- This topic has 9 voices and 15 replies.
-
Posts
-
Not just based in what occured during their presidency that would have happened if they were president or not, but how they changed the events,or any actions they had made in any form be it written or spoken, and what makes them the greatest president ever to serve as Commander and Chief, standing apart from the rest?
If you ask me, I would say the President who had an uneventful presidency is the one who governed the best. Eisenhower comes to mind here. He didn't have any major crises (except the conclusion of Korea), and he built the interstate highway system. America enjoyed economic growth and stability under his watch. Some would call Eisenhower a mediocre President, but his era of normalcy was just what America needed after World War II and Korea. 🙂
Donnie what you say is true about “uneventfulness”. However, I'd have to say that real tests of leadership are created when uncontrollable circumstances force presidents to react in some way which changes the course of American (and perhaps world) events. I wonder if Lincoln would fit in the "best" catagory. Successfully leading a nation facing civil war with an enemy army encamped a few miles southwest of your side's capital has to be one of the most threatening situations ever to face an American leader. People talk about President Bush's difficulties with domestic political opposition. I can only imagine what it was like to have domestic military opposition.
I think the Civil War defined Lincoln….and would have defined whoever was in office during that dark time. Lincoln's greatness though was his humbleness and willingness to try new things without fear of failure. Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, was not willing to try things without personally micromanaging it himself. The differences in leadership philosophies clearly netted vastly different results on the field of battle. Lincoln knew how to delegate authority and Davis did not. Had there been no Civil War though, I really don't think we would have ever remembered Lincoln as being a great President. He probably would have been the equivalent of a Grover Cleveland or Warren Harding.
What I'm saying though is the only way we can judge them is by the way they responded to challenges they faced. Reagan's great challenge was the end of the Cold War. Kennedy's great challenge was Cuba and a threatening USSR. Wilson's great challenge was the First World War and the attempts at forming a world stage for nations.We can't blame any president for uncontrollable events that occur during his tenure, but we can gauge how well the response was given the tools he had to work with. How would Clinton and Bush Jr. have fared had their periods in office been switched around?
Some good points about Lincoln. The south however did as much to defeat themselves as did the north. If the Confederate Government had been as talented as the Generals I believe the outcome would have been different. That being said, Lincoln did not give up or give in and I think that was the main reason he was able in the end to beat the south and cement his legacy.
I would have to say lincoln also. He took everything to heart that happened, The burdens of the civil war he carried as his personal responsibility.
I agree with what Donnie said about Ike. He did,however, have a crisis when Francis Gary Powers was shot down on the U-2 spy mission.I am tempted to become a troll and say that Carter was my favorite but I can't tell that big of a lie.I think I will pick Washington as the best president even tho Teddy Roosevelt is one of my heros.
When it comes to sheer force of character I think it would be hard to top Lincoln. And I dont mean dynamic personalities I mean someone who stands up for what they beleive and does not back down no matter what. and then you couple that with the hundreds of thousands dying on the battlefields sometimes within e few miles of where you are and then throw in morality issues and states rights issues and the list goes on I just dont see but maybe a handfull of men who could have withstood that.
Washington and TR are my favorites, but it's difficult to say who was best. A better question would be what president would have done better than another? For example, would Reagan have done better than TR during the early twentieth century? They were both great leaders, but would their skills transfer to different eras?But who was the best? I say William Henry Harrison - he wasn't around long enough to screw anything up!
I agree that without his Civil War involvement Lincoln wouldn?t rate as high. However, I think he would rank far higher than presidents like Cleveland. And much higher than HardingLincoln did far more than fight the Civil War. Something that is unusual in a war time president.The Homestead Act was a significant factor in settlement of the west. The same is true of the Pacific Railway Act which resulted in transcontinental railroads. The land-grant college act had a major impact on both education and agriculture. The formation of the Department of Agriculture as a cabinet post also left a mark on agricultural development. The National Banking Act significantly strengthened our currency a financial system.Something I think that is often overlooked is Lincoln?s impact of party politics. He was the first to win the presidency as a Republican?a new and weak party. He built the party and it remained the dominant party for a considerable time after his death. Granted the Civil War and Reconstruction were major factors in the growth of the party, but I don?t think the Republicans would have become such a dominant force without Lincoln.As I said, most war time presidents don?t have many domestic achievements. Lincoln did; without the distraction of the war I think he'd have done more domestically. All of which makes me think he?d have left a significant mark without the Civil War.
I will say this, the two greatest men to never become President were William Jennings Bryan and Henry Clay. I think both of those men would have made excellent Presidents. Barry Goldwater would make my honorable mention in this category as well.
Hamilton would have made a better King than President; he wasn't very into Democracy as I seem to remember.
What about Andrew Jackson. He defined American politics for much of the 19th century. historians still talk about Jaksonian Democracy. He was also forceful and driven. If it were not for Jackson, much of the American south, specifically Florida, would still belong to Spain or the Indians. they didn't call him “Old Rough and Ready” for nothing. He also had very concrete ideas about the role and authority of the President, ideas which still rverberate today in the way in which president's execute their power.
