In your opinion who was the better president Washington or Lincoln and why? : askhistorians

[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Washington. He helped win the Revolutionary War and freed the colonies from British rule. He had the brilliant idea of not wearing red on the battlefield. He basically founded the system later presidents benefited from.

That said, I’m not sure the man himself ever lived up to the legends about him.

Lincoln is credited for winning the Civil War and reuniting the States. Also freeing the slaves. He’s also quoted as saying he doesn’t care about the slaves, he just wants to put the Confederacy down.

Still, I think I’d rather meet Lincoln. I have a feeling he’d be kind of an asshole. So he’d take a joke better. Washington would probably have a beer with you, too, but Lincoln would take shots with you, chase them with beer, grab his rifle, go kill something, grill it, and share with you. All speculation. He just seems the cooler dude.

But as far as who was better as a president? I think it’s Washington, and I don’t think it’s close.

[–] Bahnd@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He had the brilliant idea of not wearing red on the battlefield.

This one touches on one of the fun historical factoids around warfare around then. Smokeless powder was not invented until the late 1800s, as soon as the first volly was fired, noone could see a damn thing. The british redcoat uniform was a dual purpous. It was the cheapest color to identify your side with, and it being bright helped prevent friendly fire.

[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

And to the colonists, it made them easier to spot. I confess, I was not aware of the smokeless powder thing, but once the smoke clears, red would stand out. If you coloured your uniforms more like the foliage around you, you would be harder to spot under less than ideal conditions.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This seems to be teetering on the idea that the British forces were completely befuddled by the idea of skirmish tactics. Roger's Rangers were an example of a well established and valued scout unit under the Crown's command through the French & Indian War and revived during the Revolution. The British were well aware of the capabilities.

Conventional line infantry played a completely different role than scout units, and for the time and tactics, camouflage was less valuable than clear uniformity. On a battlefield between standing armies using slow loading muskets, military units worked as a whole and camouflage didn't play a large role.

For the Americans, the short version is that while hit and run tactics played a part, the real turning point of the war for the military was the support of France, and for a specific example Baron von Steuben's training of US troops. The US military didn't win through irregular tactics overcoming the British military, but through transforming into a standing military that fought from a similar handbook as the British.

[–] Bahnd@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Thats the thing, they were not ideal conditions.

You could see a few dozen yards tops while choking on gunsmoke as 50 guys all fired at the same time. Muskets were cartoonishly inaccurate, they had ~30% chance of the bullet rattling around in the barrel and landing in the dirt if you were aiming for something 30 yards out (provided you could see it, and quickly ID whos side that formation was on). To compensate for that, volley fire was the most effective means doing reliable damage to the opposing army.

The tactics at the time were just developing past the need for pikes and long pointy sticks. Napoleon and the US civil war did the same things, but that was after rifling was invented and bullets usually when where you pointed the loud end of the gun. They were still 150 years out from WWI and thats when, IMO, formality was fully phased out for practicality.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

That's tough. I think if we're looking at it in terms of effects, Washington was the better president for the republican precedents he established, preventing the US from immediately turning into a republican dictatorship like many prior revolutions had turned out. Not every man has the strength to give up power, especially when he's wildly popular and praised (and Washington, despite displays of modesty and occasional desire for goddamn privacy, legitimately enjoyed the popularity and praise).

If we're looking at it in terms of ideals or what they actively worked towards during their presidency, I'd give the edge to Lincoln. While 'Honest Abe' is a bald-faced lie, as Lincoln was a shrewd political operator, it is exactly that flexibility which allowed him to adapt to changing circumstances and prepare progressive initiatives even before the public was ready to receive them. Plans are worthless but planning is invaluable, and all that. Lincoln was certainly not perfect by modern moral standards, but he was at the cutting edge of American progress, speaking by a national (Northern) average. As Marx called Lincoln, "The single-minded son of the working class"!

[–] Lembot_0006@programming.dev 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Washington was fighting for freedom while Lincoln was a classic imperialist.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Washington was fighting for freedom

Washington had over 300 enslaved people at Mount Vernon

Lincoln was a classic imperialist.

I assume you’re referencing his policies towards western expansion? I don’t see how that was meaningfully different from Washington’s views as he also wanted the US to move west. Settlers being denied access to the land past the Appalachian mountains was a significant contributing factor to the revolutionary war.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

I assume you’re referencing his policies towards western expansion? I don’t see how that was meaningfully different from Washington’s views as he also wanted the US to move west.

Both Washington and Lincoln were comparative moderates on the issue, for that matter. Washington was an advocate for integrating Native Americans as citizens (which is paternalistic, but better than the land theft and ethnic cleansing which would come); Lincoln was an advocate for reform of treatment of Native Americans, but was busy with the US Civil War and had little opportunity to exercise any independent policy on the matter.

Settlers being denied access to the land past the Appalachian mountains was a significant contributing factor to the revolutionary war.

tbf, even pro-Independence figures of the time considered the prohibition not much more than a temporary PR measure from the Brits. The nominal prohibition wasn't a major factor, though the American interest in spreading westward was always very... prominent.

[–] Lembot_0006@programming.dev 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Washington: Freedom from metropoly. Not personal freedom. You can't expect much from those times.

Lincoln: I reference the civil war. Lincoln's method of resolving the situation was classical imperialism.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

So "war of northern aggression" for you, then?

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I find it hard to accept the argument that Lincoln was acting imperialistically when there were millions of enslaved people, not to mention women, without any say in the decision to succeed from the Union.

[–] Lembot_0006@programming.dev -1 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Slavery looks no more than just an excuse. "Bad local laws" in the neighbourhood should never be a reason for annexation.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Only if "bad federal laws" (re: laws that don't allow us to benefit from the subjugation of an entire people) aren't a good reason for secession.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

“Bad local laws” in the neighbourhood should never be a reason for annexation.

Uh, I didn't realize you were an advocate for a wealthy minority holding secession votes at gunpoint.

[–] Lembot_0006@programming.dev -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Gunpoint, huh? As you say...

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

Yes, particularly in Virginia, where armed Confederate soldiers 'monitored' the vote, in addition to out-of-state Confederate soldiers casting votes in the election.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

The north didn’t force South Carolina to fire at Fort Sumter. I find your hand waiving away the evil that was chattel slavery to be weird and gross, too.

AskHistorians