Better President: Abe Lincoln or George Washington?

[Albrenia]

I voted Lincoln because of the beard.

[Farnhamia]

That's Trump.

Um.

That's wrasslin'.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

I'm surprised that Abe is beating Washington by a ton.

This
This is a pun.
And it is glorious.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°).

[Cisairse]

Lincoln

[The Archregimancy]

I know many people who are clueless on history and TRUST ME they are not fun to talk to.

Oh, the irony of anyone posting this sentence in NSG.

[Warronia]

I voted Lincoln because of the beard.

Thats a great argument

[Ethel mermania]

I know many people who are clueless on history and TRUST ME they are not fun to talk to.

Oh, the irony of anyone posting this sentence in NSG.

Of course the person who lived the history knows it better than those who just read it.


<==== runs away.

[Empirical Switzerland]

I voted Lincoln because of the beard.

Thats a great argument

Lol, I mean, he was the first bearded president.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Lincoln lead the country through the deadliest war in its history, preserved the union and helped to end slavery so he gets my vote.

[Empirical Switzerland]

I'm surprised that Abe is beating Washington by a ton.

This
This is a pun.
And it is glorious.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°).

Is it the ton part? With the whole boxing thing?

[US-SSR]

Ignoring the obvious arguments, I'd have to go with Washington. Lincoln's meddling in the running of the war was too inconsistent.

Come again? Most if not all historians agree Lincoln's conception of the war and the way it needed to be fought was superior to that of many of his generals -- the inept McClellan heading that list -- and his "meddling" nothing but positive. Now, Washington had an equal grasp of the necessities of his big war, namely avoid pitched battles, keep an army in the field and wear down the British et. al.; but if we're thinking tactician then perhaps the one who sited a fort within cannon shot of an undefended hill and within musket shot of a woods might not be our first choice. Plus he enslaved Africans. Just sayin'.

[The Two Jerseys]

Ignoring the obvious arguments, I'd have to go with Washington. Lincoln's meddling in the running of the war was too inconsistent.

Come again? Most if not all historians agree Lincoln's conception of the war and the way it needed to be fought was superior to that of many of his generals -- the inept McClellan heading that list -- and his "meddling" nothing but positive. Now, Washington had an equal grasp of the necessities of his big war, namely avoid pitched battles, keep an army in the field and wear down the British et. al.; but if we're thinking tactician then perhaps the one who sited a fort within cannon shot of an undefended hill and within musket shot of a woods might not be our first choice. Plus he enslaved Africans. Just sayin'.

Lincoln only had to fire so many generals because he put so many generals into commands that they were unsuited for in the first place. McClellan had no business commanding an army in the field, Halleck had no business commanding an army, promoting Grant to general-in-chief was probably the first decent move he made and it took until 1864 for that.

Plus he used his power to force the Navy to order the Monitor, but then didn't do the same when the Army waffled on his recommendation to buy machine guns.

[Greed and Death]

Ignoring the obvious arguments, I'd have to go with Washington. Lincoln's meddling in the running of the war was too inconsistent.

Come again? Most if not all historians agree Lincoln's conception of the war and the way it needed to be fought was superior to that of many of his generals -- the inept McClellan heading that list -- and his "meddling" nothing but positive. Now, Washington had an equal grasp of the necessities of his big war, namely avoid pitched battles, keep an army in the field and wear down the British et. al.; but if we're thinking tactician then perhaps the one who sited a fort within cannon shot of an undefended hill and within musket shot of a woods might not be our first choice. Plus he enslaved Africans. Just sayin'.

McClellan was correct and Lincoln was the inept one. McClellan realized the north's victory hinged on establishing a blockage and cutting off Southern supplies. Moreover the Southern strategy required winning large battles to break Northern resolve. In such a circumstances the best strategy would be t enforce the blockades on the sea and the Mississippi and when the south comes north to win a big battle force them to attempt it on a time and place of your choosing.

[Ethel mermania]

Come again? Most if not all historians agree Lincoln's conception of the war and the way it needed to be fought was superior to that of many of his generals -- the inept McClellan heading that list -- and his "meddling" nothing but positive. Now, Washington had an equal grasp of the necessities of his big war, namely avoid pitched battles, keep an army in the field and wear down the British et. al.; but if we're thinking tactician then perhaps the one who sited a fort within cannon shot of an undefended hill and within musket shot of a woods might not be our first choice. Plus he enslaved Africans. Just sayin'.

McClellan was correct and Lincoln was the inept one. McClellan realized the north's victory hinged on establishing a blockage and cutting off Southern supplies. Moreover the Southern strategy required winning large battles to break Northern resolve. In such a circumstances the best strategy would be t enforce the blockades on the sea and the Mississippi and when the south comes north to win a big battle force them to attempt it on a time and place of your choosing.

Psst. That was scott.

[The Black Forrest]

Since they are both dead; they are equal.

[Greed and Death]

Since they are both dead; they are equal.

So the question is always who the greatest current President is.

[The Black Forrest]

Since they are both dead; they are equal.

So the question is always who the greatest current President is.

Obviously Trump since he thinks he is Lincoln.

[US-SSR]

Come again? Most if not all historians agree Lincoln's conception of the war and the way it needed to be fought was superior to that of many of his generals -- the inept McClellan heading that list -- and his "meddling" nothing but positive. Now, Washington had an equal grasp of the necessities of his big war, namely avoid pitched battles, keep an army in the field and wear down the British et. al.; but if we're thinking tactician then perhaps the one who sited a fort within cannon shot of an undefended hill and within musket shot of a woods might not be our first choice. Plus he enslaved Africans. Just sayin'.

McClellan was correct and Lincoln was the inept one. McClellan realized the north's victory hinged on establishing a blockage and cutting off Southern supplies. Moreover the Southern strategy required winning large battles to break Northern resolve. In such a circumstances the best strategy would be t enforce the blockades on the sea and the Mississippi and when the south comes north to win a big battle force them to attempt it on a time and place of your choosing.

Thank whatever gods may be you weren't the US President during the Civil War or the outcome would have been much different.

[Ethel mermania]

McClellan was correct and Lincoln was the inept one. McClellan realized the north's victory hinged on establishing a blockage and cutting off Southern supplies. Moreover the Southern strategy required winning large battles to break Northern resolve. In such a circumstances the best strategy would be t enforce the blockades on the sea and the Mississippi and when the south comes north to win a big battle force them to attempt it on a time and place of your choosing.

Thank whatever gods may be you weren't the US President during the Civil War or the outcome would have been much different.

Why? That strategy basically worked, except there was more than one big battle. That was the basic plan, the Anaconda plan, as its creator called it, general Winifred Scott.

[Federative States of America]

Washington, Washington for sure

[Travislavania]

Washington owned slaves, and i like Abrahams beard its cool

[Inhorto]

O Captain! my Captain! our fearful trip is done,
The ship has weather’d every rack, the prize we sought is won,
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring;
But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red,
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up—for you the flag is flung—for you the bugle trills,
For you bouquets and ribbon’d wreaths—for you the shores a-crowding,
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
Here Captain! dear father!
This arm beneath your head!
It is some dream that on the deck,
You’ve fallen cold and dead.

My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still,
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will,
The ship is anchor’d safe and sound, its voyage closed and done,
From fearful trip the victor ship comes in with object won;
Exult O shores, and ring O bells!
But I with mournful tread,
Walk the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Pretty much every argument against Lincoln I’ve seen is just another jab at him for being “too tyrannical”, as though other wartime presidents didn’t do similar things and wouldn’t have done the same in a bloody civil war.

[US-SSR]

Pretty much every argument against Lincoln I’ve seen is just another jab at him for being “too tyrannical”, as though other wartime presidents didn’t do similar things and wouldn’t have done the same in a bloody civil war.

Every decision he made, from the Emancipation Proclamation to endorsing summary executions of Union deserters to unconstitutionally suspending habeas to hanging some, but not all, of the condemned participants in the Dakota Uprising, was made with the idea of preserving the Union. You can take issue with his decisions, but not with his motivations.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Pretty much every argument against Lincoln I’ve seen is just another jab at him for being “too tyrannical”, as though other wartime presidents didn’t do similar things and wouldn’t have done the same in a bloody civil war.

Every decision he made, from the Emancipation Proclamation to endorsing summary executions of Union deserters to unconstitutionally suspending habeas to hanging some, but not all, of the condemned participants in the Dakota Uprising, was made with the idea of preserving the Union. You can take issue with his decisions, but not with his motivations.

Any President would have done the same. And if people take issue with Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, let's not forget the Confederates did the exact same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_co ... onfederacy