Announcement

**orange** · September 30, 2001, 19:07

Uh, Christatine, before you get all righteous, Abe Lincoln didn't love the black man, don't be fooled. He was a political opportunist. He realized that he could gain the most support by taking a stand with the abolitionists and that's just what he did. He forced his opponents to side with the slavery enthusaists, which made his opponents look like immoral hicks.

George Washington owned slaves during a time when owning slaves was hardly a political issue, and seen as a social norm. Washington also lived in the south, whereas Lincoln lived in the North, and was to poor to own slaves. Abolishing slavery during Washington's time would have been political suicide. During Lincoln's run for office, he split the populous 50/50. It would have been in NO WAY easier for Washington to abolish slavery than it was for Lincoln.

Monroe was the one who supported sending Blacks to Africa, and he did just that, which is why the capital of Liberia is "Monrovia". But again, hardly because he loved blacks.

Jefferson owned slaves, yet Adams did not. Does that make Adams a better leader?

George Washington was a humble war hero, and they are VERY hard to come by in American history. He was a very smart man.

**Steve Clark** · September 30, 2001, 19:14

Ubik must think there has not been any biographies written about Lincoln, or perhaps none have gotten to Greece.

I have read four of them (Thomas, Oates, Peterson and Waugh). But anyone with any historical sense would know such statements are just trolling (unless that's the point of this thread and I missed it).

if a perverted, drunk gambling political opportunist

Perverted: Perversion is defined as leading astray from right opinion or conduct (as one definition). I would say in Lincoln's case, from the time as a congressman in the Iliinois Legislature to his term as President, he has consistently displayed morals, opinions and conducts just the opposite of perversion.

Drunk: Lincoln grew up in the rough frontier towns of Indiana and Illinois. After the Black Hawk War, he arrived back in New Salem and partnered with Berry in running a grocer. Berry was an alcoholic and ran the store into debt, which Lincoln eventually repaid by himself (thus his nickname, Honest Abe). Even though he could not help but to join in on some occassional drinking with the boys, the experience in New Salem (in 1832) made him a teetotaler for the rest of his life. Not once as President did he touch alcohol or for decades preceeding that.

Gambling: Apart from casual gambling on the frontier when he was growing up, he never actively engaged in gambling of any sort.

Political Opportunist: Political achievement is opportunistic, else it wouldn't be politics.

**orange** · September 30, 2001, 19:16

well said Steve

**jdd2007** · September 30, 2001, 19:42

Uh, Christatine, before you get all righteous, Abe Lincoln didn't love the black man, don't be fooled. He was a political opportunist. He realized that he could gain the most support by taking a stand with the abolitionists and that's just what he did. He forced his opponents to side with the slavery enthusaists, which made his opponents look like immoral hicks.

i was just about to post a message agreeing with u when i read this post.

Abe Lincoln didn't love the black man, don't be fooled.

where did u get this idea from? abes decision to abolish slavery wasnt exactly 100% because he wanted to help humanity, but it wasnt 100% political either.

made his opponents look like immoral hicks.

uhhh

r u saying they werent imoral and that they werent hicks. i dont know if they were hicks, but they sure as h ell were imoral...

**Christantine The Great** · September 30, 2001, 19:47

I agree. I think Lincoln didn't touch alcohol after he drank that barrel of wiskey. Unless that is a myth...

Uh, Christatine, before you get all righteous

I'm getting this from a biography that I have just read.

Anyway... It would have been easier for Washington to abolish slavery. Slavery was on the way out at the beginning of the ninteenth century and it only started up in strength again when the cottin gin was invented and greedy landowners wanted to get as much possible with people who you didn't have to pay. It would have been much easier around the time when slavery was grinding to a halt than when it was in full force.

Monroe was the one who supported sending Blacks to Africa

I didn't say Lincoln came up with the idea. Read my post again.

Does that make Adams a better leader?

Try selling CivIII on the street in Harlem where a slave owner is the leader of the Americans. That's my point.

I think you believe that I am supporting Lincoln 100%. I'm not, I'm just defending him. I think he is an appropriate leader for the Americans.

**mactbone** · September 30, 2001, 20:21

Abolishing slavery during Washington's time would have been political suicide

Just have to point out how wrong this was. Did you know that Congress was ready and willing to just *give* Washington the presidency, no votes, nothing. Washington declined and asked for a real election (or at least as close to one as they had back then). He got elected and I'm willing to bet by a landslide. I don't even know who ran against him. Not to say he was a bad pres. or anything, but your statement is waaaaay off base.

**orange** · September 30, 2001, 20:23

where did u get this idea from? abes decision to abolish slavery wasnt exactly 100% because he wanted to help humanity, but it wasnt 100% political either.

The idea taught in school is that Abe was a great man who's goal was to abolish slavery because he was was a great lover of the African American. While it is true that Lincoln didn't support slavery, as most northerners didn't, he was no more into the idea of abolishing slavery than most northerners. Lincoln jumped on the Abolitionist band waggon when he ran for Illinois governor. The Lincoln Douglass debates, which he makes his first definitive stand against slavery, boosted his national popularity to the point that many northerners gave their support to the man if he ran for president. He was a smart smart guy for this. But he was not for immediate social equality between whites and blacks. He simply found slavery to be immoral and took a stand which benefited his political career.

uhhh r u saying they werent imoral and that they werent hicks. i dont know if they were hicks, but they sure as h ell were imoral...

What I'm saying is, Lincoln forced the other candidates, who would have been middle of the road on the issue, as all candidates previous to him were, into defending slavery. Lincoln was the favorite for the anti-slavery movement, so another candidate being anti-slavery would be pointless from a political standpoint...it wouldn't get them the Republican nomination. They had to go democrat to get the southern votes, or risk not being able to run for president.

Anyway... It would have been easier for Washington to abolish slavery. Slavery was on the way out at the beginning of the ninteenth century and it only started up in strength again when the cottin gin was invented and greedy landowners wanted to get as much possible with people who you didn't have to pay. It would have been much easier around the time when slavery was grinding to a halt than when it was in full force.

During Washington's time, this is specifically the reason that abolishing slavery would have been a pointless request. People, both north and south, would see it as a (in place of the other term...) "black lover" being righteous. The issue of slavery wasn't nearly questioned to the extent that it was during the 1800s, mainly because it WASN'T a big deal. It was just a norm. It wasn't until the mid 1800s where the masses decided "this is wrong" and being anti-slavery at least got you 50% of the people on your side.

I didn't say Lincoln came up with the idea. Read my post again.

My mistake, but the point still rings true. Lincoln was a political opportunist. Taking nothing away from the man at all...he was a great president...but he was more of a political opportunist than a crusader for African American freedom.

Try selling CivIII on the street in Harlem where a slave owner is the leader of the Americans. That's my point.

I can see the riots in Harlem now!

I'd go as far as to say that NO black man is going to care whether or not the leader of the Americans in CivIII is Lincoln or Washington based on the fact that one was a slave owner and the other was not, let alone the entire race.

I think you believe that I am supporting Lincoln 100%. I'm not, I'm just defending him. I think he is an appropriate leader for the Americans.

Not at all. I'm defending my view that Washington makes the better leader.

**orange** · September 30, 2001, 20:29

Originally posted by MacTBone

Just have to point out how wrong this was. Did you know that Congress was ready and willing to just *give* Washington the presidency, no votes, nothing. Washington declined and asked for a real election (or at least as close to one as they had back then). He got elected and I'm willing to bet by a landslide. I don't even know who ran against him. Not to say he was a bad pres. or anything, but your statement is waaaaay off base.

I didn't say "If Washington came out anti-slavery" I said "during Washington's time", IE the late 1700s. Washington could have pulled it off, because of his enormous popularity... and yes they would have made him King...but that's not what my point was.

Washington probably could have successfully allowed barnyard animals to become voting american citizens if he wanted to...just because he COULD have done it doesn't mean it would have been very popular among the people.

**Ubik** · October 1, 2001, 08:45

O tempora o mores

Due to overpatriotic bull****, this thread has gone to hell... whatever... Thanks to the (very few) who actually tried to contribute something on subject.

**orange** · October 1, 2001, 08:54

Sorry, got off on a tangent

The funny thing, there's even a thread on what we were discussing!

Ok, no more threadjacking. We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic

**Steve Clark** · October 1, 2001, 11:27

I guess the few of us trying to pull Ubik's head out of his you-know-what constitute as being overly patriotic.

It's just a reaction to ignorance, I guess.

**Ubik** · October 1, 2001, 11:43

Makarioi oi ptochoi to pnevmati

Or if you don't know Greek (I wouldn't expect you to do) let's just say that yes, it was my reaction to ignorance and stupidity: Your ignorance and stupidity, boy.

**orange** · October 1, 2001, 11:46

now now boys, lets play nice

**KrazyHorse** · October 1, 2001, 11:55

Ubuk's comments re Lincoln seemed fairly off-base, but what I don't get is:

"Please do your USA bashing somewhere else"

Why is an anti-Lincoln sentiment anti-American, especially when a "better" idea for an American leader is proposed?

**BlackStone** · October 1, 2001, 12:14

I think that it is reasonably acurate to say that each civ at differing times has been: war like, peaceful, scientific and all the others in its own particular way. So why not have a variety of leader options that represent each of these forms. You choose a historical leader from that civ that suits the way you want to play.

eg Ghandi - peaceful diplomate

Hitler - waring psychopath

etc

Announcement

Historical accuracy in Civ3 - what???

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment