Greatest US. president - poll continuation #2

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Let us see if this garners any interest, otherwise I will drop the subject.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[VERITAS]

No contest: George Washington!

GW's only competition is Abe Lincoln.
Here is my comparison:

George Washington: I don't believe there is any possible criticism of GW, except if you believe America would be better off as a monarchy, with George Washington as the first king, and his family as successors. That would not work for long. His greatest decision was to give up power as president, and allow the proper democratic process to, well, proceed.

Lincoln: Didn't really free slaves. The Civil War really wasn't about slavery--slavery was just a moral justification used by Lincoln during the war to drum up support.
Although Lincoln had strong personal convictions about slavery, and it certainly is a bad thing, the upshot of the sudden destruction of slavery after the Civil War resulted in racial tension still experienced today.
What he did may have been for the best, but is open to a lot of second-guessing.
Not to mention creating a strong central government and diminishing the importance of individual states. And a really loose interpretation of the Constitution.


Just my opinion.

-charley

[Soldier]

Hmm...something about that description of Lincoln sounds awfully familiar...

[Have At You]

Wow, someone voted for Clinton? And he accomplished what, exactly?

My top three picks are:

Washington: Soldier in the French-Indian war. Ran a plantation. Led colonial army to victory over the British. Elected as first President. Served two terms only, during which not much happened. Tried to keep fledgling U.S. out of foreign affairs, failed, resulting in the creation of a two-party system. Set the precedent of the Constitution's preeminence over the government.

Lincoln: Lawyer and unsuccessful politician for most of his life. Eloquent and visionary thinker. Elected President on the power of his ideas, which divided the country. Led the country through a civil war fought over states rights vs. federal unity, rural aristocracy vs. urban individualism, human bondage vs. human rights, hierarchy vs. democracy -- pretty much all the big human issues left over or created since independence. Embodied, either in fact or in mythology, everything America meant. Preserved the union, freed the slaves, and inspired generations.

Teddy Roosevelt: Writer, outdoorsman, soldier, career public servant. Significantly effective governor of NY. Yanked the US into the 20th Century by sheer personality. Made conservation of the environment a top priority for the first time ever. The first President to have an effective and active foreign policy. Won the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the peace between Russia and Japan. Began the ascendancy of the US as a world power. Inspired generations.

[VERITAS]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Hmm...something about that description of Lincoln sounds awfully familiar...

Well...I am not directly copying from anyone.
I draw my information/interpretation somewhat from my reading of Dale Carnegie's excellent book Lincoln the Unknown, and Herndon's Life of Lincoln.
I do not mean to put Lincoln down. Quite the reverse: by appreciating what tough decisions he had to make, and how much more complex his problems were than what most other presidents had to deal with, one learns his true greatness.
And, I agree with Have At You: Teddy Roosevelt is an excellent 3rd choice.

-charley

[mrbiggs]

Interesting how a certain President I know on the Washington monument isn't doing very well.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

Well...I am not directly copying from anyone.
I draw my information/interpretation somewhat from my reading of Dale Carnegie's excellent book Lincoln the Unknown, and Herndon's Life of Lincoln.
I do not mean to put Lincoln down. Quite the reverse: by appreciating what tough decisions he had to make, and how much more complex his problems were than what most other presidents had to deal with, one learns his true greatness.
And, I agree with Have At You: Teddy Roosevelt is an excellent 3rd choice.

-charley

No, no; sorry if I implied plagiarism.

I mean that your description of Lincoln, makes me think of a certain other president...

[Inquartata]

No one thinks any of them were paragons of perfect governance, I take it. As always with politicians, we are looking for the lesser evil.

I really like who and what Teddy Roosevelt was as a person, and I like much about Washington as well. Likewise Reagan. But in terms of sheer nation-altering accomplishments I have to go with Lincoln

[Larrison]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

No one thinks any of them were paragons of perfect governance, I take it. As always with politicians, we are looking for the lesser evil.

I really like who and what Teddy Roosevelt was as a person, and I like much about Washington as well. Likewise Reagan. But in terms of sheer nation-altering accomplishments I have to go with Lincoln

Hmm... The four I mentally short listed were

1) George Washington
2) Abe Lincoln
3) Thomas Jefferson
4) Teddy Roosevelt

Of the three, I'd have to say GW was by far the most important in establishing the basis of the USofA -- being there for the Declaration of Indepdendence, during the War of Independence, and being one of the Federalist founders of the Constitution, and of course, being the first President. To his credit, he was asked to lead the Army to take over the government at the end of the war -- and turned it down. He was proposed to be the first King of America -- and turned it down. And it was very obvious that he would have been elected President as long as he wanted to run -- and turned that down, after serving two terms. From a sheer nation-altering standpoint, I'd have to say GW, by far.

Abe Lincoln presided over probably the worst national crisis in the US's history. And he led the country into overcoming it, including setting the stage for the abolition of slavery everywhere (the Proclaimation of Emanicipation only freed slaves in Confederate States...). But while his Presidency changed the historical path of the US, I can't say it was as mind-boggling different as GW did.

For third, I'd say Thomas Jefferson. Besides writing the Declaration of Independence and participating in much of the early formation of the Republic, Jefferson represented the opposition to Washington and the Federalists. His role as most influential president is that he represented the loyal opposition, who established the basis of a loyal political opposition who would work within the system and change how the government pursues its policies. Jeffersonian Democrats (which are now most closely aligned with the modern Republican party) had a major role in how the US handled foreign trade, international politics, and the overall development and exploration of the rest of North America.

Teddy Roosevelt has to be my favorite President though. An amazingly competent, intelligent, and energetic person, he came to office by accident (put on the ticket as VP in a last minute addition), but was one of the major forces behind an amazing number of international and social changes in the US -- including being a founder of the National Parks System, the Sierra Club, and the Boy Scouts, among others.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Soldier

No, no; sorry if I implied plagiarism.

I mean that your description of Lincoln, makes me think of a certain other president...

Wow, that's awesome! I didn't pick up on that before. Rep point for a great analogy.

[VERITAS]

Originally Posted by Soldier

No, no; sorry if I implied plagiarism.

I mean that your description of Lincoln, makes me think of a certain other president...

That's ok.

I apologize for totaling misunderstanding your point...

Are you by any chance refering to George W. Bush using terrorism as a moral justification to invade the oil-rich Middle East? Or have I completely missed the point?

charley

[Soldier]

Not to worry - but yes.

Loose interpretation, using secondary reasons to help drum up popular support for the primary reasons of the war, and using greater government powers.

Only without the implication that it's all about the oil.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Soldier

(snip)Loose interpretation, [of the law]

I agree that Dubya has done that.

using greater government powers.

By which I understand you to mean "expanding" government powers. Again, I agree that Dubya has done that--not necessarily for the greater long-term good of the country, however. That jury is still out.

using secondary reasons to help drum up popular support for the primary reasons of the war

Now there you have me. I thought the "primary reason" for the war was that Saddam posed an imminent threat to the United States. Now you're telling me that was a secondary reason? What, pray tell, was the primary reason, then?

Only without the implication that it's all about the oil.

It is all about the oil--but we've already plowed that ground and I don't think we'll be able to raise a crop on it.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Interesting how a certain President I know on the Washington monument isn't doing very well.

MOUNT WASHINGTON!!!

Not the Washington Monument...

Holy crap, I am never allowed to talk again. It took me like a week to notice that.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

I agree that Dubya has done that.

No putting words in my mouth. I was referring to the Constitution, actually.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

By which I understand you to mean "expanding" government powers. Again, I agree that Dubya has done that--not necessarily for the greater long-term good of the country, however. That jury is still out.

You're right, the jury is still out on that. Expanding, using...semantics.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Now there you have me. I thought the "primary reason" for the war was that Saddam posed an imminent threat to the United States. Now you're telling me that was a secondary reason? What, pray tell, was the primary reason, then?

QUIT PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I never actually said in my post what the primary or secondary reasons were.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

It is all about the oil--but we've already plowed that ground and I don't think we'll be able to raise a crop on it.

I must have missed the conclusive evidence, as well as the vast sums of oil we're now getting from Iraq, or all the money we're making selling that oil...last I heard, we haven't seen a drop.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

Lincoln: Didn't really free slaves. The Civil War really wasn't about slavery--slavery was just a moral justification used by Lincoln during the war to drum up support.

This is absolutely, positively false.

The war was about slavery, from start to finish.

Read the Articles of Secession of the various Confederate states: They wanted to leave the Union because the Federal government and the various Free State governments weren't doing enough to protect Southern property--specifically, they weren't being diligent enough in tracking down and returning runaway slaves.

It is often claimed that the war was really about "state's rights". However, the biggest right at issue was only the particular right to own slaves.

Lincoln didn't bring the issue of slavery in as an after-the-fact moral justification to drum up popular support. The Emancipation Proclamation was intended to undercut support for the Confederacy, not bolster support for the Federals. It was aimed specifically at England and France, both of whom were on the verge of recognizing the Confederacy.

By issuing the Proclamation, Lincoln focused a spotlight on the real, true underlying cause of the war. After that, neither England nor France could support the South without also acknowledging that by doing so they were in fact supporting the continuation of slavery.

Although Lincoln had strong personal convictions about slavery, and it certainly is a bad thing, the upshot of the sudden destruction of slavery after the Civil War resulted in racial tension still experienced today.

That may be true, but none of the problems with emancipation can be laid at Lincoln's feet; he was long dead by then. Had he lived, things might have gone much smoother.

Of all the Presidents that have served, two have been nation re-definers: Lincoln redefined the relationship between the States and the Federal government, and FDR redefined the relationship between the Federal government and the individual citizen. In my book they are co-equal sharers of the Greatest President award.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Soldier

No putting words in my mouth. I was referring to the Constitution, actually.

To quote you, semantics: The Constitution is the law, last time I looked.

QUIT PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I never actually said in my post what the primary or secondary reasons were.

Indeed, you did not. And that was specifically my question, which you have so conveniently neglected to answer.

So I will repeat it, and add a follow-up: What do you think was the "primary reason" for the war? And what "secondary reasons" do you consider to have been used to drum up popular support for that primary reason?

I must have missed the conclusive evidence, as well as the vast sums of oil we're now getting from Iraq, or all the money we're making selling that oil...last I heard, we haven't seen a drop.

There is as much evidence to conclude that it was over oil as there is to conclude that it wasn't. As I said, we've already plowed this ground. My statement was simply to "show the flag", not because I really think it will change anyone's mind. I suggest we just agree to disagree on this point.

And you may not have seen a drop of oil from Iraq, but I'm sure Haliburton is keeping a close eye on the situation and as soon as the dust settles they'll be pumping for all they're worth.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

To quote you, semantics: The Constitution is the law, last time I looked.

There's a lot more to law than just the Constitution; the two are not synonymous. Saying that he was ignoring the law implies a lot more.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Indeed, you did not. And that was specifically my question, which you have so conveniently neglected to answer.

So I will repeat it, and add a follow-up: What do you think was the "primary reason" for the war? And what "secondary reasons" do you consider to have been used to drum up popular support for that primary reason?There is as much evidence to conclude that it was over oil as there is to conclude that it wasn't. As I said, we've already plowed this ground. My statement was simply to "show the flag", not because I really think it will change anyone's mind. I suggest we just agree to disagree on this point.

You're right, I didn't. I think the primary reason was the threat of WMDs. Humanitarian reasons and terrorist links were to help support the primary reason.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

And you may not have seen a drop of oil from Iraq, but I'm sure Haliburton is keeping a close eye on the situation and as soon as the dust settles they'll be pumping for all they're worth.

So wait until the dust settles to call your judgment. You say there's as much evidence that it was all about the oil...what evidence, besides the fact that Iraq happens to have oil?