You’ve probably seen those posters. The ones with every single commander-in-chief lined up in tidy little rows, starting with a stoic George Washington and ending with whoever is currently behind the Resolute Desk. It feels organized. It feels right. But honestly, when you lump the presidents of the United States of America together like that, you aren't actually learning history. You’re just memorizing a list of names. It’s the equivalent of looking at a map of the world and thinking you understand the culture of every country because you can point to the borders.
History is messy. It’s loud, chaotic, and rarely follows a straight line.
When we treat the presidency as a single, continuous stream of data points, we lose the human element. We forget that these were men—sometimes brilliant, often deeply flawed—operating in worlds that looked nothing like ours. A president in 1840 lived in a reality that would be unrecognizable to someone in 1940. If you try to compare them by putting them in the same bucket, you’re going to get a skewed version of the American story.
The Problem With "Greatness" Rankings
We love to rank things. It’s a national pastime. Every few years, C-SPAN or some major university polls a group of historians to rank the best and worst leaders. While these lists are fun for a debate at a bar, they usually fall into the trap of trying to lump the presidents of the United States of America into a universal metric of "success."
How do you compare Abraham Lincoln’s management of the Civil War to Grover Cleveland’s vetoes of private pension bills? You can't. Not really. Lincoln was operating in a moment of existential crisis. Cleveland was operating in an era where the presidency was arguably less powerful than the leaders of major corporations.
One of the biggest issues with lumping them together is that we tend to overvalue wartime presidents. If you lead during a war, you get a "greatness" bump. If you lead during a period of relative peace and boring but necessary economic stabilization, history usually forgets you. That’s why names like Millard Fillmore or Franklin Pierce only come up as punchlines. They weren't necessarily "bad" in the sense of being evil; they were just the wrong people for a very specific, very volatile moment in time.
The Myth of the "Founding" Era
Most people start by lumping the first five or six guys together as the "Founders." It makes sense on paper. They all wore wigs, right? But if you actually look at the 1790s, Washington and Adams were barely on the same page, and Jefferson spent most of his time trying to dismantle what they built.
The Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist divide wasn't just a polite disagreement. It was a vicious, scorched-earth political war. When we group them all together as "The Founding Fathers," we erase the fact that they spent a huge portion of their lives trying to keep the others from "ruining" the country.
Why Chronology is Often a Trap
If you read a standard textbook, you’ll see the presidents listed one after another. This creates a false sense of "progress." We assume that because President B followed President A, the country was moving forward.
💡 You might also like: Human DNA Found in Hot Dogs: What Really Happened and Why You Shouldn’t Panic
That’s not always true. Sometimes, the presidency is a series of reactionary swings.
Look at the Gilded Age. Between the end of the Civil War and the start of the 20th century, the presidency was actually quite weak. Congress held the cards. If you lump the presidents of the United States of America from this era together, they all start to look like the same bearded man. Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Harrison—they are often dismissed as "the forgettable presidents."
But they weren't forgettable to the people living through the rise of the industrial revolution. They were navigating the literal birth of modern America. By lumping them into a "boring" category, we miss out on the fascinating story of how the executive branch struggled to keep up with the explosive growth of the railroad and the telegraph.
The Shift to the "Modern" Presidency
Everything changed with the two Roosevelts. Teddy and FDR didn't just hold the office; they transformed it.
Before Teddy Roosevelt, the president was mostly seen as a clerk for the legislature. After Teddy, the president became the "steward of the people." This is a massive tectonic shift. If you try to lump the presidents of the United States of America from the 1800s with those from the 1900s, you’re comparing apples to spaceships. The job description literally changed.
FDR took it a step further. During the Great Depression and World War II, the federal government became a part of every American's daily life. Social Security, labor laws, the military-industrial complex—all of this was born in that window. Now, when we look at a modern president, we expect them to be a king-like figure who can fix the price of gas and handle global pandemics. It’s an impossible standard that would have baffled someone like James K. Polk.
Personality vs. Policy
We have a weird habit of judging presidents by whether we’d like to have a beer with them. This is the ultimate way to lump the presidents of the United States of America into a popularity contest.
Take Andrew Jackson. By all accounts, he was a terrifying person. He fought dozens of duels, carried bullets in his body, and had a temper that could peel paint. He was also responsible for the Trail of Tears. Yet, for nearly a century, he was lumped in with the "great democrats" because of his populist appeal.
📖 Related: The Gospel of Matthew: What Most People Get Wrong About the First Book of the New Testament
Contrast that with someone like Herbert Hoover. Hoover was a brilliant humanitarian. Before he was president, he saved millions of people from starvation in Europe after WWI. He was probably one of the most "decent" humans to ever enter the White House. But because he was in charge when the stock market crashed, he’s lumped into the "failure" bin.
The individual’s character often gets swallowed by the circumstances of their term. It’s not fair, but that’s how the public memory works.
The Cabinet Matters More Than You Think
When we talk about the presidency, we usually act like it's a solo performance. It isn't.
- Abraham Lincoln had his "Team of Rivals."
- George W. Bush had a powerhouse (and controversial) VP in Dick Cheney.
- Warren G. Harding had a cabinet so corrupt they landed him in the history books for all the wrong reasons (Teapot Dome, anyone?).
If you want to understand a presidency, you have to look at the advisors. The "lumping" method ignores the fact that a president is often just the face of a much larger ideological machine.
The Danger of Nostalgia
We tend to look back at past presidents with rose-colored glasses. We think, "Oh, if only we had leaders like [Insert Name] again."
But every single one of these men was hated by about half the country while they were in office. Even Washington faced brutal criticism in the press. Thomas Jefferson was accused of being an atheist radical who would burn Bibles. Lincoln was called a tyrant.
When you lump the presidents of the United States of America into a pantheon of "heroes," you lose the reality of the struggle. You forget that the country has always been divided. It has always been a fight. That’s actually a hopeful thought—it means that the tension we feel today isn't a sign that the system is broken; it’s a sign that the system is working exactly how it always has.
Practical Ways to Truly Understand the Presidency
Stop looking at the list. Seriously. If you want to actually get a grip on how this country was shaped, you need to change your approach.
👉 See also: God Willing and the Creek Don't Rise: The True Story Behind the Phrase Most People Get Wrong
Focus on "Eras," Not Individuals.
Instead of learning about the 14th president and then the 15th, learn about the "Antebellum Era." See how the tensions over slavery and western expansion forced the hands of guys like Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. They didn't fail in a vacuum; they failed because the country was tearing itself apart.
Read Biographies of the "Bad" Presidents.
Anyone can write a glowing book about JFK or Reagan. It’s much more interesting to read a biography of someone like John Tyler or Andrew Johnson. When you see the world through the eyes of a "failed" leader, you start to see the complexities of the office. You see the constraints, the bad luck, and the missed opportunities.
Look at the Map.
The presidency is often a reaction to geography. The Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican-American War, the Cold War—these were all about space and power. A president is often just a person trying to manage the borders of an ever-shifting empire.
Check the Primary Sources.
Don't just take a historian's word for it. Read the inaugural addresses. Read the private letters. When you read Ulysses S. Grant’s memoirs, you realize he wasn't just a drunk general who stumbled into the White House; he was a deeply thoughtful, tired man trying to navigate a post-war landscape that was still on fire.
Moving Beyond the List
The American presidency is a weird, unique, and somewhat fragile institution. It’s the only office in the world that combines the roles of "Head of State" (the ceremonial part) and "Head of Government" (the political part). In the UK, those are two different people—the King and the Prime Minister. Here, we ask one person to do both.
That’s why we obsess over them. That’s why we lump the presidents of the United States of America together and try to make sense of them. We’re looking for a pattern. We want to know what makes a "good" leader.
But the truth is, there is no pattern. There are only individuals.
To get the most out of American history, start by breaking the list. Pick a year. Any year. Find out who was president, but then find out who was the Speaker of the House. Find out what the biggest song was. Find out what people were eating.
Once you put the president back into the context of their time, they stop being a face on a coin and start being a human being. And that’s when history actually gets interesting.
Actionable Steps for History Buffs
- Ditch the rankings: Stop looking at "Top 10" lists and start looking at thematic groupings (e.g., "Presidents of the Reconstruction" or "Presidents of the Progressive Era").
- Visit the sites: If you’re ever near a Presidential Library, go. They are biased, sure, but they give you a sense of the scale and the ego involved in the job.
- Follow the money: Look at the economic cycles of each term. A president’s "legacy" is often just a reflection of whether the GDP was up or down during their four years.
- Study the losers: To understand why a president won, you have to understand who they beat. The people who didn't become president (like Henry Clay or William Jennings Bryan) often had a bigger impact on the country's direction than the people who did.