It's a fascinating question. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Teddy Roosevelt's use of the monument act expanded executive power in ways that would be used as

It's a fascinating question. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Teddy Roosevelt's use of the monument act expanded executive power in ways that would be used as precedent for future abuses. As you say FDR did Japanese internment, but in that same vein you'd be remiss to not point out Jefferson's forced native american relocation program. This is kinda my point of "these were unquestionably flawed individuals" above. At the risk of justifying evils, (I don't intend to but one could interpret it this way) if your standard for great is "did no wrong" then no president (individual?) will ever be great. At the same time I don't think greatness should shield someone from criticism for the evils that came alongside. This may be an artifact of my personal philosophies regarding innate and unavoidable fallability of human incentives, but I still find enough merit in the positive outcomes and challenges overcome to call them "Great" (Thus the quotes in my initial post). If you really want to lose faith in the consistency of my mental models, ask me the list of most damaging presidents, and note that the lists are not mutually exclusive. In conclusion, I find the manner in which FDR handled international relations, helped ready the country and mobilize against the European war even with interventionism publicly abhorred, balanced the interests of the various VERY TENUOUSLY allied parties (Stalin, primarily), while simultaneously making good on public works and improvements post-depression (although efficacy can be debated) coupled with his civil rights works (e.g. FEPC) gives enough justification to call him "Great," although I'll echo, this in no way detracts from the observation you made, and I see the two as parts of the same picture. Post-factum edit for color: I've actually contemplated similar questions as yours but along a different vein for some time now, since FDR was rather sneaky in how he readied the US for war, and pushed out the various cash/carry lend/lease plans, as well as effectively participating in war without congressional approval (another storied tradition of "great" presidents with very questionable implications) but in the long run _it worked_ so to some extent, I don't have a good answer for when the ends justify the means, as it were; Lincoln is even in a similar boat.