If Lincoln hadn’t been President, he would have been a 19th-century lawyer and a one-term Congressman. It’s pretty obvious nobody today would remember his name.
But Washington, on the other hand, was the commanding general of the Continental Army and was a major political figure prior to becoming President. He even had some degree of fame from his role in the Seven Years’ War. So he would obviously be a historical figure even if he had never been President.
Grant and Eisenhower would also be well-known for the military careers (Jackson, Harrison, and Taylor might be known to military historians but probably not the general public). Adams, Jefferson, and Madison would be remembered for their roles in the country’s founding. Reagan would be remembered for his movie career (although he was never an A-list star).
Several presidents had political careers before becoming President but none of them really stood that far above other Governors or Senators or Vice Presidents.
Washington, Jefferson and Eisenhower would have lasting, worldwide recognition. Grant and Reagan possibly some recognition outside the US. Adams, Madison and Teddy Roosevelt, not so much, I suspect.
Problem with “Who would be considered famous?” discussions is the question of “How famous = famous?”.
Reagan would definitely be famous, the question is whether he’d be famous enough to merit discussion. I think so- at least currently. In 100 years? who knows.
Although he was never a mega-star in his movie career, his movie career plus being Governor of California would at least merit him fame as a curiosity. Last week when Jonathan Winters died, I posted a youtube clip on Facebook as a memorial. The clip that I used was Jonathan Winters roasting Ronald Reagan at a Dean Martin Roast- no one knew he’d one day be President.
At the very least, he’d be more famous today than someone like Peter Lawford or Joey Bishop (which, I’ll grant, isn’t saying a lot).
As someone with an interest in military history I don’t know how Grant wouldn’t be famous across the Atlantic. I don’t know for the general public over there, but the American Civil War is historically significant enough just from a military perspective anyone student of that history would be well aware of it.
It was kind of a “watershed war” in that a lot of technologies that had previously existed but never been fully implemented in warfare all came together during the ACW. In between the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War, there were also no real major European conflicts. So the ACW at the time was heavily observed by foreign military professionals who wanted to keep up to date on what tactics were going to be effective with the mass availability of repeating rifles and other technological innovations.
Also of course “knowledgeable” British or French citizens who know about their own country’s history would also be pretty familiar with the ACW. Both countries had entanglements with it of historical note, France sent a military expedition to Mexico in hopes of being able to take advantage of a weakened United States in the Western Hemisphere and toyed with diplomatically dealing with the Confederates while the British had similar thoughts along the lines of weakening the U.S. to strengthen the safety of their Canadian possessions.
I don’t know what the equivalent event might be for comparison in American history, probably something like the Boxer Rebellion or the conflict with the Barbary Pirates…I wouldn’t expect every American to know about those but I’d expect educated ones to be aware of them.
Herbert Hoover would at least get a mention in the history books for his humanitarian work during and after WWI. His reputation would probably be higher today if he hadn’t been President.
UDS seemed to think that Grant wouldn’t be well known outside the USA. I just wanted to point out that at least over here he’s quite famous (along with Lee).
Well, of the ones where I know their non-Presidential exploits, I’d say Washington, Jefferson, Grant, Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt, for starters. Reagan as an actor or Governor is a non-entity to me.
Washington probably has the biggest name recognition, but how much of that would he still have if he’d never been President? The only other RevWar general whose name I know is Arnold.
Only one of those has an immensely popular children’s toy named after him, but that happened when he was President, so I guess that doesn’t happen. But that Rough Riders Charge painting by Remington, I knew that when I was still in school.
Also well known in certain circles as translator (with his wife) of Agricola’s De re metallica, the classic on Medieval mining. And a great translation it is.
Absolutely. Hoover was one of the two most decent men ever to be president. Neither of whom were good at the job. (Carter, for those wondering, was the other.)
I don’t think I agree with Nixon. (Proposed above somewhere.) The Red Scare fame is locked down by McCarthy, and just being VP isn’t enough.
Ha, I didn’t mean why did you mention it, I meant why is he famous in France even disregarding his Presidency. Your “(along with Lee)” tag at the end there suggests to me that they’re both known for their roles in the U.S. Civil War. It doesn’t surprise me that the U.S. Civil War is covered in History studies in France, but it surprises me that any noteworthy number of French students would store the names of the Generals in their memories to be recollected later.
It’s not just history studied at school but also movies (if only westerns), books, comics, documentaries, etc…that make the American Civil War a well known event. I was aware of it (and knew the names of Grant and Lee) long before it was covered by my teachers (and very possibly before I knew the name of Washington). On the other hand, Grant presidency won’t be mentioned anywhere.
I would say Grant is well known outside the US for being a General. The fact he was President is less well known. He was the first modern general. And quite possibly the best general of the 19th century (Napoleon while strategically…Napoleon, was fairly poor as a strategist and in logistics).
I agree with Hoover. I think LBJ would be remembered as a powerful Senator, I presume he would not become VP. Wilson as an academic perhaps. Andrew Jackson as a general. Most of the founding fathers who became President woukd be remembered.
What I tried to do was think of a contemporary whose had a career similar to the President’s and ask myself how well known that person was.
So for people like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, I figured they’d be as famous as figures like Benjamin Franklin or Alexander Hamilton. I figured Grant would be approximately as famous as Lee and Eisenhower would be approximately as famous as MacArthur. Reagan would be the rough equivalent of George Murphy.
Generals like Jackson, Harrison, and Taylor would be the equivalent of Hull, Dearborn, Kearny, or Scott. (Scott in particular is a good example. He was nominated as a Presidential candidate but lost.)