Top 10 US Presidents Who Changed the Course of History | History Teacher Reacts | WatchMojo
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 бер 2024
- Mr Terry reacts and comments on WatchMojo's Top 10 list of the US presidents who changed the course of history. He has A LOT to say about it too!.
Original Video: • Top 10 US Presidents W...
Join my channel to get early-access to new videos!
/ @mrterry
Links:
Gaming channel: / mrterrygaming
Discord - / discord
Twitter: / mrterryhistory
Twitch: / mrterryhistory
Patreon - / mrterry
Tik Tok: / mrterryhistory
Instagram: / mrterryhistory
Facebook - / mr-terry-history-10913...
Merch - mr-terry-history.creator-spri...
Streamlabs - streamlabs.com/mrterry2
PayPal - paypal.me/mrterryhistory
For all business inquiries: contact@tablerockmanagement.com
Post your list here!
Tough call. For one thing, the parameters are a little unclear on this one! For example, most of the history-changing achievements they listed for Madison were done before he became president. Should we be counting those in a discussion of a history-changing presidency? And they also said "for better or worse", which can also change how we approach some of the presidents! Anyway, assuming we are talking about the presidency itself and not before/after, and further considering things that changed the course of history for the worse as well as for the better, here's a tentative list of my ten in rough order:
1. FDR
2. Washington
3. Lincoln
4. Truman
5. JFK
6. LBJ
7. T. Roosevelt
8. Wilson
9. Jefferson
10. A. Johnson (changing the course of history for the worse)
A lot of these could easily go up or down a rank. I waffled a lot on the top 3 and really wanted to make Washington #1, but I finally decided that he wasn't so much a president who changed the course of history as the president who *set* the course of history, at least for this country. He almost belongs in a category all his own! I dropped Reagan and Madison from the Watch Mojo list because I feel that if Reagan belongs on a list like this, it's for his economic policies and I'm not sure we've seen the full consequences of those yet, and in the case of Madison, I think he did have a huge impact on the course of our nation but not as much while president as many others. I replaced them with Jefferson and Andrew Johnson. Added Jefferson for the Louisiana Purchase (the big one), the Barbary War and associated events, pushing Congress to ban the slave trade as soon as the Constitutional provision against banning it lapsed, and various expansions in support of a national military. Added Andrew Johnson for his role in the failure of Reconstruction and kicking civil rights down the road nearly a century.
You should do fat electricians Lewis Millett video
Ronald Reagan was hands down the bestest evah! He told the best jokes 😁
For Teddy, I kinda miss the mention of "The Great White Fleet". I feel this put the USA on the map as a major player (naval wise). Would have put Washington at number one instead of Abe.
I don’t have a whole list, but I think Eisenhower should be there. The interstate highway system alone changed a lot. The creation of NASA played a big role in the space race and space exploration as a whole. Even some of the negative things had an impact, like the overthrow of communist sympathetic leaders around the world.
I can hear VTH yelling in agony when Wilson was number 9
Not all changes are for the better...I definitely agree he changed the course of history. That said......SUCK IT, WILSON!
@@VloggingThroughHistory It is just a shame that the list tried to paint him as changing for the better when instead it was all bad.
I can hear TCH (The Cynical Historian) just yelling "WIILLLSSSOOONNN!!!" lmao 😂😂
@@ravageroosgamecorner543 Yes, when I read shadowaccount's comment, I was thinking "I can't hear VTH, because TCH is drowning him out".
@@VloggingThroughHistory omg he’s heeere….guys it’s him. 🤩🤩🤩
How is Jefferson not on this list? The Louisiana Purchase alone should at least get him to the lower end of the top 10.
**EDIT* I swear I didn't listen to Mr Terry at 30:40 before leaving this comment lol
Trickle Down Economics is like Communism - great in theory, but it is never put into practice the way that the theory suggested. The people in charge said, "well wait, it's working for us, so do we have to adhere to the rest of this about helping out the little people?"
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan willingly decided to switch to neo liberal policies that government participation or intervention should be used as minimal as possible and financial services were greatly emphasized! Thus from that day onwards. US manufacturing industry were relegated to outsourcing, to the point that manufacturing now only takes up about 10% of US GDP. Financial services now occupy more than 80% of its GDP. So after 4 decades of inactivity from the manufacturing industry, US has lost the edge completely! Even If it starts now, where would they get the manufacturing expertise, managers, know-how to build infrastructures? Americans were taught from young age to go to the financial and banking sectors, or to be lawyers, who sit behind desks, looking at rise and fall of stock prices, to get instant rewards and profits.
Communism isn't good in theory or practice. Reaganomics on the other hand worked.
"...his untimely death." .... That's about the weirdest way of describing an assassination I think I've ever heard.
I think Reagan was extremely influential for all the wrong reasons.
* Reagonomics has left a permanent scar on the economy that was most visible during 2008
* The revocation of the fairness doctrine destroyed public trust in news media and caused misinformation to spread
* the way he handled AIDS was deplorable
* He allowed large corporations and organizations like the heritage foundation to conquer Washington to a degree not seen since the gilded age
In 1980, before the election, one of the books in my Poli Sci 101 was titled something like, 5 ways the Soviet Union will fail. The real fall included parts of all 5 essays, i.e., scholars saw it coming well before Regan.
My biggest beef with the list is that for Madison, the list took into account what he did before he was president, but for Washington, it seemed to only consider what he did while president, so it seemed to take an inconsistent approach. For Kennedy, I don't think they mentioned the space program, which I think is the most historically important thing that he ever did. I think Polk is top 10 because of his acquisition of a large amount of territory for the US, which is important in itself, but also important because it was an underlying cause of the Civil War.
With regard to the Soviets, remember that their main export (as is still true today with the Russian Federation) was oil. The oil market crashed in the early-mid 1980s. That's what put the Soviets in an economic bind.
I think there is a big difference between a wartime president and a peacetime president. If a president is solely a wartime president they are seen for their acts to affect the war they were involved in. A peacetime president are seen as what they have done to better or worsen the country
I agree with you on Reagan, Mr. Terry. I really don't think Reagan had nearly the effect on the collapse of the Soviet Union that people credit him for, certainly nowhere near as much as Gorbachev, the Afghan war, and the political climate of eastern Europe as a whole had a lot more to do with it. I think the full impact of the Reagan era has yet to be seen -- there's a lot of long-term consequences to some of the things he did that we are just now starting to understand, not all of them positive.
I am the son of a Polish family who lived during and after the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. They can say, that the process would’ve been much slower, hadn’t there been people like Reagan, Thatcher, Kohl, Schmidt and definitely Gorbachev. From my family’s perspective, they’re peaceful leaders
Of course I’m not saying Reagan was the only man who did it all, because that would basically be calling America a one-man dictatorship. But even so, he did handle it well. Even Gorbachev said it, with a rough translation: “Him coming from that background made things easier. Someone else might’ve not been able to do it” when addressing the recently re-established, positive relations between his country and the US.
yeah, the whole Reagonomics thing, influenced by the Chicago school boys like Milton Friedman and ilk. Union busting, unbridled free trade and the sacralisation of financial markets and competition. The ideological superstructure of capitalism reinforces and justifies this neo-liberal way of thinking through conservative think-tanks in order to maintain its grip on the means of production, people and property. What we were told was that it was supposedly meant to induce more growth and free trade but we've had very little growth since the 1980's compared to previous decades when there was more industrial planning and direction of credit and capital flows. What we have seen is simply more millionaires and billionaires popping up, and they have continued their stratospheric rise since the 2008 crisis and during Covid and have reached unprecedented levels. The numbers are all there in the Global Inequality reports.
@L_back I think his impact on American lives long term by shifting the economy has hurt workers an obsurd amount though. I also don't know if anyone would have done anything different with the USSR to be honest
As the joke goes "Rocky IV did more to end the Cold War than Reagan did". The Soviet Union began to really decline under Leonid Brezhnev along with the other stuff you mentioned. On the flipside Reagan had more of an effect on domestic issues with Neoliberalism, the War on Drugs, and the increasing shift of the GOP further to the right. Because decades have past now I think its pretty safe to see the impacts Reagan had on the US and why more people are critical of him
James K. Polk should absolutely be in the top 10. He completed the map of the continental U.S.
Teddy was a Gigachad bro literally took a bullet like it was nothing
I don't think joining the League of Nations would have stopped WWII. The Treaty of Versailles was strangling the German people. It wouldn't have stopped the fasicist, and it wouldn't have stopped the rise of Hitler. However, if they were part of the league, it might have pulled the US into the war sooner in the Western Theater.
I think making a top ten list for this category would be an extremely daunting task, as almost all the presidents did change the course of history in major ways. It would be easier make a list of presidents who did NOT change the course of history, and even then there'd be few of them. William Henry Harrison comes to mind as one who did not, because his presidency lasted only a month.
nice video man you have inspired me to create my own history channel i am in love with this content !
Yes, WWII still happens without a doubt
I also don't mind Lincoln as one, even though he probably be number two or three for me
Definitely. Hitler would have invaded Poland regardless of who the US president was.
Under Reagan, most Americans saw federal withholding (income tax) go down, and SSI ( social security) go up, resulting in no change in take home pay. The rich, however, enjoyed a reduction in taxes. The result was a significant drop in tax income. Reagan raised spending,greatly increasing the national debt. The economy was sluggish at best, even though interest rates came down.
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan willingly decided to switch to neo liberal policies that government participation or intervention should be used as minimal as possible and financial services were greatly emphasized! Thus from that day onwards. US manufacturing industry were relegated to outsourcing, to the point that manufacturing now only takes up about 10% of US GDP. Financial services now occupy more than 80% of its GDP. So after 4 decades of inactivity from the manufacturing industry, US has lost the edge completely! Even If it starts now, where would they get the manufacturing expertise, managers, know-how to build infrastructures? Americans were taught from young age to go to the financial and banking sectors, or to be lawyers, who sit behind desks, looking at rise and fall of stock prices, to get instant rewards and profits.
He actually tripled the debt. His economic theories were the absolute worst, famously called voodoo economics by George H. W. Bush. I disagreed with much of Bush and his ways, but he was a smart man.
In terms of impact, Kennedy is maybe in the 20’s, but his predecessor Eisenhower’s Presidency was way more impactful to the course of future history
Giving Reagan credit for the fall of the USSR is like crediting Washington for the French Revolution.
Crediting Reagan for the fall of the Soviet Union is like crediting a rooster for the sunrise.
Idk, but he was one of the ones (but not the only one) who played a role in de-escalating the Cold War and kinda welcoming former eastern bloc nations back into the world. Not my words, the words of my family who lived in these times
He wasn’t the only one. We, former eastern bloc citizens, have a lot of respect for Gorbachev, something many Russians unfortunately don’t have
if wilson wasn’t racist he be a decent president 😭
He did not bring down the Soviet Union, but he did an act policies that hasten its demise. Whenever people go after Reagan, you can always tell what side of the isle they are coming from.
@@OSUforlifeThe side of the aisle that can spell?
Mr. Terry, I know I could say something else, but I’m gonna say this - I really appreciate your objectiveness when it comes to reviewing historical lists. It’s something every historian should look up to, in my opinion
Also, I’m not saying Reagan did all of the things to end the Cold War single-handedly, but I think I heard WatchMojo say: “He played an instrumental role.” Isn’t that kinda true?
He wasn’t the only one, obviously. Let’s not forget Thatcher, Gorbachev, Mitterand, Kohl, Schmidt and the others. They did help former eastern bloc nations in getting back on track. Not my words, but those of my family, which lived during those times in those nations. We, citizens of former eastern bloc nations, have a lot of respect for Gorbachev, something many Russians unfortunately don’t have
I’ve always found it interesting that the only reason Regan became president can probably be traced to a contest Wheaties held.
I’m surprised Jackson wasn’t on the list because of his impact on expanding the country under the idea of manifest destiny, paying off the national debt, the trails of tears and displacement of the native Americans which led to the harsh treatment they experienced, and the basically dominating the Democratic Party which despite what you might think of Jackson you have to admit he was definitely influential on the development of the United States
If memory serves me correctly, Jackson, or at least his administration, is responsible for the common folk to be able to vote without needing to own property/land. I could be mistaken though... 🤔
@@ravageroosgamecorner543Isn't that state decided? States are in charge of creating and handling election law for the most part.
@Gildedmuse The federal government can decide and handle election laws in cases where voters' rights are infringed. Just look at the 15th, 19th, 22nd, 24th, and 26th amendments; all were passed to address the multitude of ways the disenfranchised were barred from voting in local, state, and even federal elections. Before Jackson was president, voting was limited to only property owning (a piece of land or a building) men of European descent who were over 21. While his administration never passed an amendment to change that, his platform was so popular with the common man that all the states at that time dropped it (mostly out of fear of mob revolt that would most likely be supported by Jackson and his administration). Had the voting rights of non-European Americans, women, and those under 21 been as highly supported as the common man suffrage, those amends would have never been added to the constitution in the first place. I hope this clarifies the topic.
@@ravageroosgamecorner543 It did! Thank you for the additional information!
I think WW2 still happens because even though the U.S. didn't join the LoN, ironically they may have taken a more hardline stance vs Japan's imperialism in East Asia than any actual member of the League. So I don't see it really it making a difference
That would be very ironic, considering that we are imperialistic ourselves (not on paper, but in practice). 😂
@ravageroosgamecorner543 we dont colonize but we do use our economic power and military to influence countries.
@@A_reasonable_individual42What would you consider our actions in Hawaii, Guam and the American Soma's if not a form of Imperialism? Hawaii had a fully functioning government before we came along, with people living their lives as Hawaiians. So how is stepping into that situation in order to sieze their land and use their resources, eventually eliminating the royal line and taking control of the island nation.
I mean, if it's not imperialism it does a really good impression of one. Totally method
If Reagan pushed us into these corporate-run prisons, then he is worse than what I thought. Not saying that criminals shouldnt be punished, but they have recreated some nasty slave practices. They also make enough money that it gets in the way of real rehabilitation. There is a major financial incentive to keep jails filled. Small crimes get punished by sending minor criminals into places with major predators. They have to become just as bad to survive, which makes transition back to real life terrible. It is a definite harm that he inflicted on society.
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan willingly decided to switch to neo liberal policies that government participation or intervention should be used as minimal as possible and financial services were greatly emphasized! Thus from that day onwards. US manufacturing industry were relegated to outsourcing, to the point that manufacturing now only takes up about 10% of US GDP. Financial services now occupy more than 80% of its GDP. So after 4 decades of inactivity from the manufacturing industry, US has lost the edge completely! Even If it starts now, where would they get the manufacturing expertise, managers, know-how to build infrastructures? Americans were taught from young age to go to the financial and banking sectors, or to be lawyers, who sit behind desks, looking at rise and fall of stock prices, to get instant rewards and profits.
@@powerfulstrong5673 I'm pretty sure we could spin up manufacturing if we wanted to. However, our workers would want to be paid more than our competitors' workers. To be fair, our corporations could pay enough, but we know they won't.
His ill advised war on drugs
The way my mother describes the flip in the south is that 2/3rds of her family changed parties while 1/3rd changed their hearts.
I would say Hoover should be on it, because changed history doesn't necessarily mean for the better and his failures made The Great Depression worse.
Hoover's failures did make the Great Depression worse (not repealing Prohibition when it clearly made things worse), but at least he did try to fix it, unlike his 2~3 predecessors: Warren, Coolidge, and Harding IIRC.
I think that Hoover's failures were mostly inaction, and I wouldn't put someone on a list about changing history for doing nothing.
Now this got me thinking could you react to Professor Dave's American history through it's presidents videos. Maybe not all but some.
The Treaty of Versailles caused WWII, not The United States staying out of The League of Nations.
I'd say "that changed history" is very fair to attribute to Lincoln
Agreed. The past 160 years would have been very different if the US was divided into 2 countries instead of being united. It's like when A&E had their 100 people who most affected history back in '99- 2000. I watched that with my parents, and we were surprised that Johann Guttenberg was named number one, but when we thought about it, so many of the other people on the list came after his inovations with the printing press, making literacy and education available to the masses (probably not intended, but it happened).
not sure how much you have read about the death of olof palme but it would be interesting to see you react to some form of videos that covers his assassination
While yes the list is not current centric in that one would have to be Gen X to have living memories of Reagen, but 7/10 were Twentieth century Presidents. As is being pointed out, Founding Father Presidents seemed to be crowded out as well as the men who set the conditions for the Civil War and men who resolved it. The emphasis also seemed to be on mostly positive effects, thus leaving out the likes of Van Buren, Coolidge, Hoover, and Grant. Presidents that could have saved much suffering and either failed or worse did nothing to stop it.
Before Lincoln, people referred to the United States as a _plural._ It was, “the United States _are”_ a bunch of independent states loosely federated. After Lincoln, people referred to the United States as a _singular._ It was, “the United States _is”_ a nation. He fundamentally changed the way America views itself as a country. If that’s not changing history, I don’t what is!
You should look at the rankings of all of the US presidents. There were scholars that got together and ranked them
A strong case could be made for James K. Polk taking into consideration the annexation of Texas, resolution of the Oregon dispute with Britain, and the military conquest of Mexican territories that would go on to form all or part of seven states including California.
There are a lot of factors having to do with Texas separating from Mexico, most have to do with Mexican politicians decades before Polk even took the white house.
Did not Polk also invade Hawaii or was that Pierce? It is so hard to keep track of who was the most imperialistic president.
@@ravageroosgamecorner543 Hawaii was invaded under McKinley I believe, so much later.
I agree with you that Polk should be on the list but one small correction: Texas was annexed under Tyler, it was just under Polk that a war started because of it.
I am shocked that James Monroe didn't get a mention. I'd certainly have put him right at the top of the list given that the Monroe doctrine effectivly locked the European powers out of the Western Hemisphere and ended their colonial expansion. Actually, on that same note I'd argue that Truman should have gone much higher due to the Truman doctrine and the policy of containment.
I certainly agree that Washington should have been number 1! Not just his service in the creation of the country (both politically and militarily) but the fact he was able to seek wise council in all forms throughout represents a level of humility that few presidents have demonstrated if nothing else. The only thing he didn't do was push for congress to codify the expectations for all politicians (frankly of all three branches) to have term limits.
Washington's biggest fault was just owning slaves. Like treating actual human beings as objects.
His second biggest fault is imagining everyone would be a gentleman who respected the IDEAS behind the country he helped found rather than just the laws.
"America became a spoiled child under Regan." Is the perfect way to describe his presidency.
I would also say America became a narcissus, but that happened after the War of 1812. We were so lucky Napoleon was causing havoc at that time. 😂😂
Not having Andrew Johnson on here is criminal. As VTH always points out, his policies and allowing black codes ruined the hopes of African American rights for decades and we still feel its effects today
I really think Monroe deserves to be on that list. The Monroe Doctrine kept Europe out of the affairs of the Americas for quite some time.
I’m gonna need @VTH to react to this too. 😂
Reagan for sure belongs on the list. He allowed stock buybacks and ever since then American wages have stagnated while the nation's GDP has been steadily raising as it had been for a long time. It got rid of the incentive for companies to grow and pay their workers more. Instead, just artificially inflate their stock and reap the rewards.
I don't think that the USA joining the Legion of Nations would've changed that much. The reason is that after Wilson, you had three Republican Presidents who didn't join the Legion of Nations but did their own thing. My only guess is that certain treaties like the Washington Navy Treaty and others like it would've been promoted at the Legion of Nations, but I'm not certain it would've changed much.
11:15 they call it the "party switch"
Not much of a switch.
Democrats still get angry when you threaten to take their gardeners and maids.
My maternal grandfather was slated to take part in the invasion of the Japanese home islands, so he might have been killed, my mom would never have been born, and by extension, neither would I!
Monroe missing surprises me... Monroe Doctrine was huge part of US diplomacy
Washington could have essentially made himself a "king" twice, and both times he stepped away.
Although not an American, at school in Kenya, England, S Africa, and Canada (on an IB programme), I studied American history in some depth. My humble submission as the top 5 best US presidents, in order, would be: FDR, Lincoln, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, and Madison. I put FDR above Lincoln because he faced global issues as well as the Depression. Lincoln was the best domestic president.
Reaganomics were the policies of Reagan, Maggie Thatcher and Brian Mulroney. It was a change in the way of thinking, as well as an economic policy which benefitted the rich at the expense of the poor. The first Free Trade agreement ever was signed between Canada and the USA (it became NAFTA after Mexico joined) which led to the race to the bottom and USA's lower unionization rates. Reagan was the American father of Free Trade agreements. I think that the TV show Dinosaur with Earl Sinclair had the best explanation for trickle down economics I have ever seen. Then there are the memes of rich people micturating. And there was the Cold War - won eventually by Paul Henderson. Ok, I'll be serious, there is a debate whether or not the USSR was as powerful as they claimed or bluffing. Either way, an external threat took the Americans' minds off of domestic policy. To this day, the Fraser Institute (and their American counterpart) put out their "tax freedom day" and the CCPA puts out their how many minutes into January it takes for our richest to earn what the average person does in a year - and that is all part of Reagan's legacy. Karlheinz Schreiber really like his tear down this wall comment - and he was on the payroll of the Gov of Bavaria.
LBJ / Rosevelt - Civil rights=human rights. Medicare / medicaid - was this a first step or a watered down version of what some were asking for? Also, was there a perceived link between these two policies - where, those who were against civil rights were also against single payer health care. There was an exodus to Canada from the USA during the Vietnam war - this did not happen during Iraq because Americans were sent back to the States. Social safety net and labour rights good .
I love how Madison was portrayed in the Three Trolls and a Baggy song, The War of 1812 - one video portrays him as a crying neonate.
JFK was the first Catholic President - after the 13 colonies considered the British extending rights to French Catholics unforgivable.
Your first President George Washington is famous for his wooden teeth and growing pot in his back yard. The Father of the Nation who shot blanks.
Debt can be due to more money going out, but also less money coming in. Some people speak of corporate tax cuts as an expenditure.
Assassination tends to get one on this list.
Lincoln is a good person.
Lists are always controversial. There should be a video exploring what lists tell us about the list makers.
My Top 10
1) Lincoln
2) Washington
3) Reagan
4) Jefferson
5) FDR
6) Coolidge
7) Truman
8) Teddy R
9) IKE
10)Monroe
Don't forget that the Bay of Pigs was already in motion when JFK took office. My Spanish teacher in 1970 was part of the Cuban resistance and told us how the Cuban government was warned and jailed all of them which is why the Bay of Pigs was a disaster.
I'd add Jefferson as well as Andrew Jackson.
To say Reagan didn't have an impact that changed the course of history is a revisionist view. He brought America out of the fog of Vietnam, Nixon, Carter, and the malaise of the 70's and this country became the economic superpower we are today. His policies created a boom which the technology sectors took and ran with it. Innovation took off and companies like Apple and Microsoft, and all these things we use today were born of that period. He showed if you take the boot off industry (with lowering regulations), industry would explode.
Furthermore, America was a very depressing place in the 70's. Long gas lines, inflation, stagflation, Iran holding our people hostage and it just felt hopeless at times. Reagan came in with his pro America rhetoric and people were proud to be Americans again. Heck, when Gaddafi threatened the US after he bombed the German nightclub Reagan had him bombed and killed one of his kids. He (Gaddafi) went radio silence after that. That was something we needed after being bullied by Iran under Carter. I would also argue that his defense spending helped to speed up the collapse of the USSR as they could not keep up. Add American culture to that and the people of the USSR were ready for something new. They would have collapsed at one point as Communism does not work on a grand scale, he just helped accelerate said collapse.
The US would have been much more progressive and leading the world in all technology if Carter had been re-elected. Just the fact that the Republicans hated Carter and part of the Democrats did to, tells me that he was a truly honest intelligent man that didn't play political games...Carter just told the truth.
I do not see how Reagan brought us out of the fog of Vietnam, considering that Nixon (reluctantly) signed the withdrawal order. As for the Watergate scandal, Ford had to (also reluctantly) deal with mess with no success.
It was Jimmy Carter who got the nation on the path to healing and trusting the government again after picking up what Ford was unable to fix (government distrust was already high b4 Nixon, he just made it even worse), and unfortunately for Carter, he also inherited all of the baggage from the US's piss-poor foreign policy decisions thanks to the Truman doctrine (Iran as a prime example). And before anyone says anything about how bad inflation was during his presidency: again, he had to inherit bad things from previous presidents. Everyone forgets that inflation was happening before Carter started. As for Carter being Iran, you are so incorrect. It was Carter who managed to get the hostages released, despite the back deals that one of Reagan's people was trying to make (it is all documented if you need to find it) that requested they delay the release in exchange for a better deal if Reagan won. Don't even get me started on Reagan's list of terrible policies and failures, we'd be here all day.
As for being the economic superpower we are today, we were that long before Reagan took office. As for when and for how long, that is a discussion for another day. Of course, that is assuming we are not taking into consideration the ridiculous wealth inequality, the increasing number of homelessness, or the lack of decent retirement for those who are not in the top 25~35% income earners. The one thing I can say, is that Reagan was a good orator, and good at getting people to have way more nationalistic pride than they ever should have or than is healthy.
Paul Volker, president of the Federal Reserve, should get the majority of the credit for “breaking the back” of inflation. Regan had nearly nothing to do with it and trickle down just created dramatic income inequality.
Apparently lbj was big down there. There's a phone call about it to a tailor. Also in San Marcos texas there's a LBJ museum
How do they put George Washington at #3 and mention his restraint by stepping down after 2 terms, and then immediately follow that by putting “King Franklin the 1st” at #2?!
Sometimes, you've really gotta wonder about WatchMojo's list makers. I've also noticed that sometimes they seem to also not use fact checkers. I've stopped watching their stuff.
I'd say Washington is #1 and Lincoln #2 but that's me personally.
How much of what is credited to the presidents actually have very little to do with them, as they can be dragged along by a combined congress of the opposing party. Similar with the results coming by the means of non-governmental entities or by foreign powers
I believe the only reason Reagan should be on this list was that he opened the door to celebrities looking like political candidates to voters. Although Reagan had political experience, his popularity among the people showed our 2 party system that in order to win, the felt the need to grab a known name instead of someone able to perform the duties of the position.
In general, I agree with the list, although I would have included Jefferson and not included Wilson. I also agree that Reagan should have been lower on the list and Truman much higher. I agree with the top three in the order presented. While Washington definitely set some defining precedents, to me he didn't 'change' history as much as set a course for the future of a new nation. I definitely agree with you that stepping down after two terms was an important decision, although most of what I've read is that it was really more of a matter that he was tired of being involved - as a military leader and then president - and just wanted to go home and be a farmer in his old age. I could be wrong but I don't think he actually said "I think the president should be limited to two terms" but it was taken that way by his successors until FDR. I don't have any arguments with the comments about FDR or your perspective on his legacy. There was great leadership but also put the country on an economic course that continues to get worse because debt is no longer seen as a bad thing. As for Lincoln, I'm in agreement with the #1 position because he truly did affect the historical direction of the US. I'm influenced by a lecture given by Kermit Roosevelt in, I think, 2020 where he divides the US into the period before Lincoln and the Civil War from the period after. That we essentially 'grew up' during those 4.5 years. Lincoln had a history of being anti slavery but he was also pragmatic about how much could be done. He recognized the importance of Kentucky to maintain access to the Ohio River and thus the Mississippi - since this was before Vicksburg and Union control of interior waterways - and the likelihood that declaring emancipation affecting Kentucky could jeopardize that (the Eastern half of Kentucky was generally pro-South, even though the state remained in the Union). That's my take one it but I always enjoy your insights.
What about polk ??
I feel like Mr. Beat would have some good insights here, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he were completely unable to choose the most influential.
I don't think that the US joining the League of Nations would have mattered. The League failed because nobody wanted to use it to check Japanese aggression in Manchuria or China or check Hitler in central Europe. I can't imagine a firmly isolationist United States would have caused any difference.
Basically any positive top ten US President lists... Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln are almost always going to be at the top.
10: Monroe (Monroe Doctrine)
9: Jefferson (Louisiana Purchase)
8: Kennedy (Cold War Strategy, Civil Rights)
7: Lincoln (Civil War)
6: Roosevelt (US imperialism)
5: Bush (Impact of War on Terror on the US' global image, GFC and impact on global economy)
4: Wilson (Establishing international governance, self determination)
3: Washington (Term Limits and founding of the nation)
2: Nixon (Opening to China, thus winning the Cold War)
1: FDR (Post-War International Structure, New Deal, etc -- US was the #1 world power due to him)
I don't think Lincoln is that unreasonable of a choice for #1. America would certainly look very different today (and not for the better) if not for his leadership during the Civil War.
Technically all president change course of history
5:48 it’s hard to argue one way or the other if the USA joining the League of Nations would have swayed anything one way or the other. This is largely because like the Concert of Europe after the Napoleonic wars the primary function didn’t stop someone who thought the best way forward was war.
Also my personal opinion is Lincoln should have been number 2 Washington should have been number 1
No way they put Washington 3rd, that's a crime
What ...no Millard Fillmore?
Disagree that the use of atomics was Truman's biggest impact, personally I think the conflict with Soviet Russia was more impactful. Roosevelt and Truman's opponent , Henry Wallace, were both much more open to working with Russia while Truman was staunchly opposed to any dialogue.
I agree. Almost anyone serving as president at that time would have done the same thing.
@@otisdylan9532 right?! Don't get me wrong, using the bombs was a huge deal, but the creation of the cold was was far more impactful. If the US and USSR work more closely or have more open dialogue and less fear the last 75 years are completely different
@@benmaguire1729 I agree. Looking back at my comment, I think that I wasn't very clear. I meant that almost any president would have used the atomic bomb. It looks like you may have understood what I meant despite my lack of clarity.
@@otisdylan9532 haha! I did indeed sir. I'm was just expanding on the idea. I'm glad I'm not the only Westerner that sees to the heart of the matter. I firmly believe that had Henry Wallace won the VP nomination in 44', which was arguably stolen by certain elements at the convention, the cold war would not have played out as it did. Wallace wanted dialogue and a removal of fear in that discourse which could have possibly prevented Korea and the following decades of mistrust and antagonism from both sides. That's not to say there wouldn't have been conflict, but I believe it would have been hugely mitigated.
I'm not sure that the Cold War would have been much less intense had Truman not become president. You are right that Roosevelt and especially Wallace were more naive when it came to the Soviet Union. So there would have been less tension in the beginning but there's no reason that Stalin would have behaved any differently than he did. He'd likely still have turned most of Eastern Europe into Soviet satellites as well as prevented free and fair elections there, all while crushing any resistance. And at that point I think even someone like Wallace would have realized the Soviet Union was not going to be an ally for long. And then of course there's the 1948 election which Roosevelt wouldn't have participated in (in fact I believe he actually had planned to resign after the war would be over) and Wallace would have likely lost (like he did in our timeline too). Therefore someone else, a Republican (Dewey maybe?) becomes president and the Cold War would still happen, just the beginning would be a bit different.
Truman was of course still a very influential president but I think his biggest impact was neither the Cold War nor dropping the bombs. I believe it was the Marshall Plan. Without it, Europe would have had a much more difficult and longer time to heal from the war which could lead to it falling either to fascism again or to communism and therefore subsequently the Soviet Union. Though maybe I'm biased because I am European.
I'm also not so sure if I'd put him in the Top 10 presidents that changed the course of history. Top 20 definitely but there have been other presidents who deserve to be on this list more than him.
Ones I would add are:
James Polk - wrecked Mexico on probably false pretense in a land grab potentially changed Mexico’s history permanently.
James Monroe - the Monroe doctrine kept the US out of euro affairs for a long time.
Franklin Pierce: for one reason. He was president when castle garden opened which really made the US a melting pot for euro mass emigration.
Other than that, honestly, it’s tough because I think other than militarily in the 20th century, we were a world success story, but we didn’t meddle a ton. We were successful not because we changed the world, but because individuals came to us and changed themselves.
Lincoln should be number 1 because the civil war opened the door to government pushing the envelope of power and set us on a path that has led us to today.
"but we didn’t meddle a ton" - lol! ^^
@@mori1bund do you disagree? I would not consider us the start becoming an active world power till after 1900
@@amrosh791 Oh, I think I misread your comment. I thought you meant the 20th century. ^^
@@mori1bund yeah. 20th Century is 1900s. Before that, on the world scale, we weren't involved too much.
I don't have any horses in the race, since I'm not at all up to speed on the influence of presidents from a deep understanding. What I will say, though, is that I think a bias towards recent presidents should be handled both ways -- just because they were recent doesn't mean they _weren't_ one of the top ten most influential presidents in changing the course of history, either.
Watchmogo is a Canadian channel I think they did OK for ranking foreign leaders.
I think Washington should be number one considering if it weren’t for him, there would be USA
I’m not trying to play into the whole “great man” idea but it’s true if not for some people, then history would be completely different, and some things wouldn’t of happened because they would’ve needed to happen at that certain time. This is one of those examples when I think of the “great man“ idea I think of inventors if a certain person didn’t invent a certain object, then that object would simply be invented by someone else at a later date, but people like Napoleon, George Washington, Genghis Khan, etc. are people that have shaped human history, there wouldn’t have been another George Washington equivalent, and if there was, it would’ve been too late yes there were other really good generals and commanders at the time, but some of the events that happened wouldn’t have happened to other people and the way Washington handled these events at the time shaped history and in a broader view created America, if not for him, there would be no USA
To be fair, mostly everyone could've done a better job than Washington. France's own King Louie had a huge role in America been created, in fact you can even trace it back to France losing the 7 years war.
@@JoseFlores-xh5cjFrankly, France is the only reason the revolution even stood a chance in the first place.
Reagan was an actor. He made the Americans that supported him feel that America was getting back on top. Carters presidency right before his was seen as weak. The hostage crisis made America seem weak and some Americans fearful. Gas prices on the oil crisis created tons of economic issues. With oil r
Prices doubling in 12 months and people lining up for gas. When Carters solution was for people to pench pennies and go solar Reagan told them everything they were doing was fine and to keep living large. He told them the comforting thing, the easy thing. And while some things got better under Reagan for some the reality is he destroyed tons of social structures and issues, and unions.Sadly the major effects of some issues either weren’t targeting some Americans with his war on drugs hitting hippies and black people, his handling of aids targeting gays. And other things like the getting rid of facilities for those who are mentally ill and reganaomics would have lasting cons only later. The huge mental health crisis and homeless crisis we have is partly due to that.
Mr. Terry was wild with this one. Being incredulous about Lincoln being #1... They guy put the US back together after it split up. That's *huge* in regards toa country's history!
I don't see any way that the USA joining the League of Nations would have had any effect on WWII starting.
Germany withdrew from the League years before WWII started, so I don't see how the US's membership would have had any impact on Germany's decision to invade other nations. Maybe if the League's members actually protected each other, Germany would have thought twice about its imperialistic actions if US was a member. However the member states proved they wouldn't protect each other years before Germany invaded Poland.
Both Japan and China were members when Japan decided to attack and occupy parts of China (some historians argue this was the true start of WWII). The League expelled Japan for doing so, but did not impose any kind of sanctions or punishments on Japan. So I don't see how the US being a member would have effected Japan's decision to attack the US. Also this showed that the League couldn't have even prevented a member state from attacking another member state. And showed that the League was a toothless organization that wouldn't actually do anything practical to protect an attacked member state.
1 Washington 2 Lincoln 3 FD Roosevelt 4 LB Johnson 5 T Roosevelt 6 Truman 7 Monroe 8 Jefferson 9 Jackson (in a bad way) 10 Trump (in a bad way). That's my list.
Totally agree with you on #10
Can you pls react to tank fish rise of nations
My list of top 10 most impactful US presidents:
1. FDR
2. LBJ
3. Lincoln
4. Jefferson
5. Washington
6. JFK
7. Roosevelt
8. Harry S. Truman
9. Andrew Jackson
10. Reagan
I found it curios how we tend to idolize and idealize presidents. They are human and make mistakes. Just because they are president doesn’t mean they are solely responsible for the major changes in the world during their presidency. I would like to know what you think Mr. Terry
Lincoln as #1 is kind of crazy, I saw him being #1 because he wasn't from 5 on but still... Kind of crazy to me.
As he mentioned, "normies" channel, so they're gonna keep off most modern politics. That really leaves you with Washington or Lincoln for "Presidents who Changed The World (and we weren't humiliated by how they acted in office).
The problem with Reagan is that most people keep look at him in regards to the fall of the U.S.S.R when, yes, he didn't have as much of an impact as most people seam to give him. He did push them, in regards to buying weapons, but as what was mentioned they also had other problem come up that majorly effected them. As for in the U.S itself that is where I would say Reagan had the most impact in majorly bringing down Unions, Reaganomics and how that not only free up big company's but majorly effect small business in a negative way, the drug war both outside but majorly inside the U.S, and his accepting both money and guidance from the Evangelical Church, in essence braking the bases wall for "Separation of Church and State" can be found when looking at, & combining, the first sentence of the First Amendment, Article 6, Clause 2 & 3, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, & 2 areas in the Preamble that mentions that the U.S is suppose to be, & have, domestic peace & general care for its people. But by doing so it in turn allowed them to get religion to have a more stronger hold into all levels of government much more easily, and in turn have an effect on governmental issues that in turn ended up divided the country.
I think Lincoln should be #1, absolutely
Why isn’t James k Polk on here I mean he wasn’t great but he gave us most if not all of the western United States
Pierce also
Wilson is on this list but Eisenhower isn’t? What a joke
I'm not sure how you can rate JFK as a president as he only made it two years. He is a great icon but as president there is not enough data to say his impact as president
I’d say Polk and McKinley belong on this list
Hey, JFK also forever changed the way the president travels.
I think I'd boot Teddy and add Jefferson. Washington would be first tho
I would say James Monroe.
Tedy may be 6th most important but 1st coolest
If US joins LON WW2 still happens,id 30's the US was not capable of stopping Germany or Japan.
When you’re talking about changing history, I think Lincoln should be #1. He prevented the union from being split in two. We would have never become a world power, we wouldn’t have been as prosperous, etc, etc, etc. However, I don’t know if Lincoln was our best president.
No way Roosevelt's above Washington
There are two I think should make the list - Jefferson, as you suggested, and Eisenhower. Frankly, I do see Reagan as a major effect - for the worse - and with that in mind, Trump, who is utterly detestable.
If you havent already id like to hear your opinion over the ranking of presidents "best to worst" they have biden around top 25% and guess who was last? Im sure you already know. I dont know what its called other than ranked US presidents 2024 maybe?
Jefferson and Eisenhower very much missing On the list, but okay
It's insanity to pu Jfk here. They should've replaced with Thomas Jefferson on this list