Who was greater: Washington or Lincoln? And why?

[Aurelius]

Well?

I have a strong opinion on this. I'll post it in a day or two.

[Schiff for Senate]

Well?

I have a strong opinion on this. I'll post it in a day or two.

Let me guess: you think it’s Lincoln.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I will elaborate more late but I will say it depends on what you are asking . I would say Washington was the greater American overall but Lincoln was the greater president

[SWE]

Lincoln is one of the greatest men to serve as head of state of any nation in world history and dwarves every other US President, even one of the better ones like Washington

[Pacific Republican]

Washington didn't suspend habeus corpus.

(accidentally selected Lincoln).

[Orser67]

As a human being, I would go with Lincoln, but for impact on American history, which is the main way I decided to look at this question, I think it's Washington.

Although I think Lincoln was a great person and did a magnificent job of balancing morally correct action with the political realities of the day, ultimately I can imagine another Republican president (such as William Seward) having a fairly similar presidency.

By contrast, Washington had a 22 year run (1775 to 1797) in which he led the U.S. to independence, helped establish a working Constitution, presided over the establishment of a functioning, semi-democratic government over what had recently been little more than a confederacy of independent countries, and then established the tradition of the executive walking away after two terms. Given the difficulty presidential systems have had with executives transitioning into dictators, that last point in particular is easy to underrate. I think there's an argument to be made that Washington is not only the most impactful American, but is one of the most impactful leaders that any country has ever had.

[Fight for Trump]

Both were traitors, but Lincoln was clearly far worse.

[Alben Barkley]

Write-in: FDR

[LBJer]

Both were traitors, but Lincoln was clearly far worse.

How exactly was Lincoln a traitor?

[Alben Barkley]

Both were traitors, but Lincoln was clearly far worse.

How exactly was Lincoln a traitor?

Don't take the bait, mate.

[John Dule]

Washington didn't suspend habeus corpus.

(accidentally selected Lincoln).

Both were traitors, but Lincoln was clearly far worse.

[KaiserDave]

Lincoln is the greatest President of all time and I don't think its particularly close.

[Schiff for Senate]

Washington didn't suspend habeus corpus.

(accidentally selected Lincoln).

Both were traitors, but Lincoln was clearly far worse.

When you’re a star they let you do it.
When you’re likely a sock…they don’t.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Federalist was Conservative but in Apartheid it was liberal just like DIXIECRAT we're liberal but Conservative on Apartheid but they in the SECULAR v Tradtl divide now Lincoln was a Conservative obviously but he was a liberal on Apartheid and Judicial Review established d by CJ Marshall established Federalism over States Rights was ignored during Washington time but Affirmed with Emancipation Proclamation

I think alor of users forget how important Judicial Review not the Conservative check that outlaw abortion but liberal check on Apartheid

It's the first case in Law school is taught

During Washington time and during Jim Crow days Crts by the Dixiecrats before Public Defenders we're used to sentence Blk men to Chain Gangs criminal law that's what the DIXIECRAT felt Crts we're for Criminal Law of course Civil Law deals with Judicial Review because like in Bankruptcy Federal Law trump's state Laws
.that's how we file Bankruptcies, Federal Law trump's state commerce clause we pay our state debt

[Aurelius]

As a human being, I would go with Lincoln, but for impact on American history, which is the main way I decided to look at this question, I think it's Washington.

Although I think Lincoln was a great person and did a magnificent job of balancing morally correct action with the political realities of the day, ultimately I can imagine another Republican president (such as William Seward) having a fairly similar presidency.

By contrast, Washington had a 22 year run (1775 to 1797) in which he led the U.S. to independence, helped establish a working Constitution, presided over the establishment of a functioning, semi-democratic government over what had recently been little more than a confederacy of independent countries, and then established the tradition of the executive walking away after two terms. Given the difficulty presidential systems have had with executives transitioning into dictators, that last point in particular is easy to underrate. I think there's an argument to be made that Washington is not only the most impactful American, but is one of the most impactful leaders that any country has ever had.

I think this is unlikely. When it came down to a decision to either resupply or evacuate Fort Sumter, Lincoln polled his cabinet and the archconservative Montgomery Blair was the only one to agree with him that it should be resupplied. Seward, Chase, and Bates, the other three major contenders for the 1860 Republican nomination, were all opposed.  Furthermore, Chase and Bates would have had a very hard time keeping the loyalty of all factions of the party. Seward would have been a little better, but don't forget that he spent the early weeks of Lincoln's presidency pushing a hare-brained scheme to go to war against Mexico and invite the Confederates to fight alongside them to restore national unity.

As some have guessed, my answer is Lincoln. Washington is easily the #2 President, but he had a massive cult of personality backing every decision he made. Even then, his inability to prevent Jefferson and Hamilton from feuding was a huge drag on his administration. Lincoln survived (and used to his own advantage) a handful of intraparty political crises that could have easily sunk him. Much more importantly, his ability to unceasingly pursue both union and liberty, when large factions wanted only one or the other, was exceptional. He managed to hold Radicals and Conservatives together toward a common purpose, once he made a decision he was absolutely unshakable no matter how strong the pressure was to go back on his word, and his moral leadership was exceptional. His magnanimity was superhuman. After the way Stanton treated him in the Reaper trial, Lincoln would have been perfectly justified in never speaking to him again. Instead, when Simon Cameron needed to be booted as war secretary and the search for a replacement began, Lincoln recognized that Stanton was the best man for the job and appointed him, regardless of his past grudge.

Washington's greatness lied in his setting of a number of important precedents that were completely earth-shattering at the time. But unlike Lincoln he was not at risk of the country ceasing to exist every single day as a result of any number of mistakes. Regardless, the two of them are not just the greatest Americans, but also among the greatest men who have ever lived, and we are incredibly fortunate that they were around when they were.

I'd be interested in hearing a case for Washington in response to this.

[Orser67]

Washington's greatness lied in his setting of a number of important precedents that were completely earth-shattering at the time. But unlike Lincoln he was not at risk of the country ceasing to exist every single day as a result of any number of mistakes. Regardless, the two of them are not just the greatest Americans, but also among the greatest men who have ever lived, and we are incredibly fortunate that they were around when they were.

I strongly disagree with this part.

• The country could have fallen apart at any point from 1775 to at least 1781 as the result of battlefield defeats or political disunity, both of which Washington played a huge role in avoiding
• The country could have fallen apart in the 1780s if not for the efforts of people like Washington, Madison, and Hamilton to rewrite the Constitution
• The country could have fallen apart early in his presidency without Washington's immense prestige helping to confer legitimacy on a new federal government which passed several centralizing laws, including an absolutely essential tariff, the founding of a new capital, and various aspects of Hamilton's economic program.
• The country could have fallen apart later in his presidency if Washington had gone to war with Britain, as many Democratic-Republicans wanted. Washington and Adams jointly deserve a lot of credit for keeping us out of a potentially devastating war until 1812.
• The country could have fallen apart after Washington's presidency if he hadn't established the precedent of peacefully stepping down from office

Washington is massively underrated as a politician. He wasn't some politically inept general like Zachary Taylor who was in the right place in the right time; he was more like Eisenhower, where much of his value as a general was his ability to handle the politics. He carefully cultivated his popularity and, while he certainly wasn't without an ego, he ultimately used his popularity primarily to advance the interests in his country as he saw them.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Washington's greatness lied in his setting of a number of important precedents that were completely earth-shattering at the time. But unlike Lincoln he was not at risk of the country ceasing to exist every single day as a result of any number of mistakes. Regardless, the two of them are not just the greatest Americans, but also among the greatest men who have ever lived, and we are incredibly fortunate that they were around when they were.

I strongly disagree with this part.

• The country could have fallen apart at any point from 1775 to at least 1781 as the result of battlefield defeats or political disunity, both of which Washington played a huge role in avoiding
• The country could have fallen apart in the 1780s if not for the efforts of people like Washington, Madison, and Hamilton to rewrite the Constitution
• The country could have fallen apart early in his presidency without Washington's immense prestige helping to confer legitimacy on a new federal government which passed several centralizing laws, including an absolutely essential tariff, the founding of a new capital, and various aspects of Hamilton's economic program.
• The country could have fallen apart later in his presidency if Washington had gone to war with Britain, as many Democratic-Republicans wanted. Washington and Adams jointly deserve a lot of credit for keeping us out of a potentially devastating war until 1812.
• The country could have fallen apart after Washington's presidency if he hadn't established the precedent of peacefully stepping down from office

Washington is massively underrated as a politician. He wasn't some politically inept general like Zachary Taylor who was in the right place in the right time; he was more like Eisenhower, where much of his value as a general was his ability to handle the politics. He carefully cultivated his popularity and, while he certainly wasn't without an ego, he ultimately used his popularity primarily to advance the interests in his country as he saw them.

Yah this pretty much is why I have Washington has the Greater American overall(also him refusing to be King) but I would say Lincoln was the greater President. Reason for that is Lincoln had to deal with both a great political ,and moral crises and not only did he manage to juggle both but he managed to help our nation overcome both. Juggling both was not easy though as for example:

- If Lincoln abolished slavery in 1861 like Stevens wanted him to do, the Border States almost certainly secede and the union is lost

- Many European Powers were looking for a way to undermine the US and breaking the nation up was the best way to do that. Lincoln's handling of the Trent Affair ensured the US wouldnt have to go to war with the British which would have tilted the balance in favor of the confederacy

- The Emancipation Proclamation was perfectly timed as it helped undermine slavery but also the Confederate War effort. The Confederates used Slaves for their war efforts, and the Emancipation Proclamation did hamper this. The Proclamation also helped undermine potential European Support for the Confederate Cause as well

- His deal making did help pass the 13th amendment as well

[Senator Incitatus]

I find it impossible to compare them. It is possible to argue that Lincoln perfected the system of executive authority designed for Washington but without a peacetime record I find him ever the incomparable martyr. Both great Americans.

If I have to pick, I will give the edge to Washington for having fewer errors—chief among Lincoln's was failing to secure a stable post-presidency in the event of his death, which was not a negligible consideration.

[Schiff for Senate]

I find it impossible to compare them. It is possible to argue that Lincoln perfected the system of executive authority designed for Washington but without a peacetime record I find him ever the incomparable martyr. Both great Americans.

If I have to pick, I will give the edge to Washington for having fewer errors—chief among Lincoln's was failing to secure a stable post-presidency in the event of his death, which was not a negligible consideration.

If only Lincoln hadn’t gone and picked Andrew Johnson as his running mate in 1864…

[dead0man]

It could be argued that the Revolutionary War would not have been successful without Washington and there is no guarantee we would have won another one over the next few decades.  If there was no Lincoln, maybe the Civil War doesn't play out as it did, but slavery in the US was going to end (likely with a lot of bloodshed) at some point.

my vote is for Washington.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It could be argued that the Revolutionary War would not have been successful without Washington and there is no guarantee we would have won another one over the next few decades.  If there was no Lincoln, maybe the Civil War doesn't play out as it did, but slavery in the US was going to end (likely with a lot of bloodshed) at some point.

my vote is for Washington.

Oh I agree with this which is why I think the distinction has to be be made on what the question is . Are we judging who the greater American was cause I think in that case it’s Washington or are we judging who the greater President is cause in that case I think its Lincoln.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Lincoln sets a very high standard. Washington very narrowly passes said threshold.

[Lechasseur]

Washington

[Ferguson97]

Tough to say. Lincoln was a better president and likely a better man, but what Washington represents is far greater.

[Saint Milei]

Lincoln is a bottom 10 president. Washington is top 5.