Support NeoGAF

[whytemyke]

For Bregor who is arguing Lincoln was against slavery you are dead wrong. At the lest you could say he was a freestater, a freestater being one who thought the states should decide if slavery would be allowed, but the bulk of the evidence points at him being an old fashioned racist, despite the poor boy raised in an Illinois log cab, rhetoric that has been shoved down the throats of children for decades. Lincoln as a state legislator made several speeches using racist language. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military strategy, to weaken the south and cause far and panic that the blacks upon hearing they were free, would stop supporting the southern war machine and go ape shit and start fucking stuff up in the south. Douglass and the other abolitionist and his military advisors, were begging Lincoln from day one to free the blacks but he refused, until it became absolutely necessary to do so. To bolster this claim the Proclamation did not free all the slaves, just those in the states fighting the North. I'm sure you will come up with some bullshit cock and bull story on why he did that, and why he was such a freed to the black man. Lincoln was quoted several times in his life claiming that blacks were inferior to whites and his desire to see the white man dominate the black race.



Here is another quote from Lincoln during the Douglas debates:


"Now I say to you, my fellow citizen, that in my opinion, the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no reference to the Negro whatever. One great evidence is to be found in the fact that at the time every one of the thirteen colonies was a slaveholding colony, every signer of the Declaration representing a slaveholding constituency, and not one of them emancipated his slaves, much less offered citizenship to them when they signed the Declaration. If they intended to declare the Negro was equal of the white man, they were bound that day and hour to have put the Negroes on an equality with themselves." - Abraham Lincoln, during the October 16, 1858 debate in Peoria, IL with Douglas.



What say you now mister Lincoln loved the blacks so much? Here are some more quotes:


"I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. . . We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable." - Abraham Lincoln, after signing the Emancipation Proclamation


IN A SPEECH IN CINCINNATI OHIO SEPT 17, 1859
There is a physical difference between the white and black races which, I believe, will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality! And, inasmuch as they cannot so live while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position, the negroes should be denied everthing! - THE WORDS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Thank you! I don't understand how Bregor can say he studies so many books on the US Civil War yet obviously have such a one-sided understanding of the events. I had said that Lincoln was anti-slavery insofar as he felt it was a state issue, but he was never for equality of races. And while Lincoln had grown up poor, that doesn't preclude him from becoming an elitist. Look at any other world leader in the history of mankind. If anything I'd say that their childhood living situation only added to their propensity of becoming an elitist. Look at Napoleon or William of Orange or Andrew Jackson or Cromwell or even Lenin or Mussolini for crying out loud.

Bregor, how can you gloss over his gross maltreatment of the poorest people of America? how can you gloss over his mistreatment of immigrants, suspending of habeas corpus (declared unconstitutional btw by the supreme court), declaring martial law, ATTACKING ON HIS OWN PEOPLE and allowing one of his generals to commit one of the worst warcrimes in the history of the United States?

How can you say that he was a fair man when he so obviously didn't respect black people and only used them to win the Civil war? If you're going to say that doing the things that were required of him make Lincoln a great person, fine. I can't argue with that opinion. But myself? I think a good person is more like somebody who does good things because he or she knows that they're good... not somebody who does them to gain the upper hand politically.

 

[whytemyke]

Somewhere between the boorish and villified Lincoln the revisionists are now pushing to the fore (revisionism being a very important tool for historians seeking publication and notoriety) and the saintly Honest Abe lies the real Lincoln.

He preserved the Union -- by force. He freed the slaves -- out of political necessity. He was the first American dictator -- to ensure the American democracy wouldn't pass into oblivion.
I consider him to be one of the greatest Americans ever because he had the strength of will do to what he thought was correct -- even while he was wholly hated in the South and largely hated in the North. Without him holding the United States together, we would most likely have, as author Michael Shaara suggested, three separate countries, a north and south with armed borders and a third country in the west serving as a balance of power.

History is never quite as black and white as dullards want us to believe.

Well who's to say what's right and wrong? He denied people their sovereignty, in the name of his own voters' prosperity. The CSA should have been allowed to become it's own country on it's own. They had no financial importance to the North outside of tobacco and cotton and throughout history have consumed more federal money than they've contributed. Plus, there's nothing to suggest that the separate American countries would not have been allies. Look at the USA and Canada. Similar cultures spawn similar interests, and at the end of the day the CSA and USA would have ultimately had similar interests.

The fact of the matter is that Lincoln broke the law trying to uphold it, and if you have to break laws to enforce them than you have no business doing either.

Seriously...the man was hated for a reason by his people. If I'm 90 years old and my great grandkids tell me that George W Bush was a great President because he did what was necessary regardless of the rules, I'll go insane and start bombing anyone I can.

 

[Bregor]

For Bregor who is arguing Lincoln was against slavery you are dead wrong. At the lest you could say he was a freestater, a freestater being one who thought the states should decide if slavery would be allowed, but the bulk of the evidence points at him being an old fashioned racist, despite the poor boy raised in an Illinois log cab, rhetoric that has been shoved down the throats of children for decades. Lincoln as a state legislator made several speeches using racist language.

He was definitely not for equality with the blacks, almost none were in that day and age - and I never claimed he was. This is however, seperate from the issue of whether he was against slavery. And his writings and speeches firmly establish that he was.

He issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military strategy, to weaken the south and cause far and panic that the blacks upon hearing they were free, would stop supporting the southern war machine and go ape shit and start fucking stuff up in the south.

Whatever political and benefits he may have forseen, it does not change the fact that the eventual end of slavery was desired by Lincoln.

Douglass and the other abolitionist and his military advisors, were begging Lincoln from day one to free the blacks but he refused, until it became absolutely necessary to do so. To bolster this claim the Proclamation did not free all the slaves, just those in the states fighting the North. I'm sure you will come up with some bullshit cock and bull story on why he did that, and why he was such a freed to the black man. Lincoln was quoted several times in his life claiming that blacks were inferior to whites and his desire to see the white man dominate the black race.

Douglas died shortly after Fort Sumter.

And of course the Abolitionists were begging for the immediate emancipation of the slaves. Extremists on both sides were demanding all sorts of things in those days. It is part of the reason why the Civil War occured, there was a breakdown in the will to compromise.

Lincoln did not free the slaves immediately because to do so would mean the loss of the border states. The Emancipation proclamation did not free all of the slaves for exactly the same reason.

You are taking the fallacious position that to hold a high ideal means one most act upon it immediately and completely. The political and sociological realities in this world means that this is almost always impossible. And above all, Lincoln was a realist - he did what he could, when he could.

Here is another quote from Lincoln during the Douglas debates:


"Now I say to you, my fellow citizen, that in my opinion, the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no reference to the Negro whatever. One great evidence is to be found in the fact that at the time every one of the thirteen colonies was a slaveholding colony, every signer of the Declaration representing a slaveholding constituency, and not one of them emancipated his slaves, much less offered citizenship to them when they signed the Declaration. If they intended to declare the Negro was equal of the white man, they were bound that day and hour to have put the Negroes on an equality with themselves." - Abraham Lincoln, during the October 16, 1858 debate in Peoria, IL with Douglas.

These words were spoken by Douglas, not Lincoln:

Link

What say you now mister Lincoln loved the blacks so much?

I never said that. Is the only type of arguement you can win a straw man?

Here are some more quotes:


"I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. . . We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable." - Abraham Lincoln, after signing the Emancipation Proclamation

As noted, Lincoln was not for equality. He was, however, strongly opposed to slavery.

IN A SPEECH IN CINCINNATI OHIO SEPT 17, 1859
There is a physical difference between the white and black races which, I believe, will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality! And, inasmuch as they cannot so live while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position, the negroes should be denied everthing! - THE WORDS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Quite some creative editing you did there. Here is what was actually said:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races---that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, or intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ← forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position, the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen to my knowledge a man, woman or child, who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men."

Link

Please check your facts more carefully in the future.

Of course, the whole of your arguement seems based upon the idea that just because Lincoln was not in favor of equality he could not be against slavery. Very few were in those days. It was not until much later that the cause of equality for the black man was pushed in any significant manner.

 

[MC Safety]

Well who's to say what's right and wrong? He denied people their sovereignty, in the name of his own voters' prosperity. The CSA should have been allowed to become it's own country on it's own. They had no financial importance to the North outside of tobacco and cotton and throughout history have consumed more federal money than they've contributed. Plus, there's nothing to suggest that the separate American countries would not have been allies. Look at the USA and Canada. Similar cultures spawn similar interests, and at the end of the day the CSA and USA would have ultimately had similar interests.

The fact of the matter is that Lincoln broke the law trying to uphold it, and if you have to break laws to enforce them than you have no business doing either.

Seriously...the man was hated for a reason by his people. If I'm 90 years old and my great grandkids tell me that George W Bush was a great President because he did what was necessary regardless of the rules, I'll go insane and start bombing anyone I can.

Um. Clearly, you're saying he was wrong. Do you even think about what you type?

 

[Bregor]

Thank you! I don't understand how Bregor can say he studies so many books on the US Civil War yet obviously have such a one-sided understanding of the events.

My understanding isn't one sided, yours is. I see both the flaws and the strengths of the man. You see only the flaws.

Well who's to say what's right and wrong? He denied people their sovereignty, in the name of his own voters' prosperity. The CSA should have been allowed to become it's own country on it's own. They had no financial importance to the North outside of tobacco and cotton and throughout history have consumed more federal money than they've contributed. Plus, there's nothing to suggest that the separate American countries would not have been allies. Look at the USA and Canada. Similar cultures spawn similar interests, and at the end of the day the CSA and USA would have ultimately had similar interests.

I think I understand better now where your dislike of Lincoln comes from, but it is misplaced. Lincoln is far from the worst enemy the South had - his death increased the suffering the South underwent after the war, as he was no longer there to hold back those who truly wished to take advantage of the southeners.

"For an enemy so relentless in the war for our subjugation, we could not be expected to mourn, ... yet, in view of its political consequences, [Lincoln's assassination] could not be regarded otherwise than as a great misfortune to the South. He had power over the Northern pople, and was without personal malignity toward the people of the South; [whereas] his successor was without power in the North, and [was] the embodiment of malignity toward the Southern people, perhaps the more so because he had betrayed and deserted them in the hour of their need." - Jefferson Davis, following the Civil War

 

[android]

the popcorn guys?

:lol
although he deserves to be up there as well.
"Respect Bitches"

 

[Bregor]

There is a tragic lack of scientists and mathematicians on this list. How about a few votes of appreciation for Richard Feynmann? Thomas Edison? John von Neumann?

Sorry I am late replying to this. I just wanted to interject that Feynman is one of my personal heroes, I've read his 'biography' several times. I wish more people knew of this fascinating and brilliant man.

 

[Tarazet]

David Perry.

 

[Wendo]

There is a tragic lack of scientists and mathematicians on this list. How about a few votes of appreciation for Richard Feynmann? Thomas Edison? John von Neumann?

Franklin was one hell of a scientist, among all of his other strengths. He was truly one of the most gifted Americans of all time- his incredibly multi-faceted nature and the amount of social change he inspired is truly awe inspiring. He is my personal hero.

 

[whytemyke]

Um. Clearly, you're saying he was wrong. Do you even think about what you type?

:lol no, I'm saying that there's a strong chance he could have been wrong. Who knows? It's all history now, but just because we benefitted as a nation from his actions doesn't mean it was necessarily the 'right' thing to do. Just ask General William Amherst and a few Iroquois about that.

My understanding isn't one sided, yours is. I see both the flaws and the strengths of the man. You see only the flaws.

No, don't worry. I see the good he did, too. It's just that for the sake of this conversation, of whether or not he was one of the greatest Americans ever, I don't see how you can ignore all these bad things that he did just to put him on the list for the few amazing things that he did. And to be fair on the whole one-sided thing, you haven't addressed any of the obviously racist remarks that he made throughout his life.

I think I understand better now where your dislike of Lincoln comes from, but it is misplaced. Lincoln is far from the worst enemy the South had - his death increased the suffering the South underwent after the war, as he was no longer there to hold back those who truly wished to take advantage of the southeners.

No offense, but you clearly don't understand where my dislike of him comes from. My dislike comes from the fact that he broke the law and allowed several human rights atrocities that are wholly unamerican take place, not only on his watch but oftentimes with his approval. For him to be mentioned in the same list as people like George Washington (who was no angel himself, mind you) is a slap in the face to all the truly great Americans.

 

[Bregor]

No, don't worry. I see the good he did, too. It's just that for the sake of this conversation, of whether or not he was one of the greatest Americans ever, I don't see how you can ignore all these bad things that he did just to put him on the list for the few amazing things that he did. And to be fair on the whole one-sided thing, you haven't addressed any of the obviously racist remarks that he made throughout his life.

I have addressed his racist comments. Nearly everyone thought in that manner back then. To condemn him for it is silly, he still held ideals higher than those of most Americans of the time in regards to race. Do you really expect him to have a modern attitude in regards to race relations and civil rights?

No offense, but you clearly don't understand where my dislike of him comes from. My dislike comes from the fact that he broke the law and allowed several human rights atrocities that are wholly unamerican take place, not only on his watch but oftentimes with his approval. For him to be mentioned in the same list as people like George Washington (who was no angel himself, mind you) is a slap in the face to all the truly great Americans.

Atrocities occurred on both sides of the war unfortunately. Civil wars always are the nastiest and most hateful type that a country can go through. It amazes me sometimes that residual hatred didn't cause the Union to disintegrate again.

However, I can appreciate that you may not wish to place him in your list of greatest Americans. Can you appreciate that others do?

 

[SD-Ness]

No offense, but you clearly don't understand where my dislike of him comes from. My dislike comes from the fact that he broke the law and allowed several human rights atrocities that are wholly unamerican take place, not only on his watch but oftentimes with his approval. For him to be mentioned in the same list as people like George Washington (who was no angel himself, mind you) is a slap in the face to all the truly great Americans.

Breaking the law to preserve the Union is fine. He had a cause, a reason - he wasn't breaking the law to better himself. Without him breaking the law where would we be today?

And "human rights atrocities"? List them. Atrocities happen all of the time. The country was in a state of war. There are no rules to war. Atomic bombs? Are you going to say that was a bad decision too?

"Wholly unamerican" - this is such American hubris. When did we become angels who don't commit murder?

 

[whytemyke]

Breaking the law to preserve the Union is fine. He had a cause, a reason - he wasn't breaking the law to better himself. Without him breaking the law where would we be today?

And "human rights atrocities"? List them. Atrocities happen all of the time. The country was in a state of war. There are no rules to war. Atomic bombs? Are you going to say that was a bad decision too?

Martial Law in NY. Using the US Navy to quell riots and kill hundreds to thousands of innocent people. Sherman's march to the ocean. Breach of habeas corpus in Indiana, illegal courtmartials in the south, blockade against southern civillians, etc.

I'm fine with your general sentiment, there are very little rules to war. But if you're going to stand by and say that Lincoln was justified in what he did because of the end it guaranteed, then I think you also have to support what Amherst did 200 years before that when he used blankets laced with smallpox to take out the indigenous tribes of North America and cut their populations by over 75%. You also have to support what Stalin did when he ethnically cleansed jews and immigrants from Russia for the sake of Russian unity, and you'd also have to forgive the genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia, too. Even the holocaust. Afterall... there are no rules to war, right? They were all simply a means to an end comitted by people who were using war and atrocities against their own people to ascertain the end result which they wanted.

"Wholly unamerican" - this is such American hubris. When did we become angels who don't commit murder?

Oh I'm not claiming we are. I actually usually make the argument that the only thing Americans are good at is killing people for money. But the people in charge of killing others certainly don't deserve to be on the top of a list of 'great people' our country has produced. Unless we're making a list of 'great americans' with the sole qualifier be that they were good at killing people, in which case I think Andrew Jackson and Curtis LeMay are at the top of the list.

 

[MadraptorMan]

It's not like the confederacy was American, it was as unamerican as you can get. Extreme measures were necessary to keep this country whole.

Lincoln is on my list for his actions; what he did, rather than what he said. It is so hard for us to judge him by what he said back then, considering how much progress we have made in these modern times. However, actions speak louder than words, and therefore Lincoln is definitely someone I can consider one of the greatest Americans ever. You can argue about his positions and personal thoughts all you want, but he freed the slaves, and THAT is historical fact.

 

[MC Safety]

:lol no, I'm saying that there's a strong chance he could have been wrong. Who knows? It's all history now, but just because we benefitted as a nation from his actions doesn't mean it was necessarily the 'right' thing to do. Just ask General William Amherst and a few Iroquois about that.

Clearly you don't read or think about what you write. And your equivocation to suit your own purposes is pretty lame. You wrote: "Well who's to say what's right and wrong? He denied people their sovereignty, in the name of his own voters' prosperity. The CSA should have been allowed to become it's own country on it's own. They had no financial importance to the North outside of tobacco and cotton and throughout history have consumed more federal money than they've contributed."

So go ahead, Mike: It's okay if you want to compare Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and the use of troops to quell riots to, say, Stalin who purged everyone he didn't like because he was crazy and African massacres that happen as a matter of course. It's perfectly fine to bring up a British general who gave Indians smallpox blankets -- because it's wholly analogous to what Lincoln did to keep the United States together.

Your statement about the South is pretty revelatory, too, given your posting history. Clearly, you're not the dispassionate student of history you claim to be.

 

[Keru_Shiri]

Ah hell, forget I said anything....

 

[sans_pants]

Abe is over-rated.

Mine:
JFK
MLK
Thomas Jefferson
FDR

abe is overrated but jfk isnt



ok buddy

 

[Excess Poo Flakes]

Everybody from the 18th and 19th centures was a racist so nobody could have done anything good back then

 

[Mac the KNife]

Harry Truman

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

Everybody from the 18th and 19th centures was a racist so nobody could have done anything good back then

Actually, the writers of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence wanted slavery abolished from the start. They were pretty much leftist Libertarians and felt that everyone had a right to be free. The south wouldn't give in. New England couldn't fight the British alone.

Yeah, JFK sucks. He accomplished very little, started shit with Castro and the Vietnam War. The only thing good about him was his quote (Paraphrase: "Ask not what the country can do for you but what you can do for the country).

 

[GaimeGuy]

shawn hickenbottom.

I don't know if you're talking about HBK, but his name is actually Michael Shawn Hickenbottom. Shawn is his middle name.

 

[GaimeGuy]

:lol :lol :lol


No, that just isn't true. Lincoln tried everything he could do to avoid freeing the slaves, including giving them free passage back to Africa. Lincoln's only impetus for freeing the slaves was to induce Southern blacks from fighting alongside the Confederate army and to fuck up all sorts of logistical stuff in the South, from food lines to clothing to weapons and munitions. Eliminate the people doing all that work, and you can incredibly hinder the supply lines. It was a completely political move... so I guess if you want to look at it as one of those "ends justify the means" type deals, you could say it was good, but there definitely wasn't any great moral justification behind his actions.

Not to mention he also put one of the most vile war criminals in American history into power-- Sherman. Remember that whole "March to the Atlantic" thing? Lincoln was NOT a great man and, in my personal opinion, is only as revered as he is because of luck (Lee was stupid for trying to take on the army in Gettysburg... he should have listened to Longstreet and just marched on Washington instead of trying to flex his muscle in Pennsylvania for no real reason) and not any great leadership qualities on his behalf.

Though, I do admit, whoever wrote his speeches was a phenomenal writer.

Even today, if you mention sherman in the south, you're gonna get fucked up. That man is hated like a billion times more than HBK is among canadian wrestling fans.

 

[MadraptorMan]

JFK ended the Cuban Missile Crisis without incident. I think there is something to be said for that.

I mean, imagine what would go down if that happened today.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Benjamin Franklin for the win.

(I recently read he was quite the popular guy to have sex with when he was in France, what a thug)

Yeah, Franklin was a huge womanizer and party animal. Contrary to his own advice, he was not a person to go to bed early and get up early. He partied all night long, drinking and having sex with tons of women. :lol

And, as previously said earlier in this thread, yes, Teddy R is awesome. Can you imagine George Bush giving a speech just after being shot? I don't think so.

The only reason why Teddy survived the bullet wound is because his speech papers were like 100 pages long, so they slowed the bullet down a bit. :lol

The beginning of his speech was, if I recall correctly, "You'll have to excuse me if I talk a little slowly, but I have a bullet in my chest."

 

[whytemyke]

So go ahead, Mike: It's okay if you want to compare Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and the use of troops to quell riots to, say, Stalin who purged everyone he didn't like because he was crazy and African massacres that happen as a matter of course. It's perfectly fine to bring up a British general who gave Indians smallpox blankets -- because it's wholly analogous to what Lincoln did to keep the United States together.

Your statement about the South is pretty revelatory, too, given your posting history. Clearly, you're not the dispassionate student of history you claim to be.

I wasn't saying anything about Habeas Corpus really... I was referring to Sherman's march to the sea in comparison to Stalin and Amherst. You know, the one where he went through Georgia killing any confederate in his path, destroying towns and food supplies and killing civillians at random, as well as testing bombs on them? And don't bother arguing that one... I've got copies of primary sources on it-- diaries and newspaper articles detailing exactly how he treated plantations and villages upon his arrival. And it was all approved by Lincoln, so long as it "waited til after the election".

So in consideration of this, why isn't it ok to compare this to every other war criminal ever? Stalin acted in a certain way that he thought would guarantee sovereignty in the Soviet Union. The Hutu's did the same in Rwanda. If you're going to justify the human rights violations by Lincoln as serving the best interest of the country as a whole, then you have to allow for these other anomalies to count, too.

And for the record, I never claimed to be a dispassionate student of history... only a student of it. I believe history is one area where one should most definitely show passion so as to fully understand the lessons which we should be learning from it. Yet I find it rather showing that you'd rather use tongue-in-cheek quips against me than debate the facts as they are, and bring up my posting history instead of the points I've made.

Regardless of how much I generally show disdain for the south, I still maintain that any leader who knowingly allowed evil things to happen on his watch, as well as one who only used the few moral goods that he did as political leverage without any true sense of morality behind his actions, does not deserve to be on a list of "Great Americans." I highly doubt anyone here is going to agree on that, though, so we might as well toss Andy Jackson and Curtis LeMay on the list as well. Sure, one of them massacred tons of native americans and the other needlessly ordered the bombing of Dresden, and followed that up with the Bay of Pigs and trying to coerce a second invasion attempt of Cuba during the Missile Crisis... but their country is better for their actions, so I guess it's alright.

 

[MadraptorMan]

I wasn't saying anything about Habeas Corpus really... I was referring to Sherman's march to the sea in comparison to Stalin and Amherst. You know, the one where he went through Georgia killing any confederate in his path, destroying towns and food supplies and killing civillians at random, as well as testing bombs on them? And don't bother arguing that one... I've got copies of primary sources on it-- diaries and newspaper articles detailing exactly how he treated plantations and villages upon his arrival. And it was all approved by Lincoln, so long as it "waited til after the election".

So in consideration of this, why isn't it ok to compare this to every other war criminal ever? Stalin acted in a certain way that he thought would guarantee sovereignty in the Soviet Union. The Hutu's did the same in Rwanda. If you're going to justify the human rights violations by Lincoln as serving the best interest of the country as a whole, then you have to allow for these other anomalies to count, too.

And for the record, I never claimed to be a dispassionate student of history... only a student of it. I believe history is one area where one should most definitely show passion so as to fully understand the lessons which we should be learning from it. Yet I find it rather showing that you'd rather use tongue-in-cheek quips against me than debate the facts as they are, and bring up my posting history instead of the points I've made.

Regardless of how much I generally show disdain for the south, I still maintain that any leader who knowingly allowed evil things to happen on his watch, as well as one who only used the few moral goods that he did as political leverage without any true sense of morality behind his actions, does not deserve to be on a list of "Great Americans." I highly doubt anyone here is going to agree on that, though, so we might as well toss Andy Jackson and Curtis LeMay on the list as well. Sure, one of them massacred tons of native americans and the other needlessly ordered the bombing of Dresden, and followed that up with the Bay of Pigs and trying to coerce a second invasion attempt of Cuba during the Missile Crisis... but their country is better for their actions, so I guess it's alright.

It's not just that our country is better off now because of Lincoln. He, through means that are no doubt controversial to many, righted a wrong that had plagued our country for centuries. EVEN if it was not his original intention, ending slavery was not just something that made our country better, it was the ending of a horrendous atrocity that will forever be a hideous scar on this country. I don't presume to think you do not realize just how important and absolutely needed this change was, and like it or not, Lincoln was the man who got the job done.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

Yeah, Franklin was a huge womanizer and party animal. Contrary to his own advice, he was not a person to go to bed early and get up early. He partied all night long, drinking and having sex with tons of women. :lol

And, as previously said earlier in this thread, yes, Teddy R is awesome. Can you imagine George Bush giving a speech just after being shot? I don't think so.

The only reason why Teddy survived the bullet wound is because his speech papers were like 100 pages long, so they slowed the bullet down a bit. :lol

The beginning of his speech was, if I recall correctly, "You'll have to excuse me if I talk a little slowly, but I have a bullet in my chest."

I agree. TR kicks ass. John Adams was a womanizer also.

JFK also lost his virginity at a Harlem brothel.

 

[ChennehCis]

It's either George Washington or Abe Lincoln.

I don't think the United States would have come together under a democratic, strong federal government if it were not for Washington. Washington was so popular that he could have just become "King of America", but he did not want that kind of power. He left office after two terms through his own will, and he set an important precedent in doing so. He was also able to talk certain people out of staging a coup against the failed government established by the articles of Confederation.

Abe Lincoln freed the slaves and prevented the Union from collapsing. The US would not even exist today as we know it if it were not for his leadership.

Honorable mentions go to FDR and Martin Luther King Jr.

QFFT

George Washington was in an incredibly powerful situation and where most people would be corrupt and suddenly "rule" America until they died, he turned it over after 2 terms.

Abe Lincoln freed the slaves, nuff said. Even though racism is still around today, the country would be even more backwards if Lincoln didn't make that decision.

 

[DDayton]

I'm updating my selection.

Teddy Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and Walt Disney.

 

[sans_pants]

QFFT

George Washington was in an incredibly powerful situation and where most people would be corrupt and suddenly "rule" America until they died, he turned it over after 2 terms.

Abe Lincoln freed the slaves, nuff said. Even though racism is still around today, the country would be even more backwards if Lincoln didn't make that decision.

you arent looking to deep into that freeing the slave thing i see

 

[MC Safety]

I wasn't saying anything about Habeas Corpus really... I was referring to Sherman's march to the sea in comparison to Stalin and Amherst. You know, the one where he went through Georgia killing any confederate in his path, destroying towns and food supplies and killing civillians at random, as well as testing bombs on them? And don't bother arguing that one... I've got copies of primary sources on it-- diaries and newspaper articles detailing exactly how he treated plantations and villages upon his arrival. And it was all approved by Lincoln, so long as it "waited til after the election".

So in consideration of this, why isn't it ok to compare this to every other war criminal ever? Stalin acted in a certain way that he thought would guarantee sovereignty in the Soviet Union. The Hutu's did the same in Rwanda. If you're going to justify the human rights violations by Lincoln as serving the best interest of the country as a whole, then you have to allow for these other anomalies to count, too.

And for the record, I never claimed to be a dispassionate student of history... only a student of it. I believe history is one area where one should most definitely show passion so as to fully understand the lessons which we should be learning from it. Yet I find it rather showing that you'd rather use tongue-in-cheek quips against me than debate the facts as they are, and bring up my posting history instead of the points I've made.

The reason I don't bother debating the facts with you is because you've never shown the slightest interest in debate. You make statements that are easily refuted, then you equivocate. You make more statements and then claim you were taken out of context. The first time you show interest in the facts as presented to you by someone else will be, in fact , the first time you are interested in a fact presented to you by someone else.

Now you're claiming Sherman's march to the south was equivalent to Stalin's purge of millons and the African massacres of thousands including women and childrem. I say now you are full of it. Sherman's march was conducted during wartime, and was directed at the South's ability to maintain its infrastructure.

Here's a "fact" you can ignore, Mike. It comes from Wikipedia:
"The damage done by Sherman was almost entirely limited to property destruction—particularly property that could aid the Confederate war effort. Sherman claimed he and his men had, in Georgia alone, caused $100,000,000 in damages. The loss of life (especially civilian life) was remarkably minimal, especially when considering the size of his two-pronged army advance through the area (60,000 plus troops, in an advance that was 60 miles wide and 300 miles long). His army suffered approximately 100 dead and 700 wounded. This was always Sherman's goal and several of his Southern contemporaries noted this fact and commented on it."

 

[Boogie]

Harry Truman

You have GOT to be kidding me.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

You have GOT to be kidding me.

He wanted socialized health care in America. I'm surprised more GAF members haven't picked him yet. So did FDR but FDR got some mentions.

 

[whytemyke]

The reason I don't bother debating the facts with you is because you've never shown the slightest interest in debate. You make statements that are easily refuted, then you equivocate. You make more statements and then claim you were taken out of context. The first time you show interest in the facts as presented to you by someone else will be, in fact , the first time you are interested in a fact presented to you by someone else.

Now you're claiming Sherman's march to the south was equivalent to Stalin's purge of millons and the African massacres of thousands including women and childrem. I say now you are full of it. Sherman's march was conducted during wartime, and was directed at the South's ability to maintain its infrastructure.

Here's a "fact" you can ignore, Mike. It comes from Wikipedia:
"The damage done by Sherman was almost entirely limited to property destruction—particularly property that could aid the Confederate war effort. Sherman claimed he and his men had, in Georgia alone, caused $100,000,000 in damages. The loss of life (especially civilian life) was remarkably minimal, especially when considering the size of his two-pronged army advance through the area (60,000 plus troops, in an advance that was 60 miles wide and 300 miles long). His army suffered approximately 100 dead and 700 wounded. This was always Sherman's goal and several of his Southern contemporaries noted this fact and commented on it."

First off you really shouldn't rely on Wikipedia for information relating to it. For all you know I could have written that up. Look to the primary sources you can find of newspapers at the time, where you'll see stories of entire villages being loaded onto trains and moved north to be tried, away from their homes, as their villages were burned and all their resources were burned along with it.

Look, I'm not here saying that Sherman's march, or anything Lincoln did, can compare to the slaughter of millions that Stalin or the Hutu's did. The basis of my argument is that if you have to break morals in order to defend them, then you really shouldn't consider yourself a great person, and quite obviously Lincoln did abandon his morals to get things done. Was he a great person? Who knows. Did he accomplish something entirely integral to the progression of human history? You bet. But the caveat to all of it is that he broke the law doing it, so, to me at least, it's all a bit tainted.

The Civil War overall was a crime that should never have happened. I fully believe that the CSA had every right to secede if it wanted to and that we had no right to do anything but allow it and try to establish diplomatic, cordial relations with them. So for me to accept that a man who perpetrated the breaking of laws in so many areas, for the common good or not, with the expense of thousands upon thousands of lives, is just not something I'm willing to do. I'm sorry, but he broke the laws and one could even go so far as to argue that he broke the standing laws of war by attacking the civillian population.

So please, don't confuse what I'm saying here. I don't really consider the suspension of habeas corpus or the institution of martial law in NY and various other areas to be in the same degree of deprivaty as the war criminals I mentioned, but from a purely black and white stance I cannot in good faith agree with anyone who says that Lincoln is an example of the great kind of people we can churn out. I personally think that we can do better.

The first time you show interest in the facts as presented to you by someone else will be, in fact , the first time you are interested in a fact presented to you by someone else.

Anyways, I don't think anyone here is going to sway the other in regards to whether Lincoln should be considered a great American. You're not going to sway me and I'm most definitely not knowledgeable enough to sway you.

Now, if we want to talk great FRENCHmen, I'll give everyone a lesson on Bonaparte that they won't soon forget.

 

[Alski]

OJ Simpson
George W Bush
Michael Jackson

 

[MC Safety]

Funny, now you're backing off comparing Sherman's march to Stalin and the Rwanda massacres. You're quite something. And I chose Wikipedia because it was the closest material at hand. Had I chosen Sherman's biography or any source not directly approved by you, it would have garnered the same response.

Anyway, Mike. I get your point. You think the confederacy should have been cut loose -- imagine that, considering your past statements about the south -- and that Lincoln should have waved it goodbye. And under that basic assumption, anything he did would have been too much.

I disagree strongly.

First off you really shouldn't rely on Wikipedia for information relating to it. For all you know I could have written that up. Look to the primary sources you can find of newspapers at the time, where you'll see stories of entire villages being loaded onto trains and moved north to be tried, away from their homes, as their villages were burned and all their resources were burned along with it.

Look, I'm not here saying that Sherman's march, or anything Lincoln did, can compare to the slaughter of millions that Stalin or the Hutu's did. The basis of my argument is that if you have to break morals in order to defend them, then you really shouldn't consider yourself a great person, and quite obviously Lincoln did abandon his morals to get things done. Was he a great person? Who knows. Did he accomplish something entirely integral to the progression of human history? You bet. But the caveat to all of it is that he broke the law doing it, so, to me at least, it's all a bit tainted.

The Civil War overall was a crime that should never have happened. I fully believe that the CSA had every right to secede if it wanted to and that we had no right to do anything but allow it and try to establish diplomatic, cordial relations with them. So for me to accept that a man who perpetrated the breaking of laws in so many areas, for the common good or not, with the expense of thousands upon thousands of lives, is just not something I'm willing to do. I'm sorry, but he broke the laws and one could even go so far as to argue that he broke the standing laws of war by attacking the civillian population.

So please, don't confuse what I'm saying here. I don't really consider the suspension of habeas corpus or the institution of martial law in NY and various other areas to be in the same degree of deprivaty as the war criminals I mentioned, but from a purely black and white stance I cannot in good faith agree with anyone who says that Lincoln is an example of the great kind of people we can churn out. I personally think that we can do better.



Anyways, I don't think anyone here is going to sway the other in regards to whether Lincoln should be considered a great American. You're not going to sway me and I'm most definitely not knowledgeable enough to sway you.

Now, if we want to talk great FRENCHmen, I'll give everyone a lesson on Bonaparte that they won't soon forget.

 

[God's Hand]

 

[darkiguana]

He wanted socialized health care in America. I'm surprised more GAF members haven't picked him yet. So did FDR but FDR got some mentions.

Thats a reason to put him at the bottom of the list, IMO.

 

[Boogie]

He wanted socialized health care in America. I'm surprised more GAF members haven't picked him yet. So did FDR but FDR got some mentions.

Okay. But just because he wanted it doesn't make him the greatest American.

 

[ronito]

Thats a reason to put him at the bottom of the list, IMO.

Drat him trying to make sure that people have access to healthcare. Totally unamerican!!!

 

[MrPing1000]

Bill Hicks
Howard Stern
Hulk Hogan
Homer Simpson

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

Okay. But just because he wanted it doesn't make him the greatest American.

I know. I was just poking fun at GAF

 

[Bregor]

First off you really shouldn't rely on Wikipedia for information relating to it. For all you know I could have written that up. Look to the primary sources you can find of newspapers at the time, where you'll see stories of entire villages being loaded onto trains and moved north to be tried, away from their homes, as their villages were burned and all their resources were burned along with it.

It is up to you to provide proof in the form of reputable sources if you make such claims. Given your already demonstrated inaccuracies in this thread I won't believe anything you claim until you do so.

The Civil War overall was a crime that should never have happened. I fully believe that the CSA had every right to secede if it wanted to and that we had no right to do anything but allow it and try to establish diplomatic, cordial relations with them.

Under other circumstances I might agree with you. But the South seceeded for the purpose of keeping a third of their population as property. Going to war to prevent the establishment of a government that directly condoned slavery is a moral act in my opinion.

And lest you forget - the South DID start the war. So pointing the finger at the north as warmongers is not completely truthful.

So for me to accept that a man who perpetrated the breaking of laws in so many areas, for the common good or not, with the expense of thousands upon thousands of lives, is just not something I'm willing to do. I'm sorry, but he broke the laws and one could even go so far as to argue that he broke the standing laws of war by attacking the civillian population.

What 'standing laws of war'? I am not personally aware that such things existed prior to the end of WW1.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

JFK ended the Cuban Missile Crisis without incident. I think there is something to be said for that.

I mean, imagine what would go down if that happened today.

Well, he ended it by pushing us to the brink, and it was only due to the fact that the Soviets blinked and decided to back down at the last second. Had they not, who knows how far it would have esculated. There is also evidence that there was a back door deal cut. The Soviets removed their missles from Cuba, and six months later we removed some of our missles from Turkey. A number of historians feel that JFK let his own ego get in the way during the Cuban Missile Crisis when others were trying to come up with diplomatic reponese. But, for arguments sake, we'll call it a win.

Now, lets see what else went down under the JFK watch: Bay of Pigs Invasion and the build-up in Vietnam, which other Presidents had to deal with later, namely LBJ. Mob ties also helped to deliver a close election, when it actually may have been won by Nixon, not to mention his serial adultry, and reported addiction to pain killers and booze. Were he President today, many of these things would have gotten a lot more scrutiny.

He did have a number of important impacts, such as creating the Peace Corps, taking up the Civil Rights cause, pushing the Space Program, etc. In short, he was a good, but not great President who had his success and failures. However, the fact that he was young, and dynamic, good looking, and was assasinated during his Presidency, has lead many Americans to label him as a better President then he really was.

 

[ChronoMagnus]

Wasnt Walt Disney a Nazi? I thought that at the End of full metal jacket that the troops were singing the Mickey mouse song as a sorta message by the director of how much he despised walt disney for his sympathetic views with the nazis.

And please correct me if i'm wrong but wasnt Mark Twain racist against native americans?

The Best American ever is Brett Favre. End Topic.

 

[whytemyke]

Well, he ended it by pushing us to the brink, and it was only due to the fact that the Soviets blinked and decided to back down at the last second. Had they not, who knows how far it would have esculated. There is also evidence that there was a back door deal cut. The Soviets removed their missles from Cuba, and six months later we removed some of our missles from Turkey. A number of historians feel that JFK let his own ego get in the way during the Cuban Missile Crisis when others were trying to come up with diplomatic reponese. But, for arguments sake, we'll call it a win.

Now, lets see what else went down under the JFK watch: Bay of Pigs Invasion and the build-up in Vietnam, which other Presidents had to deal with later, namely LBJ. Mob ties also helped to deliver a close election, when it actually may have been won by Nixon, not to mention his serial adultry, and reported addiction to pain killers and booze. Were he President today, many of these things would have gotten a lot more scrutiny.

He did have a number of important impacts, such as creating the Peace Corps, taking up the Civil Rights cause, pushing the Space Program, etc. In short, he was a good, but not great President who had his success and failures. However, the fact that he was young, and dynamic, good looking, and was assasinated during his Presidency, has lead many Americans to label him as a better President then he really was.

Don't forget that we had to give up Sokolov. But yeah, you summed up JFK perfectly. I still really wish we could have seen what RFK woulda been like as a President though.

It is up to you to provide proof in the form of reputable sources if you make such claims. Given your already demonstrated inaccuracies in this thread I won't believe anything you claim until you do so.

Start off with Peoples History of America by Howard Zinn. When you get done with that I'll have found my other history books with primary sources and will give you the names and titles of those, although the People History comes with a fully annotated supplemantary book listing and showing all the sources used in that book anyways.

What 'standing laws of war'? I am not personally aware that such things existed prior to the end of WW1.

Most of the laws we recognize today were re-established in Nuremburg, Geneva and the Hague conventions after WW2, although treaty ratifications that date back to the period of Greece go into detail about what sorts of things should be expected in regards to war. Good sources of this are found in The Prince where Machiavelli details them (no harm to civillians), the Treaty of Westphalia can be used as well, any sort of Lockean writings pretty much regulated how the Commonwealth (and thus, the world) reacted to rules of war. One could even go so far as to say that the Napoleonic Code and the Congress of Vienna both established international laws pertaining to how individual actors should act in wartime.

While what you're saying is technically true, there weren't any real 'charters' or written laws that the US had engaged in pertaining to how to act during war, there were still common expectations by western societies which should more than suffice as an ethical guideline to the implementation of war.

 

[sans_pants]

Well, he ended it by pushing us to the brink, and it was only due to the fact that the Soviets blinked and decided to back down at the last second. Had they not, who knows how far it would have esculated. There is also evidence that there was a back door deal cut. The Soviets removed their missles from Cuba, and six months later we removed some of our missles from Turkey. A number of historians feel that JFK let his own ego get in the way during the Cuban Missile Crisis when others were trying to come up with diplomatic reponese. But, for arguments sake, we'll call it a win.

Now, lets see what else went down under the JFK watch: Bay of Pigs Invasion and the build-up in Vietnam, which other Presidents had to deal with later, namely LBJ. Mob ties also helped to deliver a close election, when it actually may have been won by Nixon, not to mention his serial adultry, and reported addiction to pain killers and booze. Were he President today, many of these things would have gotten a lot more scrutiny.

He did have a number of important impacts, such as creating the Peace Corps, taking up the Civil Rights cause, pushing the Space Program, etc. In short, he was a good, but not great President who had his success and failures. However, the fact that he was young, and dynamic, good looking, and was assasinated during his Presidency, has lead many Americans to label him as a better President then he really was.

lbj did get fucked because of the whole vietnam thing. he was actually a pretty good president otherwise

 

[Bregor]

Start off with Peoples History of America by Howard Zinn.

I asked for a reputable source, not one from a radical writer. Even Zinn has admitted that he is biased. You claimed to have original source material, provide it.

 

[whytemyke]

I asked for a reputable source, not one from a radical writer. Even Zinn has admitted that he is biased. You claimed to have original source material, provide it.

:lol his 'admitted' bias was against the common themes in history. If you read anything he ever wrote he always says that his purpose of writing is to teach people things that they wouldn't otherwise know. That's hardly a radical writer insofar as a negative connotation goes... you should give it a shot. You might learn something... and besides, everything is annotated in the bibliography. Dig deeper than quotes on the back of covers, dude.

But if you'd rather have another book, look at "The Power of Words: Documents in American History (Volume I)" by T. H. Breen for more of the primary sources which I'm talking about.

 

[Bregor]

:lol his 'admitted' bias was against the common themes in history. If you read anything he ever wrote he always says that his purpose of writing is to teach people things that they wouldn't otherwise know. That's hardly a radical writer insofar as a negative connotation goes... you should give it a shot. You might learn something... and besides, everything is annotated in the bibliography. Dig deeper than quotes on the back of covers, dude.

But if you'd rather have another book, look at "The Power of Words: Documents in American History (Volume I)" by T. H. Breen for more of the primary sources which I'm talking about.

Once again you are missing the point. I don't consider any work with an agenda to be a reputable source. You made the claims, now you back them up. You have claimed to have copies of primary sources, provide them.