Best President in US History?

[Dazey]

These are Presidents who have usually been polled as within the best or as the best President this country has ever had. Of these men, who would Atlas declare as the best?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Washington

[TNF]

The one who saved the Union and set in motion the destruction of slavery

[Del Tachi]

GW

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Washington, with Jefferson a close second.

[Lief 🗽]

Why isn't Barack Obama an option here?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Of those listed, Jefferson.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Lincoln (duh)

[TDAS04]

Honest Abe.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The rail splitter.

[ElectionsGuy]

Jefferson, of these.

[Donerail]

The fetish of several members of this forum for an unrepentant slaveholder is mildly disturbing.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Voted for TR because his reforms had a long-reaching effect and don't get nearly the credit they should, but I would have no issue with Lincoln as the choice either.

[ElectionsGuy]

The fetish of several members of this forum for an unrepentant slaveholder is mildly disturbing.

Are you part of the "slave owner = automatic HP" crowd? If you are, by the same logic I guess we must never vote for FDR because he put Japanese Americans in camps. Or perhaps there's more to a president than doing or being one horrific thing/action...

[Donerail]

The fetish of several members of this forum for an unrepentant slaveholder is mildly disturbing.

Are you part of the "slave owner = automatic HP" crowd? If you are, by the same logic I guess we must never vote for FDR because he put Japanese Americans in camps. Or perhaps there's more to a president than doing or being one horrific thing/action...

There's a difference between doing something, however horrific, because you believe it to be necessary for the survival of the nation, and doing something because you hope to profit personally from it.

[Samantha]

The one who saved the Union and set in motion the destruction of slavery

[RFayette]

The fetish of several members of this forum for an unrepentant slaveholder is mildly disturbing.

Are you part of the "slave owner = automatic HP" crowd? If you are, by the same logic I guess we must never vote for FDR because he put Japanese Americans in camps. Or perhaps there's more to a president than doing or being one horrific thing/action...

There's a difference between doing something, however horrific, because you believe it to be necessary for the survival of the nation, and doing something because you hope to profit personally from it.

You have to consider things in the context of the time......  It's a lot easier to oppose something when it's widely condemned and completely illegal.  It's certainly not good many Founders had slaves, but that doesn't mean we should automatically call them HPs. 

Who knows, we may be calling people "unrepentant meat eaters" 500 years in the future.  We don't know what moral directions society would turn.

[ElectionsGuy]

The fetish of several members of this forum for an unrepentant slaveholder is mildly disturbing.

Are you part of the "slave owner = automatic HP" crowd? If you are, by the same logic I guess we must never vote for FDR because he put Japanese Americans in camps. Or perhaps there's more to a president than doing or being one horrific thing/action...

There's a difference between doing something, however horrific, because you believe it to be necessary for the survival of the nation, and doing something because you hope to profit personally from it.

What an absurd excuse for FDR's actions. LOL, You can't at least say some discrimination and xenophobia came into the decision? I'm not defending Jefferson's slave owning at all, but there's more  to the founders than 'they owned slaves'. You're suggesting to just look past and ignore all the other things.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

FDR, of course. Lincoln is 2nd. The others on this list are nothing special.

[SWE]

1. Lincoln
2. Grant
3. Taylor
4. JQA
5. MVB

[Flake]

Three way tie between FDR, Lincoln, and Washington.

[Donerail]

The fetish of several members of this forum for an unrepentant slaveholder is mildly disturbing.

Are you part of the "slave owner = automatic HP" crowd? If you are, by the same logic I guess we must never vote for FDR because he put Japanese Americans in camps. Or perhaps there's more to a president than doing or being one horrific thing/action...

There's a difference between doing something, however horrific, because you believe it to be necessary for the survival of the nation, and doing something because you hope to profit personally from it.

You have to consider things in the context of the time......  It's a lot easier to oppose something when it's widely condemned and completely illegal.  It's certainly not good many Founders had slaves, but that doesn't mean we should automatically call them HPs. 

Who knows, we may be calling people "unrepentant meat eaters" 500 years in the future.  We don't know what moral directions society would turn.

That logic would hold up better if there wasn't a significant movement for the abolition of slavery during Jefferson's lifetime. As it was, Jefferson survived to see the elimination of slavery in all states north of the Mason-Dixon, as well as the prohibition of the international slave trade. Half the country hasn't yet banned meat.

The fetish of several members of this forum for an unrepentant slaveholder is mildly disturbing.

Are you part of the "slave owner = automatic HP" crowd? If you are, by the same logic I guess we must never vote for FDR because he put Japanese Americans in camps. Or perhaps there's more to a president than doing or being one horrific thing/action...

There's a difference between doing something, however horrific, because you believe it to be necessary for the survival of the nation, and doing something because you hope to profit personally from it.

What an absurd excuse for FDR's actions. LOL, You can't at least say some discrimination and xenophobia came into the decision? I'm not defending Jefferson's slave owning at all, but there's more  to the founders than 'they owned slaves'. You're suggesting to just look past and ignore all the other things.

I'm not excusing FDR's actions. Merely suggesting that perhaps enslaving entire generations for profit is a tad more morally reprehensible than a wartime internment. Attempting to directly analogize the two is absurd.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

lol Reagan

[RFayette]

The fetish of several members of this forum for an unrepentant slaveholder is mildly disturbing.

Are you part of the "slave owner = automatic HP" crowd? If you are, by the same logic I guess we must never vote for FDR because he put Japanese Americans in camps. Or perhaps there's more to a president than doing or being one horrific thing/action...

There's a difference between doing something, however horrific, because you believe it to be necessary for the survival of the nation, and doing something because you hope to profit personally from it.

You have to consider things in the context of the time......  It's a lot easier to oppose something when it's widely condemned and completely illegal.  It's certainly not good many Founders had slaves, but that doesn't mean we should automatically call them HPs. 

Who knows, we may be calling people "unrepentant meat eaters" 500 years in the future.  We don't know what moral directions society would turn.

That logic would hold up better if there wasn't a significant movement for the abolition of slavery during Jefferson's lifetime. As it was, Jefferson survived to see the elimination of slavery in all states north of the Mason-Dixon, as well as the prohibition of the international slave trade. Half the country hasn't yet banned meat.

Good point, but Jefferson did free some of his slaves and was a relatively kind slaveholder for a Southern Planter.  He also did want to see that slavery would be eventually eliminated, unlike many a Southern politician of the time.

[Sumner 1868]

The one who saved the Union and set in motion the destruction of slavery