Washington or Lincoln?

[Messianic_Monk]

As far as I am concerned, these two men are the only men who can vie for the title of "greatest president of the United States". Which one do you think was the greatest and why?

George Washington

Abraham Lincoln

[nightdrot]

Unquestionably Abraham Lincoln. While other Presidents had defining accomplishments and are of undoubted historical importance, none was as decisive and significant as Lincoln, who not only saved the Union in its darkest hour, he defined its very nature.

Indeed, some years back a group of historians rated Lincoln and Churchill not just as great national leaders, but as the greatest leaders in all Western civilization. They earned the accolade - to be sure an accolade not without controversy - because they recurred to very wellsprings of Western civilization to define their statecraft and preserve their societies.

To some degree, this is an observation with a speculative cast. We can only imagine how the Western world would have looked had the United States not survived its civil war. (Ditto had Britain not stood alone and survived in 1940-41.) However, even in a contemporaneous context, Lincoln stands out.

At the time Lincoln became President, it was not just that the country was divided on the question of slavery - with all of its implications for how man viewed his fellow man. The country was, significantly, divided over its very nature. The question of whether or not it was single national community, or instead a confederation of separate and distinct communities, each with their own identity and, in extremis, sovereignty.

Lincoln answered the question not just through military victory - which by itself would not have been enduring - but by summoning the nation to the philosophical essentials of its birth. He defined the nation by common attachment to a specific creed - "a nation dedicated to a proposition" - and in the fullness of time defined the nation.

No President - not even Washington - answered the question of what the United States was, and thus what it is now, as permanently and definitively. By summoning "the mystic chords of memory," i. e. to a keener sense of its animating principles, Lincoln turned the country into a nation. Something much more essential and elemental and thus enduring.

Not perfectly or completely to be sure. There is no perfection in this mortal veil of tears. However, it is undeniable that had their been no Lincoln, there would have been no America, and had there been no America, the history of Western civilization going forward - with all of its promise of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law - would have looked very different and likely would have taken a far darker turn.

[NamerOfStars]

Lincoln engaged in the single biggest expansion of Federal power in the country's history; even FDR couldn't match his legacy- and, interestingly, neither can the public effort to rehabilitate his reputation; Lincoln surpasses him there, too. That would be a questionable call at best, but then you have the have the suspension of habeus corpus and other anti-Constutional atrocities, to say nothing of his ultimately successful efforts to enable Federal slavery to end its private practice.

The key to the man's lionization was an absolutely excellent taste in enemies, coupled with being killed immediately after his success in that war; that's pretty much the best recipe for being remembered fondly.

Washington, on the other hand, has far less to condemn him.

[Anonymous]

Thomas Jefferson was a better president than Washington who was merely first, in retrospect Lincoln was nothing more than a tyrant.

A tyrant that in his effort to have his way at any cost effectively overthrew the Federal Constitutional republic via the forced subjugation of its until then voluntary members.

[Messianic_Monk]

I'm fascinated. I know Lincoln was used more federal power than other Republicans... but I'm fascinated with what you're saying. What specifically do you mean by "subjugation"?

[Opinion Owner]

I mean exactly that: "The act of bring under control, especially by military force; conquer." That is exactly what Lincoln's war against the 11 Southern states was about.

Lincoln and his imperial radicals took a voluntary union formed by vote of the people of the States in separate conventions and unilaterally decided it was all the sudden an involuntary one.

All because 11 of them had voted themselfs out the same way they voted in. A vote of the people in Convention just as all of them had voted themselfs independent of the British empire.

Lincoln's alleged legal justification was like the British law in 1776 there was no exit clause in the Federal Constitution in 1860.
As if we had not declared in 1776 that such right of self-determination was inalienable right reserved to the people. Never mined the explicit text of the 10th Amendment regarding ALL rights that were not covered mentioned in the Federal Constitutions.

In the end after they had subjugated by force the 11 Southern states when finally considering the issue in a court of law the Lincoln's packed Federal court. Actually had to acknowledged the inalienable right of revolution. Still not being able to acknowledge what they had done was wrong they simply claimed the 11 southern states were somehow not engaged in a revolution.

This is the reality of politics, corrupt and dishonest politicians who will do whatever they can for power. Unless and until they are checked by other men they will get away with it.

The Right of revolution/Secession was and is the finally check the people have on such men in refusing to be governed by them.

[call_me_scar]

Washington scammed his army, owned slaves, tricked the public into fighting, and created a nation to not pay taxes he's not a good man

[FunkyMonkee]

Lincoln, he's worth more money. Washington's only on a $1.00 bill!

[LiamJHayden]

Washington. If he failed, the entire experiment would have.