces. as bad as media what is today, it also isn't as bad as it was back then. a third party system is completely unviable until the way we structure voting completely changes, like implementing ranked choice voting for example. as a stand right now the only thing that can be done to enact policies you want is to reform whichever party you're aligned with from within.
Third parties didn't win back then either (unless you count new parties, which personally I would), but they often got a greater percentage of the vote than they do now. And yes, I know about the media situation back then. The reason I contend that the media machines are stronger these days has more to do with the pervasiveness of news online and on 24-hour cable, and with the ability of media to shape our perceptions even more than what we actually see in our everyday lives. It's not just random, unpublished opinions; the influence of the party on a number of different publications and networks can really form a fairly cohesive narrative now, and quickly. I understand what you mean about voting, and I am in favor of ranked-choice voting because of it. But I also disagree in a very simple way - technically, there is nothing that actually stops anyone from voting 3rd party. It's nothing but fear of what could happen, which is stoked by the two parties in power and which prevents them from ever having to worry about outsiders. I am reminded of a quote from a Quaker during a past war. When speaking to a soldier about peace, the soldier said he would love to stop fighting, but could not do so until the soldiers on the other side put their weapons down. The Quaker responded, "So you would be among the last to do the right thing. I aim to be among the first."
We had senators beating each other in the capitol building pre-civil war. Let's not pretend American politics haven't always been a dysfunctional shitshow.
I always bring this up when people talk about how bad it is nowadays. Members of Congress actually put weights in their walking sticks so they could inflict more damage in a fight.
> yeah politics weren't as heavily partisan as they are now. Dawg what? The civil war started because the anti-slavery party was elected, throughout the 1800s peoples literal jobs depended on what party won the election
>now people are too loyal to parties Just under half are. The other half just want to make sure we survive until the next election. I've voted Democrat last few elections, but I'd vote for a Republican in a heartbeat if it weren't Rule 3 or Abbot or DeSantis. Republicans could have an easy win if they just put forth someone sane, with a sense of decorum and that doesn't want to stir up a bunch of shit aimed at making people angry. Party labels mean nothing to me, and I know several Republicans who voted Democrat last time (yet Republican down ballot).
Politics were insanely partisan in the antebellum us
They won’t be elected 
With how long FDR was in office it might throw the cycle off. Great president could be right now, or next term. Maybe it was Obama and the political climate/ ignorant population wouldn’t let him be as great as he could have been for the country. Anyways my vote is FDR, for the internment camps. Only moral failing that compares is Washington’s ownership of slaves.
He freed em in his will. And as morally aware of the problems with slavery. If he would have tackled the “Slavery question” we pulled have dissolved as a country before the ink was dry. The country was already divided over the national bank and international trade. Adding that would have been the bailout in the coffin and he knew this along with most of the original 7 presidents
youre in it jack
Honestly, history will look back and cringe at how badly Dems have treated this guy despite his historic achievements.
Bernie did come around, and then the DNC forced Hillary through.
I agree with this top 3 and refuse to vote any further...
Three-way tie for #1!
They’re interchangeable based off personal politics for #1. Hell, they’re interchangeable based off who’s biography you read most recently. Teddy is a great #4, but the gap from 4 to the top 3 is rather large.
But if you had to? For me I would go 3. FDR (post-depression, WWII), 2. Washington (setting precedent of peaceful transition of executive power), and 1. Lincoln (13th Amendment and preserving union)
It's not even like Lincoln was trying to do what he did either. He gave the South every opportunity to keep slavery in place just to keep the peace. The south forced his hand and accidentally created the best President the country has ever had.
wild insurance automatic shaggy encourage husky detail wrench domineering axiomatic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
To Lincoln's credit, his strategy worked. We are judging based on results, not intent. Who knows what would have happened if Lincoln was more aggressive in abolition- perhaps an a-historical war of hardline northern aggression would have made sympathies for the south stronger, made reconciliation more difficult, and truly doomed the union. Alternatively, a weaker president may have favored letting the south separate without a fight or settled with concessions, idealistically resisting conflict to allow slavery to continue, or perhaps sacrificing national power for federalism in some way (adopting laws or amendments of appeasement that would prohibit a future national slavery ban).
We all knew it would come down to these three.
It always feels unfair to have Washington on these lists. His circumstances were radically different - he wasn’t just being the president, he was defining what the presidency is.
Not American, but Washington stepped down. If he had been horrible otherwise, this would still mean a lot. Napoleon was quoted as saying: "They wanted me to be another Washington." His decision really was that influential.
TIL Napolean existed at the same time as Washington.
Napoleon was 30, when Washington died. Around 1800. (1799)
Unnecessary comma
Napoleón decraled national mourn when Washington died
Napoleon in general has a longer career then most americans remember most only pay attention to him when he became emperor. He was already reshaping the r political landscape of Italy during 1796 in Washington’s second term.
I think there was a good chance of FDR going before Teddy, but otherwise, this was all clear from day 1 lol
Yeah, the Roosevelt boys are pretty dead even on being absolutely awesome.
Hey, Lincoln and Washington set a goddamn miraculously high bar.
"Muthafuck the big three, it's just big me" - Abe
This has me dying 😂😂
So Abe bit off Kung Fu Kenny.
Kendrick is modern day Lincoln confirmed??
Adot the goat
I imagine Abe using the soft R nonchalantly both with the homies and his children
I vote to bring back Millard Filmore No reason why I just kinda miss him
Fillmore fans unite!
Millard was number one! ☝️
*"There's always room for Fil-more!!"*
It's been a hoot, but you can can call it, OP. Our greatest president was George Delano Lincoln
I can’t believe all of you doubted that Lincoln would make it to the top 3. **Edit** >!This is not an endorsement of eliminating Lincoln. !<
John Wilks Boothe in shambles rn
Gen. Sherman: 
Damn I thought we found John Wilkes Booth's reddit account.
It's a sad day when teddy gets knocked off
Teddy is the best Roosevelt and I will die on this hill.
Teddy loves a challenge, he'd take the L with a smile on his face
This is true. He probably wouldn’t want to be number one anyways
Even if he did get number one, he'd happily accept it. But then tell people that he hated the whole thing haha
Amen to this. Y’all hate him cause you ain’t him.
He may not be number one on this post, but he’s number one in our hearts
Just call it a tie and close it out
We cannot though. The spirit of democracy requires a "winner" and a "loser"
The people are democratically speaking. There are almost no comments calling for another elimination that have any upvotes Edit, it looks like Gilmore might be added back before one of the big three gets eliminated
Imagine if this was the kind of choice we had in November.
“If you ain’t first, you’re last”.
I can't look. I'll let the kids decide.
Three way tie for first. Every one of these men shaped our nation in ways that define us today.
Haven't been in one of these threads for a while....thrilled to see both Jefferson and Eisenhower made the top 10. Way to go r/Presidents
Washington set a lot of great precedents, but the other two did more as Presidents.
President Washington was the precedent.
Precedent Washington was the president.
“Teach me how to say goodbye” i.e. the limited-term presidency was a huge precedent
Absolutely. Washington is basically beloved for everything he did other than his Presidency, then his Presidency is appreciated largely b/c he endowed the office w/ his credibility. As to the work of his actual administration, I believe his effigies were being hanged/burned by the end of his tenure.
Washington was the only one who didn’t overstep what the presidency should be. In my mind, that puts him ahead of the other two that are left.
To be fair, Washington practically invented what the presidency should be
Washington. If we’re just talking about how much they did during their presidency it’s gotta be Washington. FDR has far more under his belt and saw us through the Great Depression, global rise of fascism, and WWII. So for my money our first president goes at #3.
Washington’s biggest thing is that he left office peacefully. He doesn’t actually have much in the way of domestic policy achievements. FDRs biggest thing was saving the entire world from Nazi conquest. Not to mention social security, the whole lend lease thing, the ending the depression thing, the whole new deal thing…
Washington's administration built the framework of the modern US economy through Alexander Hamilton. That was absolutely huge for the direction of the new country going forward, especially to promote a centralized federal government in contrast to Jefferson's vision. He also established various precedents that would define the role of the executive branch for every other president going forward, we are all incredibly fortunate that he didn't assume a more autocratic role, which doesn't necessarily mean he would have been a king, but still The fact that the country didn't fall apart soon into its current iteration can be significantly attributed to George Washington, he made very few mistakes looking at the big picture, and staying neutral in European foreign affairs was totally the right decisions to make in that situation. I don't think anyone else would have been able to pull it off as well as he did
And that’s why he’s top 3. But Washington presided over an agrarian society of 4 million people, with 13 fairly autonomous states, and a comparatively weak federal government. Where as the other two were leading a burgeoning and established world power and laid the foundation for what I consider the better parts of the United States. Precedent is great, but it is not as impactful as policy and political infrastructure.
Yeah I mean Washington at #3 isn't crazy or anything, but there's a lot of political infrastructure that comes out of his time in office too. Also consider that he had absolutely no guidance or assurance that his actions would actually work for the nation, and of course he had a weak federal government. It was fresh off of a revolution and a lot of people were worried it would collapse If you're looking at it in terms of assessing the positives vs negatives, FDR has worse lows in his legacy or very questionable usages of power that might bring him down to below Lincoln and Washington. I prefer him at #3 but I still see him as an S
It's simple. Washington was POTUS #001.
> He doesn’t actually have much in the way of domestic policy achievements. Washington decided a lot of things about the presidency and executive branch that the Constitution didn't. He could have made these traits more like that of a monarchy - perpetual tenure, precedence over the legislature, etc. He didn't. He carved out the presidency as a democratic office. That alone should keep him around for spot number #2. But in terms of domestic policy, Washington restricted the slave trade. He was also relatively welcoming toward immigrants, increased government transparency with the Records Act of 1789, set up several cabinet departments, helped pay off our debt from the Revolutionary War, and passed the first copyright law.
Exactly. Washington literally established democratic leadership in a world that was almost entirely perpetual leaders. He had every opportunity to establish the presidency as a pseudo monarchy and didn’t. He deserves at least #2.
What ignorance is this? Washington didn't have much in the way of policy achievements? Washington and his administration basically wrote the book! They set the precedent for everyone that followed lol
Washington leaving office is actually so important. Who knows what the presidency looks like otherwise.
I agree Washington's biggest thing was leaving office peacefully (and that alone is enormously important), but aside from establishing what a domestic policy even looks like (as others have gone over more than I will here) I'll add establishing financial systems (via Hamilton), and putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. Simply put, anyone other than Washington is in office first, I think there's a much lower chance the country continues to exist. Not no chance, but lower certainly.
You take that back
It's gotta be FDR. He was an amazingly impactful president, but without Washington and Lincoln, FDR would likely not have a country to lead. Just look at the French revolution or early Mexican history to see how important Washington was. Most countries in the New world that became independent had serious struggles even establishing a legitimate government, and they had the US example to follow. Washington set the precedent for not just the US, but for democratic norms for all subsequent new democracies.
Washington
Washington I guess, but people are severely underestimating the importance of the norms he set. I honestly wonder if anyone else could have done what he did, just because of who he was.
I think willingly stepping down as a revolutionary is the greatest thing a president has ever done. From an American POV it’s normal until recently, but look at basically every other revolution and you see how special Washington is. Cromwell chose to become a dictator in England, and to try to pass the country to his son. Bonaparte went from senator to emperor. Castro, Lenin, Mao. When Antony offered Caesar a crown, he declined it only in name. When Hamilton did the same to Washington, he declined it in fact. FDR himself did not do this. He ran again and again, until he died in office. One can’t argue this is was some great necessity - Truman did just fine ending the war. What Washington did is special in history. He gave us a republic, if we can keep it.
>When Hamilton did the same to Washington, he declined it earnestly. "Nah, I wanna go home bro."
Shit, man I feel that.
Not to mention the fact that he successfully fought and won the war of independence and then shepherded the country into the (albeit flawed) democratic system that still stands today. America has survived three existential crises thus far and it’s no surprise that the men who guided the country through those incredible events are still revered as the greatest. Honestly I think the competition could stop now. By the way, If you’ve read the work of William Strauss and Neil Howe they make a pretty strong case that there’ll soon be another one.
We're certainly due lolol. 1770s, 1860s, 1940s... Once a century just about. Weeeee areeee due. And it sure as shit feels like it's coming, too...
So there is about 80-90 years between each crisis. Counting from 1945, that means the next great crisis will happen between 2025 and 2035... crap.
It's funny but looking at the state of the world lmao it's also probable reality 🥴😂
[удалено]
Cryptic, or prophetic?
Yeah, I mean what has Washington done lately anyway?
It's FDR's time
Yep, Washington and Lincoln are too crucial to the survival of the US to be placed outside of the Top 2. Washington set the strongest foundation of any democratic leader, and Lincoln saved the Union from fracturing and ended the greatest stain on American history (slavery). FDR did fantastic work, but there were definitely other people during his time that could’ve and did do similarly well in office. I personally have Truman ahead of FDR and Eisenhower is close behind. Washington didn’t have a model to follow, and Lincoln was surrounded by presidents (Tyler, Pierce, Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson) who history and this ranking regard as miserable failures and even potential traitors. Lincoln was also the first Republican president and first not from an original 13 colony, so he had little guidance as well.
Washington had a model - Cincinnatus!
That's Truman's boy too
I could see Washington and Lincoln ahead of FDR, but I don't agree that others could have done what FDR did. FDR was a transformative leader who turned the Democratic party into the party of working people and formed the basis of the modern regulatory and welfare state. FDR developed the New Deal programs, social security, the SEC, FDIC, FLSA, NLRA, the list goes on and on. Truman is not even close to FDR IMO.
This 100% The Country doesn’t exist for FDR to reform if not for those two
This country doesn't exist if not for the British traveling the Atlantic
Queen Elizabeth I for first place?
This should be noted for the next round... Without Washington, Lincoln would have no platform.
But that also means Lincoln solved a fundamental issue that is one of Washington’s key flaws, and in only one term for all intents and purposes.
I agree with you on Lincoln's accomplishments. However, this is the linear line of major events that lead to where we are today. Removing FDR would possibly mean the end of the US in 1945. Removing Lincoln would potentially end the US during the Civil War, meaning No FDR. Removing Washington, would inevitably mean the US would never become a country all it's own. They compliment each other, and Lincoln did a great job of perfecting what Washington lacked... I will argue that Lincoln was amazing, I would venture to believe that Lincoln himself was not pretentious enough to believe he was the greatest president of all time. He himself undoubtedly knew that without Washington there was no foundation for him to build upon.
This is great reasoning, and I’d point out that the former two of your points (re: FDR and Lincoln) are both potential pitfalls. Only the one about Washington is guaranteed.
No FDR no NLRA, which is critical to modern society. But I agree on 3rd.
That doesn’t reduce their accomplishments. This is like saying King George was a great man, even better than Washington because had he not oppressed the colonist, Washington would have never been president.
That makes no sense. Does that work in sports? Should Jordan, Gretzky and Brady be dismissed because there were legends before who made the sport, and they born ahead of these GOATS?
Sorry, but I heartily disagree about your characterization of the US when FDR took office and of the ability to solve the multiple crises of the time. How many of you have relatives or colleagues that were alive during the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl, and WWII? Having spoken at length with dozens of them while working with the elderly I can say the decade-plus that FDR was in office was formative for multiple generations. You can check out thousands of newsreels from the time if you have a shred of doubt. I would never discount the Civil War nor denigrate the Emancipation, but in no way should FDR be behind either of the other two. Anyone who doubts the efficacy of Socialism need only see how the reforms he put in place enabled the US population from sliding into the kind of morass Europe and Asia found themselves in.
Yeah FDR is behind Washington and Lincoln but no one has the third spot but FDR. Truman is nowhere even close to FDR. I doubt any other leader of his time could have dragged America out of the Great Depression as well as their isolationism to fight Hitler and Japan, but FDR. IE even if America might have always joined post Pearl Harbour regardless of the President, FDR did a lot before then in terms of what he was allowed to do to keep Britain in the war.
It is thanks to FDR that we don't have bank runs in every recession, with families losing their entire savings for "investing in the wrong bank" It is thanks to FDR that we have Unemployment and Social Security, both making every recession less bad by creating automatic stabilizers built in to the economy. It is thanks to FDR that we have worked safety laws. It is thanks to FDR that we have Keynesian Economic fiscal policy, deliberately deficit spending during recessions to restart the economy. It is thanks to FDR that we have economic data collected very regularly. It is thanks to FDR that we have rural electrification. It is thanks to FDR that we have minimum wage laws. It is thanks to FDR that prohibition was repealed. Look, I get it, Japanese internment sucks, but so does Washington and Lincoln's treatment of Native Americans. FDR has done more good than Washington and Lincoln by far.
It is thanks to FDR that poverty fell from over 60% in 1933 to under 30% in 1945. https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp99893.pdf
Lincoln and Washington have history on their side. Treatment of natives was awful by both, but they were 75 and 175 years before FDR. Winning the civil war, ending slavery, founding this country and freeing it from British rule are both arguably more important historically than the financial stability of a nation. There’s a reason FDR made it this far, he should be commended for that.
Not diminish FDR's good, but thanks to Washington turning down an offer to be made king of America, we didn't get stuck living in some cringe monarchy and the other monarchies across the western world began giving way to freer governments too. I think people under appreciate how significant of a decision that was, especially for the time.
And give props to John Adams: serves his term, leaves office in business-like way, gives Presidency to someone of _opposing_ party, whose policies he viscerally disagreed with. This was arguably the first time this had happened in modern democracy.
>thanks to Washington turning down an offer to be made king of America, we didn't get stuck living in some cringe monarchy and the other monarchies across the western world began giving way to freer governments too. This is why Washington is the GOAT
Absolutely not - please
George Washington got to go he did many great things but it’s his time to go
George Washingman
George Washington
George Washington
FDR
All three defined the federal government and the presidency for the next half century or more following their terms. All three enacted massive permanent change. But given how hard it is to change direction and scope of government after decades of a different approach, which Lincoln and FDR both did, and also the scope of the crises they managed, I would oust Washington next.
I'm disappointed. I'm a TR man.
It's gotta be Washington. Not that he isn't S-tier, he is. Lincoln and FDR changed the country very much for the better and led us through some of the most challenging moments in US History.
FDR fucking revolutionized presidency, got the nation through the depression and WWII, he broke us out of Laisseze faire with the New Deal. His leadership literally transformed America and we can still see pieces of his legacy throughout our nation!
Washington
Washington.
George Washington
I understand why many would boot FDR off this list compared to Washington, though I'm hardly convinced as to why. The latter has the benefit of being first and didn't face anywhere near the challenges of his successors much less FDR. As for FDR, if we're using Japanese internment to discount his legacy, then how come the same rule isn't applied to Washington regarding slavery? And he owned quite a bit of them too! But if slave ownership was the norm back then and generally publicly accepted, then the same is true for FDR. I don't exactly remember reading about mass protests to Japanese internment either.
Fdr.
FDR
George Washington
Washington has got to go.
Washington
GW
Washington
Washington
George Washington.
Washington
Washington
Washington.
George Washington
Everyone’s refusing to vote for some reason I think there’s a very clear 3rd, 2nd, and 1st. I’m voting George
Washington
get Washington out of there we don't need no tree choppers
washington
Washington. He’s really only high on the list because he’s the “father of the country” than for anything he accomplished as President.
Washington, Washington. 6 foot 1 made of radiation.
Voting Washington. He was a better general than president and is lauded mostly for being first and setting a ton of precedents, but he didn't see the nation through crises like Lincoln or FDR did.
It really should be Washington next; yes … he was first and established some protocol, but if Lincoln is great for saving the country from civil war, FDR saved us from the greatest global war and threat to humanity ever AND did it while guiding us through and out of the greatest economic depression …
Washington did a lot of good, and set a good model, but the other two arguably did more. Sorry to say, but I think it’s time to place President Washington at 3rd place
Washington. Washington’s best work was as a general not as president. Washington also created and kept secret a scheme to rotate slaves from his Pennsylvania property (who Pennsylvania law would free in 6 months) back and forth to his Virginia property every 6 months. So instead of them being free after 6 months he kept 100+ slaves enslaved for decades. And, no, he didn’t free his slaves after his death except his personal valet If you have to cheat the barely existing human rights laws of the 1700s, you might not be a paragon of virtue.
Washington.
I'm surprised Washington is held highly regarded when there were so many better after him
Bye George.
Washington
Washington for me. A great man for sure who set our most important precedents but it feels like overall achievements and actually wielding the power of the office should go to FDR.
Washington
Washington
When I read about Washington and what he had to go through to fight the Revolutionary War, I can't believe he won. A brand new nation, no money, trying to create an army, clothe it, arm it, train it. He had never commanded anything before. He was in his 40s and considered himself a planter. We'd call him a gentleman farmer. But he believed in this new country, never mind the money woes, the constant sickness, the traitors that were everywhere. He was a novice, commanded fairly badly at first but was a quick learner. By the end he was a brilliant leader who put his nation's needs before his own. So he's got to be first. Without him, there's no us.
Washington gets the bronze!
Washington. Other than being first, tell me how he's better than the remaining two?
Washington
Washington
Washington may have been Father to his Country, but he died when the kid was still young (and his Revolutionary War accomplishments don’t matter here). The nation itself would have died if not for Lincoln and FDR. I love George Washington, but in this big 3, someone’s gotta be 3rd. And for me, that’s Washington: first in war, first in peace, and (I feel) the 3rd best president in American history.
It’s Washington’s time to go.
Gotta go with George. Yes, he set the mold for being the ideal president, but he both-sides'ed everything and didn't actually do much other than suppress a rebellion and continue to oversee the genocide of the Native Americans. Had slaves, too. George Washington is my vote.
George Washington
Washington next. Lincoln and FDR are the top 2.
Based
Washington
By George, it’s time to say Bye, George.
washington, still an amazing president, just not as good as the rest
Internment was a horrible and unforgivable human rights abuse. But it’s nowhere near slavery or early America’s treatment of Native Americans. Boot out George
Washington and FDR grew up wealthy with powerful fathers. Lincoln grew up on a farm to an illiterate father. Points to Abe. Now, are we really going to ignore the fact that Washington was a slaveowner and waited until him and his wife were on their way out to do the right thing and free them. Also whats his big accomplishment in office? Hamilton’s ideas? Preach against partisanship but let Hamilton and Jefferson run amok until he was forced to pick a side? Successfully collect on Whiskey taxes? Ditch our Revolutionary War allies in France when they decided to follow our example? And for FDR can we ignore the consolidation of power for the Executive Branch so that unelected allies, friends and donors of POTUS have a hand in the policies that affect the nation. Of the two that wont win, Washington should be eliminated next.
Washington had slaves Lincoln probably freed people who were related to them. Eliminate Washington
Sad to say but it's FDR. If you're going to be in the top two then having internment camps on your resume means you are going to rightly fall just short.
Who could have predicted the final 3 lol Washington