Do we put too much emphasis on term of office...

[A18]

In evaluating how great a president is?

Seems like the two term presidents always seem to outshine those who served a single term, even when some of the latter have been far more successful.

Compare James Polk, who gets largely ignored, with Woodrow Wilson, a common favorite.

[MODU]

More emphisis tends to be placed on the history of two-termed presidents for the fact that they were able to win election.  By "default," they obviously have a better history (according that mind-set).  On the flip side, the same can be said about many presidents who have died while in their first term. 

[PBrunsel]

Of course we do. A do-nothing like Monroe can be given more credit than a man like Chester Arthur, who did a lot. Arthur reformed immigration, Civil ervice, and rebuilt our ancient navy and army. He is forgotten though because he served but one term.

Other great Presidents who are forgotten due to a short term in office are Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfeild, and William McKinley.

[7,052,770]

the average Joe American does, unfortunately.

Luckily smart people like us, Philip, don't, and recognize James Polk's greatness.

[Joe Republic]

Also, the reason why many presidents only served one term is usually related to why they are considered bad.  Look at GHWB, Hoover or Carter.

[A18]

Wilson was despised when he left office, but now often makes the top 10 presidents list.

If Abraham Lincoln had lost re-election, what would his legacy be?

[jokerman]

Not sure.

But it would have been a heck of a lot better for him to have been defeated.  McClellan becomes President, finishes up Civil War with easy terms on South.  No reconstruction.

[PBrunsel]

Not sure.

But it would have been a heck of a lot better for him to have been defeated.  McClellan becomes President, finishes up Civil War with easy terms on South.  No reconstruction.

McClellan would still have tried to pursue the war. He was not a Copperhead like his running-mate or Horatio Seymoure (or Samuel Tilden).

[Akno21]

Not sure.

But it would have been a heck of a lot better for him to have been defeated.  McClellan becomes President, finishes up Civil War with easy terms on South.  No reconstruction.

But the Radical Republicans would still be in congress, and even with someone (Andrew Johnson), who like McClellan, was no fan of extensive reconstruction in the White House, they were able to get a lot of what they wanted regarding reconstruction accomplished.