Historians: Lincoln Best President, Bush 36th

February 17th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

Historians have published a list of the best presidents in history. The numbe r one will surprise no one, Abraham Lincoln, the hero of the Civil War who kept the Union together by using brute force. George W. Bush, the 43rd president, ranks 36th, Bill Clinton 15th and, lastly, Ronald Reagan (the most popular conservative president of the 20th century) 10th.

More:

Founding father George Washington finished second in the new survey, followed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, and Harry Truman, in that order.

Bill Clinton registered the greatest gain among recent presidents, jumping from 21st to 15th in the survey. Ronald Reagan edged forward from 11th to 10th overall, while George H.W. Bush moved up from 20th to 18th.

The prize for the greatest jump in approval from historians over the last nine years, however, went to a president who has often sat near the bottom of such rankings: Ulysses S. Grant. The Civil War general jumped 10 notches, from 33rd to 23rd.

The worst president in history is James Buchanan — the man who watched helplessly as the nation lurched toward civil war in the 1850s.

Interesting about Lincoln is, in my opinion, that both Republicans and Democrats claim him as one of them. Lincoln was, rather obviously, a Republican himself and a man who was willing to do what had to be done (to keep the Union together). He was also the man who ended slavery in the Union as a whole; since Civil Rights leaders and others concerned with the emancipation of minorities in the last 20th century were Democrats, Democrats claim Lincoln is actually one of them.

Looking into the life of Lincoln, however, one quickly finds that he wasn’t a strong principled opponent of slavery. Like many, he wasn’t exactly a fan of it either, but he decided to abolish it when it became clear that keeping the Union together without ending the practice of slavery would be impossible; the North wouldn’t accept a Union in which slavery was legal. Pragmatism led him to force the South to abolish slavery, principles did not. The only big principle Lincoln adhered to was the idea of the Union. He believed it had to remain united, one, and he was willing to do everything (in his power) to prevent it from falling apart. To Lincoln, the Civil War wasn’t truly about slavery but about keeping the Union together.

In any case, what Lincoln is, perhaps more than anything, is an American; an American hero, an American president. Democrats and Republicans can fight all they want about who owns Lincoln, but in the end both do and neither do; Lincoln was an American first and foremost.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Michael Merritt
    February 18th, 2009 at 03:20
    Reply | Quote | #1

    I like Lincoln, and am not saying he didn’t pave the way, but to say he single-handedly ended slavery is a myth. The best he did himself was the Emancipation Proclamation, which outlawed slavery in Confederate states. Border states still in the Union were spared. He also advocated for the Thirteen Amendment, which was ultimately passed.

    You are right though about his goals during the war. I don’t know it off hand, but in one of his more famous speeches, he declared that if he could win the war by ending slavery he would, and if he could win the war by keeping slavery, he would.

    Speaking of which, Lincoln is a perfect example of what never serving in the military and only spending two years in Congress can produce. Not everyone can be as gifted as him, I suppose, but it’s something to think about.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.