Which President was the best general? (WW2, war, generals, Mexican)

[krsheely]

Washington, Grant, Eisenhower, Jackson Im sure I'm missing some.

I'd say Washington

[NJGOAT]

The complete list of Presidents who were generals would be:

George Washington - Revolution
Andrew Jackson - Revolution, War of 1812, Indian Wars
William Henry Harrison - War of 1812, Indian Wars
Zachary Taylor - War of 1812, Indian Wars
Franklin Pierce - Mexican American War
Andrew Johnson - Civil War
Ulysses S. Grant - Mexican American War, Civil War
Rutherford B. Hayes - Civil War
James Garfield - Civil War
Chester A. Arthur - Civil War
Benjamin Harrison - Civil War
Dwight D. Eisenhower - WW2

As to who the "best" was, that is really hard to answer. You could easily pick apart any of them that commanded in major campaigns or battles. To expand on that further, best in terms of what exactly? Washington was a great organizer, motivator and mediator, but he was a rather poor battlefield commander.

I don't think it's fair to compare them to each other, but more or less ask whose military career stands out above their contemporaries in their time. That pretty much leaves you with your original list of Washington, Jackson, Grant and Eisenhower. You need to consider though, that none of them may have succeeded as much as the other if they were time warped into each others places.

[krsheely]

I notice most presidents who fought/commanded in the military came from the years previous to 1900. Why would you think this is, do most people in general not fight anymore, or is it that for most of the prosperous/leadership class currently in the United States military service is not the means most choose to use to distinguish themselves any longer.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by krsheely

I notice most presidents who fought/commanded in the military came from the years previous to 1900. Why would you think this is, do most people in general not fight anymore, or is it that for most of the prosperous/leadership class currently in the United States military service is not the means most choose to use to distinguish themselves any longer.

A few reason I would suspect. In your other thread, I posted a list of every President who served in a war or during war time BTW.

1. Officers in the past were appointed often based on status and not necessarily merit. There wasn't really a career military as much as people were appointed commanders at the outbreak of a conflict. As the U.S. transitioned to a larger permanent military, the military itself became a career.

2. There was a string of major conflicts from the Revolution (1775) to the end of the Civil War (1865) that involved fighting on American territory and had a lot of opportunity for fighting. In the span of 100 years there were 3 major wars, one minor war and constant Indian Wars. Military service was an easy way for one to distinguish themselves. Since 1865 the only time the United States reached anywhere near a level of mass mobilization was WW2. It's no surprise that the Civil War and WW2 were the conflicts that saw the most people who eventually became President served.

3. Following WW2 there has never been another mass mobilization and the military has become a professional force. You also have the issue of the Vietnam War that greatly divided the nation wherein service in that conflict was not seen as being a positive. I think what it all comes down to is that we haven't had a really major war in 65 years that required mass mobilization and compulsory service, so the vast majority don't serve and pursue other fields.

[hornet67]

To me, it's a choice between Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower. If you evaluate on direct command of troops in battle, that eliminates Eisenhower.
Needless to say, there would not BE a United States of America without Washington, and possibly a divided country without Grant's efforts. Eisenhower was responsible for leading the largest military coalition in history, likely never to be repeated, to ultimate victory. Although, the Red Army had a bit to say about victory in Europe.
A hard choice, to be sure.

[Irishtom29]

Hornet says it well and I'm in agreement.

[Florida Exodus]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Andrew Jackson - Revolution, War of 1812, Indian Wars

Jackson wasn't a general during the Revolution. He was little more than a child at the time.

Ulysses S. Grant - Mexican American War, Civil War

I don't think Grant was a general during the Mexican War.

As to who the "best" was, that is really hard to answer.

Grant. Of the bunch he is the only one who knew both how to manage an army and how to use it for strategic purposes. Washington was just an amateur that lucked out. Eisenhower was a logistician and his strategy for winning WWII against Germany was to overwhelm the Hun with massive amounts of men and materiel. Eisenhower insisted on driving the Germans out of Bulge in 1944-45 because the setback hurt his pride. What he should have done was surround the Germans and starve them into submission while the advance into Germany continued. I've heard that Eisenhower had more casualties during the Bulge than MacArthur had in the whole of World War II.

Washington was a great organizer, motivator and mediator, but he was a rather poor battlefield commander.

Actually Washington was a poor organizer. I did a term paper using his personal letters to the Continental Congress during the siege of Boston. Washington knew his army was un-trained and unruly and poorly supplied, but other than complain to Congress Washington didn't know what to do about fixing any of them.

I don't think it's fair to compare them to each other, but more or less ask whose military career stands out above their contemporaries in their time.

They obviously stood out among their contemporaries; otherwise there contemporaries would have been the ones to become president.

[CelticViking]

I think what makes Washington so great was that he was the original, and was doing something that had not really been done per say before. Being the first president...the first to do battle for the revolution..etc...just my opinion.

[MrMarbles]

Seems like Washington is getting a bit too much credit. He had good leadership qualities - which is a lot - but as a strategist and tactician he was poor. The only thing that saved him was the fact that the British were often equally bad, if not worse.

[Escort Rider]

Originally Posted by Florida Exodus

Grant. Of the bunch he is the only one who knew both how to manage an army and how to use it for strategic purposes. Washington was just an amateur that lucked out. Eisenhower was a logistician and his strategy for winning WWII against Germany was to overwhelm the Hun with massive amounts of men and materiel. Eisenhower insisted on driving the Germans out of Bulge in 1944-45 because the setback hurt his pride. What he should have done was surround the Germans and starve them into submission while the advance into Germany continued. I've heard that Eisenhower had more casualties during the Bulge than MacArthur had in the whole of World War II.

You heard wrong about the casualties. First, casualties have a lot to do with the scale of the fighting. The scale of the fighting in the Phillipines alone under MacArthur was enormous, and the casualties substantial. The Battle of the Bulge lasted only a matter of weeks. Perhaps someone will post and put numbers to this - right now I don't have time to look it up.

You sell Eisenhower short. He was more than a logistician - he was a superb diplomat and keep the fractious coalition functioning. Odd that you would talk about his ego in the same paragraph that you mention MacArthur, who had an enormous ego which got in the way of the rational persecution of the war effort.