Abraham Lincoln, or George Washington?

[mrbilll]

in the "create a thread" screen, there's a section at the bottom, titled "post a poll". If you check the box, it lets you set up a poll after you submit your message.

But seriously, Lenin? You know, the leaders of Russia have been a pretty unsavory lot, on the whole...

[Barnacle Bill]

Washington is better because:
1) He really was instrumental in creating the US, both as an independent nation and as the Republic it is (supposed to be) rather than what has happened in many other nations after independence. It doesn't matter if he was a the best general or the best stateman - he lead by example and kept the cause from falling apart due to internal bickering in the halls of Congress, in the field with the troops and at the Constitutional Convention. His administration filling in the blanks left in the Constitution (there were lots of them) and established most of the precidents still followed today.
2) He was non-partisan even in his own day, the only thing you could say about him is the slavery thing and you seldom hear much about that regarding him (fact - Washington & Lafayette established a demonstrator project on how to run a plantation without slaves, which would have been an absolute necessity if slavery was to be ended without a civil war, which they know). The alternatives truly inspire a lot a partisan bickering (Lincoln, FDR, etc...) - for ever person you please by picking him you'd make another angry.

Does America belong in the game - yes & no. Given the available tools of the program, I think yes is the lesser of two evils. I'd far rather that Firaxis had done something more like EU2, where America enters the game (or not) as it did in history - through an "event" of a revolt in English overseas colonies. In EU2, if England does what it did the revolt happens, and if England loses you have America. If England manages its colonies better, or never has colonies, or loses it colonies to a rival, gets conquered before it gets that far, no America.

[TrainWreck20]

Who would have made a better leader depends on your style of 'play', really. Washington made a great leader of people in wartime, but as a politician, his influence was limited.

The more and more I learn about Lincoln, the more I realize how incredible his character was. Even when he was 'wrong', it was because he believed it was the best or right choice. I don't think he ever did anything strictly for personal gain. His personal diaries and letters are inspirational reading...the man was truly tormented by the paradox of the necessity for war to achieve a good end.

I think Lincoln was unique in his ability to undestand politics but not get soiled by them.

[mrbilll]

Personally, I'm with the Washington crowd. For Civ, you need the most "iconic" leader- not the most influential, the best general, etc. Some of the leaders that ARE in Civ were right basturds, so even nobility isn't really an issue.

Washington probably bears more sole responsibility for our current democratic traditions than any other leader. The creators of the constitution deserve their praise, but before they ever put pen to paper, Washington had already firmly turned down opportunities to become King, Dictator, Presidente, or whatever. He is a rare example from history- a person who was offered great power, and turned it down.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by PapaLenin

But really would it be possible for you to make such a poll. Cause I have no idea how polls are made

Sorry, I have to say this: yet another newbie...

[Rasbelin]

I think the questions more about having something new and fresh in the Civ series. Abe in Civ and Civ II is starting to anoy after the many hundred time you play against him. So Washington would really be welcome as a refreshment. Actually he's going to be on the official ACS Civ IV List (just droping a hint).

[wotan321]

Walk softly and carry a big stick

Yes, Washington was the General turned 1st President, but ya gotta like Teddy Roosevelt as your Civ3 leader.

He was a Rough Rider, and carried a pistol with him most of the time. He manipulated world politics with gunboat diplomacy. He swam naked in ice-filled waters. He was a wild-ass hero in his time. He was arguably the first US president to make the US a world political power.

[IronSpam]

I agree with the majority. Washington’s the man. His presidency set the tone for all other chief executives after him. The United States could have become a Latin American-style junta were it not for him.

There are historians that suggest that the most successful democracies in modern history are so because they were once former British colonies. They cite the U.S., Canada, Australia, and India among others as examples of nations that follow the British tradition of a strong government with a court system to simultaneously uphold individual and private property rights, both of which are crucial to political freedom and economic development.

But, to his credit, not only did Washington espouse limited executive power as did the other founders, he also advocated keeping America out of foreign entanglements, especially with the European powers. This attitude, which could be easily afforded given America’s geographic isolation, allowed the U.S. to grow unimpeded by foreign conflicts. Given the fact that the American population at the time and throughout the 19th century was doubling every twenty years or so, this was not only a good decision, but one a Civ player might have made.

I do like the choice of Theodore Roosevelt, whom I deem the first President of the American Century. His leadership marked the beginning of a power having grown in isolation to one coming into its adulthood as a true world player. With a short respite during the 1920s (“Back to Normalcy”) after World War I, this culminated in the ascendancy to superpower status after the Second World War.

Lincoln and FDR are choices for reasons less related to foreign policy and more attributable to homeland issues, which are also valid Civilization aspects. Lincoln kept the nation united, albeit by force, not a trivial task by any means, while FDR kept the nation stable during an economic calamity by changing the role of government in the economy. Of course, we can’t forget that FDR presided over the conversion of U.S. economic power into true military might, but that can’t be attributed that solely to him, since the trend began earlier. The situation was only forced once the Second World War broke out.

Maybe it’s because gameplay can’t adequately simulate certain real-life civilization aspects that Lincoln and FDR don’t come to mind as Civilization leaders. I mean, how do you keep the people calm in the face of civil disorder? You build happiness improvements and convert citizens to entertainers. Not exactly Lincoln-esque. And the role of the government in the economy is pretty much already spoken for, because from beginning to end, you’re managing things just like FDR might have – not too much to marvel at there.

And of course, Nixon provides a good laugh. Perhaps one of the ways another civ can attack your democracy is through impeachment proceedings.

[TechWins]

The Jeffersonian experiments in trade were so disastorous that they threw the nation into economic turmoil.

I hope you're kidding; have you ever heard of the Louisiana Purchase? Nah, that wasn't a bad deal at all. In fact it was one of the greatest accomplishments in American history. To be able to acquire all the land in a peaceful manner is fabulous act. Of course that was only possible because of Napoleon's blunders.

Honestly I don't think you can pick one president out of the rest. Many people (some not even presidents) have contributed a great deal to the US. The top five presidents ever, IMO, were FDR, Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. If I was forced to pick one out of the top I would have to pick FDR.

Also, to the person who stated that since they live in Europe they know more European history than everybody else, don't be so sure of yourself.

[manofthehour]

I would have to say Lincon. Simple because I thought that Washington was more of a leader (Although he did set the country up) As for the guy that said America shouldn't be in the game I have 2 points. 1) where do you think they are going to sell the most copies and 2) they should be in because not 2 many nations are 6000 years old.

[manofthehour]

To be able to acquire all the land in a peaceful manner is fabulous act. Of course that was only possible because of Napoleon's blunders.

In reality the Lousian Purchure happened before Napoleans down fall.

[Akka]

The leader of each civilization is, in most of the case, the one who ruled it when this civ was at its peak, and who was the most representative of it. Though there is some exception, mostly for polically correct reasons (i.e. : Jeanne d'Arc and Catherine II of Russia were probably chosen only because it lacked of female leaders) or because they were best known (Cleopatra rather than Nefertiti).
About the US, then, I would vote for FDR. Under Lincoln presidency, USA were still far from being the first power of the world. They were a nation in the process of birth. FDR, though, was here when Europe commited its gigantic suicide and subsequently gave up its world leadership to USA and USSR. FDR is a very iconic president, and he was the president of the ascension to USA as the first superpower. Then I think he should be the American leader in Civ.

Also, to the person who stated that since they live in Europe they know more European history than everybody else, don't be so sure of yourself.

Mmh, I suppose you are talking about Ford Prefect when he said "at least in Europe, I'm from Europe, so I know European history best". If it's that, then I think he just meant he knew the European history better than the history of other places of the planet, not that he knew the European history better than anyone.

[GePap]

4 out of 5 historians agree

American's historians agree: Lincoln was America's president numero Uno (#1).
There is a tendency for people who play this game to go for military types ( I wonder why?). OK, Abe was not a general, but I ask any of you Washington boosters to give me a single Washignton quote that can hold even a faint light against the Gettysburg Address, or Lincoln's inaguration's speeches. As for 'father of the country' business, let me say again: before the civil war, for most Americans the most important alliegence was to their state (those confederate boys did not go into battle chanting 'The Confederacy!') Only after the civil war did our alliegence shift to a unified nation. Also, it was under lincoln that the main westward impetus begun, and again, lincoln was our first martyred president.
I would add that the Lincoln memorial is far more moving than that obelisk they gave George.


LINCOLN, LINCOLN, LINCOLN!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by 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...

Uhh, if that were true, then he would dovetail nicely with Andrew Jackson, Ronald Reagan, McKinley, Nixon and every other American President that has ever supported American military adventurism in Central and South America. Would this also be the same 'tyrant' Lincoln that stood for election in a democratic secret ballot during a civil war? Only I have trouble reconciling that image of a tyrant with the more easily recognisable tyrants, such as Pol Pot, Stalin, Pinochet, Somoza, Ceaucescu, Stroessner....

The Election of 1864
'On the political front, a movement within the Republican party to shelve Lincoln had collapsed as the tide turned in the Union's favor. With Andrew Johnson, Lincolm's own choice for Vice President over the incumbent Hannibal Hamlin, the President was renominated in June, 1864. The Democrats nominated McClellan, who still had a strong popular following, on an ambiguous peace platform (largely dictated by Clement L. Vallandigham, leader of the Copperheads), which the ex-general repudiated. Even so, Lincoln was easily reelected.'

[Jason]

Abe, Abe, Abe, a thousand times Abe.

Saved the Union and ensured it was worth saving.

Washington as non-partisan = no history books? The party system didn't even exist in Washington's time - not just the modern system but even the party systems before it. They didn't want one, remember?

Lincoln is, IMO, the greatest president by far, head and shoulders above the rest, even the greats.

Yes, Washington preserved independance too, at a time when its prospects were perhaps even grimmer, but the nation that was about to die in 1861-5 was one with much more to offer the world than the independant, aloof aristocratic republic the seperatists set up.

Now that I've offended everyone...