Vote who you think is/was THE greatest American.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Since there's three votes, I'd cast mine for Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet and Thomas Jonathan Jackson.

The Axis of Losers?

[MrFun]

I know Vlad -- it's ashame that Americans did not exist in the ancient era.


sad, but true

[Imran Siddiqui]

I guess Martin Luther was just spouting rhetoric when he nailed his 95 Theses to the door of a church that one time.

If that was all he did, then it wouldn't have accomplished anything. He would have been burned as a heretic like Jan Hus and others before him.

It was because of his and his disciples later actions (and protection by his Elector) that he was able to split the church.

The Civil Rights Bill was passed because of the groundwork Kennedy laid by giving the issue the prestige of the Office of the President. Nobody in mainstream gave a damn about it, but Kennedy campaigned on it.

Oh please! The Civil Rights Bill was a long time coming, drawing strength from Truman's decision to integrate the military, Brown v. Board, the Mongomery bus boycott, and other movements like that. It's kind of ludicrous to say that no one in the mainstream gave a damn about civil rights, when the Supreme Court voted 9-0 to desegregate schools. When Eisenhower, in his respect for the Court, sent the 101st Airborne to forceable integrate Little Rock high schools. When Jackie Robinson appeared in the majors.

Civil Rights was a big issue and in the faces of the public all the time.

Not a problem for me:

A. What was that number in 1963? 64? I assume you'll find the same numbers in a similar poll.

B. That's a very interesting site, Ted (though how accurate, I got no clue). Some choice quotes:

Kennedy put political realism before any form of beliefs when he voted against Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act.

Historians are divided as to why he was ‘suddenly’ converted. Some saw the opposition to the 1957 Act as understandable from a political point of view. Others have adopted a more cynical view which is that Kennedy recognised that he needed the ‘Black Vote’ if he was to beat Nixon.

in 1961 Kennedy did nothing to help and push forward the civil rights issue.

Kennedy himself condemned the [Freedom] Riders for their lack of patriotism at a time of international tension over the Berlin Wall, Cuba and the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

In terms of voter registration, Kennedy’s administration did nothing in its first year in office. On the advice of his Attorney-General brother, Bobby, Kennedy claimed that it was the duty of the states to reform this area and that it was not a federal issue.

In the violence seen at Albany in 1961, Kennedy again did nothing as he believed that the trouble had been precipitated by SNCC who were referred to as "sons of *****es" by the president

The Nation of Islam had been in existence in the era of Eisenhower, but its real inroads into northern inner cities came in the early 1960’s when little if anything from the federal government was seen to be advancing the cause of African Americans.

Even civil rights leaders in the South criticised Kennedy for doing too little.

--

I was talking about ROBERT Kennedy, who has a genuine record that is unmistakable when it comes to civil rights support. As Attorney General he sent in Federal troops on multiple occasions to protect blacks who were entering desegregated institutions in the South.

Wait, you mean he did EXACTLY what the Eisenhower Administration did? Why didn't Eisenhower's AG get named a great civil rights leader then? Wouldn't it have been nice that a so-called civil rights leader protected blacks less than an administration not known for its civil rights record?

--

However, I don't think you realize that Lincoln's attitude towards blacks evolved over a period of time

It's irrelevent. Lincoln's main goal was to reunite the US, and anti-slavery was secondary, at best. Even after the war. Though I still am of the belief that a lot of his anti-slavery rhetoric was mere politics.

I believe in the argument that Lincoln's views on race were still evolving at the time of his assassination and that in spite of what would have been leniency, he would have accepted greater equal rights protection

Bull. That's just revisionism on your part. Lincoln had always chiefly characterized the war as a war to bring the Southern states back into the fold. His reconstruction plan, which wasn't drafted up years before he died, mind. Was a very, very lenient plan. He argued with Congress that the South shouldn't have to be subject to punative measures, by which he included meaningful civil rights legislation.

[MrFun]

His Gettysburg Address is an excellent example in his belief in equality of all people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
His Gettysburg Address is an excellent example in his belief in equality of all people.

What? From the line "the proposition that all men are created equal"? Plenty of people made that statement while OWNING slaves (such as Mr. Jefferson). That's about it in that short document about equality. If he really wanted to make a statement about equality, he could have spoken more than one phrase about it.

Furthermore it was a good bit of politiking, which was its aim.

[MrFun]

One of the premises of the Gettysburg Address was that only with a republic form of government, can equality of all people really be attainable.

And I also argue that slaveholders such as Thomas Jeffersno acknowledged that blacks were human beings. Jefferson never uplifted slavery as a positive good. And even as he always believed that blacks were somehow inferior to whites, he did not believe that this inferiority made blacks less than humans.

Only when slavery became a much more central and compelling issue from the 1840s onwards, did slaveowners really begin to propagate the idea that slavery was a positive good. There was an important difference between the white slaveowners of the Enlighgtenment era and the white slaveowners of the period beginning in the 1840s.


And if Lincoln wanted to potlick more effectively, he would have done the opposite -- he would have ranted on about notions of white supremacy -- not that all humans are equal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

One of the premises of the Gettysburg Address was that only with a republic form of government, can equality of all people really be attainable.

And the South would agree and say they did have a republican form of government... touche .

And if Lincoln wanted to potlick more effectively, he would have done the opposite -- he would have ranted on about notions of white supremacy -- not that all humans are equal.

Yeah, and given the Brits and French a great reason to come into the war on the CSA's side (if one side is the same as the other...)

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

One of the premises of the Gettysburg Address was that only with a republic form of government, can equality of all people really be attainable.

And the South would agree and say they did have a republican form of government... touche .

And if Lincoln wanted to potlick more effectively, he would have done the opposite -- he would have ranted on about notions of white supremacy -- not that all humans are equal.

Yeah, and given the Brits and French a great reason to come into the war on the CSA's side

The Confederacy was anything but a republic government. In the ratification process, they consciously ommitted words such as "all men are created equal" and words that implied union of the states. They butchered some of the important premises that underlie American form of republic government.

Great Britain and France may have been anti-slavery nations, but they certainly held the same notions of white supremacy found in United States at the time. They had their own colonial empires that relied on subjugation of non-white populations in forms other than outright slavery.

But thank god for exceptionally intelligent, forward-thinking individuals such as Lincoln, who could think outside the social norms of white supremacy and realize the greater, fundamental stakes that were at risk with the endangerment of our republic.

Human history has shown that such exceptional individuals do not arise very often.

[SlowwHand]

Gettyburg address was classic politician move.
Put a positive spin on 3 days of massive human casualties, but that's ok. Abe be the man.

[MrFun]

SlowwHand -- I'm surprised that as a veteran, you oppose the memorialization of soldiers who died for the cause of freedom and Union.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Confederacy was anything but a republic government.

So was the US before 1863 anything but a republican government?

Great Britain and France may have been anti-slavery nations, but they certainly held the same notions of white supremacy found in United States at the time.

THINK here, Funboy... THINK!

The reason the British and French backed away from supporting the CSA was because Lincoln tried to characterize the war as a fight against slavery and since both countries abolished slavery at least 30 years in the past (1833 for the Brits, IIRC, and earlier than that for the French), they didn't want to jump into a war to support slavery.

Hell, the Brits in the decades before were very vigilant against slavery. You've probably seen Amistad. The scene with the Brits pulverizing the slave prision was not a rare site on the Carribean.

I'm surprised that you don't know of that, seeing as you have studied the Civil War so much. I mean, it's quite obvious.

But thank god for exceptionally intelligent, forward-thinking individuals such as Lincoln, who could think outside the social norms of white supremacy and realize the greater, fundamental stakes that were at risk with the endangerment of our republic.

You've fallen for it as well. Lincoln was a great politician. Probably could be considered a moderate on race relations. If anyone was forward thinking on race, it'd be Thaddeus Stevens and his ilk, now derided as the 'Radical Republicans' in Congress.

Slow is right. Lincoln was master politician and that is basically all the Emancipation Proclimation and the Gettysburg Address were for.

[mactbone]

Where's the love for Ben Franklin?

I'd say Franklin and then probably Edison and Ford. Electricity and the assembly line.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The Confederacy was anything but a republic government.

So was the US before 1863 anything but a republican government?

Great Britain and France may have been anti-slavery nations, but they certainly held the same notions of white supremacy found in United States at the time.

THINK here, Funboy... THINK!

The reason the British and French backed away from supporting the CSA was because Lincoln tried to characterize the war as a fight against slavery and since both countries abolished slavery at least 30 years in the past (1833 for the Brits, IIRC, and earlier than that for the French), they didn't want to jump into a war to support slavery.

Hell, the Brits in the decades before were very vigilant against slavery. You've probably seen Amistad. The scene with the Brits pulverizing the slave prision was not a rare site on the Carribean.

I'm surprised that you don't know of that, seeing as you have studied the Civil War so much. I mean, it's quite obvious.

But thank god for exceptionally intelligent, forward-thinking individuals such as Lincoln, who could think outside the social norms of white supremacy and realize the greater, fundamental stakes that were at risk with the endangerment of our republic.

You've fallen for it as well. Lincoln was a great politician. Probably could be considered a moderate on race relations. If anyone was forward thinking on race, it'd be Thaddeus Stevens and his ilk, now derided as the 'Radical Republicans' in Congress.

Slow is right. Lincoln was master politician and that is basically all the Emancipation Proclimation and the Gettysburg Address were for.

The Founding fathers did not revolt from Great Britain in order to preserve slavery -- they had other reasons to revolt, on justifiable grounds. The Confederacy was not a republic government for two reasons:

one -- secession itself destroys any republic as it would allow any state to secede for any trivial discontentment over a majority's decision that still respects minority rights

two -- Southern leaders seceded in order to preserve slavery, which they propagated as a positive good. Slavery in of itself is inherently anti-republic, which is why the Founders, some of whom themselves were slaveowners, never saw slavery as a positive good. They did not have the centralized power to abolish slavery in the late eighteenth century.



As to the international situation that Lincoln found himself in, I am very much familiar with what you have pointed out, so I do not appreciate your needless patronization.

You're equating anti-slavery with anti-racism. Great Britain and France did not allow for legal slavery in their colonial empires, but they certainly found other ways to subjugate non-white populations.

And yes, I did see the movie, Amistad so I understand your reference to Great Britain's activities against slavery in that time period.



As for the cynical depreciation of Lincoln's evolutionary growth towards anti-raciism, let me just say this. Abraham Lincoln had to politick within the confines of the socially acceptable notions of white supremacy in the antebellum era and during the Civil War.

He had to begin with such a basic premise that everyone has a right to eat what they harvest -- this made it difficult for even racists in Northern states to refute. And from this point onwards, Lincoln slowly edged his listeners to a stronger principle of equality. Just read primary sources of Lincoln's speeches where he talked about slavery, race, and rights.

And this argument in no way depreciates the stronger anti-racist attitudes of other Republicans of whom you referred to.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wonder if you ever read another person's posts.

The Founding fathers did not revolt from Great Britain in order to preserve slavery

And this was said by....

The Confederacy was not a republic government for two reasons:

The secession argument is ridiculous. That means if Quebec leaves Canada, then neither would be a republic, even if they kept a republican form of government.

Secondly, you didn't answer the question I posed earlier. WAS the US a republic before 1863? If slaver is anti-republic, then that means you don't think the US from founding to the 13th Amendment was a republic.

The founders were never interested in abolishing slavery, what silliness. They didn't have the centralized power to abolish slavery, or else they would have!

What revisionism!

You're equating anti-slavery with anti-racism. Great Britain and France did not allow for legal slavery in their colonial empires, but they certainly found other ways to subjugate non-white populations.

And yes, I did see the movie, Amistad so I understand your reference to Great Britain's activities against slavery in that time period.

So then stop being such an idiot. Lincoln's prouncements were as much for British and American ears as they were for American ears. It was to characterize the war as a fight against slavery, which both countries had abolished and were on record as calling it a horrible practice.

Abraham Lincoln had to politick within the confines of the socially acceptable notions of white supremacy in the antebellum era and during the Civil War.

So then when the Radical Republicans had control of Congress, why didn't Lincoln say, HEY! I'm one of you! Let's give the blacks full civil rights!

Because he didn't believe it. This deification of Lincoln is further PC-ization of American history to make it seem like all the advances in the 1860s with blacks was solely the result of Lincoln, when the real credit should go to the Republicans in Congress.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I wonder if you ever read another person's posts.

The Founding fathers did not revolt from Great Britain in order to preserve slavery

And this was said by....

The Confederacy was not a republic government for two reasons:

The secession argument is ridiculous. That means if Quebec leaves Canada, then neither would be a republic, even if they kept a republican form of government.

Secondly, you didn't answer the question I posed earlier. WAS the US a republic before 1863? If slaver is anti-republic, then that means you don't think the US from founding to the 13th Amendment was a republic.

The founders were never interested in abolishing slavery, what silliness. They didn't have the centralized power to abolish slavery, or else they would have!

What revisionism!

You're equating anti-slavery with anti-racism. Great Britain and France did not allow for legal slavery in their colonial empires, but they certainly found other ways to subjugate non-white populations.

And yes, I did see the movie, Amistad so I understand your reference to Great Britain's activities against slavery in that time period.

So then stop being such an idiot. Lincoln's prouncements were as much for British and American ears as they were for American ears. It was to characterize the war as a fight against slavery, which both countries had abolished and were on record as calling it a horrible practice.

Abraham Lincoln had to politick within the confines of the socially acceptable notions of white supremacy in the antebellum era and during the Civil War.

So then when the Radical Republicans had control of Congress, why didn't Lincoln say, HEY! I'm one of you! Let's give the blacks full civil rights!

Because he didn't believe it. This deification of Lincoln is further PC-ization of American history to make it seem like all the advances in the 1860s with blacks was solely the result of Lincoln, when the real credit should go to the Republicans in Congress.

I did answer your question as to whether or not United States was a republic by pointing out the difference between the American Revolution and the secession of the Southern states in 1860. The Founding fathers based a republic form of government on the premise of equal rights and liberty -- the Confederacy was not based on this antecedental premise.


And you are right in that the more radical Republicans in Congress were the ones who legislated equal rights. No one can argue against that, since that is an obvious fact. I agree in that they deserve their due recognition.

But how does this necessarily lead to the conclusion that because radical Republicans were more strongly anti-racist, that Lincoln could not have been anti-racist because he was more moderate? The fact that Lincoln was more moderate does not necessarily equate with being racist.