Bush I launched the undeclared, unconstitutional Gulf War, loudly promised "no new taxes" in his 1988 campaign and then did an about-face in office, increased gun control, increased the national debt, etc. He was pretty roundly bad from a libertarian perspective.
On the subject of Lincoln, I am going to say something controversial on these forums: he did some good. Even though he had previously sometimes acted in ways that insulated slavery (as he prioritized "maintaining the Union" over fighting slavery) Lincoln was instrumental in the creation and passage of the 13th Amendment, which abolished it, and began to publicly push for more legal recognition for blacks shortly before he was assassinated. Although he was undeniably ruthless and tyrannical in his prosecution of the Civil War, I do think he genuinely believed that his policies were only temporary "war measures" to be rescinded at the conflict's (well-defined, unlike certain more recent conflicts) conclusion; he actually was returning his usurped powers at the end of the war. After the South surrendered, he pardoned the entire Confederate army-- and before you scoff at this fact, understand that at that time, it would have been seen as perfectly normal and acceptable under the historical laws of war for him to have every prominent Confederate he could get his proverbial hands on lined up against a wall and shot. Frankly, I think many other presidents would have done even worse than Lincoln did in the same position-- Andrew Jackson, for example, who was shamelessly authoritarian in his use of the presidency, who seriously threatened to send the army to fight an attempted nullification in South Carolina, and who was a famously brutal and merciless operator, would probably not have shown even the limited grace Lincoln did. FDR might just about have taken the opportunity to outright declare himself Lord and King for life. Nearly all presidents, Lincoln not least, have been statists, and for a statist, an attempt to dissolve the Union amounts to the ultimate treachery and justifies virtually any action in combating it; if anything, Lincoln was more restrained and merciful, when he saw the opportunity to be, than many statists would have been.
Now, none of this changes the fact that he utterly desecrated the Constitution, violated the principles of liberty in a multitude of ways, and deliberately sanctioned war crimes against Southern prisoners and civilians-- hence the fact that he appears well toward the lower end of my list-- but he was not pure evil, and I do believe he had more going for him than a few of his peers in the history of the presidency.
The war may have been justified, but FDR was certainly not justified in campaigning on the assertion that "Your boys will not be going off to fight in any foreign wars," all the while fully intending to send them off to do just that, and then, after winning reelection, seemingly deliberately baiting Japan into launching the Pearl Harbor attack so that he would have an excuse the public would buy.
He didn't arrest his critics, but he did have 110,000 Japanese-Americans, many of whom were small children and/or fully-Americanized individuals with absolutely no ties to Japan aside from biological heritage, incarcerated, stripped of their jobs, possessions, and personal freedom, and sent to internment camps for indefinite detention without suspicion or accusation of any crime.
Keeping in mind the crimes I have already described, let us not forget FDR's illegal mass-confiscation of private citizens' and businesses' gold, underhanded bullying of the Supreme Court into accepting his unconstitutional, authoritarian, and economically-destructive New Deal policies (which prolonged the Great Depression, the worst economic downturn in history), saddling the country with the financial-nightmare-to-be that was Social Security, turning back shiploads of European Jews fleeing the Holocaust, helping to mastermind and participating in the Dresden firebombing, which killed even more civilians than the Hiroshima strike, flaunting Washington's two-term precedent to give us four terms of his brutal, tyrannical "governance"... the list goes on. I say he was the worst.
He isn't exactly "low," but he isn't higher primarily because he pushed for the imperialistic annexation of Texas. He was also pretty pro-slavery, and signed a significant tariff increase. Cleveland, by contrast, honorably opposed and temporarily thwarted the US annexation of Hawaii, and fought attempted tariff increases. Cleveland was a true constitutionalist, a man of remarkable integrity and courage, reliably stood up for his principles in office (note his issuance of more vetoes than all preceding presidents combined, many of which were of pork-barrel spending and otherwise unlibertarian, authoritarian, and "progressive" measures). He has the most consistently pro-liberty and pro-peace record of any U.S. president.
"The roads"? Do you mean the Interstate Commerce Commission? If so, Cleveland did not (contrary to the "Why Cleveland Sucked" video someone posted in this thread) "make" the ICC; rather, he simply failed to veto it-- one of the few bad policies that made it past him-- likely because it stayed more or less within the bounds of the interstate commerce clause in its original form, though it subsequently ballooned into something significantly worse.
