When I was in elementary school and it was an election year, my school decided to have a pretend election between Washington and Lincoln. We got to vote. I was completely torn and ended up voting for Lincoln because he was born on my mother’s birthday.
I have read two biographies of George Washington and have done some studying of Lincoln. I have respect for both of them. George Washington was a solemn man who knew slavery was wrong, but felt powerless to do anything about it. I’m pretty sure he only kept them to “keep up appearances” so to speak. His slaves were freed posthumously. I have wondered why he didn’t take a stand and free them while he was alive. I’m sure there were quite a few pressures going on that we can’t quite understand. Overall, Washington was fairly respectable.
Lincoln did not particularly care for slavery, but he once said “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
Both men had many flaws, but overall, they were very respectable in their own right. My vote, however, leans towards Lincoln. He was a much more nuanced and interesting individual. I would loved to have seen him give a speech. Washington would most likely have been a bore to be around.
Oh, and Lincoln wouldn’t be a Republican by today’s standards. He’d most likely lean Democrat.
His vision of the Constitution is the one that we hold today and that is good.
His presidency was by far the most amazing given the circumstances.
Washington played an important role (of course) by leading the Revolutionary army to victory, resigning his command at the end of the war, attending the Constitutional Convention, and stepping down after two terms. I am not dismissing any of that.
Without Washington there may never have been a United States of the Constitution.
Yet I side with Lincoln. Without him the United States would not exist as it does today and the Constitution would not have survived. Plus, he paved the way for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, the amendments which completed and fixed the Constitution.
Steve, we were playing a version of Taboo with a girl from Canada, and she couldn’t answer “first president of the United States”. I was shocked, but then, I couldn’t name the first prime minister/premier/whatever of Canada either. =) When in doubt, I say Trudeau.
The things that make this country the greatest are rooted in the traditions begun by GW.
The things that make our ginormous government so scary can be directly attributed to Honest Abe’s expansion of presidential power and rejection of individual rights under the constitution.
Ian may be right that Washington might be a bore to be around, but I suspect he’s wrong. Washington was a very complex person.
The Dukakis/Bush election happened when I was in fourth grade so our teacher took advantage of a national contest and had each of us write an essay and give a speech on who we thought was our best president ever. Sure, most kids picked Washington or Lincoln. A few picked JFK or one of the Roosevelts.
But me? No, I had to be different. So who do I pick? You guessed it…Ulysses S. Grant!
The kid who won the national contest was actually in my class and got to attend the inauguration. He picked Lincoln of course. Wuss.
# 11: In the historial picture Lincoln expanded individual liberties by pushing for what would become the 13th, 14th, and 15 amendments. Slavery was clearly the most major violation of individual rights in our history (with Jim Crow close behind).
His suspension of rights was minor and done in a constitutional manor (approved by Congress). There was a full scale domestic insurection going on (I think we forget this when we see freaking confederate flags being flown).
Lincoln violated nearly every civil liberty in existence at the time. As far as an emancipator, it was fully for political reasons, as quoted above, and he indicated that deportation to South America and back to Africa would be preferable. Furthermore, emancipation in places like South America was simply granted by government fiat, and NOT through bloody “civil” war, as he decided. The Civil War was totally unnecessary; he could have emancipated the slaves by decree as many other countries did. Moreover, and this is important, his idea of federal “centralization” was radical and unconstitutional. The southern states had every right to secede and there really was no need for consolidation of federal authority except as a power grab during the years of western expansion.
Shakespare wrote that “the good that men do is oft interred with their bones, but the evil that men do lives on.” In the case of Lincoln, this is not the case. This country needed to laud an emancipator for political purposes and chose Lincoln, naturally, but interred with him all the other atrocities he committed.
Lincoln admirers and friends of liberty owe it to themselves to read Tom DiLorenzo’s two-part book series on the real Abraham Lincoln, here and here.
David, your ridiculous revisionist view of Lincoln is both tired and idiotic. Only the most myopic view of the civil war could possibly lay it entirely at the feet of Lincoln. In addition, the fact is that Lincoln did emancipate the slaves by decree, but it was only by winning the war that he had the power to enforce that decree. Had he allowed the southern states to secede with impunity, there would have been no emancipation, probably for generations.
Good to see you around the blogosphere David J. The are clearly a number of interpretations of Lincoln. Of course, you and I have very different interpretations of not only Lincoln, but also the idea of Liberty and the Constitution itself. Miss ya, though.
David, DiLorenzo’s biography of Lincoln was dismissed by actual historians as a “soapbox tirade” espousing “lost cause orthodoxy.” Daniel Feller complained that “DiLorenzo contorts logic and evidence to systematically erase slavery as an element in Civil War causation. [His] methods nearly resemble those of Holocaust deniers.”
Both are obviously great. But Washington completely shaped how things would go. People wanted him to be nearly a king and he stepped down to ensure the nature of the Presidency. He also balanced Hamilton and Jefferson representing the two extremes of our politics and kept them in harmony. No small thing. As great as Lincoln was consider how different our nation would have been had nearly anyone else been our first President rather than Washington.
That he also won a victory against England against all odds merely adds to it.
The question with Lincoln is what would have happened had he not died. Would the problems of the next 10 years (carpetbaggers, and the erosion of the rights won for blacks) have happened? Lincoln was great. What was tragic is that he died before finishing what he started. Thanks Booth.
I was going to put up a poll with Diefenbaker vs. Mcdonald just to make a Canadian point to all this. But for some reason I can’t make polls. C’est la vie, eh?
Further Reading
Steve Evans
RJH
Scott B.
John C.
Susan M
Aaron Brown
ninemoons
arandomjohn
kulturblogadmin
Kyle M
Brad
KulturBlogGuest
MCQ
Wm
Rebecca
Ivan
Geoff J
btdgreg
Clark Goble
Aaron R.
Tim J
Ben
Martin VanBuren
George Washington. Even though he owned slaves.
When I was in elementary school and it was an election year, my school decided to have a pretend election between Washington and Lincoln. We got to vote. I was completely torn and ended up voting for Lincoln because he was born on my mother’s birthday.
Things have changed much for me, voting-wise.
Lincoln. Best Republican ever! Plus there was the whole “guide the nation through a civil war” thing, and the whole “free the slaves” thing.
I have read two biographies of George Washington and have done some studying of Lincoln. I have respect for both of them. George Washington was a solemn man who knew slavery was wrong, but felt powerless to do anything about it. I’m pretty sure he only kept them to “keep up appearances” so to speak. His slaves were freed posthumously. I have wondered why he didn’t take a stand and free them while he was alive. I’m sure there were quite a few pressures going on that we can’t quite understand. Overall, Washington was fairly respectable.
Lincoln did not particularly care for slavery, but he once said “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
Both men had many flaws, but overall, they were very respectable in their own right. My vote, however, leans towards Lincoln. He was a much more nuanced and interesting individual. I would loved to have seen him give a speech. Washington would most likely have been a bore to be around.
Oh, and Lincoln wouldn’t be a Republican by today’s standards. He’d most likely lean Democrat.
They’re both majorly righteous dudes.
Lincoln has by far the best monument, but Washington has dozens of great paintings. Winner: Washington.
Lincoln!
His vision of the Constitution is the one that we hold today and that is good.
His presidency was by far the most amazing given the circumstances.
Washington played an important role (of course) by leading the Revolutionary army to victory, resigning his command at the end of the war, attending the Constitutional Convention, and stepping down after two terms. I am not dismissing any of that.
Without Washington there may never have been a United States of the Constitution.
Yet I side with Lincoln. Without him the United States would not exist as it does today and the Constitution would not have survived. Plus, he paved the way for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, the amendments which completed and fixed the Constitution.
The should be “or the Constitution” not “of”
Steve, we were playing a version of Taboo with a girl from Canada, and she couldn’t answer “first president of the United States”. I was shocked, but then, I couldn’t name the first prime minister/premier/whatever of Canada either. =) When in doubt, I say Trudeau.
Washington, hands down.
The things that make this country the greatest are rooted in the traditions begun by GW.
The things that make our ginormous government so scary can be directly attributed to Honest Abe’s expansion of presidential power and rejection of individual rights under the constitution.
Ian may be right that Washington might be a bore to be around, but I suspect he’s wrong. Washington was a very complex person.
1.) Lincoln. 2.) Washington. 3.) Theodore Roosevelt.
The Dukakis/Bush election happened when I was in fourth grade so our teacher took advantage of a national contest and had each of us write an essay and give a speech on who we thought was our best president ever. Sure, most kids picked Washington or Lincoln. A few picked JFK or one of the Roosevelts.
But me? No, I had to be different. So who do I pick? You guessed it…Ulysses S. Grant!
The kid who won the national contest was actually in my class and got to attend the inauguration. He picked Lincoln of course. Wuss.
Sir John A. MacDonald!
Chester A. Arthur from my home state.
The Jefferson Memorial is underrated. It is round, stately, and has paddle boats.
# 11: In the historial picture Lincoln expanded individual liberties by pushing for what would become the 13th, 14th, and 15 amendments. Slavery was clearly the most major violation of individual rights in our history (with Jim Crow close behind).
His suspension of rights was minor and done in a constitutional manor (approved by Congress). There was a full scale domestic insurection going on (I think we forget this when we see freaking confederate flags being flown).
Just a thought.
Lincoln violated nearly every civil liberty in existence at the time. As far as an emancipator, it was fully for political reasons, as quoted above, and he indicated that deportation to South America and back to Africa would be preferable. Furthermore, emancipation in places like South America was simply granted by government fiat, and NOT through bloody “civil” war, as he decided. The Civil War was totally unnecessary; he could have emancipated the slaves by decree as many other countries did. Moreover, and this is important, his idea of federal “centralization” was radical and unconstitutional. The southern states had every right to secede and there really was no need for consolidation of federal authority except as a power grab during the years of western expansion.
Shakespare wrote that “the good that men do is oft interred with their bones, but the evil that men do lives on.” In the case of Lincoln, this is not the case. This country needed to laud an emancipator for political purposes and chose Lincoln, naturally, but interred with him all the other atrocities he committed.
Lincoln admirers and friends of liberty owe it to themselves to read Tom DiLorenzo’s two-part book series on the real Abraham Lincoln, here and here.
So George Washington, by default.
David, your ridiculous revisionist view of Lincoln is both tired and idiotic. Only the most myopic view of the civil war could possibly lay it entirely at the feet of Lincoln. In addition, the fact is that Lincoln did emancipate the slaves by decree, but it was only by winning the war that he had the power to enforce that decree. Had he allowed the southern states to secede with impunity, there would have been no emancipation, probably for generations.
Read the books, man.
Good to see you around the blogosphere David J. The are clearly a number of interpretations of Lincoln. Of course, you and I have very different interpretations of not only Lincoln, but also the idea of Liberty and the Constitution itself. Miss ya, though.
David, DiLorenzo’s biography of Lincoln was dismissed by actual historians as a “soapbox tirade” espousing “lost cause orthodoxy.” Daniel Feller complained that “DiLorenzo contorts logic and evidence to systematically erase slavery as an element in Civil War causation. [His] methods nearly resemble those of Holocaust deniers.”
Five dollars is more than one dollar.
Need I say more?
Both are obviously great. But Washington completely shaped how things would go. People wanted him to be nearly a king and he stepped down to ensure the nature of the Presidency. He also balanced Hamilton and Jefferson representing the two extremes of our politics and kept them in harmony. No small thing. As great as Lincoln was consider how different our nation would have been had nearly anyone else been our first President rather than Washington.
That he also won a victory against England against all odds merely adds to it.
The question with Lincoln is what would have happened had he not died. Would the problems of the next 10 years (carpetbaggers, and the erosion of the rights won for blacks) have happened? Lincoln was great. What was tragic is that he died before finishing what he started. Thanks Booth.
Brian G: A quarter is worth more than a penny.
Until Tina Fey does an impersonation of one of them, I won’t be able to make this decision.
Write-in: Baberaham Lincoln
I was going to put up a poll with Diefenbaker vs. Mcdonald just to make a Canadian point to all this. But for some reason I can’t make polls. C’est la vie, eh?
Notice if you will, that President Elect Obama made multiple references to Lincoln in his acceptance speech last night, including quoting him twice.
I rest my case.
But did he quote John A. Macdonald?