Abraham Lincoln, or George Washington?

[mrbilll]

With a tip of the hat to other posts/polls like this, d'ya like Abraham Lincoln, or would you rather have seen George Washington as the American leader?

Lincoln was great, but it really was Washington that we owe more to as a nation. He was crucial, not only in war, but in setting up the style of the government that exists to this day. He could easily have been king, general, or El Presidente (dictator) of the U.S., but he turned such opportunities aside on numerous occasions. What he didn't do sets the example as much as what he did.

[Jahi]

washington rocked but without lincoln and his policy of no vengance unification there be two united states today..

god bless great leaders when there is a need for them.

[Footie Mad]

Where is Clinton? My vote went to Washington.

[Jason Beaudoin]

I would be every cent that I have that Firaxis purposely didn't pick anyone before Lincoln's presidency because of the popular ones owned slaves (i.e.: Jefferson, Washington).

It would leave them open to political attack of Firaxis had chosen Washington.

[Yoleus]

IMHO (I am European) what makes America is not the abolition of slavery, but the independence from England and the republican constitution. AFAIK, even after abolition the southern states kept separatistic policies (M.L. King, anyone?).
Again IMHO, US are NOT make by equality (some in US are more equal than others... defined by what minority you belong to), but by independence and presidentialism (US is the only country in the planet -uhm, maybe along with UK- that I could not imagine with a different government Cultural stubbornness?? )
Even if there had been a secession, sooner or later the south would have fallen in the power sphere of the north, like the rest of the continent. It is just a matter of economical, industrial and commercial might. So IMHO again, the secession war was hopeless (and meaningless) in the very beginning. It just showed that power lies north.
On the other hand, independence was a new, daring, uncertain event which truly shaped history. And it's up to Washie to have given it a leader.

[mrbilll]

It's been said that a "short, decisive war" is one of the most dangerous fantasies a society can indulge in. The U.S. civil war, and the English one, for that matter, are great examples. North and South alike, they were convinced they'd whip the other side in the morning, and have a picnic in the afternoon. If they'd known what was ahead, surely they'd have reconsidered. Only a fool would not.

I don't want to take from Abe, though. His contributions were solid. It's just that George's influence on the U.S. is almost incalculable, more than two centuries later.

BTW, is the quote about the ice from the Rime of the Ancient Mariner? It has that kind of ring to it.

[CB2034]

I would vote for Magnum PI if he was available.

[PapaLenin]

GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH

[Yoleus]

Originally posted by mrbilll
BTW, is the quote about the ice from the Rime of the Ancient Mariner? It has that kind of ring to it.

It should be = if I remembered well

[Ford Prefect]

IMHO, Americans shouldn't be in game at all. I mean, this game starts in 4000BC, and when Americans became nation? 17th century at best. Iroquis are ok, but I think they should put another European great civ (Spain, Portugal, Serbia, Vikings), or Asian, or maybe Australian (Aborigines... why not?). Still, my vote went to Washington... he's a founder of usa.

[Yoleus]

Originally posted by PapaLenin
GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH GEORGE.W BUSH

Oh, so splendid! A delicate and intelligently argued post, it fits so well

[Yoleus]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
IMHO, Americans shouldn't be in game at all. I mean, this game starts in 4000BC, and when Americans became nation? 17th century at best. Iroquis are ok, but I think they should put another European great civ (Spain, Portugal, Serbia, Vikings), or Asian, or maybe Australian (Aborigines... why not?). Still, my vote went to Washington... he's a founder of usa.

They MADE the game. You can rant, they can ignore you

[nato]

Yoleus - Youre right the secession was hopeless, but they sure did not think so at the time. All in all they came pretty close. Really I feel they should have been allowed to leave if they wanted to ... but that would have prolonged slavery probably.

I have to say don't underestimate equality ... I definitely care much much more about that than the President, any of whom I would drop like a bag of rocks if he tried to opress minorities. I would happily drop the whole system if for some reason it prevented equality.

Ford Prefect - You have a point, even I feel we are a little too young. Americans feel fine late game, but in the early game they seem a little silly.

As to the thread, I vote Washington! I love Lincoln, but Washington is to me more the biggest figure for the U.S. He could have probably made himself king if he wanted to ... but he didn't.

[d_dudy]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
IMHO, Americans shouldn't be in game at all. I mean, this game starts in 4000BC, and when Americans became nation? 17th century at best.

anyway, historians usually put lincoln at #1 because of the stresses caused by the civil war and i gotta agree. besides, with washington as a great leader he's still in. lincoln couldn't be a great military leader

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
IMHO, Americans shouldn't be in game at all. I mean, this game starts in 4000BC, and when Americans became nation? 17th century at best. Iroquis are ok, but I think they should put another European great civ (Spain, Portugal, Serbia, Vikings), or Asian, or maybe Australian (Aborigines... why not?). Still, my vote went to Washington... he's a founder of usa.

That would've went over real well. Using your criteria, the vast majority of the Civs wouldn't even be included in the game.

[mrbilll]

C'mon- Abe Lincoln in animal skins isn't any more weird than

-Xerxes in a turtleneck
-Montezuma in a three piece suit
-Hammurabi in a Tophat
-Joan of Arc in the Demi Moore-Navy Seal look

The list goes on and on. It's all very amusing, but kind of disconcerting, as well.

As for only being included in historical times, get real! Many of the greatest civs, such as Babylon, were momentary flashes of light against the backdrop of 6000 years. Even CHINA hasn't been around for that long.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
IMHO, Americans shouldn't be in game at all. I mean, this game starts in 4000BC, and when Americans became nation? 17th century at best. Iroquis are ok, but I think they should put another European great civ (Spain, Portugal, Serbia, Vikings), or Asian, or maybe Australian (Aborigines... why not?). Still, my vote went to Washington... he's a founder of usa.

True, but in the big picture, America has been infinately more important than other civilizations such as the Aboriginies! Even though it is young in comparison to most other civilizations, America combines traditions of other great civilzations and its own, unique aspects. You won't find a culture who values individualism as much as the Americans. Americans are truly a great civilization, and definately deserve to be included.

(BTW, I think that Spain, Portugal, the Vikings, the Poles, and the Arabs should have been included also.)

[Rasbelin]

Comments on all options:

G. Washington - the liberator of USA and the first president
A. Lincoln - the man of the Civil War and ideology (as were little George too)
Roosevelt & Roosevelt - WWII era presidents and New Deal
Nixon - "Never heard about him." "Are you serious?"

Conclusion:

Lincoln and Washington are both good alternatives, but I think Washington stands for a more united country. My vote goes to Washington.

[David Floyd]

IMHO, Lincoln stood for all that was unamerican, such as tyranny, military force to resolve political situations, and military aggression. FDR was the same sort, in that he ignored the Constitution when it suited him, although in his defense he didn't wage war against people who had chosen to break away from the US, only those he disagreed with across the ocean.

Out of your list, Washington is the best choice, although I'd pick someone like Thomas Jefferson or Calvin Coolidge myself.

[GePap]

Abraham Lincoln is b7y far the better choice than Washington for many, many reasons:
1. Washignton's role in the Revolutionary War as a general is overstated- Gates or Benedict Arnold were better generals and won more important battles (the most important battle of the war was Saratoga and Washington was more then 100 miles away). Washington was trully crucial as the person everyone trusted and looked for leadership- this in fact was far more important for the war cause than his (not great) ability to lead armies in the field...
2. But even as a political leader, would we place him above Jefferson, Adams, Franklyn, or Hamilton? Washignton was like a glue holding all these different people together, a unifying figure, not really ever the most important alone, just the most important in the group.

3. At this point, you are reading and saying, this man is disproving himself, he just said how more important washington was than everyone else, which is true, up to this point but let me add, that for all the work these men and Washignton did, most persons living in the U.S. still felt closer to their state than the U.S. as a whole for a long time. There were at least 2 serious threats of state leaving the union before 1861- too many people thought that they were not Americans but virginians or New Yorkers first and foremost.
4. I would add here that Lincoln's life story, that of a poor man that through his own hard work rises to government and then to lead the nation is far more compelling and closer to our national self-myth than that of a man born to a high class who then got higher by marrying a rich woman with great lands. And fo course, Lincoln is the first and only martyred president...
5. Lincoln was paramount in the Civil War, the man who took all the punches and made the great decisions -fine, he was no general, but the times did not call for generals (U.S. Grant won the war on the battlefield and look at how good his precidency was...), it called for statesmen (Lincoln's Gettysburg adddress is a far more moving document and statement of what America is than anything Washington, or any other American, has said)
6. It was only after the Civil war that the preamble to our constitution could be looked at and not called horribly hypocritical and only after the Civil War that we became Americans (no USA, USA, USA! before then). And Lincoln, more than any man, gave us that.

Lincoln for President, for Ever!!

[CygnusZ]

Sigh...

Look, here's the way it breaks down. Washington wasn't a very good president. He set a lot of precedents of what a president should be, but he was in no way a great political mind. There are better presidents than Washington. As a great leader though, he's perfect. He is a piece of American Mythology, a hero, but not a politican.

As for greatest President, the choice is difficult. Historical accuracy woud lead us to a single conclusion. Great Presidents are a product of the time in which they served, not of their character in and of themselves. Calvin Coolidge is a ridiculous choice, because he had nothing to prove, nor was he insightful enough to go against popular politics and put an end to Americas self-destructive behavior. It is good we live in an age today where the model which coolie gave us is dismissed as bogus. The other one was Jefferson. Jefferson is a bad choice, because he was a pretty bad president, his contribution too was mostly in the revolutionary era. The Jeffersonian experiments in trade were so disastorous that they threw the nation into economic turmoil.

So, dealing with the presidents we get the following:

Madison (1812)
Polk (Mexican)
Lincoln (Civil War/States Independence)
TR (N/A, Rough Rider)
FDR (World War II)
Wilson (World War I)

Hmm, Polk is out right from the start. Lincoln is always a good choice. TR was put in because he was a Rough Rider, but he probably doesn't deserve to be in, he is the first good president in the post-lincoln era. James Madison of course wrote the constitution, he's probably the most influential man in American history, so I could see him as the leader. Wodrow... falied to get the UN established the first time... we can forget about him.

James Madison stands out for me. He wrote the constitution and envisioned along with Alexander Hamilton the death of the sovreign state. My choice anyway.

[David Floyd]

From an importance to history standpoint I could agree with Madison, although not from a political one

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'd pick someone like Thomas Jefferson or Calvin Coolidge myself.

You only like Calvin Coolidge because he didn't do anything for his entire administration.

[David Floyd]

Yeah no joke

for Coolidge

[Ford Prefect]

USA is an important country now, but it is only for last 100-200 years. And China exists 4000 years (and more, I think). There is lot of civs that were "important" for many longer (at least in Europe, I'm from Europe, so I know European history best). Austria, Hungary, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, England, Serbia, Turkey, Byzanthia are all countries that were most important in one period of European history.
Anyway, enaugh about this. USA deserves to be in Civ3, but so are a lot of other civs (Mongolian Empire took whole Asia during the rule of Genghis Khan and his sons).

[egovalor]

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
I would be every cent that I have that Firaxis purposely didn't pick anyone before Lincoln's presidency because of the popular ones owned slaves (i.e.: Jefferson, Washington).

It would leave them open to political attack of Firaxis had chosen Washington.

Hmm, maybe to someone like you. Who the hell looks at a comparison between George Washington and Abrahman Lincoln and the first thing they think of is, "Doh, one owned slaves. That one is bad."

Here's a clue: The Aztecs enslaved their foes (and sacrificed them). The American Indians enslaved rival tribes (I think some were canabalistic too). The Romans sure as heck did. The ancient Greeks were the first to practice democracy, but only about 20% of the population of Athens participated: the rest were slaves. The Zulus not only enslaved their own people but SOLD them to other nations (do you REALLY think that the african slave trade consisted completely of abduction and reselling? Come on. Were tribes upon tribes of Africans so helpless that boats of prissy white guys could just land and cart them away? Why wasn't there a defensive war to combat this wholesale atrosity? Answer: the slaves were convieniently already captured and packed for shipping....by Africans). In fact let's take a look at every leader firaxis has supplied us with....care to count which ones probably owned slaves? Or murdered people?

Your reasoning comes down to this....George Washington is morally unacceptable to invoke in a computer game....but CHAIRMAN MAO is?

[Freeze]

Why oh why do I read these threads? I prefer my comfortable illusions intact.

KTHX

[Hunter Hutchins]

"...And China exists 4000 years (and more, I think)."

China is definitely not what it used to be, and not the isolationist.

About 100 years ago the US saved China from Imperialism...(guilty about Hawaii?) The US pretty much tolerated the fact that China could be in a 30 year civil war and let them have their war. And then China is still sort of having a problem with it's "rebel province..."

China is so old we don't know how old it is or how long it's first dynasties lasted, there's that "legendary" one, but that one didn't even control all of China. To get an idea of how old China is, we see that it is one of the birthplaces of human life...

Hey, Switzerland's republic is 800 yr or so? Nobody but the swiss seem to care!

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

USA deserves to be in Civ3, but so are a lot of other civs (Mongolian Empire took whole Asia during the rule of Genghis Khan and his sons).

I agree with you. Americans have the right to be in the game, but that doesn't mean it would be justified that the Mongols have been whiped out. I think the Mongols should be included in an EP with all the other EP civs. But this more like OT, so back to the real subject.

[Rathgar1]

I think that Washington would have made the better leader for the american people. During the Revoloutionary War and the formation of our country his actions became the gold standard apon which all other american leaders would be judged. As military commander, he always listened to congress. On many occasions the continental congress would not give Washington money, other suggested he take what he needed. Washington did not. The idea that a civilian authority, a body of representitves, was above a military leader was revolotionary. At several times given the chance for leadership of a dictatorship or a monarchy, Washington declined. Later his presidency set many of the precidents we still follow today.
Washington, more then any of our other leaders has presented what our country was about, and how it should be run. Lincoln was also a great leader, but unable to finish his presidency. He did not start the civil war over slavery, but to preserve the Union. The end of slavery through the Emancipation Proclamation was just another tool to keep the country whole. The country was torn apart, and Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws and other problems in the south would take years to solve. Franklin Roosevelt would rate after Washington on my list, his terms in office were remarkable. Social Security, Welfare, and other social programs were started with his presidency. The success of America during WW II, and the post war era would almost as significant.


I believe it was Gen Henry Lee who said about Washington:
first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen