Get rid of Lincoln!

[tmarcl]

I'm all for keeping the Americans in the game. Yes, we're a very young civilization, but the amount of impact we've had globally in the last 230 years is quite undeniable. My only thing is, Lincoln is the worst choice possible (imo) to represent us as our 'Greatest Leader'.

Why? Simply put, he didn't do anything. Yes, he led the U.S. in the Civil War, but other than that, he had no major impact on U.S. culture-especially if you take into account our supposed traits (Expansionist/Industrious). He did nothing to encourage or assist our expansion as a nation, nor was he particularly helpful in causing/assisting the Industrial Revolution.

What about slavery, you ask? Again, he had nothing to do with abolishing slavery. The Civil War was fought over whether or not a state could secede from the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation was really just a propaganda piece to give the war a moral cause, as opposed to just a political one. If you read it, you realize that it doesn't free any one (it emancipates only those slaves who live in the South. It does nothing for those in the North, and if the South had won the war, it wouldn't have affected them, either).

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about American history to give a better choice. Teddy Roosevelt comes to mind, but I'm not sure how much he did for expansion or our industriousness. If anyone else can think of someone, I'd appreciate it, or if they've a better argument for Lincoln remaining.

 

[painkiller]

I think Ron Jeremy would be a perfect choice. He is VERY famous here in Sweden. Other choices could be P Diddy, Jenna Jameson, Gene Simmons from KISS... They have all had major impacts on US culture.

 

[Yuri2356]

I'd say FDR was Americas finest leader. I'm not sure what hi did politicaly., but he did mobilize the nation and put it on the path to becoming the super-power it is today.

 

[The Omega]

I've got it! George W. Bush!
*notices people are looking at him strangely*
What? It's not like I said anythign weird......

 

[Keirador]

I cant believe I never suggested this on the forum before. I've written dissertations attacking Lincoln as a historical figure. His place in history is entirely undeserved! Not only did he not free the slaves, as was previously pointed out, but he started the Civil War! He goaded the South into war because he didn't like the South's new trading policies; which were favoring Europe to the severe disadvantage of the North. The North needed the raw materials the Southern plantations produced, and was willing to go to war to secure them. Lincoln was also one of the most unpopular presidents in history, and there is some controversy as to whether or not he fairly won the election against Douglas.

So, other choices. I agree that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was our greatest president, pulling the country out of the Depression and winning War World II, however, the best choice is still probably George Washington. His impact on our history shouldn't have to be explained to anyone, and he has the pure mythic fame to be called a Great Leader. FDR is relatively too young to carry the same oomph as George Washington.

 

[KabeDerlin]

This whole leader business is not important to Civ4 and never will be important to Civ4 so why do we keep coming back to it? Leaders can be easily modded.

 

[jkp1187]

Whatever. Without Lincoln there would be no United States today. There are very few Presidents of whom that could be said. I don't think this is the appropiate venue in which to debate the issue, but suffice it to say that Lincoln was an avowed abolitionist, and whatever compromises and political dodges he might have found necessary as a politician (which--gasp!--he WAS!) he found a way to accomplish his personal political agenda (abolishing slavery) WHILE saving the nation.

As good as FDR was (and I DO believe he was great,) Lincoln's accomplishments were greater. Despite the rhetoric and the attack on Hawaii/Alaska, the physical security of the continental US was never really at stake. Neither Germany nor Japan could have invaded in any reasonable period of time. (Which is not to say that things WOULDN'T have been bad for the US had they won....it likely would've been a Cold War against the Axis -- with the US in a weak position, isolated in the western hemisphere) But Lincoln SAVED THE NATION. Don't forget that.

That being said....I agree with the previous poster. The leaders really affect nothing. If you don't like it, alter the text/picture.

 

[KabeDerlin]

For the record I agree with Lincoln. He was deffinatly one of the best Presidents we have had.

 

[dh_epic]

From what I've read on history, it seems as though Lincoln was an ordinary president in extraordinary times. It's kind of hard to seperate the man from the times -- decisions that seem obvious are credited to one man, even though we say to ourselves "man, wouldn't anyone have done the same thing?"

Lincoln did have some leadership qualities. "A nation divided against itself cannot stand." Maybe that's all you really need to be a Civ leader, someone who made people care.

Still, I can't think of anyone who would be any less overrated, or any less partisan. It's hard to pick a figure who represents the best of America, as opposed to the best of half of America.

 

[Trump]

Two words:

BILL CLINTON

I mean come on. World's most powerful office AND a hummer @ work? Can't be beat...

 

[Perfection]

I'm sorry but Lincoln was an awesome president.

First off, he made the keen observation that the U.S. could not exist seperately for the following reasons (and more):
North/South bickering over control of the Mississippi
Much lowered ability to protect nation from foriegn threats
How to deal with slaves escaping to the North
The precedent for further fragmentation

He knew he had to goad the south to strike first and not to make it initially about slavery so that the south look like the agressors allowing the Union to maintain control of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri.

He then knew after the first major Union victory that he could use slavery as a rallying factor and so announced it.

The fact is Lincoln kicked ass.

 

[douche_bag]

just get rid of america make them the cherokee or something

 

[croxis]

Lincon has been there sence civ ii (and probably civ i hehe). For the sake of tradition keep the poor fellow

 

[thestonesfan]

Lincoln did nothing? Are you all on crack?!?

Oh, he only led our country through the greatest crisis we could ever have been in. Sorry folks, Bobby Lee was a greater threat to the USA than Germany and Japan combined. Lincoln weathered the war to the bitter end, and handled nearly every aspect of it better than I think most men would have. No, he wasn't perfect, but he was human.

He was the right man at the right time.

Not that Washington would be a bad choice, but I would stick with Lincoln. The best argument against Lincoln is that the USA was still a relatively minor player on the global scene. Certainly not anything like it is today.

I personally think Eisenhower would be best representative of the United States and it's current place in the world. Him or Reagan, but Reagan tends to polarize people. Everybody likes Ike.

 

[sealman]

From what I've read on history, it seems as though Lincoln was an ordinary president in extraordinary times. It's kind of hard to seperate the man from the times -- decisions that seem obvious are credited to one man, even though we say to ourselves "man, wouldn't anyone have done the same thing?"

An ordinary many who does not falter during extraordinary times is indeed a great man.

Lincoln is a fine choice to represent the American Civ. However, it is not in steep with the UU. Both the leader and the UU should represent the time when a civ is at a high point in its civilization. The Civil War was not that point so under those circumstances, Lincoln should not be chosen. The same could be said of George Washington.

America's UU, the F-15 represents the modern times where America's military might is almost unmatched. Therefore, the leader should be a Modern Day president. FDR would be a good choice, but he is not quite modern enough to go with the jet fighter. After that, the two best choices would Kennedy or Reagan. My vote would go to Ronnie.

However I do agree with KabeDerlin who said

This whole leader business is not important to Civ4 and never will be important to Civ4 so why do we keep coming back to it? Leaders can be easily modded.

 

[sealman]

...

I personally think Eisenhower would be best representative of the United States and it's current place in the world. Him or Reagan, but Reagan tends to polarize people. Everybody likes Ike.

"I Like Ike"

How could I have forgotten Ike

 

[thestonesfan]

I kind of lean towards Reagan, because he's such an iconic figure(unlike Eisenhower), and he really fits with the Modern era, which in the game, is supposed to be America's time to shine.

It would be controversial, but hey, controversy never killed anybody! And he would sure be a better choice for a leader than Joan of Arc or Ghandi!

 

[sabo]

I'm surprised they didn't pick George Washington, our founding father and first president. The country wanted to elect him King but George turned it down and instead he said he would be president, so he started this country on a road to democracy and not monarchy. He was also General of the continental Army. Who would have been a better choice than old George? And since his teeth were all rotting out Atari could make him just as ugly as all the rest of the civ leaders...

PS.. and a Green Beret or SEAL should be the american UU

 

[thestonesfan]

Washington was a great man also, but too early in US history, I think.

Why not have the Stealth Bomber be the UU?

 

[sabo]

Washington was a great man also, but too early in US history, I think.

Yes and no stones fan, America was discovered in 1492 and Washington didn't come into the picture for another 300 years, and it hasn't even been 300 years since 1776 granted, the US was a British colony for the first 300 years but the US was still known to be here