PDA

View Full Version : Greatest American


Sonja
Jun 23rd, 2005, 04:25 PM
Top 5 have now been determined.

Who should win? They're still allowing voting at the link below.

http://tv.channel.aol.com/greatestamerican

My vote: Martin Luther King Jr.

rightous
Jun 23rd, 2005, 04:34 PM
I was wonder if Martha Stewart would have been in the Top 5 before MarthaGate

Barrie_Dude
Jun 23rd, 2005, 04:45 PM
Ben Franklin

JenFan75
Jun 23rd, 2005, 06:32 PM
...Me.

carot
Jun 23rd, 2005, 06:39 PM
sonja :hearts:

alexusjonesfan
Jun 23rd, 2005, 06:49 PM
why is Ronald Reagan on that list? :scratch:

Rocketta
Jun 23rd, 2005, 07:18 PM
why is Ronald Reagan on that list? :scratch:

because when people we know die we forget all the negative.....

Rocketta
Jun 23rd, 2005, 07:20 PM
I dont' know who I would pick.....it's between MLK & Ben Franklin for me. :scratch:

If the criteria was just putting your life on the line for your country well then MLK hands down.

azza
Jun 23rd, 2005, 07:22 PM
None :rolleyes:

Rocketta
Jun 23rd, 2005, 07:25 PM
None :rolleyes:

owweee that hurteded every American feelings! :sobbing: :crying2: :tears: :rain:

happy now? :rolleyes:

SelesFan70
Jun 23rd, 2005, 08:05 PM
George Washington... :D

Lord Nelson
Jun 23rd, 2005, 10:49 PM
Ronald Reagan :D

OUT!
Jun 23rd, 2005, 11:58 PM
Other -

Ida B Wells.

Kart
Jun 24th, 2005, 12:20 AM
sonja :hearts:

I agree :inlove:.

kiwifan
Jun 24th, 2005, 01:26 AM
Franklin.





King
Washington
Lincoln

























Reagan

-Kieron-
Jun 24th, 2005, 01:28 AM
Martin Luther King Jr

Venus Forever
Jun 24th, 2005, 01:38 AM
Franklin basically made us what we are today, and how the United States runs itself.

MLK was obviously a man with great pride and courage and stood up for human rights for everyone.

I wouldn't know which one to pick out of those two.

Washington is an easy third.

Lincoln, although helped unite the country, he did own slaves himself, so, I'm not sure what to think about that.

Reagan... no comment.

ZAK
Jun 24th, 2005, 01:47 AM
Ben Franklin definitely. Regan :o if he hadn't recently died he wouldn't be close to the top 5

~ The Leopard ~
Jun 24th, 2005, 03:38 AM
Out of this list, definitely Lincoln. wtf is Reagan doing on the list? And where are the Americans who were great for their cultural or intellectual, rather than political, achievements? Surely there must be some? :scratch: Henry James? Elvis Presley? T.S. Eliot? Edgar Allen Poe?

Rocketta
Jun 24th, 2005, 03:39 AM
I think this is the top 5 out of a list of 100.

alexusjonesfan
Jun 24th, 2005, 03:44 AM
Out of this list, definitely Lincoln. wtf is Reagan doing on the list? And where are the Americans who were great for their cultural or intellectual, rather than political, achievements? Surely there must be some? :scratch: Henry James? Elvis Presley? T.S. Eliot? Edgar Allen Poe?

You mention Eliot and Poe but leave out Hemingway and Frost?! :fiery: Outraged! :mad:
For what it's worth when we did this in Canada, not one cultural figure made the top 10 either (unless you count Don Cherry *shudder*). It was all politicians, sportspeople and scientists. I guess the arts are underrated :p

~ The Leopard ~
Jun 24th, 2005, 03:55 AM
Hemingway! :worship:

Hmmmmm, Frost ... yeah, okay. I'd prefer Pound, but after his antics in WWII it's a bit difficult, n'est-ce pas?

Speaking of sporting figures, I'd be happy to see Muhammed Ali on the list.

I guess America has yet to produce a scientist of the calibre of Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Hawking, etc., or a philosopher of the calibre of (say) Descartes, Hume, Hegel, Mill, Marx, Nietzsche, Russell, Wittgenstein, Sartre, Derrida, blah, blah, blah. The nearest I can think of would be John Rawls, whose name is not known to the general public. Maybe William James?

alexusjonesfan
Jun 24th, 2005, 04:01 AM
Hemingway! :worship:

Hmmmmm, Frost ... yeah, okay. I'd prefer Pound, but after his antics in WWII it's a bit difficult, n'est-ce pas?

Speaking of sporting figures, I'd be happy to see Muhammed Ali on the list.

I guess America has yet to produce a scientist of the calibre of Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Hawking, etc., or a philosopher of the calibre of (say) Descartes, Hume, Hegel, Mill, Marx, Nietzsche, Russell, Wittgenstein, Sartre, Derrida, blah, blah, blah. The nearest I can think of would be John Rawls, whose name is not known to the general public. Maybe William James?

Wasn't William James a psychologist? I guess he was both. Yeah, they've had tons of successful sports people, why aren't they as big (oh god or at least bigger than Reagan...I mean Reagan wtf). Canada hasn't produced intellectual giants either but Banting and Graham Bell (woohoo) and David Suzuki (:o) made our top ten. They've had Thomas Edison, Ernest Rutherford and even Bill Gates had a huge impact on the world but I guess they want all politicians :p

Scotso
Jun 24th, 2005, 04:02 AM
MLK Jr.

mboyle
Jun 24th, 2005, 04:24 AM
why is Ronald Reagan on that list? :scratch:

because he erased the socialism of the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s, allowing for a highly efficient economy that boomed in the 80s and 90s after two decades of relative sloth. He was not a humanitarian, but he was an economic genius: let the rich people keep their money, and they will invest it in the most productive way possible.

However, he was not the greatest american. Lincoln clearly was. King was good, people, but Lincoln was the one that got the slaves freed and kept the union together. He had balls and a moral compass.

After Lincoln, Washington. He is without question the most successful first leader of a republican government in history. The main reason US America succeeded while most other new nations don't, IMHO, is that the US was led by about five to ten fantastic geniouses, the head and most visionary of all being Washington. To say that was the only reason, or even the majority reason, would be silly, of course, but it was a huge factor. We owe a lot to Washington.

After Washington, King. He completed Lincoln's work. I just tend to vote originators above completors. My bias.

Then Franklin (yeah he did a lot, but nothing earth shatteringly important.)

Then Regan (good man, but not top five.)

mboyle
Jun 24th, 2005, 04:29 AM
Lincoln, although helped unite the country, he did own slaves himself, so, I'm not sure what to think about that..

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG....Don't you live in the US? If so, you must have taken US History. Did your teacher actually say that Lincoln owned slaves? If so, that is really depressing.....


Lincoln was born to a poor farmer in Kentucky. His family could not afford slaves. He then moved to Illinois. Illinois did not allow slavery. OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG

Lincoln hated slavery. He was the leader of the abolitionist movement during the 50s. He basically joined the Republican party because he felt the Whigs were not anti-slavery enough for him. He rightfully discerned that all the nation's spats had arisen over slavery, which he clearly viewed to be morally wrong, if you read his speeches and positions.

He did not really unite the country (have you confused him with Washington?). When he ascended to power, it was already existing. He fought a war to keep it unified, but the south still did not really support him when they lost (hence his assasination.)

Lincoln was unquestionably the greatest American in my book.

mboyle
Jun 24th, 2005, 04:31 AM
I dont' know who I would pick.....it's between MLK & Ben Franklin for me. :scratch:

If the criteria was just putting your life on the line for your country well then MLK hands down.

Why does everyone forget Lincoln? I don't get it? How is Franklin above Lincoln? MLK I get if I shift my eyes to view history with a modern bias, but why Franklin?

AjdeNate!
Jun 24th, 2005, 04:34 AM
There's a rock in my front yard, well just at the corner from the Lincoln/Douglas debates. And I'm from the same hometown as Ronnie. So, I guess I'd pick between them since that's all I've ever been forcefed since I was like 5.

alexusjonesfan
Jun 24th, 2005, 04:40 AM
because he erased the socialism of the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s, allowing for a highly efficient economy that boomed in the 80s and 90s after two decades of relative sloth. He was not a humanitarian, but he was an economic genius: let the rich people keep their money, and they will invest it in the most productive way possible.


without starting a loong drawn out debate on Reagonomics, the economic policies of his time are problematic to say the least. People attribute all the good things that happened then to him regardless of the real cause and forget about any of the difficulties created by them. They weren't even his ideas, he just signed the bills that implemented them. His job was to be presentable, as it had always been, he wasn't the policy strategist. And his government's dealings with 'rogue states' and insurgents have really begun to bear fruit now.

AjdeNate!
Jun 24th, 2005, 04:42 AM
without starting a loong drawn out debate on Reagonomics, the economic policies of his time are problematic to say the least. People attribute all the good things that happened then to him regardless of the real cause and forget about any of the difficulties created by them. They weren't even his ideas, he just signed the bills that implemented them. His job was to be presentable, as it had always been, he wasn't the policy strategist. And his government's dealings with 'rogue states' and insurgents have really begun to bear fruit now.
Trickle down. Voodoo Economics. Iran-Contra.... let's see what else was there... :tape:

Crazy Canuck
Jun 24th, 2005, 05:24 AM
Wasn't William James a psychologist? I guess he was both. Yeah, they've had tons of successful sports people, why aren't they as big (oh god or at least bigger than Reagan...I mean Reagan wtf). Canada hasn't produced intellectual giants either but Banting and Graham Bell (woohoo) and David Suzuki (:o) made our top ten. They've had Thomas Edison, Ernest Rutherford and even Bill Gates had a huge impact on the world but I guess they want all politicians :p

Williams James considered himself a philosopher, despite what his collegues in the field of psychology may have thought at the time ;)

selking
Jun 24th, 2005, 05:28 AM
fuck ronald regan. Abe lincoln gets my vote

azza
Jun 24th, 2005, 11:08 PM
owweee that hurteded every American feelings! :sobbing: :crying2: :tears: :rain:

happy now? :rolleyes:

Pretty much :)

ZAK
Jun 24th, 2005, 11:31 PM
Why does everyone forget Lincoln? I don't get it? How is Franklin above Lincoln? MLK I get if I shift my eyes to view history with a modern bias, but why Franklin?

Franklin discovered lightining was electricity, invented bifocal eyeglasses, helped to start the first public hospital in America, responsible for the first paved streets in America, help found the first public library in America, fought for crop insurance, helped start the first department of sanitation, aided in discovery and charting of ocean currents, elected Postmaster General, active in many facets of politics, such as president and founder of the Society for Political Enquiries, prosed the "Great Compromise", president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, etc.

Lord Nelson
Jun 25th, 2005, 12:33 AM
Reagan helped end the Cold War. He was a great President. I'm not American but he was my favourite American President. He may have been contreversial but every U.S. President post world war has been controversial so that word really means nothing. Even Kennedy was controversial. It was suspected that he gave the green light for Ngo Diehn Diem, The South Vietnamese leader to be killed by his men a few days before himself was asassinated.

Wigglytuff
Jun 25th, 2005, 12:33 AM
why is Ronald Reagan on that list? :scratch:

yeah i was thinking that too. i mean was he not this horrible president who tried to ruin the nation?

Wigglytuff
Jun 25th, 2005, 12:39 AM
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG....Don't you live in the US? If so, you must have taken US History. Did your teacher actually say that Lincoln owned slaves? If so, that is really depressing.....


Lincoln was born to a poor farmer in Kentucky. His family could not afford slaves. He then moved to Illinois. Illinois did not allow slavery. OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG

Lincoln hated slavery. He was the leader of the abolitionist movement during the 50s. He basically joined the Republican party because he felt the Whigs were not anti-slavery enough for him. He rightfully discerned that all the nation's spats had arisen over slavery, which he clearly viewed to be morally wrong, if you read his speeches and positions.

He did not really unite the country (have you confused him with Washington?). When he ascended to power, it was already existing. He fought a war to keep it unified, but the south still did not really support him when they lost (hence his assasination.)

Lincoln was unquestionably the greatest American in my book.

um no.

lincoln was great, but he was not poor, he didnt give to shits about slavery at first and did not free one single slave.

lincoln was great because he was able to look at himself and be open to change he was great because even as he did not care to end slavery at first he was open to dialog about and eventually changed his mind. which is unlike any politician today.

Dawn Marie
Jun 25th, 2005, 12:43 AM
Why in the hell are there no women in this poll?

There is no such thing as the greatest. Human's are too COMLPLEX for such a poll.

I voted for Martin Luther King because he stood for peace for the human race, and nothing and no inventions out weighs this.

I think John Lennon and Oprah should be in this poll.:)

Denise4925
Jun 25th, 2005, 01:08 AM
MLK because he died fighting for basic human rights, which outweigh anything else, in my opinion.

Barrie_Dude
Jun 25th, 2005, 01:10 AM
why is Ronald Reagan on that list? :scratch:He was a great President

Wigglytuff
Jun 25th, 2005, 02:15 AM
Why in the hell are there no women in this poll?

There is no such thing as the greatest. Human's are too COMLPLEX for such a poll.

I voted for Martin Luther King because he stood for peace for the human race, and nothing and no inventions out weighs this.

I think John Lennon and Oprah should be in this poll.:)

there were women in the top 100 but none in the top 5.

:sad: :sad: some people dont think women are people :( :sad: :sad:

Sam L
Jun 25th, 2005, 02:17 AM
Out of this list, definitely Lincoln. wtf is Reagan doing on the list? And where are the Americans who were great for their cultural or intellectual, rather than political, achievements? Surely there must be some? :scratch: Henry James? Elvis Presley? T.S. Eliot? Edgar Allen Poe?
Henry James became a British citizen toward his latter life. I'm not sure any American would want to pick him, or if they even should.

I'm not sure, I guess I'd have to say Lincoln from this list or even without this list.

decemberlove
Jun 26th, 2005, 02:28 PM
John Lennon

:confused:

SpikeyAidanm
Jun 26th, 2005, 02:50 PM
King.

Rocketta
Jun 26th, 2005, 02:54 PM
For those saying Lincoln freed the slaves......he did BUT he was also willing to allow slavery to continue in the south the fight was over the new territories. The south however, thankfully was unbending and wanted Slavery everywhere. I say thankfully because that is what got the ball rolling in black people's freedom. It was an economic political fight. If Lincoln's primary goal was to free the slaves he would've issued the emancipation proclamation when the war started he didn't. It wasn't until the Union wasn't doing that well that they decided if Lincoln freed the slaves it would cause upheaval in the south since slave labor was keeping things running while the men were off to war. Lincoln hoped by issuing the order that slaves would abandoned the farms and stuff and cause turmoil.

This is the reason I think a lot of people don't think he was the "greatest" American. I think he was a great American no doubt just not the greatest.

No Name Face
Jun 26th, 2005, 08:21 PM
yeah, what Rocketta said. Lincoln wasn't the humanitarian you think he is.

MLK without a doubt.

James
Jun 26th, 2005, 08:22 PM
Yeah, definitely King. :D

SJW
Jun 26th, 2005, 08:46 PM
MLK for sure. i did a project on him when i was younger and i guess to truly appreciate what he did, you'd have to look at it in depth.

mboyle
Jun 26th, 2005, 08:55 PM
For those saying Lincoln freed the slaves......he did BUT he was also willing to allow slavery to continue in the south the fight was over the new territories. The south however, thankfully was unbending and wanted Slavery everywhere. I say thankfully because that is what got the ball rolling in black people's freedom. It was an economic political fight. If Lincoln's primary goal was to free the slaves he would've issued the emancipation proclamation when the war started he didn't. It wasn't until the Union wasn't doing that well that they decided if Lincoln freed the slaves it would cause upheaval in the south since slave labor was keeping things running while the men were off to war. Lincoln hoped by issuing the order that slaves would abandoned the farms and stuff and cause turmoil.

This is the reason I think a lot of people don't think he was the "greatest" American. I think he was a great American no doubt just not the greatest.

that is a very modern view of it, though. If he ran on the platform of "free all the slaves now," he would never have gotten elected, and, instead, someone with NO intent to free ANY slaves or to prevent ANY future slavery would have been elected. Sometimes, to get the ball rolling, you need to compromise.

Oh, and Lincoln warned the south in March of 1862 that he was going to free the slaves. That was when the South was basically kicking union butt (in about April/May the war started to turn against them because Jackson was killed.)

ClaudiaZ-S
Jun 26th, 2005, 08:58 PM
no Roosvelt???????????

Pengwin
Jun 26th, 2005, 09:07 PM
Andy Roddick?

mboyle
Jun 26th, 2005, 09:10 PM
um no.

lincoln was great, but he was not poor, he didnt give to shits about slavery at first and did not free one single slave.

lincoln was great because he was able to look at himself and be open to change he was great because even as he did not care to end slavery at first he was open to dialog about and eventually changed his mind. which is unlike any politician today.

He was too born poor. He was born in a log cabin on frontier land in Kentucky. He educated himself and worked his way up the social ladder to become a lawyer, but he did not begin with any advantages.

As for slavery, a lot of modern liberal historians like to say that he did not care about slavery at all. Read "a letter for the Springfield Rally" or even the transcript from the Lincoln-Douglas debates. He did indeed want black people to be free, and he eloquently proved that Washington and Jefferson intended that this be so eventually.

The reason people believe otherwise is they view things retrospectively. People ask, "why did Lincoln not free the slaves at the beginning of the war?" Well, he wanted to give the south time to reconcile. Yes, it was more important to him that the Union be kept together. He did not really want to fight the war, and firmly believed that the union could be preserved if compromise were reached. After about a year of fighting, Lincoln started threatening political and serious militaristic action. When the south was not subdued by this, he acted. He was a brilliant politician.

Also, people ask "why did Lincoln not free northern slaves?" The answer is: unlike today's politicians, Lincoln actually cared about the constitution. That document forbade slavery in the only territory owned by the US at the time of framing (Ohio river valley area,) but gave the states the power to regulate the practice otherwise. The loyal states did not give up their rights by rebelling. The rebel states (obviously) did.

Lincoln was, indeed, a humanitarian. I bought into the "Lincoln didn't care about slavery" business too until I actually read the primary sources this spring.

ClaudiaZ-S
Jun 26th, 2005, 09:11 PM
Andy Roddick?

He's tall ! ab 1m90 ! :lol:

mboyle
Jun 26th, 2005, 09:12 PM
Why in the hell are there no women in this poll?

There is no such thing as the greatest. Human's are too COMLPLEX for such a poll.

I voted for Martin Luther King because he stood for peace for the human race, and nothing and no inventions out weighs this.

I think John Lennon and Oprah should be in this poll.:)

Lennon? Wasn't he British? Oprah is a great woman. I'm just not sure she's had the social impact of an MLK, or the political impact of Washington, or the combined impact of Lincoln. Certainly she's equal to, or greater than, Franklin and Reagan.

ClaudiaZ-S
Jun 26th, 2005, 09:12 PM
can we have an "others" options????

Rocketta
Jun 26th, 2005, 09:16 PM
that is a very modern view of it, though. If he ran on the platform of "free all the slaves now," he would never have gotten elected, and, instead, someone with NO intent to free ANY slaves or to prevent ANY future slavery would have been elected. Sometimes, to get the ball rolling, you need to compromise.

Oh, and Lincoln warned the south in March of 1862 that he was going to free the slaves. That was when the South was basically kicking union butt (in about April/May the war started to turn against them because Jackson was killed.)

we can only go by his actions...none of us know what his true intent was....because as it stands if the south had compromised there was no certainty that slaves in the south would've ever be free since Lincoln wanted to preserve the union.

I don't have a problem believing he wanted to free slaves as a personal view. I know that it wasn't something he was willing to risk the union over or being elected.

RVD
Jun 26th, 2005, 09:17 PM
From those on the list, I'd have to easily say Dr. Martin luther King Jr.

Reagan?!?!http://deephousepage.com/smilies/jawdrop.gif OMG!!...WFT?!?!

RVD
Jun 26th, 2005, 09:21 PM
we can only go by his actions...none of us know what his true intent was....because as it stands if the south had compromised there was no certainty that slaves in the south would've ever be free since Lincoln wanted to preserve the union.

I don't have a problem believing he wanted to free slaves as a personal view. I know that it wasn't something he was willing to risk the union over or being elected.From my personal studies, and the opinion pieces I've read over the years, it was because he wanted to win the Presindency and saw an untapped portion of society that could assist him. He was an attorney ya know :lol: , and recognized the benifit in what such a move would have. Maybe Denise knows more about him than I do in that regard. ;)

Can't ever bring myself to jump on the Lincoln bandwagon though. :scared:

mboyle
Jun 26th, 2005, 10:33 PM
we can only go by his actions...none of us know what his true intent was....because as it stands if the south had compromised there was no certainty that slaves in the south would've ever be free since Lincoln wanted to preserve the union.

I don't have a problem believing he wanted to free slaves as a personal view. I know that it wasn't something he was willing to risk the union over or being elected.

fair enough. I just think that we need to realize that, unfortunately, people in the 1850s and 60s were far too prejudiced against blacks to vote for someone who ran on the platform that they should be freed. I think we need to appreciate the fact that Lincoln took any risk at all in running on a platform of stopping slavery's expansion. See, MLK Junior was a great man, but he was fighting for his own rights as well. Lincoln was fighting solely for the rights of others. He had no personal incentive, and yet still demanded equality (don't take that the wrong way, please.)

As for the person who said Lincoln wanted to tap into a large political potential--the majority of the country did not support abolition until after the southern states seceeded and they realized that slavery was going to break up the union.

KoOlMaNsEaN
Jun 26th, 2005, 10:55 PM
Mlk

Justeenium
Jun 26th, 2005, 11:31 PM
MLK Jr. winning? :lol:

what does it for you? the plagiarism or the adultery?

Justeenium
Jun 26th, 2005, 11:36 PM
MLK for sure. i did a project on him when i was younger and i guess to truly appreciate what he did, you'd have to look at it in depth.
you didn't look very hard did you?
:lol:

cheesestix
Jun 27th, 2005, 12:19 AM
Lennon? Wasn't he British?

:lol:

Maybe she really meant to say Paul McCartney?

:lol:

(BTW, I know PM's British too.)

Wigglytuff
Jun 27th, 2005, 01:02 AM
He was too born poor. He was born in a log cabin on frontier land in Kentucky. He educated himself and worked his way up the social ladder to become a lawyer, but he did not begin with any advantages.

As for slavery, a lot of modern liberal historians like to say that he did not care about slavery at all. Read "a letter for the Springfield Rally" or even the transcript from the Lincoln-Douglas debates. He did indeed want black people to be free, and he eloquently proved that Washington and Jefferson intended that this be so eventually.

The reason people believe otherwise is they view things retrospectively. People ask, "why did Lincoln not free the slaves at the beginning of the war?" Well, he wanted to give the south time to reconcile. Yes, it was more important to him that the Union be kept together. He did not really want to fight the war, and firmly believed that the union could be preserved if compromise were reached. After about a year of fighting, Lincoln started threatening political and serious militaristic action. When the south was not subdued by this, he acted. He was a brilliant politician.

Also, people ask "why did Lincoln not free northern slaves?" The answer is: unlike today's politicians, Lincoln actually cared about the constitution. That document forbade slavery in the only territory owned by the US at the time of framing (Ohio river valley area,) but gave the states the power to regulate the practice otherwise. The loyal states did not give up their rights by rebelling. The rebel states (obviously) did.

Lincoln was, indeed, a humanitarian. I bought into the "Lincoln didn't care about slavery" business too until I actually read the primary sources this spring.

i have sooo little time for you and your stupidity.

so i will make this quick:
lincolns family was in the top 15% income bracket in their county.
the home he was born in no longer exists and was replaced by a "one room log cabin".
lincoln was not completely self educated, he had one year of schooling, (this was NOT unusually for the time, in fact that one year is more than most)

as for what lincoln thought about blacks, i will let the man speak for himself:


"I will say, then, that I AM NOT NOR HAVE EVER BEEN in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters
or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever FORBID the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race."

— 4th Lincoln-Douglas debate, September 18th, 1858; COLLECTED WORKS Vol. 3, pp. 145-146

Justeenium
Jun 27th, 2005, 03:59 AM
i have sooo little time for you and your stupidity.

so i will make this quick:
lincolns family was in the top 15% income bracket in their county.
the home he was born in no longer exists and was replaced by a "one room log cabin".
lincoln was not completely self educated, he had one year of schooling, (this was NOT unusually for the time, in fact that one year is more than most)

as for what lincoln thought about blacks, i will let the man speak for himself:


"I will say, then, that I AM NOT NOR HAVE EVER BEEN in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters
or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever FORBID the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race."

— 4th Lincoln-Douglas debate, September 18th, 1858; COLLECTED WORKS Vol. 3, pp. 145-146

Why did you leave the second part of the quote off. Afterwards he said...
...notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence--the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color--perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns [the Republican version of what the other rights amount to?], he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas and the equal of every other man.

and yes, Lincoln was anti-slavery, mboyle is correct.

http://www.nps.gov/liho/slavery/al01.htm

Justeenium
Jun 27th, 2005, 04:43 AM
MLK Jr. winning? :lol:

what does it for you? the plagiarism or the adultery?

I got two badreps for this post.

truth hurts

Justeenium
Jun 27th, 2005, 04:44 AM
and what a surprise, both from Williams fans. :rolleyes:

mboyle
Jun 27th, 2005, 05:34 AM
i have sooo little time for you and your stupidity.

so i will make this quick:
lincolns family was in the top 15% income bracket in their county.
the home he was born in no longer exists and was replaced by a "one room log cabin".
lincoln was not completely self educated, he had one year of schooling, (this was NOT unusually for the time, in fact that one year is more than most)

as for what lincoln thought about blacks, i will let the man speak for himself:


"I will say, then, that I AM NOT NOR HAVE EVER BEEN in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters
or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever FORBID the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race."

— 4th Lincoln-Douglas debate, September 18th, 1858; COLLECTED WORKS Vol. 3, pp. 145-146

From Britanica.com:

In December 1816, faced with a lawsuit challenging the title to his Kentucky farm, Thomas Lincoln moved with his family to southwestern Indiana. There, as a squatter on public land, he hastily put up a “half-faced camp”—a crude structure of logs and boughs with one side open to the weather

OWNED. Your lies about the top 15% are just that. Lincoln grew up poor. Maybe when his father lived in Kentucky they were decently wealthy. That doesn't change the fact that he grew up poor. However, I understand that you don't like me because I think differently from you politically, so I understand that your ego needs to argue.

As to your second quote, it does not make any sense. I never said that Lincoln wanted social equality for whites and blacks. He wanted to end slavery if he could (he wasn't willing to make it law, because he smartly realized that to do so would destroy the union,) and, if possible, grant blacks political rights equal to those of whites (right to vote, right to sue, etc.) Here are just a FEW of Lincoln's quotations regarding SLAVERY not social equality:

"There is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence – the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man."
Debate, Ottawa, IL, August 21, 1858

"This good earth is plenty broad enough for the white man and the negro both, and there is no need of either pushing the other off."
Speech, New Haven, CT, March 6, 1860

"We cannot be free if this is, by our own national choice, to be a land of slavery."
Speech, Bloomington, IL, May 29, 1856

"Slavery and oppression must cease, or American liberty must perish."
Speech, Cincinnati, OH, May 6, 1842

"The blacks must be free. Slavery is the bone we are fighting over. It must be got out of the way, to give us permanent peace."
Letter to James R. Gilmore, May 1863

"The one victory we can ever call complete will be that one which proclaims that there is not a slave on the face of God's green earth."
Letter to George Pickett, February 22, 1842

"I am a northern man, or rather a western free-states man, with a constituency I believe to be, and with personal feelings I know to be, against the extension of slavery."
Speech in Congress, July 27, 1848

"Although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of a man who wishes to take good of it by being slave himself."
Fragment of letter, July 1, 1854

"Whenever I hear anyone arguing over slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
Speech to 14th Indiana regiment, March 17, 1865

"If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal' and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another."
Speech, Peoria, IL, October 16, 1854

"I confess myself as belonging to that class in this country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social, and political evil."
Debate, Galesburg, IL, October 7, 1858

"Your race are suffering, in my judgement, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people."
Speech to free colored men, Washington, DC

What's that? 12 for me and 1 for you? And I don't even have my actual texts with me. Lincoln did not believe slavery was moral. Lincoln wanted blacks to be free. He was the first important person to say that politically. The only way Lincoln can not be no. 1 on this list is if we view his actions with a modern eye.

As for King's slip ups: No one is perfect. King should not be no. 1 only because of his placement in history, not because he has made a mistake. Lincoln was a revolutionary thinker. Lincoln proposed that black people be considered men under the law. King finished Lincoln's work, demanding that such equality be enforced. If we look from our personal bias of having been born in the last 50 years, Lincoln doesn't look so hot and King looks marvellous. If we look at them 150 years from now, I am confident that Lincoln will be remembered as the better man. He was a white man using his political power to free black people. That's pretty incredible.

mboyle
Jun 27th, 2005, 05:41 AM
Oh and also, when I said Lincoln had no "formal education," I meant he did not attend a regulation school. He had under a year of "log cabin school" where teachers knew virtually nothing beyond reading and writing. Most presidents up until Lincoln (Jackson being a possible exception, though I have not had the luxury to study him as in depth as I would like,) were upper class and received formal educations with reputable instructors and universities. If you say it was not abnormal for people to receive a year or less of semi-formal education, then Lincoln was a commoner. Commoners in the 1820s and 30s were poor. You can't have it both ways.

mboyle
Jun 27th, 2005, 05:53 AM
From my personal studies, and the opinion pieces I've read over the years, it was because he wanted to win the Presindency and saw an untapped portion of society that could assist him. He was an attorney ya know :lol: , and recognized the benifit in what such a move would have. Maybe Denise knows more about him than I do in that regard. ;)

Can't ever bring myself to jump on the Lincoln bandwagon though. :scared:

Even if this were true, Lincoln still freed every single slave in the country by the time he was shot. Whether he was politically motivated or not, he still achieved probably the most noble act in history.

King was the equivalent of Lucrieta Mott or Harriet Tubman. He campaigned for equal rights, but he did not have the power to bring them about. Johnson actually achieved civil rights for the nation. King was a great campaigner, and passionately convinced the country that segregation was wrong, but there are three clear reasons why Lincoln was the more impactful man:

1. King had personal motives for ending segregation. Lincoln did not have personal motives for ending slavery.

2. Segregation is bad, but it is far better than slavery.

3. Leading the campaign to end something and actually using one's power to end it excell merely leading the campaign. King was never a politician.

-Ph51-
Jun 27th, 2005, 06:26 AM
REAGAN WON!
Churchill in the UK and de Gaulle in France.Adenauer in Germany.
Seems to me people have a very short memory when voting ;)

~ The Leopard ~
Jun 27th, 2005, 08:55 AM
Good God. It should have been Descartes in France and either Marx or Einstein in Germany. In the UK, I would have said Darwin, though Hume, Mill, and Newton would also be good candidates. There would be some argument for Shakespeare. If Italy had been involved I would have definitely have said Galileo (though you couldn't blame them if they said Garibaldi, or if they went back to someone like Julius Caesar). Descartes, Marx, etc., changed the whole way we see the world, whether for better or worse. Their greatness vastly exceeds that of any political figure. I mean, I can believe that the US is stuck with political figures, but not the great nations of Europe. And why didn't Germany go with Bismark if it had to be a political figure? Even Luther would have been a good choice.

I wonder who India would vote for? I'd suggest Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) should win, but they'd probably choose Sachin Tendulkar. :)

~ The Leopard ~
Jun 27th, 2005, 08:56 AM
I hope that was a joke about Reagan winning in the US! :eek:

Belgium = Best
Jun 27th, 2005, 09:04 AM
Martin Luther King Jr.

"Sluggy"
Jun 27th, 2005, 09:04 AM
I would have voted for John Adams, but he was not in the polling options.

Helas
Jun 27th, 2005, 01:24 PM
Where the hell is Roosevelt?

Truman,Eisenhower?

Sonja
Jun 27th, 2005, 02:00 PM
It wasn't a joke :sad: Reagan beat out Lincoln. Martin Luther King Jr. was third; fourth went to George Washington, and fifth to Benjamin Franklin.

Sonja
Jun 27th, 2005, 02:01 PM
Where the hell is Roosevelt?

Truman,Eisenhower?

I believe they all made the Top 100.

ClaudiaZ-S
Jun 27th, 2005, 02:11 PM
I believe they all made the Top 100.

Where can we find the top 100? I'm sure Britney Spears is top 20 :devil: = A SHAME ! :rolleyes:

Helen Lawson
Jun 27th, 2005, 02:12 PM
Ronald Reagan gave up his Academy membership when he became governor, but to my knowledge, Jane Wyman still votes.

Sonja
Jun 27th, 2005, 02:50 PM
Where can we find the top 100? I'm sure Britney Spears is top 20 :devil: = A SHAME ! :rolleyes:

http://tv.channel.aol.com/greatestamerican

They show all the nominees there; I don't know if they have the Top 100 list listed in order yet.

Wigglytuff
Jun 27th, 2005, 03:38 PM
ok moboyle, you really really know very little about history.

Firstly, sure Lincoln said some those things you quote, but that those were coupled with a clear and present sense of black inferiority. as for whether he was anti-slavery. at the time of the most famous two camps who wanted to "end slavery" are often referred to as one in the same but they are were not. those who were anti-slavery felt that the black were not really people, slave owners should be paid for the loss of their "property" that slavery should end because it was destroying the white race and that blacks should be returned to Africa. abolitionist on the other hand acknowledged blacks' humanity and felt that slavery should end because its wrong. Lincoln was somewhere in the middle. certainly, with his love of minstrel shows and his love of using words like ******, he was no abolitionist. but he didn't believe blacks should be sent back to Africa either.

but with all his talk about how much he hated slavery, when he ran the first time, he ran on the platform that he would NOT end slavery or do anything that might endanger slavery. (so far from Lincoln we have: slavery is bad, blacks are inferior to whites, but lets not end slavery). in fact even when he did so something (not much) about slavery with the emancipation proclamation, he could have given blacks full citizenship, he could have ended slavery in places where he DID have jurisdiction, but he did not.

about his schooling. you are an idiot. that is how the vast majority of schools were- teachers who had no training, "taught" students at a variety of levels in the same room. if they were not in a city the building itself was often just one room. and yes that was considered formal schooling. the school building with trained teachers did not begin enter the American landscape until the turn of the century. by which point reformers and people like Mann had made radical changes, such as teacher education and training, reporting, standards of progress and so on.

as for his income, his family was in the top 15% of his county. your vague answer of "he was poor" has no merit, what does that mean? poor compared to what? poor by today's standards? i can hardly think a of situation where i would call someone in the top 15% as poor. rather than blindly saying he was poor, go and find out what percentile his family was in and get back to me. because there is more myth than anything about his advantages, the house that stands today was build 30 years after he died, one of my favorite quotes about the house he was born in comes from a history book: "Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin which he built with his own hands."

mboyle
Jun 27th, 2005, 05:32 PM
Jigglypuff, you're wrong. You're just plain wrong.

Lincoln ran the first time on the platform of "end slavery in the territories, prevent it from expanding, don't touch it in the south...for now..."

Lincoln's family was wealthy at the start, but, from the age of 4, Lincoln had no money. That's growing up poor, like it or not.

Lincoln did not have an air of superiority over blacks. He invited blacks to the white house, to the outrage of the public and his VERY CABINET. In 1864, Lincoln ran on the platform of "No end of the war without the end of slavery," even though everyone up north was willing to allow slavery to continue if it would preserve the union. Everyone thought Lincoln would lose because he refused to compromise his principles.

AHHHHHHH!!! AHHHHHHH!!! AHHHHHHHHH!!!! WTF? Lincoln had no constitutional authority to end slavery in the loyal states:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ! That's the most asinine thing you have said yet! He had the power to end slavery in the southern states only because they were a foreign power, and the president has power to hurt enemy states without congressional power.

As for his schooling, that was not considered formal education, even if you want to say so to prove me wrong. Formal education was availible only to the super wealthy, which Lincoln was not, and involved private schools, such as Roxbury Latin School, Milton Academy, Exeter or Andover, followed by private universities, such as Harvard or Yale. To say that Lincoln's education was just as good as the average president's is just idiotic.

As for being poor, I provided you with a multitude of evidence suggesting that Lincoln was a backcountry squatter, far poorer than the average American of 1830. I did not give a vague answer of any sort. You just are too arrogant to read my evidence, because you know that I'll prove you wrong.

I mean, to someone who has studied history thoroughly and with great fervor, you seem like an angry black male or a liberal trying to sound hip and better-than-thou.

mboyle
Jun 27th, 2005, 05:34 PM
ok moboyle, you really really know very little about history.

Funny then that I ended the year with a 96 in AP US History at a 200 year old private institution consistently ranked in the top 10 schools in the country.:rolleyes:

Wigglytuff
Jun 27th, 2005, 07:11 PM
Jigglypuff, you're wrong. You're just plain wrong.

Lincoln ran the first time on the platform of "end slavery in the territories, prevent it from expanding, don't touch it in the south...for now..."

Lincoln's family was wealthy at the start, but, from the age of 4, Lincoln had no money. That's growing up poor, like it or not.

Lincoln did not have an air of superiority over blacks. He invited blacks to the white house, to the outrage of the public and his VERY CABINET. In 1864, Lincoln ran on the platform of "No end of the war without the end of slavery," even though everyone up north was willing to allow slavery to continue if it would preserve the union. Everyone thought Lincoln would lose because he refused to compromise his principles.

AHHHHHHH!!! AHHHHHHH!!! AHHHHHHHHH!!!! WTF? Lincoln had no constitutional authority to end slavery in the loyal states:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ! That's the most asinine thing you have said yet! He had the power to end slavery in the southern states only because they were a foreign power, and the president has power to hurt enemy states without congressional power.



i could read no more.

the way you stumble over your own arguement and make no sense. i am just going to repeat back what

you said:

1-lincoln did not run in on a platform of protecting slavery, he just said not to end slavery where there was slavery, to not touch, to shield it from harm.
"don't touch it in the south"

2-lincolns family had no money, but they were wealthy and when lincoln was at the age 4 of they had no money. (enough to be in the top 15% in their county though)
"Lincoln's family was wealthy at the start, but, from the age of 4, Lincoln had no money," (wait if they did have money up until he was 4, what about the story that they DID NOT have money when he was born)

3-lincoln (the president) had no authority in the loyal states. because as we all know presidents are elected to have no constitutional authority. they just, you know sit around and look cute.

4-yes lincoln called blacks ******s, and said whites were superior to them, but because he had a few over to visit he did not actually think that the was superior to them (which by the way makes lincoln a liar, because he clearly did say whites were superior to blacks.) :lol: :confused:

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Jun 27th, 2005, 08:36 PM
Joseph Smith.... The one single greatest! :worship: