Get rid of Lincoln!

[Rita Poon]

Picking up where Drakan left off, remember that FDR was responsible for Executive Order 9066. Not exactly a proud moment in American history. He also tried packing the Supreme Court with his cronies. If Joseph Robinson hadn't had that heart attack, the 3rd branch of gov't would merely be a rubber stamp for the president.

One of the reasons Washington is so revered is because he was offered the oppurtunity to be King of America but turned it down. Every one of Washington's sucessors embraced that tradition by voluntarily limiting themselves to serving only 2 terms. Yet FDR dug his nails in so deep that only a constitutional amendment (or a stroke) could remove him from power.

Still I think FDR is the best choice for the Americans. He's widely regarded by historians as the best President in American history. I don't agree with this assesment. But for better or worse, one must concede that FDR's imprint on the course of American history was profound.

 

[Volstag]

He did nothing to encourage or assist our expansion as a nation, nor was he particularly helpful in causing/assisting the Industrial Revolution.

I disagree. He was instrumental in getting America's railroading empire off the ground. He was a huge proponent of a transnational rail system, long before his contemporaries. He was instrumental in creating the American steel industry.

What about slavery, you ask? Again, he had nothing to do with abolishing slavery.

Emancipation Proclamation counts as nothing? Did you want him to go plantation to plantation personally freeing slaves? While the Confederacy certainly didn't honor the proclamation, thousands of slaves did walk off plantations.

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.

No matter who they choose, someone, somewhere, isn't going to like it. As far as I know, most American's generally consider Lincoln to be a good president.

-V

 

[Volstag]

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.

C'mon. It's much more complicated than that, and I would also suggest that you're (grossly) overestimating the impact of the Confederate export policy on the Union. The Union was producing anywhere from 50% - 75% of America's GDP (depending on what reference you use) during the Civil War, it had the most manufacturing centers, the most skilled laborers, the best rail network, considerable numbers of European immigrants, command of the U.S. merchant marine fleet, etc, etc, etc. Also, near the end of the war, the Union blockade on Confederate ports was becoming rather effective.

Lincoln was also one of the most unpopular presidents in history...

Not according to a April 2003 CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll (for the "best American president"). Lincoln was voted #1 (followed by JFK). Of all the polls I looked at, he didn't score any lower than 3rd place.

-V

 

[Amenhotep7]

I think Lincoln's a fine choice. Good man, great prez. However, perhaps George Washington would have been best...

 

[kevincompton]

I can't believe what I'm hearing on the civ3 forum! You people are supposed to know history and you attack lincoln with your crappy little straw man fallacy essays.

Your right in saying, whatever your name was, that the war was not about just slavery, economics and other such factors were more the issue, however it was Lincoln's emancipation proclimation that "started the war" in a "green light=go" sense. At any rate of course he something to do with freeing the slaves because he had everything to do with it! rather or not he genuinely cared about slavery vs. freedom is in question, but the fact remains that he did it. What he did care about was keeping the nation together and I dare say he did it! If you look back and see all the growing tensions and division, its amazing that this nation made it through as a whole!


The only person better than Lincoln for this game would be Reagan, God bless the man. And if it were W. Bush I'd love that as well! So vote for Nader if you disagree and go play some more liberal friendly game such as "UN 3 worthless organization expansion".

 

[dh_epic]

I say we stick with Lincoln. He is used in nearly any political speech in a way that's synonymous with justice, was involved in a monumental decision that increased equality and freedom in the Nation, and never lied or misled the American people.

Pretty much the exact opposite of Little Bush.

 

[kevincompton]

DH epic said:

I say we stick with Lincoln. He is used in nearly any political speech in a way that's synonymous with justice, was involved in a monumental decision that increased equality and freedom in the Nation, and never lied or misled the American people.

Pretty much the exact opposite of Little Bush.

When did Bush lie? And where are you from?

 

[Mewtarthio]

Emancipation Proclamation counts as nothing? Did you want him to go plantation to plantation personally freeing slaves? While the Confederacy certainly didn't honor the proclamation, thousands of slaves did walk off plantations.

Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation was one of Lincoln's war powers. It only freed Confederate slaves. True, Lincoln was instrumental in the drafting of the Thirteenth Amendment, but make sure you don't confuse the two.

 

[baseballfan45]

Gene simons would be cool

 

[Håkan Eriksson]

I would be offended if Reagan was the one...

 

[MeatWad]

But Lincoln has got some GREAT Civ banter. C'mon "That dog don't hunt, -blank-!", when proposing a deal, "Go away before I do something rural and picturesque" when peeved, he's the best.

Congratulations to all my Canadian friends! World Cup 2004 champs ! Now I'm just waiting for Ivan the terrible to come ashore and knock out our power for a couple of days . Hopefully this isn't the last you'll hear from me. Looks like Misssissippi Gulf Coast is in for the worst Where's that Natural Disaster's Thread again ?

 

[jkp1187]

Ugh...getting sucked back into this thread...nooooo......

1.) Lincoln "goaded" the south into war? As I recall, certain states petulantly seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated because they feared he was going to take their human chattel away. In essence, these states plunged the nation into war because they didn't like the way the election turned out. 150 years later, they would no doubt print up bumper stickers like "My President is John Breckinridge," and their commentators would go on "Crossfire" sneering the Lincoln had plunged the nation into war despite only getting 39% of the vote....

2.) Ah, I was wondering when the FDR Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories would start stinking up the place. FDR was not a stupid man, say what you will about his politics. THe idea that he'd be willing to START a war by LOSING the bulk of the battleships in the US Pacific Fleet is facially ridiculous. Further, a war with Japan BY NO MEANS GUARANTEED that the US would fight Hitler. That was HITLER'S choice -- he unilaterally issued a declaration of war on the US on December 11th, as I recall. If FDR's agenda was to get the US into the EUROPEAN war, why didn't he just trump up something in the Atlantic (where the US was ALREADY fighting a naval war against Germany)?

3.) I like Ike as much as the next guy, but as a US leader he just seems...well...*yawn*.....kind of.............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Since the gloves have come off for criticism, Ike kinda messed up on the whole Suez thing, I think....how much better for US security if the UK had taken out Nasser and remained engaged east of Suez....

Great military leader, though, don't get me wrong.

4.) I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that, in the strictest sense, the Americans should NOT be a civ. In fact, whenever I make a civ mod, I usually remove the Americans. I mean, I'm a red-blooded, meat-eating Joe just like the next guy, but America bopping around with the Hittites just offends my historical sensibilities. But, of course, it would be bad form for there to be no Americans.

In the meantime, how about replacing the F-15 with the B-52. I mean, everyone and their brother flies the F-15s, from the Egyptians to the Japanese. BUt only the USA flies the 52, and it more than anything is the unique--and deadly--American weapon of the modern era.

5.) Teddy Roosevelt: Nice. But if TR's the president, replace the "expansionist" trait with "militaristic".

 

[MSTK]

how about that guy franklin who make the lightbulbs

 

[MeatWad]

In the meantime, how about replacing the F-15 with the B-52. I mean, everyone and their brother flies the F-15s, from the Egyptians to the Japanese. BUt only the USA flies the 52, and it more than anything is the unique--and deadly--American weapon of the modern era.

This is a good suggestion, but IMHO it should be the B-29. Considering the UU's represent a Civ at it's peak or when it wielded awesome power, the planes responsible for carrying and dropping the atomic bomb should be the American UU. Any takers?

how about that guy franklin who make the lightbulbs

I think you mean Thomas Edison.

p.s. still here...looks like Ivan is going to terrorize Mississippi/Alabama border.

 

[jkp1187]

This is a good suggestion, but IMHO it should be the B-29. Considering the UU's represent a Civ at it's peak or when it wielded awesome power, the planes responsible for carrying and dropping the atomic bomb should be the American UU. Any takers?

Naah....no one remembers the B-29. The B-52 has been in service since the late '50s, and will be in service (per current USAF plans,) until 2030! And they were capable of destroying soooo many more cities than the B-29, too~! Besides, I'd argue that the US wielded more awesome power in 1991, not 1945....even relative to other countries.

I'm glad, though, I'm not the only one who thinks the F-15 is kinda weak.

 

[MeatWad]

Naah....no one remembers the B-29. The B-52 has been in service since the late '50s, and will be in service (per current USAF plans,) until 2030! And they were capable of destroying soooo many more cities than the B-29, too~! Besides, I'd argue that the US wielded more awesome power in 1991, not 1945....even relative to other countries.

I'm glad, though, I'm not the only one who thinks the F-15 is kinda weak.

Nobody...what? How about the Japanese? I'll bet they remember the B-29. I think the US was in a much better position in determing world affairs after the whole globe found out we had THE BOMB, especially when THEY didn't. We were still the 'Good Guys' too, none of this crap-tastic US bashing that is sooo prevelant in the world today. Iraq I and II pale in comaparison to anything accomplished in WWII. Don't ever suggest that no one remembers. No one should EVER forget....
(and on a lighter note, how can they when the War....er, I mean History Channel exists?

 

[jkp1187]

Nobody...what? How about the Japanese? I'll bet they remember the B-29. I think the US was in a much better position in determing world affairs after the whole globe found out we had THE BOMB, especially when THEY didn't. We were still the 'Good Guys' too, none of this crap-tastic US bashing that is sooo prevelant in the world today. Iraq I and II pale in comaparison to anything accomplished in WWII. Don't ever suggest that no one remembers. No one should EVER forget....
(and on a lighter note, how can they when the War....er, I mean History Channel exists?

Heh..."craptastic"....

Well, it's one thing to be the only industrial nation in the world that didn't get invaded, bombed or both and be on top...it's quite another to be comfortably ahead even after everyone's recovered. Despite the backbiting, in 1945, there was at least one nation that could and would have opposed the U.S. militarily.....and just 5 years later, the US military suffered its worst defeat ever in the retreat from the Changjin Reservoir in Korea, so perhaps that golden age only lasted 5-6 years?

ALL HAIL THE HISTORY CHANNEL.

 

[Drakan]

2.) Ah, I was wondering when the FDR Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories would start stinking up the place. FDR was not a stupid man, say what you will about his politics. The idea that he'd be willing to START a war by LOSING the bulk of the battleships in the US Pacific Fleet is facially ridiculous. Further, a war with Japan BY NO MEANS GUARANTEED that the US would fight Hitler. That was HITLER'S choice -- he unilaterally issued a declaration of war on the US on December 11th, as I recall. If FDR's agenda was to get the US into the EUROPEAN war, why didn't he just trump up something in the Atlantic (where the US was ALREADY fighting a naval war against Germany)?

I've never said or thought he was stupid. WWII navalwarfare wasn't about winning with the "bulk" of warships. It was about aircraftcarriers, they were the key unit, and that day there was none in the port. America since then learnt the lesson of WWII and projects it's power throughout the World with the help of selfpropelled nuclearpowered Aircraftcarriers. Just as in CivIII it's not about how many units you have but rather which and how many quality units you possess. I humbly suggest you read carefully regarding that "surprise" attack. These historians are called "revisionists" I would call them realpolitik.

American Foreign Policy has always been to look for some pretext to unleash its full military power no matter how petty it might be. In Spain we saw with the explosion of the USS Maine back in 1898, which was perpetrated by american hands after all (or was just an accident), but we Spaniards took the blame for it because the US wanted to get rid of Spain meddling in Cuba once and for all. The sinking of the Lusitania in WWI or any merchant ship, -cough carrying weapons and military supplies for the British as well as unaware civil passengers cough- was only a matter of time, Americans had been warned by Germans numerous times in all possible manners. Pearl Harbour, yet another excuse, albeit certainly more justifiable. Iraq War, war for Oil but let´s blame the Weapons of Mass Destruction (where are they? you mean the weapons the C.I.A. themselves gave to Sadam back in the eighties when he was an agent of theirs against Iran´s Ayatollahs?), it's a preventive War (What the..?). Vietnam with the Gulf of Kong Tin (or something spellt like that) and the speedboat incident and I could go on and on...America always looks for some excuse before entering a War so as not to look as the agressor.

And just before anyone starts calling me a raving commie or left-wing or fascist, I'm right-wing and I'm very pro-american which just doesn't mean I'm blind as to the ulterior motives that lie behind many of American War actions and Foreign Policy (or lack of). America must pursue it's own legitimate interests just as any country would, no doubt. But one must learn to see when we are faced with a "wag the dog" excuse, great film BTW.

I vote stick to Lincoln in CivIV, he was one of the greatest man to set foot on this planet, I wish we Spaniards had had such a president for ourselves, and we need it now desperately with all these nationalist movements (Basques, Catalans...) in my country which menace to tear it apart. Spain needs its own Lincoln right now !!! We just cannot live in a divided house.

 

[sealman]

But then you get back into the "Should Hitler represent the Germans?" argument. I guarantee that there is no way Firaxis is ever going to put Hitler into the game.

But do you consider the Third Reich the highpoint of the German Civilization? Topic for another discussion.

FDR's also a good choice because America really became modern America during WWII. To me, this talk of Reagan or anyone in the last 50 years is nuts; the leaders in Civ aren't really from when that civilization was most powerful, they're from when that civ became defined. That's why we have Caesar instead of Hadrian or Constantine or a dozen others, Genghis Khan instead of Kublai, Gandhi instead of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam.

Good point here and I can live with this interpretation.

It's hard to find a suitable American leader, because technically, America shouldn't be in the game... it was the result of Civil War in the British Empire... and a continuation of an ongoing dispute between Republicans & Monarchists (Republican England did exist under Oliver Cromwell in the 17th Century).

Why? Because we are an off shoot of another Civilization? America has developed its own culture since the revolution (not civil war, but that is a matter of semantics) and has contributed strongly to the world in general and deserves to be included. But again, this is a topic for another thread.

At the end of the day, Civilization video games are not an accurate portrayal of history, and they never will be. It is about building empires, yet it doesn't even have the British in it!

CIV Terms: British = English.

Also he very slily entered the US into WWII against popular will setting things up in Pearl Harbor. That was no surprise attack at all. The high-ranking military at the time, as well as President Roosevelt were fully aware they were pressing Japan, which lacks oil in it's territory, to attack the US. They had in effect stopped the fuel getting to Japan which just couldn't go without it. The japanese only had enough oil reserves to keep them going for 12 months or so. So the attack was only a matter of time, and the politicians and military knew this very well.

This is a load of fertilizer. No American president would ever sacrafice fellow Americans in order to enter a foreign war. Yes there were indications that the Japanese were up to something and there is a lot of evidence that shows the Japanese attack was detected before hand but ignored. But it is easy to read the signs after the fact. This is like saying that Bush allowed the terrorists to crash into the World Trade Center so that he could attack Afganistan and Iraq.

There is also strong evidence to show that FDR wanted to enter into a war in Europe but could not do so openly because of public opinion. But there is no indication that he wanted to go to war in the Pacific. American Foreign Policy at that time was very Euro-Centric and we would never have fought a war in Asia without some strong reasons. Even after Pearl Harbor, the US focus was still against Germany, since Hitler declared war on the US - not the other way around. I would wager that the United States would have declared war on Germany since the Japanese also attacked British holdings in the Pacific theatre but I do not think that there was enough popular support to declare war against Germany and Italy if the Japanese did not also attack the English.

Back to King Arthur. While there is evidence that there was a British ruler named Arthur way back when, he wasn't responsible for making Britain/England the major world culture it was in the 17th through 19th centuries.

I thought the evidence was showing that Aruthur was a Celtic Chiefton on the North side of Adrian's wall.

When did Bush lie? And where are you from?

He is a politician - they all lie. Just to quote two Bushes
George.H.W.Bush - "No New Taxes.
George.W.Bush - "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"
note: this is no way showing my support or lack thereof to the current and former Presidents of the US. Those discusions can wait to a different thread.

 

[Red Ant]

This is a good suggestion, but IMHO it should be the B-29. Considering the UU's represent a Civ at it's peak or when it wielded awesome power, the planes responsible for carrying and dropping the atomic bomb should be the American UU. Any takers?

IMO a super carrier would be the perfect UU for the US. CVBG's represent American power more than anything else (maybe make them able to carry 8 air units instead of four and add some other nice gimmicks ... detection radius of 4 squares or something).