In the US (and thus also in Canada, which has little independent study of the US Civil War) Grant has long been regarded as a drunk and a doofus who won solely through force of numbers; this largely because of the “Lost Cause” revisionist movement, which succeeded, through persistence and creativity, in changing much of the common understanding of the Civil War into things that just are not true. One of the key Lost Cause myths was that the Confederate generals were all brilliant gentleman soldiers, while Union generals were uniformly dullards and savages. The truth - that Grant, and many of his subordinates, were superior, or even brilliant, generals - doesn’t fit the Lost Cause myth.
Is this a popular opinion only, or one which military historians also hold?
He’s hardly underrated, though, being the most famous Frenchman of the 20th century.
Waoh! Your list of quotes was rather…enlightening…:eek:
It’s funny because Nixon was a detestable person in so many ways, but he truly wasn’t a terrible president in the capacity he acted as president (mostly).
I came in to mention William McKinley. A turn of the century president who was assassinated (and thus leaving Teddy Roosevelt to become president), he was actually quite a strong figure himself. As far as assassinated presidents go, he’s probably 2nd most accomplished and respectable morally and politically (after Lincoln of course). JFK was popular and charismatic but had done so very little as president, I think he’s highly overrated. McKinley really set in motion many of the things that made America a world player in the 20th century, while Roosevelt continued them.
Great article on Ike – I agree that he is perhaps the most underrated of Presidents. (I like Truman also.)
If Ike or an Ike-thinkalike had been Pres. 1961-68 do you think he’d have made the hideous mistakes that Johnson and Kennedy did? (Similarly, Ike’s 1953 intervention in Iran shouldn’t give him much blame for problems 26 years later.)
Calvin Coolidge-the only modern president who ever reduced the size of the Federal government.
Dwight Eisenhower: knew when to tay out of other nation’ affair.
Thereby giving us a priceless object lesson in the inadvisability of same.
Bill Gates. The most generous man in the history of mankind and a hell of a lot of people still hate him on account of some old software.
Not a national leader; see the OP. (No, the “Microsoft Nation” doesn’t count.)
Sorry, Godwin can still read small text 
Actually, I feel that his experience during the 62 day cross-continental, 1919 Motor Transport Convoy was more important than his WWII observations.
The book “American Road” recounts that story and is a good read.
Well…He avoided WWIII. That should count for something.
JFK supported the Apollo program which was opposed by many, including Eisenhower. Programs like Peace Corps were inspirational. He led the way on civil rights and other domestic policies, though these programs reached fruition only after his death. I’d say he did much, especially considering he was President for a mere thousand days.
He also did much in the realm of foreign policy. For example, the rise of Saddam in Iraq is due, in part, to a 1963 CIA-sponsored coup.
All Presidents since FDR have avoided WWIII. That JFK came close to it may owe much to his own faults.
Good point.
For one thing, Krushchev’s plan to place missiles in Cuba was triggered by the Bay of Pigs invasion, so indeed, JFK is partially to blame for bringing the world so close to war.
I’d say it was more popular opinion, but after all, that’s kind of the point of a thread about “underrated” leaders, isn’t it?
The Bay of Pigs invasion was happening regardless of who was President.
That’s not meant to excuse or justify it.
I don’t know that that’s the case. If Kennedy withdrew all U.S. support and funding for the invasion, instead of going with a doomed half-measure, it stood a very good chance of not happening. Merely removing the CIA air and watercraft would essentially kill the invasion plan by itself.
William Henry Harrison. Amongst all the other political varmints that have run this country, only he had the decency to die shortly after a month in office. 
Actually, I agree with everyone who mentioned Ike, for the various reasons already mentioned, but I didn’t want to sound like I was just going along with the crowd.
I will thow out my usual…Neville Chamberlain.
Not a great leader but much maligned IMO.
Sure, the guy really gave peace a chance…and he did sell Czechoslovakia down the river which was despicable…but he really tried to stop a war from coming. If he had been dealing with anyone but Hitler he may have succeeded.
However, after he was humilated at Munich (This is peace in our time) he saw what Hitler was. He reversed his standing and put his country on a war track/mobilization.
Not a good leader but someone who just didn’t know what he was dealing with at first and doesn’t deserve the ‘worst leader’ list on which many have put him.