In 1996, historians classified Ronald Reagan as a "low average" president, listing the 40th commander in chief in the bottom half of their rankings. Americans disagree. Millions of Americans participated in the Discovery Channel's Greatest American program, selecting Ronald Reagan for the honor over Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion between those writing the history books and those reading the history books.

I am a Reagan fan, but we aren't the people to place Reagan in a historical context. Those people are anywhere from 5 years old to won't be born for twenty years from now. Anytime a poll is taken about Americans or athletes our choices reflect a huge bias regarding people whose careers we lived through. You might as well ask who is the best dad: mine was, of course!

George Papadopolous was better than my dad.

Dennis Rader was a better father than mine.

Ronnie was a swell guy, and a good president, but to rank him the greatest American of all time is absurd. He shouldn't even crack the top 10.

Perhaps he's the greatest 20th-century American, but that all depends on the definition of greatness: political, literary, intellectual, etc. He's certainly got some laudable political accomplishments; but he's also got O'Conner and Kennedy around his neck. Those two mistakes may be more significant than anything else. For me, at least, I'd trade a good deal of his other achievments for two more Scalia's.

As one who occasionally reads a history book, with reference to Ronald Reagan may I suggest, "Firewall" by Judge Lawrence E. Walsh. There we find that "In 1986, President Reagan authorized the CIA to sell arms directly to Iran." Later that year the deal blew up in the Lebanese press and the White House was hard pressed to protect the President from disgrace and very possible impeachment.

Ronald Reagan??? The ACTOR????

Would have to go with GW on this one.

So Brad, you think that the ten greatest Americans were all 18-19th century figures? Assuming that we are counting only public figures (To paraphrase Kierkegaard, if the greatest man alive passed us on the street we wouldn't be able to tell), I don't see how you could be right.

GW (the real one) indeed.

"So Brad, you think that the ten greatest Americans were all 18-19th century figures?"

Indeed. And were I to confine my statement to just the Founders, it would remain true. It's not even worth arguing, it's so obvious.

Your quote from Soren, however, illustrates my point about defining greatness.

My vote was for esteemed muckracking journalist Clark Kent. His commitment to truth in journalism is impeccable. Strange, though, how he is never around when Superman is here...

Come son of Jor-El, kneel before Zod!

Ronald Reagan had good instincts, a skilled orator, and probably did less harm than most presidents in the 20th century, but to consider him the greatest American is absurd. The reason why people from the founding generation are "greater" than politicians this century is that they faced much greater challenges, put much more on the line, and were instrumental in creating this nation. Also, while Reagan was smarter than most people gave him credit, I don't think anyone in their right mind would think he held a torch to Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, or Jefferson-- or for that Matter Jefferson Davis or John C. Calhoun.

I also really need to question why the greatest American needs to be a politician. Out of the 25 on the list, I'd consider Thomas Edison and Henry Ford to be the greatest. They did more to make this country great than all the politicians in history combined

Pat Buchanan. A great American.

Marcus,

I need to hear the case for how he who thought the holding of slaves in 1860 was more important than the dissolution of the union was a great American.

I really didn't make that point to argue the virtues of Southern Secession. My point was that anyone who's read even excerpts of Jefferson's Davis' Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government or any of John C. Calhoun's works will acknowledge that they were brilliant thinkers who put their ideas into practice. The best we can say about Reagan is that he was a thoughtful person who was more intelligent than the media gave him credit, but I seriously doubt that anyone would claim his intellect was anywhere near that of Franklin, Jefferson, Calhoun, Davis, Hamilton, Madison, and for the sake of balance Webster. Similarly, while he may have made a few good jokes, no person would claim his oratory abilities matched Lincoln or Clay. It should also be added that all of these men wrote their own speeches as well.

Furthermore, Jefferson Davis put everything on the line for the beliefs that he himself formulated and put into practice, and I'm sure Calhoun would have too had he lived 10 more years.

My simple point is that the people of the Revolution, as well as the Southerners during the Civil War were brilliant men put everything on the line for a cause they believed in (both of which, IMO, were just, but that's really not the issue.) Ronald Reagan, for example, explicitly admitted in letters that he thought the King Holiday was a bad idea, but signed it because he was afraid he'd get a negative editorial in the NY Times, and I'm sure he did that with at least dozens of other pieces of legislation. This is why I don't think it's completely fair to say that modern politicians really do not hold a candle to statesmen of old.

I do think the South had the right to secede, but even if I did not, I would still find Calhoun, Robert E. Lee, and Jefferson Davis to be great Americans, as most Americans did 50 years ago.

If you really want to argue that point, don't think I have any particularly profound things to add, so I'd rather refer you to some other writers who have articulated the points better than I can. Besides the works by Davis and Calhoun that I already mentioned, I'd suggest Charles Adams' When in the Course of Human Events, Ludwell Johnson's North against South, Jeffery Roger Hummel's Emancipating the Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, and Thomas Woods' Politically Incorrect Guide to US History. If you do not feel like reading an entire book, there are a number of articles availible at the LRC Lincoln Archive (though will say that I think a few of them are a bit over the top) at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html I also highly reccomend the work of the the abbeville institute at www.abbevileinstitute.org

Marcus,
I think the south did have a right to secede. That they would choose to do so out of fear that burgeoning non-slave states would eventually put an end to slavery is nothing to be proud of. They were bold and brilliant, but served a legalistic immoral cause. The notion of slavery undercut the ideal of a free America for a terribly long time, and I find it hard to view slavery's final supporters as somehow supporting America.

Webster, have I told you lately that I love you? Great post.

Brad: Off topic -- why not Thomas? He seems more consistently constructionist than Scalia, who voted to overrule states recently in the medical marijuana case.

Admittedly being smart and supporting a dangerous cause does not make one great. (Hitler and Trotsky were both intelligent and died for what they believed in.) While I acknowledge that slavery contributed to the South's decision to secede, I think there were many other causes, and there was much more that the peculiar institution at stake, and for that reason I have no problem considering Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and John C Calhoun as among the greatest americans in history.

Even if you do not agree with me, I would hope that we can both agree that being courageous and brilliant is at least a necessary quality for someone (at least a politician) to be the "greatest American ever." ruling out people like Bush and Reagan.

Ben,

I think Thomas is a great judge as well, but he is a Bush appointee. Because we were talking about Reagan, I went with the only conservative he put on the bench (in three tries), Scalia.

Marcus,

Why does one have to be brilliant to be great? I don't care how developed a man's intellect is -- if he supports an evil institution, as Calhoun vociferously did (and as the founders did not, even though they owned slaves themselves) -- he is not great. Although I don't think he is the "greatest American", Reagan was courageous and certainly more prescient than most of the supposedly "brilliant" intellectuals at the time.

Brad,

Sorry, I should've guessed that.

-ben

Ronald Reagan was indeed one of the greatest Americans, though I probablly wouldn't say he was THE GREATEST American.

"I think the south did have a right to secede. That they would choose to do so out of fear that burgeoning non-slave states would eventually put an end to slavery is nothing to be proud of."

I cannot let this statement go unchallenged.

Even though the so-called "leader" of this "burgeoning" anti-slavery movement, Abraham Lincoln, pledged his heartfelt support for a Constitutional amendment that would have forever forbidden the federal government from interfering with Southern slavery calling for it to be made "express and irrevocable" in his First Inaugural Adress in March 1861 (a full month before Ft. Sumter). Lincoln's party helped pass this first Thirteenth Amendment through Congress before the President's home state of Illinois voted to ratify it along with Republican Ohio. What then, as far as the protection of slavery is concerned, did the Southern states have to "fear" when the Confederacy fired on Sumter?

Why go to war to protect an institution more secure in the Union than out of it? Why go to war to "save slavery" when the newly elected President of the United States diligently shilled for a Constitutional Amendment that would have protected it forever (remember: "irrevocable")?

As for the rankings, aside from the fact that Lincoln and MLK do not belong anywhere near the top five, where are the engineers? Franklin certainly did some engineering and Marcus rightly cites Thomas Edison, but why isn't more recognition given to their accomplishments? Amazing how a man who launches and prosecutes a war that kills over 600,000 young men, maims thousands more, slaughters tens of thousands of innocent noncombatants, and brings the advent of "total war" in America ranks higher than someone like Jonas Salk or Alexander Graham Bell.

Also, what his Harry S. Truman doing anywhere near this list?

Why is it, James, that you Confederate apologists complain on one hand that Lincoln was too ruthless against the slave states, but on the other, that he was too protective? Is it that you're trying to reveal to the world that politicians sometimes make strategic, political decisions and are not entirely consistent? I applaud your efforts in bringing to light this little known fact of life.

But more to the point: are you actually suggesting that the South did not secede from the Union in order to protect slavery? You're simply wrong. I can't say it anywhere near as well as Thomas Sowell can, so I'll re-paste this excerpt from an essay in his new book.

"The Civil War that grew out of tensions over slavery was the bloodiest war ever fought in the Western Hemisphere and cost more American lives than any other war in the country's history. Whether or not those fighting on either side thought of their battles as being over slavery, as distinguished from secession, without slavery there would have been no secession and no Civil War. The states that first seceded were states where slaves were the highest percentage of the population. Contemporary words and deeds by the leaders of the Confederacy made unmistakably clear that slavery was at the heart of their secession and at the heart of the constitution that they established for their own new government. In later times, as slavery became ever more repugnant to people throughout Western civilization and even beyond, apologists for the South would stress other factors. But the real question is what factor moved Southern leaders when the fateful decision was made to secede -- and that was 'unashamedly,' as a Civil War historian put it, slavery." (pg. 154 of "Black Rednecks and White Liberals")

"Why is it, James, that you Confederate apologists complain on one hand that Lincoln was too ruthless against the slave states, but on the other, that he was too protective?"

The "ruthlessness" I denounced above dealt specifically with Abraham Lincoln's documented complicity in war crimes - the bombing of defenseless cities, Sherman's March to and from Sea, Sheridan's exploits, the wanton destruction of priave property. Why a man who countenanced such things is considered "great" is beyond me.

Further, I cite Lincoln's documented support for the Corwin Amendment to undermine the ahistorical "war for slavery" propaganda propagated by this particular program ("The Greatest American") and the conventional wisdom in general.

"Is it that you're trying to reveal to the world that politicians sometimes make strategic, political decisions and are not entirely consistent? I applaud your efforts in bringing to light this little known fact of life."

You know very well Lincoln isn't considered to be just a "politician." He is an American icon and a sacred cow who has been immortalized in Washington, sitting in a marble temple suited for a Greek god.

As for your claims about "strategic" decisions - is that you Professor Jaffa?:) Let me get this straight: Lincoln and his party supported a Constitutional Amendment forever forbidding federal interference with Southern slavery because they wanted to abolish Southern slavery! And Abraham Lincoln supported the Illinois Constitution and its provision that free blacks be forbidden from settling in the state because he was a champion of racial equality!

Interesting how you're willing to applying this Straussian logic to Lincoln's words, but not someone like Calhoun. Seriously, using Straussian hermeneutics, why couldn't Calhoun's statements in support of Southern slavery have really been part of a larger "strategy" to abolish the institution?

"But more to the point: are you actually suggesting that the South did not secede from the Union in order to protect slavery?"

Interesting how you chose to ignore the two important questions regarding the origins of the war I asked above. Moving on, I conceed that, with regards to secession, states in the deep south cited slavery as a reason for disunion(on the other hand, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and my home state of North Carolina seceeded in response to Lincoln's invasion, not concerns over slavery).

My major point is that, from a historical standpoint, the "secession/war over slavery" claim is punctured by Lincoln's First Inaugural and his proclaimed support for an irrevocable Constitutional Amendment that would have forever protected Southern slavery. If the preservation of Southern slavery, as you claim, was the cause of separation, that event would have brought the country back together.

Moreover, if the South's object regarding secession was to protect slavery, they chose the most inexplicable defense imaginable, for as Confederate Vice President Alexandar Stephens pointed out slavery was more secure in the Union than out of it. This is precisely why abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison urged that the North seceed from the Union.

Sowell's claim that "without slavery there would have been no secession and no Civil War" is a disappointing one because I respect Sowell as a scholar and historian. However, his statement flies in the face of American History from the Constitution to secession, it just pretends something like the Nullification Crisis never happened. I don't think many people appreciate how close South Carolina was to seceeding.

Sowell's claim that slavery was "at the heart" of the Confederate Constitution is also misguided because that document explicitly outlawed the international slave trade while providing slave owners the same type of "rights" they had in the Union thanks to the Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave laws (which Lincoln dutifully promised to enforce).

Alas, it wasn't Jefferson Davis who wanted to codify permanent protection of slavery in a constitution - that distinction belongs to Abraham Lincoln. Again, if Lincoln and his party had their way in 1861, slavery would have been forever written into our Constitution, for as I've stated many times here, Abraham Lincoln wanted a Constitutional Amendment that would have forever forbidden the federal government from interfering with slavery.

"Sowell's claim that "without slavery there would have been no secession and no Civil War" is a disappointing one because I respect Sowell as a scholar and historian."

Actually, Thomas Sowell is an economist, not a historian. He is a very accomplished sholar, however and I respect most of his opinions and assertions.

I personally believe that the root cause of the South's insistence on the protection of the institution of slavery was rooted in economics and state sovereignty. The south was an agrarian society that relied upon slavery for economic survival. They arguably could have survived without slavery and the advent of technological advances in farming technology would have effectively ended slavery not too long after the civil war anyway...but they had no way of knowing that at the time.

I further believe that the states that Initially seceeded did so because the election of Lincoln demonstrated the political impotence of the southern states. They uniformly opposed Lincoln but he was elected anyway. Lincoln did indeed promise that he would protect the institution of slavery but the southern states seceeded anyway. Why? Because they felt that they did not have the political ability to protect their interests from the Northern states. In order to protect their sovereignty, they felt that succession was the only answer. They (correctly) believed that the southern states entered into the union voluntarily and, therefore, had the right to remove themselves from it if it was felt to be in their best interests. Lincoln was not as concerned about ending slavery as he was about maintaining the union and, therefore, the power wielded by Washington DC and the presidency. He manifested his desire to hold the union together by first guaranteeing to the southern states that the institution of slavery was safe and then, when that didn't work, (unconstitutionally) using force to maintain the union. His "invasion" of the south prompted more states to secede in response to "northern aggression".

It can be said that slavery was at the heart of the Civil War, but that is a vast oversimplification. IMHO.

I'm no historian or scholar, but the limited study I've done on this subject leads me to these conclusions.

I believe George Washington to have been the greatest American for one reason alone. After his two terms as President he stepped down even in the face of strong urging to run again. He commanded the respect and support of the military after the revolutionary war and some even suggested that he be named "king" of America. It is quite conceivable that he could have installed himself as "president for life" and instituted a dictatorship or monarchy if he had been more interested in personal power and less interested in being honorable and upholding the principles espoused in the declaration of Independence. He set the stage for the future of the United States and set the precedent for peacefully and efficiently passing the reigns of power to the next duly elected leader. He was a great and honorable man in spite of his (all too human) faults.

Why a man who countenanced such things is considered "great" is beyond me.

This is a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty. Why aren't you asking Marcus Epstein and co. how men who fought with all their might to hold on to one of the most evil institutions in the history of mankind would be considered "great"?

Also, you don't seem to be very concerned with the civil liberties abuses during the time of the Revolutionary War (people suspected of British sympathizing sometimes being shot without trial).

Further, I cite Lincoln's documented support for the Corwin Amendment to undermine the ahistorical "war for slavery" propaganda propagated by this particular program ("The Greatest American") and the conventional wisdom in general.

If the issue of slavery was just a ruse, Lincoln could have just fought the war, united the states, and allowed the South to continue to own slaves.

You know what? Sometimes the conventional wisdom is correct.

The world is not made up of a series of conspiracies, you paranoid conservative lunatics.

He is an American icon and a sacred cow who has been immortalized in Washington, sitting in a marble temple suited for a Greek god.

You're crazy. (Your over-the-top rhetoric here reminds me of Buchanan, actually). Yes, of course Lincoln is more than a politician, being an American icon. However, I don't know why that suggests he is an infallible, perfect man. What non-deity would reach your standard?

why couldn't Calhoun's statements in support of Southern slavery have really been part of a larger "strategy" to abolish the institution?

When did Calhoun ever say anything like "as I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master"? Also, the bottom line is that Lincoln fought the war that ended slavery in the United States.

it wasn't Jefferson Davis who wanted to codify permanent protection of slavery in a constitution

Hmm... here's an interesting quote (which I've pasted before) from a Dinesh D'Souza essay on Lincoln's statesmanship:

"Although Bradford viewed Lincoln as a kind of manic abolitionist, many in the right-wing camp deny that the slavery issue was central to the Civil War. Rather, they insist, the war was driven primarily by economic motives. Essentially, the industrial North wanted to destroy the economic base of the South. Historian Charles Adams, in When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession, published in 2000, contends that the causes leading up to the Civil War had virtually nothing to do with slavery.

This approach to rewriting history has been going on for more than a century. Alexander Stephens, former vice president of the Confederacy, published a two-volume history of the Civil War between 1868 and 1870 in which he hardly mentioned slavery, insisting that the war was an attempt to preserve constitutional government from the tyranny of the majority. But this is not what Stephens said in the great debates leading up to the war. In his "Cornerstone" speech, delivered in Savannah, Ga., on March 21, 1861, at the same time that the South was in the process of seceding, Stephens said that the American Revolution had been based on a premise that was "fundamentally wrong." That premise was, as Stephens defined it, "the assumption of equality of the races." Stephens insisted that instead: "Our new [Confederate] government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea. Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. Slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great and moral truth.""

This leads to a very important point: Confederates and their apologists are fundamentally anti-American. How -- and why -- is this denied? I've asked Flynn this question in an e-mail, but perhaps because it was during a busy weekend I received no response.

"This is a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty. Why aren't you asking Marcus Epstein and co. how men who fought with all their might to hold on to one of the most evil institutions in the history of mankind would be considered "great"?"

Here is where the two major questions regarding the motivations of secession come into play. With Lincoln and his party's support for a Constitutional Amendment forever protecting the institution of Southern slavery, how does it follow that men like General Lee were fighting to "save" that institution? It was not threatened.

The United States Senate, in passing a resolution regarding the launching of the war, made the same basic point - Union, not slavery is our cause - proclaiming that the war was not based on a desire to overthrow the "domestic institutions" of the seceeding states.

"Also, you don't seem to be very concerned with the civil liberties abuses during the time of the Revolutionary War (people suspected of British sympathizing sometimes being shot without trial)."

I'm concerned about those too. Interestingly, I was reading M. Stanton Evans' book The Theme is Freedom the other day and I ran across the story of how John Adams defended and an American jury actually exonerated the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre - a stark contrast to Abraham Lincoln's America.
"If the issue of slavery was just a ruse, Lincoln could have just fought the war, united the states, and allowed the South to continue to own slaves.

You know what? Sometimes the conventional wisdom is correct."

Lincoln did not make slavery an issue until two years into the war with the Emancipation Proclamation which was nothing more than a political ploy to: (a.) Prevent the British from aiding the Confederacy and; (b.) To bring about slave revolts a la Haiti, where upon Emancipation, every white on the island was slaughtered. What a grand statesman!

As for the abolition of slavery, I echo the thoughts of Tom DiLorenzo in The Real Lincoln: In every civilized European society, war on as massive a scale as the War Between the States, was not necessasry for emancipation. Instead, a statesman interested in peace would have set forth a policy of negotiated, compensated emancipation. And as DiLorenzo documents, Abraham Lincoln never attempted to pursue such an approach.

Therefore, even if I grant you the dubious and ahistorical "war for slavery" premise, Lincoln cannot be considered a great statesman because despite many Confederate attempts to bring about a negotiated peace, Lincoln never put forth the compensated emancipation viewpoint. Instead (again granting you the presmise), he launched a destructive war that brought about the slaughter of upwards of 650,000 men, women, and children to end an institution abolished peacefully in every civilized Western society except the United States.

As I've shown, the actual diplomatic attempts made by Abraham Lincoln and his party included a promise of permanent protection of slavery via a Constitutional Amendment.

"...you paranoid conservative lunatics," "You're crazy"

Oh come on, cut out the ad hominem, it doesn't help your position.

"Yes, of course Lincoln is more than a politician, being an American icon. However, I don't know why that suggests he is an infallible, perfect man. What non-deity would reach your standard?"

I'm not asking for deity, just a statesman generally interested in perserving the Constitution and the rule of law while following the just war teachings of the Christian Church - Abraham Lincoln did none of these things.

"When did Calhoun ever say anything like "as I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master"? Also, the bottom line is that Lincoln fought the war that ended slavery in the United States."

My point about your seemingly illogical Straussian interepration is that folks like Harry Jaffa claim Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not free saves in the Union because he really wanted to end slavery. Or Lincoln supported Illinois' Constitutional provision which forbid the immigration of free blacks because Lincoln was really a champion of racial equality. Why can't we take the obvious words of John Calhoun on the subject of slavery and similarly "re-interpret" his statements a la Lincoln? Why is it okay to do this with Abraham Lincoln and not with Calhoun or other Southern leaders?

"Historian Charles Adams, in When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession, published in 2000, contends that the causes leading up to the Civil War had virtually nothing to do with slavery."

It's interesting to be lectured by you on "intellectual dishonesty" when you positively cite the work of a man whose first draft of End of Racism "had to be amended at the last minture to avoid legal action." Apparently, D'Souza's draft deliberately misrepresented the words and ideas of folks like Jared Taylor, Sam Francis, and Michael Levin.

It's also painfully obvious, on the basis of this quotation, that D'Souza never bothered to read Adams' book because he deals with the slavery issue carefully and thoughtfully in it as does Tom DiLorenzo in his work on Lincoln.

"This approach to rewriting history has been going on for more than a century."

Newsflash for D'Souza: the "war for slavery" causality claim was being challenged while the actual war was going on. Indeed, hardly any observers outside the United States thought the War Between the States was being fought over slavery. And again, this would be obvious to D'Souza if he had actually read Adams' book because Adams thoroughly documents British public and scholarly opinion on the matter from British editorials to cartoons to the writings of Charles Dickens. I wonder if, in D'Souza's opinion, Dickens was "rewriting history" when he wrote that the war between North and South was being fought for solely economic reasons and not slavery in 1861.

As for the Alexander Stephens speech, I can't see much Abraham Lincoln would disagree with regarding racial equality. In his 1858 debates with Stephen Douglass, Lincoln announced to the world that he had "no purpose to introduce social or political equality between the white and black races." He also supported the Illinois Constitution which forbade the immigration of free blacks into that state and the statutory "black codes" which mandated Jim Crow discrimination against blacks.

Further, Abraham Lincoln devoted himself, as his political idol Henry Clay did, to the expulsion/forced colonization of all blacks in the United States back to Africa. As Professor DiLorenzo has noted, Lincoln may have talked about "all men created equal," but he thought blacks should become "equals" in Africa, not in America.

"This leads to a very important point: Confederates and their apologists are fundamentally anti-American. How -- and why -- is this denied? I've asked Flynn this question in an e-mail, but perhaps because it was during a busy weekend I received no response."

I'm not too sure what Stephens (or D'Souza for that matter) is talking about when he says racial equality was the principle of the American Revolution when the vast majority of Americans at that time (and in Lincoln's time too) did not believe that.

The American Revolution was based on secession and since the Confederacy was based on this right, it follows that it was quintessentially American. The Declaration of Independence was a declaration of secession from the British Empire. Timothy Pickering, Washington's first secretary of state, called secession the fundamental principle of the American revolution.

Read Jefferson Davis' first Inaugural Address if you doubt this, he invokes the Declaration as it was originally intended, contra Lincoln and Harry Jaffa.