Greatest American?

[Ran]

I'm curious, those of you tht voted for Lincoln, could you tell me why?
thanks

 

[MomofKatie]

Now that I think about it, I wish the #1 would have been "the American people" instead of one person. I like the idea of the Average Joe being just as important to the greatness of our country as anyone else.

 

[Ran]

MomofKatie: nice, that would have got my vote

 

[Florida_luvr924]

I'm curious, those of you tht voted for Lincoln, could you tell me why?
thanks

I voted for Washington, but Lincoln had a lot to do with freeing the slaves.

 

[jrydberg]

I voted for Washington, but Lincoln had a lot to do with freeing the slaves.

And keeping this country whole.

 

[septbride2002]

The problem is (and I'm being serious) is that students do not spend enough time learning about history. I am recently discovering how much I enjoy learning about history, however in school it never sunk in much. Not to mention I learned the same thing every year. Dates, wars, blah blah blah. Nothing like the real story. PLUS, I only learned up to the beginning of World War II. Nothing after that!

I think that is why I was always fasintated with the history of China, Mayans, and Native Americans. Their history seemed much more like a story to me.

How could you honestly pick the Greatest American? It is all in perception. For my it's my Dad. Drafted at 18 to the Vietnam War he served his country even though he didn't choose to go. He came home, was (and is still) a blue collar worker, had a home, had a family, raised two kids with high education and never looked back. Now that to me is a Great American.

~Amanda

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

The problem is (and I'm being serious) is that students do not spend enough time learning about history. I am recently discovering how much I enjoy learning about history, however in school it never sunk in much. Not to mention I learned the same thing every year. Dates, wars, blah blah blah. Nothing like the real story. PLUS, I only learned up to the beginning of World War II. Nothing after that!

I think that is why I was always fasintated with the history of China, Mayans, and Native Americans. Their history seemed much more like a story to me.

How could you honestly pick the Greatest American? It is all in perception. For my it's my Dad. Drafted at 18 to the Vietnam War he served his country even though he didn't choose to go. He came home, was (and is still) a blue collar worker, had a home, had a family, raised two kids with high education and never looked back. Now that to me is a Great American.

~Amanda

Amen. I'll take a hard-working family man and veteran over the celebs.

 

[BeatlePooh]

How could you honestly pick the Greatest American? It is all in perception. For my it's my Dad. Drafted at 18 to the Vietnam War he served his country even though he didn't choose to go. He came home, was (and is still) a blue collar worker, had a home, had a family, raised two kids with high education and never looked back. Now that to me is a Great American.

~Amanda

Gotta agree with that. Your dad represents what makes America great. Most of us have similar examples.

I paid no attention to that show at all until last week when I happened to channel surf by it and stopped to watch the rest. It seems to me they should have had categories. presidents - pioneers - military - sports - civil rights - business - culture - arts - etc.

I was impressed with the final five - I would have voted Washington - Lincoln - Franklin - Reagan - King from that list.

Lots of surprize in the ones left off - what happened to Jefferson? Madison?

And as for celebrities and sports - how about Bob Hope and Jackie Robinson?

 

[Ran]

Florida_luvr924: but Lincoln had a lot to do with freeing the slaves.

true enough, but that was reactive as opposed to anything ideological. Lincoln abhorred slavery but did nothing to end it until it became politically expedient to do so, had the South not seceded or the war been over before the Battle of Sharpburg(Antietam to you Yankees ) then slavery would not have been abolished in that era, although it would have ended in a relatively short time afterward IMHO

jrydberg: And keeping this country whole.

I think that would more like, returning it to whole, but the point is well taken

BTW it is not my intention to denigrate Lincoln, it's just my considered opinion that not too many people know much about Lincoln

septbride2002: excellent post

BeatlePooh: Jefferson and Madison wasn't on the list?? the would have been in my top 4, that's sad

 

[BeatlePooh]

Florida_luvr924: but Lincoln had a lot to do with freeing the slaves.

true enough, but that was reactive as opposed to anything ideological. Lincoln abhorred slavery but did nothing to end it until it became politically expedient to do so, had the South not seceded or the war been over before the Battle of Sharpburg(Antietam to you Yankees ) then slavery would not have been abolished in that era, although it would have ended in a relatively short time afterward IMHO

Im not sure you are giving Lincoln enough credit. I think he got into politics because of his opposition to slavery. Now - it is true that he put the salvation of the union ahead of eliminating slavery instantly. He once said if he could preserve the union without freeing any slaves he would do that. And if he could preserve the union by freeing the slaves he would do that. And if he could preserve the union by freeing some of the slaves and not the others, he would do that too.

It is obvious that his primary concern was preservation of the union. But, it is also true that he would have worked incessantly to end slavery.

However, I agree that slavery was a dying institution. It would have ended without the Civil War. It would have taken longer, but the eventual result would be that any free country would not long abide slavery.

As far as using the Emancipation Proclamation as a tactic in the war, that is true. But that only addresses the timing of it, not the fact that he wanted to do it. A matter of a week - or a month - or a year makes no difference when you are fighting for survival.

 

[Ran]

BeatlePooh: you may be right in that he WOULD have, but he didn't.Although since he had no authority over the slave states there isn't much he could have done anyway.The only true test would have been if the South had not seceded and that we'll never know.

As I stated previously Linclon abhorred slavery but whether or not he would have been able to do anything about it,given events at the time, is subject to speculation, most in his own administration were against even suggesting the Emancipation Proclamation.

sorry I can't buy the survival thing though, the South was not trying to annihilate the North and even if the South had won they would have found themselves in an odd position, still having to deal with the same folks, but now instead of Countrymen, they would have had hostile neighbors, I think the secession would not have lasted long.Sometimes I wonder if the war mongers in the South ever thought of this.

thanks for your response

 

[BeatlePooh]

BeatlePooh: you may be right in that he WOULD have, but he didn't.Although since he had no authority over the slave states there isn't much he could have done anyway.The only true test would have been if the South had not seceded and that we'll never know.

As I stated previously Linclon abhorred slavery but whether or not he would have been able to do anything about it,given events at the time, is subject to speculation, most in his own administration were against even suggesting the Emancipation Proclamation.

sorry I can't buy the survival thing though, the South was not trying to annihilate the North and even if the South had won they would have found themselves in an odd position, still having to deal with the same folks, but now instead of Countrymen, they would have had hostile neighbors, I think the secession would not have lasted long.Sometimes I wonder if the war mongers in the South ever thought of this.

This may be one of those arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I am personally convinced that Lincoln would have worked to end slavery. He would have had plenty of opposition within his own cabinet. Congress would certainly been split and contankerous. I don;t think the Supreme Court would have been a factor at that time.
But, the abolitionist movement was gaining momentum in the north and how long the country could have endured the blight of slavery under their constant agitation we will never know.
I don't think that Lincoln could have ended it in one term and whether he would have been elected again is speculative. It certainly would have been "controversial."
The war changed all that. Slavery was ended. All else is speculation. But I am personally convinced that Lincoln would have been the prime mover in abolishing it even without the war. It may have taken a decade, but he would have set it in motion.

 

[Alicnwondrln]

well i think the whole thing is stupid
i certainly would not have picked him based on the OP's statements

 

[Ran]

BeatlePooh: This may be one of those arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin

hahaha no doubt, I am infamous for these kind of abstract arguments

I think you are probably right about Lincoln intentions, but I'm not so sure that he would have any success. The Abolitionists had been around forever and although they were gaining momentum, it was still a very small movement relative to the population, the real killer of slavery I believe would have been financial not humanitarian, but that's just my two cents

edited for speeling

 

[Jeff in BigD]

While I would have put Reagan in the top 5 instead of #1, I don't see this as some great wronging. I wonder if our warm & fuzzy feelings for some of the other names mentioned would remain if the "gotcha" media were as pervasive then as they are these days?

I think the few missteps that the Reagan Administration had are greatly overshadowed by it's accomplishments. He was also very well liked - his memorial services were a testament to that as people from both sides of the aisle came to pay their respects.

My choice would have been John Adams, who wasn't particularly well-liked, but was insistant spur that caused a revolution.

 

[jonestavern]

BeatlePooh: This may be one of those arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin

hahaha no doubt, I am infamous for these kind of abstract arguments

I think you are probably right about Lincoln intentions, but I'm not so sure that he would have any success. The Abolitionists had been around forever and although they were gaining momentum, it was still a very small movement relative to the population, the real killer of slavery I believe would have been financial not humanitarian, but that's just my two cents

Actually, the slavery would've ended enventually due to the economics of the institution is what a great many northerners & southerners of that time believed. as to whether, with the slaves felt comfort in this, well...It cracks me up that the presidents between Jackson & Lincoln are GENERALLY, derided by historians as being inept or ineffectual, when their main objective was just to keep an already splitting, contentious country together. Yes, IMHO, Lincoln did pick a politically opportune time to free the slaves, but he was also playing for high stakes. He would've worked to free the slaves. Readers of history often overlook, or underestimate, the religious zeal for freeing the slaves & yes, the movement was growing as was the south's need to expand their slave-based agro-economy. 2 trains headed for each other on the same track!
Great chat BeatlePooh & Ran!

Jean

 

[BeatlePooh]

While I would have put Reagan in the top 5 instead of #1, I don't see this as some great wronging. I wonder if our warm & fuzzy feelings for some of the other names mentioned would remain if the "gotcha" media were as pervasive then as they are these days?

I think the few missteps that the Reagan Administration had are greatly overshadowed by it's accomplishments. He was also very well liked - his memorial services were a testament to that as people from both sides of the aisle came to pay their respects.

My choice would have been John Adams, who wasn't particularly well-liked, but was insistant spur that caused a revolution.

You know, I had the same thought about John Adams when I first heard of this "contest." John Adams had the most unteneble position possible. He had to fill Washington's footsteps. He had his arch enemy as VP. He had to govern a country that had yet not realized the potential of our unique brand of liberty. He was not a war hero and had no personal magnatism.
The republic could have well fallen apart at that moment with a lesser man in charge. I have always admired Adams for gettting us thrrough that phase. I am not sure he was even one of the original hundred. He never gets much attention in the history books.

 

[Charade]

I voted for Abe Lincoln!

I wanted to vote for Abe Vigoda but he wasn't on the list.

 

[BeatlePooh]

Actually, the slavery would've ended enventually due to the economics of the institution is what a great many northerners & southerners of that time believed. as to whether, with the slaves felt comfort in this, well...It cracks me up that the presidents between Jackson & Lincoln are GENERALLY, derided by historians as being inept or ineffectual, when their main objective was just to keep an already splitting, contentious country together. Yes, IMHO, Lincoln did pick a politically opportune time to free the slaves, but he was also playing for high stakes. He would've worked to free the slaves. Readers of history often overlook, or underestimate, the religious zeal for freeing the slaves & yes, the movement was growing as was the south's need to expand their slave-based agro-economy. 2 trains headed for each other on the same track!
Great chat BeatlePooh & Ran!

Jean

It would sure have been nice if we could have ended slavery without the civil war. So much destruction of lives and legacy. So much bitterness that survives til present time.
And yes it was a train wreck waiting to happen. Thank God we had a man like Lincoln there to shepard us thru this period. I sure wish he had lived to institute his reconstruction plan. We would have a better nation had he lived.

 

[jonestavern]

You know, I had the same thought about John Adams when I first heard of this "contest." John Adams had the most unteneble position possible. He had to fill Washington's footsteps. He had his arch enemy as VP. He had to govern a country that had yet not realized the potential of our unique brand of liberty. He was not a war hero and had no personal magnatism.
The republic could have well fallen apart at that moment with a lesser man in charge. I have always admired Adams for gettting us thrrough that phase. I am not sure he was even one of the original hundred. He never gets much attention in the history books.

Yes, I've often wondered why there is no monument in DC to John Adams!

I do like Ran's thought on just what the south would've done with the north had the south won!

J