Which President was the greatest pre-1900

Which President was the greatest pre-1900

  • George Washington

    Votes: 21 29.2%
  • Thomas Jefferson

    Votes: 6 8.3%
  • Abraham Lincoln

    Votes: 37 51.4%
  • Someone else

    Votes: 8 11.1%

  • Total voters
    72
  • Poll closed .
Napoleon, love him or hate him, was still a shrewd politician and by far Washington's better in terms of military,

The question was not who was the better military leader. Napoleon obviously wins there. But as a political leader, Napoleon was a dictator who took the French Revolution and usurped it for his own aggrandizement. Since my standard for greatness in a politician is how much he advances the cause of liberty and democratic government for his people, Napoleon fails miserably as a political leader.

Augustus was one of the greatest political minds of history.

Augustus took a Republic and transformed it into a monarchy. Sorry, he fails the test, too.

Personally I'd rank Lincoln at the top, he faced a crisis with skill and effectiveness, if only Booth hadn't deemed it necessary to kill him, reconstruction could have been a lot smoother and less painful for the nation as a whole.

Ah, Dishonest Abe. Abe Lincoln "saved the Union," by denying the right of self-government to the people of eleven Southern States, who had democratically voted to withdraw from the Union, and forcing them to accept the rule of a government to which they no longer consented. He also set in motion processes which have lead to the increasing power of the federal government ever since, at the expense of the liberty of the American people. He too fails the test of greatness, IMHO.
 
The question was not who was the better military leader. Napoleon obviously wins there. But as a political leader, Napoleon was a dictator who took the French Revolution and usurped it for his own aggrandizement. Since my standard for greatness in a politician is how much he advances the cause of liberty and democratic government for his people, Napoleon fails miserably as a political leader.



Augustus took a Republic and transformed it into a monarchy. Sorry, he fails the test, too.



Ah, Dishonest Abe. Abe Lincoln "saved the Union," by denying the right of self-government to the people of eleven Southern States, who had democratically voted to withdraw from the Union, and forcing them to accept the rule of a government to which they no longer consented. He also set in motion processes which have lead to the increasing power of the federal government ever since, at the expense of the liberty of the American people. He too fails the test of greatness, IMHO.

Of course the CSA denied the liberty of American blacks by keeping them enslaved.
 
Ah, Dishonest Abe. Abe Lincoln "saved the Union," by denying the right of self-government to the people of eleven Southern States, who had democratically voted to withdraw from the Union, and forcing them to accept the rule of a government to which they no longer consented. He also set in motion processes which have lead to the increasing power of the federal government ever since, at the expense of the liberty of the American people. He too fails the test of greatness, IMHO.
The Southern states broke the union by behaving as though the states had more power than a federal government elected by the nation, even though the supremacy of the federal government over the state governments had been upheld before that. It was the South being undemocratic, not Lincoln nor the Union, by not consenting to the will of the majority people in the nation and believing they could circumnavigate democracy by just saying (before secession) that they weren't going to follow something enacted by the federal government if their state didn't like it, or were going to leave as they finally did.

Likewise, not everyone in the south was a secessionist, and in a few of the states it was a scant majority in the legislatures. And yet, everyone had to break ties to the Union and join the new Confederacy when their state did. Going by the above standards, I would say that was rather unfair*.


*IE, take the individuals who didn't wish secession as the states and the state governments as the federal government
 
Last edited:
The question was not who was the better military leader. Napoleon obviously wins there. But as a political leader, Napoleon was a dictator who took the French Revolution and usurped it for his own aggrandizement. Since my standard for greatness in a politician is how much he advances the cause of liberty and democratic government for his people, Napoleon fails miserably as a political leader.
Your standard is arbitrary and meaningless. Besides, if you you really want to get into it, Napoleon did a lot for the revolution, even if he made it his own (sort of three steps forward, three steps back). Nationalism was fueled just as much if not more by the Napoleonic wars, both in Italy and Germany where, thanks to him, the idea of a united country gained popular support thanks to his Rhine Confederacy and his Kingdom of Italy. He imposed a far more liberal and democratic regime in nations that had up until then known nothing but absolutism and autocracy. Hell, most countries in Europe still have a Civil Code based primarily on the one Napoleon created nearly 200 years ago. So, in that sense, he did quite a lot for the advancement of democracy and liberty.

Then there are all the latin american countries who benefited indirectly from Napoleon's wars, gaining their freedom from Spain as a result. Argentina, Peru, Chile, Paraguay, Venezuela, Colombia, etc.

Augustus took a Republic and transformed it into a monarchy. Sorry, he fails the test, too.
Again, your standards are arbitrary and meaningless. Augustus was a master politician, he managed to manipulate the system magnificently to suit his own ambitions, and he was arguably superior to the republican system he supplanted (him personally, his heirs, not so much). The way he manipulated Anthony's situation to paint himself as the savior of the republic was pure genius, and you have to keep in mind that he, as his uncle before him, turned down an official regal title (just a formality, true).

Ah, Dishonest Abe. Abe Lincoln "saved the Union," by denying the right of self-government to the people of eleven Southern States, who had democratically voted to withdraw from the Union, and forcing them to accept the rule of a government to which they no longer consented. He also set in motion processes which have lead to the increasing power of the federal government ever since, at the expense of the liberty of the American people. He too fails the test of greatness, IMHO.
I find it doubtful that the majority of the people in the southern states really wanted to secede. It was a rich man's war being fought by poor souls who had no real interest in preserving the archaic and barbaric custom of slavery.
 
Your standard is arbitrary and meaningless. Besides, if you you really want to get into it, Napoleon did a lot for the revolution, even if he made it his own (sort of three steps forward, three steps back). Nationalism was fueled just as much if not more by the Napoleonic wars, both in Italy and Germany where, thanks to him, the idea of a united country gained popular support thanks to his Rhine Confederacy and his Kingdom of Italy. He imposed a far more liberal and democratic regime in nations that had up until then known nothing but absolutism and autocracy. Hell, most countries in Europe still have a Civil Code based primarily on the one Napoleon created nearly 200 years ago. So, in that sense, he did quite a lot for the advancement of democracy and liberty.

Then there are all the latin american countries who benefited indirectly from Napoleon's wars, gaining their freedom from Spain as a result. Argentina, Peru, Chile, Paraguay, Venezuela, Colombia, etc.

Again, your standards are arbitrary and meaningless. Augustus was a master politician, he managed to manipulate the system magnificently to suit his own ambitions, and he was arguably superior to the republican system he supplanted (him personally, his heirs, not so much). The way he manipulated Anthony's situation to paint himself as the savior of the republic was pure genius, and you have to keep in mind that he, as his uncle before him, turned down an official regal title (just a formality, true).

They were both military dictators who tried to show they cared for the people in an absolutely Bismarckian fashion. You're not going to get any American saying they were better for their country than Washington was for ours.
 
Regardless of issues of Southern independence, Lincoln CAN be condemned for the actions he took in the North-West and in parts of the Union under his rule. He preshadowed Bush's Patriot Act nonsense with suspensions of habaeus corpus, arbitrary arrest, supporting executive rule when legislatures proved to be of a different political mind than his.

Its up to people's perceptions to decide whether these things are excusable or not

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
They were both military dictators who tried to show they cared for the people in an absolutely Bismarckian fashion. You're not going to get any American saying they were better for their country than Washington was for ours.
Well America has often considered a bloody authoritarian government preferable to a democratically elected socialist one :rolleyes:
 
One major strike against the South was that they vowed to secede if the election didn't result in a candidate they liked, then did everything possible to ensure that Lincoln won the election.

The bitter irony is that little, if any, of Lincoln's achievements would have taken place had the South stayed in the Union and worked to block his efforts. Another irony is the number of issues of such previous importance to the South which were guaranteed to be forfeit by the act of secession without any certainty secession would succeed.

The location of transcontinental railroads, the fate of most of the territories, slavery in the border states, the Fugitive Slave Act and more, all lost the moment secession started.
 
Of course the CSA denied the liberty of American blacks by keeping them enslaved.

True, as far as it goes. So did the United States at that time. If you will recall, the United States didn't actually get around to abolishing slavery until December 1865.

By that time, the Confederacy was long dead.
 
Regardless of issues of Southern independence, Lincoln CAN be condemned for the actions he took in the North-West and in parts of the Union under his rule. He preshadowed Bush's Patriot Act nonsense with suspensions of habaeus corpus, arbitrary arrest, supporting executive rule when legislatures proved to be of a different political mind than his.

Its up to people's perceptions to decide whether these things are excusable or not

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

In case of rebellion within the nation, the government may suspend habeus corpus. The issue is whether it was granted to the President or to Congress, as it was not stated who got to do it. Bush cannot do so as he does not face open rebellion, he faces a few PO'd terrorists localized a thousand miles from anything American. So Lincoln's actions were perfectly legal. He also only arrested those who spoke or acted truly seditiously, and was fully against the arrest of war protesters and pardoned protesters whenever arrested. And he used loopholes so he could to side step a disagreeing legislature. IE, the Emancipation Proclamation fell under war time authority of the commander in chief. And Lincoln only believed these things necessary during the war. Not past it. And he, unlike Bush, actually faced a war. The War on Terror is like the War on Dandruf. Its just a label for a series of actions. The Civil War was a war, and a war that would determine the very existence of the United States.

True, as far as it goes. So did the United States at that time. If you will recall, the United States didn't actually get around to abolishing slavery until December 1865.

By that time, the Confederacy was long dead.
But the Northern states had all ended slavery before 1800. The only remaining were the border states, whom it was feared would be lost with emancipation of their slaves, so it was thought that it would be best to allow the evil of their possession for a short while if it would ensure in the future no one possessed a slave. When the states were united, most abolitionists believed it was best to simply suffocate slavery out of existence by keeping it localized to simply the few southern states that had it. And it was a want of the nation at large to avoid Civil War, which is why they feared immediate forced emancipation of the south could lead to secession.
 
Last edited:
Your standard is arbitrary and meaningless.

No more than any other. All standards are arbitrarily chosen.


Besides, if you you really want to get into it, Napoleon did a lot for the revolution, even if he made it his own (sort of three steps forward, three steps back). Nationalism was fueled just as much if not more by the Napoleonic wars, both in Italy and Germany where, thanks to him, the idea of a united country gained popular support thanks to his Rhine Confederacy and his Kingdom of Italy. He imposed a far more liberal and democratic regime in nations that had up until then known nothing but absolutism and autocracy. Hell, most countries in Europe still have a Civil Code based primarily on the one Napoleon created nearly 200 years ago. So, in that sense, he did quite a lot for the advancement of democracy and liberty.

Nevertheless, he could have done all these things and NOT usurped the French Revolution by declaring himself Emperor. George Washington managed not to do that. That's why he's better than Napoleon, IMHO.

Then there are all the latin american countries who benefited indirectly from Napoleon's wars, gaining their freedom from Spain as a result. Argentina, Peru, Chile, Paraguay, Venezuela, Colombia, etc.

Not directly. The revolutionaries there were more inspired by the American Revolution than by the French one. All Napoleon did was provide an opportunity for the revolution to be successful by invading Spain. Big deal. It would have been successful anyway. Spain was on its last legs.

Again, your standards are arbitrary and meaningless.

See above.

Augustus was a master politician, he managed to manipulate the system magnificently to suit his own ambitions, and he was arguably superior to the republican system he supplanted (him personally, his heirs, not so much). The way he manipulated Anthony's situation to paint himself as the savior of the republic was pure genius, and you have to keep in mind that he, as his uncle before him, turned down an official regal title (just a formality, true).

I'm sorry, that simply means he was successful. By that standard, a Mafioso who is successful in manipulating the system to suit his own ambitions, and manages to paint himself as an honest businessman and blame all his nefarious activities on his rivals, also qualifies as a "Great" man. I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that.

I find it doubtful that the majority of the people in the southern states really wanted to secede. It was a rich man's war being fought by poor souls who had no real interest in preserving the archaic and barbaric custom of slavery.

Whether you find it doubtful or not, it remains true. The states held valid elections, and the vote was strongly in favor of secession in almost all cases. There were a few areas of the South, primarily in the Appalachians, which voted against. Those areas, however, were sparsely populated, and they did not come close to balancing the vote in favor of secession.
 
In case of rebellion within the nation, the government may suspend habeus corpus. The issue is whether it was granted to the President or to Congress, as it was not stated who got to do it. Bush cannot do so as he does not face open rebellion, he faces a few PO'd terrorists localized a thousand miles from anything American. So Lincoln's actions were perfectly legal. He also only arrested those who spoke or acted truly seditiously, and was fully against the arrest of war protesters and pardoned protesters whenever arrested. And he used loopholes so he could to side step a disagreeing legislature. IE, the Emancipation Proclamation fell under war time authority of the commander in chief. And Lincoln only believed these things necessary during the war. Not past it. And he, unlike Bush, actually faced a war. The War on Terror is like the War on Dandruf. Its just a label for a series of actions. The Civil War was a war, and a war that would determine the very existence of the United States.

The Civil War did not "determine the very existence of the United States." That is one of the most ridiculous myths spun by Lincoln and the other supporters of the Union cause. The United States would have continued to exist. It simply would not have held jurisdiction of the Southern States. If the Northern States were afraid that secession would occur again, causing the Union to fall apart, all they had to do was amend the Constitution to make secession explicitly illegal.

But the Northern states had all ended slavery before 1800.

Um, no. New York, for example, didn't get around to it until 1827. And, IIRC, it was not the last Northern State to do so, although I cannot now remember which one was.

The only remaining were the border states, whom it was feared would be lost with emancipation of their slaves, so it was thought that it would be best to allow the evil of their possession for a short while if it would ensure in the future no one possessed a slave. When the states were united, most abolitionists believed it was best to simply suffocate slavery out of existence by keeping it localized to simply the few southern states that had it. And it was a want of the nation at large to avoid Civil War, which is why they feared immediate forced emancipation of the south could lead to secession.

All irrelevant to my point. You can lay out all the reasons you want to attempt to justify why the Union continued to hold slaves until 8 months after the end of the Civil War. The fact remains, they did deny the liberty of blacks by keeping them enslaved. You can't censure one for doing that, while ignoring the other, as General Mung Beans attempted to do, and it was to him I was replying. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.
 
Last edited:
The Civil War did not "determine the very existence of the United States." That is one of the most ridiculous myths spun by Lincoln and the other supporters of the Union cause. The United States would have continued to exist. It simply would not have held jurisdiction of the Southern States. If the Northern States were afraid that secession would occur again, causing the Union to fall apart, all they had to do was amend the Constitution to make secession explicitly illegal.

It did determine the existence of the United States, as it would no longer be a United States. It would be a divided nation with a northern portion and southern, taking their combined identities out of a united republican experiment.

And in the Union mind, secession was already thought of as illegal. The issue had never come up before the Civil War to the scale where it would need to be officially legally addressed (New England had thought of it during the war of 1812, and I believe South Carolina at varying points, but it had never actually come to any fruition).

Um, no. New York, for example, didn't get around to it until 1827. And, IIRC, it was not the last Northern State to do so, although I cannot now remember which one was.
New York had put in law the end of the slave trade and the gradual manumission of slaves circa 1800 which would eventually lead to the end of all slave ownership in 1827, as slaves could only be kept by their mother's masters for their most productive years, and would have to be let go at age 28 for males, and 25 for females; this was the same with many of the Northern states which did not immediately abolish slavery, but all had officially curbed slavery sometime before or during 1800 so it would die out shortly, and it would die out in the North very soon after that point.


All irrelevant to my point. You can lay out all the reasons you want to attempt to justify why the Union continued to hold slaves until 8 months after the end of the Civil War. The fact remains, they did deny the liberty of blacks by keeping them enslaved. You can't censure one for doing that, while ignoring the other, as General Mung Beans attempted to do, and it was to him I was replying. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.
You brought up the issue of abolition and it addressed the issue. And it was only the border states, not the Union beyond them, which kept slaves by that point, and were only allowed to do so for the purpose of their support (likewise, the border states were more neutral than Union). However, Lincoln had set forth measures to abolish slavery with things such as the Emancipation Proclamation which would end it in the South once retaken. And the United States would totally end slavery with amendments to the constitution shortly afterward. Slavery was only permitted in the border states so that the North would have the power to reunite the Union, and so that the North would have the power to wipe out slavery totally after the war. The Union had it in mind to end slavery; the South wished to continue and foster the institution.
 
Last edited:
Top