I tend to agree with Jay with one caveat.
George Washington/Thomas Jefferson-Washington set the precedents for every subsequent president. Government under the Constitution could easily have been a dismal failure like the Articles of Confederation. Washington was a big reason why the Constitution proved to be a long lasting success, with his common sense, restraint and magnificent leadership. Jefferson because of one act: the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson put the good of the country over his personal belief in a limited role for the Federal government.
Lincoln-Preserving the Union and abolishing slavery were mammoth achievements, brought about by a man whose previous executive experience was running a two man law firm.
FDR-His New Deal nostrums were a flat failure that probably prolonged the Great Depression, but no one can gain say his role in bringing victory in World War II as Commander in Chief. Blaming him for the Soviets taking over Eastern Europe is insane, as it would have taken another world war to drive them out.
Reagan-Restoring American confidence and winning the Cold War without a shot being fired ensure his place in the top rank of presidents.
What are your choices?
This might be a “two pipe problem,” to quote Sherlock Holmes.
Washington is clearly the most important: “Well begun is half done,” according to the old proverb.
There’s no denying that Lincoln monumentally affected (directly and indirectly) the course of American history.
Wilson, distasteful though I find him, did launch the U.S onto the world stage in a more decisive way than any previous President.
Finally, FDR (see note on Wilson) laid the foundations of the all-encompassing federal government that we live under now.
Another idea for a list might be: which Presidents transcended, in large part, being mere politicians and became something of a Pater patriae (Father of their country)?
I might throw in Teddy Roosevelt. Perhaps he loomed larger in our legend when I was growing up than now. But he was always shown as the president who dragged America kicking and screaming onto the world stage as a major international power player. Plus as an individual, he has to rate as one of the most interesting presidents we’ve ever had. Certainly one of the most driven.
FDR-His New Deal nostrums were a flat failure that probably prolonged the Great Depression
==
They weren’t. The growth in per capita product during the period running from 1933 to 1939 in the United States matched that in Canada and compared favorably to that in every European country bar Germany and Austria. The administration made a great many mistaken policy decisions. It ‘prolonged the Depression’ in the sense that performance was less than it might have been had the administration adopted an optimal policy mix. An optimal policy mix is seldom to be seen in a world run by human beings. A proper complaint would be that elements of the mistaken policy decisions persisted for decades after the war and persist today. That’s not Roosevelt’s doing, but that of the United States Congress assisted by his successors.
I would note that Roosevelt made the cut largely by default. There was a shortage of competing talent during that period.
https://www.deseret.com/2010/11/4/20150565/thomas-sowell-contrary-to-popular-myth-fdr-prolonged-agony-of-depression/
https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/fdrs-policies-prolonged-depression-by-7-years-ucla
Economists will be arguing about this forever Art, but a look at the Unemployment rate is instructive:
https://www.investopedia.com/historical-us-unemployment-rate-by-year-7495494
Unemployment remained in double digits from 1931-1941. Military spending cut short the Depression and nothing FDR was doing made much of a long term dent in reducing unemployment.
I might throw in Teddy Roosevelt.
He would have been number 5 on my list Dave: Panama Canal, building up the Navy, modernizing the Army, National Park system, standing for racial equality in a time of virulent prejudice, etc. Besides, any man who gives an hour long speech after being shot is all man!
Economists will be arguing about this forever Art, but a look at the Unemployment rate is instructive:
==
They won’t be arguing on Dr. Sowell’s terms. That’s an unusually sloppy case from him. (I’ve seen two others by him just as bad. It’s just not his subject). For starters, the Depression was ‘prolonged’ because the downward trajectory was uncommonly long and deep. Nearly all of the implosion in production, real income, and employment occurred before Roosevelt took office. For that reason, it was going to take longer than usual for the economy to recover. Among the world’s affluent countries, you have not a single example of a recovery cycle wherein the growth in per capita product exceeded 9% per annum. Returning to the long-term trend line in the United States (i.e. to prelapsarian levels of per capita product + the improvement one would ordinarily expect over a certain bloc of years) would have taken at least five years at that rate.
==
Improvement in the labor market commonly lags behind that in production and real income and can be quite prolonged. (See how long it took for the British labor market to recover after 1983). The Roosevelt Administration did enact policies which retarded labor market recovery.
==
Please note, period figures for unemployment categorize people enrolled in the CCC, PWA, WPA, &c as ‘unemployed’.
==
What they’ll attempt to enumerate is the contribution of different factors to the severity of the initial implosion (1929-33) and to the secondary implosion (1937-38) and the degree to which recovery was retarded by the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment acts, the Wagner Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act &c. Debates over the efficacy of fiscal stimulus will encompass data from all business cycles and from the war. There’s a rich vein of material to critique the Roosevelt Administration, but too many people inclined to be Roosevelt skeptics get distracted by nonsense.
I don’t know if James Monroe belongs in the top four, but I think he belongs in at least the conversation. The Monroe Doctrine obviously, but also the Missouri Compromise, Liberia, the collapse of the Federalist Party, the country’s first great depression, and the “diplomatic” “obtaining” of Florida.
Something of a side note, I’ve recently seen suggestions that, by the time of the Yalta conference, FDR was approaching Biden-like incompetency and was rolled over by Stalin. This scenario seems to ignore that Churchill was also there, but I found it at least interesting. I wonder if others here have seen that claim, and if there is any real ground for it?
[…] Mary is Why I Became Catholic. . . – Don. R. McClarey, J.D., at the American Catholic10. Four Most Important Presidents – Donald R. McClarey, J.D., at the American […]
FDR was feeling very tired, and was in sad physical shape, but I have seen no evidence of any diminishment of his mental acuity.
I’ve recently seen suggestions that, by the time of the Yalta conference, FDR was approaching Biden-like incompetency and was rolled over by Stalin.
==
He was 63 years old at the time. Not likely.
==
It was Roosevelt’s practice to meet with a clutch of reporters twice a week for question-and-answer sessions (the ground rule being he was not to be directly quoted). The disposition of newspaper reporters was at the time much more in tune with their publishers and the publishers were commonly Republicans.