DCUM Vote: Greatest American of All Time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked at all the posters mentioning Mr. Rogers. He’s a tv character. You can’t remotely compare him to FDR, Harriet Tubman, and Lincoln. He also gave me the creeps. I wouldn’t be surprised if his name comes up in the Epstein files.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGrEKHPSO91/

Agreed. He's gross.

Mr. Rogers? You're trolling or mental.

[Anonymous]

Malcom X

[Anonymous]

MLK

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lot's of great ones here, except Teddy Roosevelt and the bot troll from this morning.

I think for the finalists, in addition to Lincoln, FDR, MLK, Mr Rogers, Harriet Tubman, we could add Jane Addams and Eleanor Roosevelt. And maybe not overall but of our time, John Lewis.

I think Japanese internment & the continuation of Mexican repatriation which included 40-60 percent American citizens despite its less violent nature plus the choice to develop the nuclear bomb is too great a horrific mark on far's legacy. politicians are all dirty and nasty in oneway or other, his personal character also left a lot to be desired.

my vote: tubman, Frederick douglass, jane Addams, mr rogers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lincoln gets way too much credit. He happened to be the President at a time when inevitable change was happening. He arguably caused the war itself, or made it more costly. The emancipation proclamation was a military tactic. Slavery was going to end regardless.

Harriet Tubman is the better answer here.

There's always someone who wants to make this argument but it's hard to justify. If you spend enough time reading Lincoln's speeches, the run up to the Civil War, the aftermath, it's hard to see another person at the time who could have done what Lincoln did. The war was horrendous but it was not started by Lincoln, it was started by Lincoln's staunch no more spread of slavery position that caused the South to abandon all pretenses at principals along with irrational paranoia. The argument that slavery was going to die out anyway is laughable to anyone aware of the mood and beliefs of 1860, which followed several decades of widespread spread of slavery and the slave based cotton economy. Slavery in 1860 would have seemed more permanent than in 1810. The moral values espoused by Lincoln were at the heart of what America was supposed to mean, more than just a political state. His argument won, and the US we have today is because of it.

Lincoln also showed a remarkable growth during the war years in his attitude towards not just slavery but racial issues. His deep conviction in the core promise of the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equally, no exceptions, no carve outs, is what triumphed, and that is why he remains the greatest American.

It's a tangent but industrialization would have greatly reduced the number of slaves needed for relatively un- or low-skilled field work. At that point, chattel slavery would likely have evolved into migrant workers or share croppers.

why?? the share cropping system evolved to maintain slavery... of slavery had never been abolished there was absolutely no reason for it to go away--- it is very profitable, hence we have more enslaved people NOW than we did then despite it being very difficult to hold humans in bondage today but the profits make it worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lincoln gets way too much credit. He happened to be the President at a time when inevitable change was happening. He arguably caused the war itself, or made it more costly. The emancipation proclamation was a military tactic. Slavery was going to end regardless.

Harriet Tubman is the better answer here.

There's always someone who wants to make this argument but it's hard to justify. If you spend enough time reading Lincoln's speeches, the run up to the Civil War, the aftermath, it's hard to see another person at the time who could have done what Lincoln did. The war was horrendous but it was not started by Lincoln, it was started by Lincoln's staunch no more spread of slavery position that caused the South to abandon all pretenses at principals along with irrational paranoia. The argument that slavery was going to die out anyway is laughable to anyone aware of the mood and beliefs of 1860, which followed several decades of widespread spread of slavery and the slave based cotton economy. Slavery in 1860 would have seemed more permanent than in 1810. The moral values espoused by Lincoln were at the heart of what America was supposed to mean, more than just a political state. His argument won, and the US we have today is because of it.

Lincoln also showed a remarkable growth during the war years in his attitude towards not just slavery but racial issues. His deep conviction in the core promise of the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equally, no exceptions, no carve outs, is what triumphed, and that is why he remains the greatest American.

It's a tangent but industrialization would have greatly reduced the number of slaves needed for relatively un- or low-skilled field work. At that point, chattel slavery would likely have evolved into migrant workers or share croppers.

why?? the share cropping system evolved to maintain slavery... of slavery had never been abolished there was absolutely no reason for it to go away--- it is very profitable, hence we have more enslaved people NOW than we did then despite it being very difficult to hold humans in bondage today but the profits make it worth it.

The PP's claim about industrialization ending slavery also ignores that previous industrial leaps like the cotton gin accelerated and entrenched slavery (despite Eli Whitney's hope that it would mitigate it). The existing evidence we have is the exact opposite.

Societies that were similarly economically dependent on slavery (Rome) or forced labor never had slavery end peacefully, slavery was disrupted by the end of the civilization or extreme shocks like the plague killing half of everyone.

[Anonymous]

I pick my Husband.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lincoln gets way too much credit. He happened to be the President at a time when inevitable change was happening. He arguably caused the war itself, or made it more costly. The emancipation proclamation was a military tactic. Slavery was going to end regardless.

Harriet Tubman is the better answer here.

There's always someone who wants to make this argument but it's hard to justify. If you spend enough time reading Lincoln's speeches, the run up to the Civil War, the aftermath, it's hard to see another person at the time who could have done what Lincoln did. The war was horrendous but it was not started by Lincoln, it was started by Lincoln's staunch no more spread of slavery position that caused the South to abandon all pretenses at principals along with irrational paranoia. The argument that slavery was going to die out anyway is laughable to anyone aware of the mood and beliefs of 1860, which followed several decades of widespread spread of slavery and the slave based cotton economy. Slavery in 1860 would have seemed more permanent than in 1810. The moral values espoused by Lincoln were at the heart of what America was supposed to mean, more than just a political state. His argument won, and the US we have today is because of it.

Lincoln also showed a remarkable growth during the war years in his attitude towards not just slavery but racial issues. His deep conviction in the core promise of the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equally, no exceptions, no carve outs, is what triumphed, and that is why he remains the greatest American.

It's a tangent but industrialization would have greatly reduced the number of slaves needed for relatively un- or low-skilled field work. At that point, chattel slavery would likely have evolved into migrant workers or share croppers.

why?? the share cropping system evolved to maintain slavery... of slavery had never been abolished there was absolutely no reason for it to go away--- it is very profitable, hence we have more enslaved people NOW than we did then despite it being very difficult to hold humans in bondage today but the profits make it worth it.

The PP's claim about industrialization ending slavery also ignores that previous industrial leaps like the cotton gin accelerated and entrenched slavery (despite Eli Whitney's hope that it would mitigate it). The existing evidence we have is the exact opposite.

Societies that were similarly economically dependent on slavery (Rome) or forced labor never had slavery end peacefully, slavery was disrupted by the end of the civilization or extreme shocks like the plague killing half of everyone.

Share cropping and migrant workers replaced full time slaves with economic slaves that the land owner didn't have to pay for all year. With mechanization, you only need help in the fields a couple times a year.

The cotton gin created increased demand for cotton that could not be sustained by slave labor. Industrialization was on the path to eliminate large scale work forces in the fields because you couldn't meet the demand with a human labor force economically. So, yes, admittedly a short term increase on demand, but completely unsustainable without switching to mechanization.

As for historical slavery, it has been with us since the dawn of civilization. It has never ended.

[Anonymous]

Charlie Kirk, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lot's of great ones here, except Teddy Roosevelt and the bot troll from this morning.

I think for the finalists, in addition to Lincoln, FDR, MLK, Mr Rogers, Harriet Tubman, we could add Jane Addams and Eleanor Roosevelt. And maybe not overall but of our time, John Lewis.

I think Japanese internment & the continuation of Mexican repatriation which included 40-60 percent American citizens despite its less violent nature plus the choice to develop the nuclear bomb is too great a horrific mark on far's legacy. politicians are all dirty and nasty in oneway or other, his personal character also left a lot to be desired.

my vote: tubman, Frederick douglass, jane Addams, mr rogers.

FDR gets a lot of love for the CCC, government sponsored socialism.

[Anonymous]

My Cat: Major Meowsers.

[Anonymous]

Grace Abbott

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you want to specify greatest USA citizen or are we going broader American (Canada, central, south, etc)?
If USA only?
Mister Fred Rogers. No contest.

Canadiens etc are not Americans. Just fyi for those of you who had a hard time in school.

You did your own research? lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ray Kroc or Sydney Sweeney

+1 to Sydney Sweeney

[Anonymous]

Tubman with Lincoln as a close runner up. He rose to the occasion. She created it.

I would say Washington but being an enslaver negates that.