Who is the Greatest American in History?

[Pengwuino]

I can't see how there can be any doubt that Ben Franklin should have been named number 1.

Look at whos taking the survey...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I can't see how there can be any doubt that Ben Franklin should have been named number 1.

Consider:
Best selling author (Poor Richard's Almanac)
Founded first public library
Inventor
Scientist
Statesman
And the only person to sign all five documents instrumental to the establishment of the US:
Declaration of Independence
Treaty of Amity and Commerce with France
Treaty of Alliance with France
Treaty of Peace with Great Britain
Constitution of the United States

Have you ever seen his lightning detector?

 

[Kakarot]

wtf is wrong with the discovery channel. it used to be great and now its run by mtv or something. I am gona have to order the science channel because right now only the history channel is worth watching

 

[russ_watters]

Personally, I think Reagan "winning" this is a very sad comment on the schools.

What do mean Ivan? The kids absorb propaganda very well.

My main source was a Harvard history professor: a more liberal source (while still remaining reputable) I cannot imagine.

Reagan just happened to be president at the time that USSR was collapsing internally. It had little to do with US policy.

I also quoted some guys in the government of the USSR. Even they say Reagan's policies had an effect!

The war in Afghanistan affected USSR just like Vietnam affected US.

Well, not exactly - the US didn't collapse.

But Reagan and Thatcher, rather help the situation contributed to the further demise of USSR...

Oh, so you do agree that Reagan "helped contribute to the further demise of the USSR"? So what are we arguing about? Anyway, what do you mean by "help the situation"? Should we have tried to keep the USSR from collapsing?

...and now we have the mess with Russia that we have. Most of eastern Europe is still dealing with dysfunctional governments and societies...

Dysfunctional is better than brutally oppressive. Just ask any of the guys that marched on Belgrade and took down one such leader.

...and many people are worse off than during communism.

And many more are better. What are you trying to say - the world would be better off if the USSR were intact? What a horrifying thought!

 

[Pengwuino]

wtf is wrong with the discovery channel. it used to be great and now its run by mtv or something. I am gona have to order the science channel because right now only the history channel is worth watching

History channel and the travel channel are all i watch anymore :-/ Oh and hte military channel... and occasionally discovery times when they have a casino show on... 500 channels and all i watch are 4 of them.

 

[ray b]

Two things:

1) What did Eli Whitney do that made him so great? Is there something besides the cotton gin that I missed? And hell, the cotton gin was a catalyst for a huge increase in slavery, so it must be something else, right?

the IDEA of MASS PRODUCTION

the cotton gin couldnot be produced fast enuff to meet demand
so it was a widely copyed comercial BUST as fars as making whitney RICH
as the gins were simple to make
so everyone made their own

his fame as inventor of the gin
led to a government contract to produce guns
he tryed to mass produce the guns useing machine tools
to produce standerd parts
there by inventing the MODERN FACTORY
thats his true claim to fame

should he allso be credited with inventing
the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX tooo?

 

[1123581321]

fibo's list of greatest americans:
Lincoln
Washington
FDR
Jefferson
Franklin
Wrights
Lewis & Clark
Grant
Einstein
Sherman
Martin Luther King JR
Reagan
Robert E. Lee
...

 

[Evo]

I can't see how there can be any doubt that Ben Franklin should have been named number 1.

Have you ever listed to the glass armonica (harmonica) that Franklin invented?

 

[Smurf]

fibo's list of greatest americans:

...

Einstein

...

... Ah-hem?

 

[Astronuc]

In 1901, the year he gained his diploma, Albert Einstein acquired Swiss citizenship.

He became a German citizen in 1914 and remained in Berlin until 1933 when he renounced his citizenship for political reasons and emigrated to America to take the position of Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton. He became a United States citizen in 1940.

from http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-bio.html

 

[sid_galt]

Where Is Thomas Paine?

 

[loseyourname]

Yes, it probably is. Ever heard of a little idea known as the assembly line' ? Whitney single-handedly revolutionized the manufacturing process.

Where did you get this from? I've been looking up sources to be sure, and everything I come up with says that Ransome Olds was the first manufacturer to use an assembly line and that Henry Ford was the first to use an assembly line on a conveyor belt, which is when modern factory techniques really took off. Whitney may have started mass production, but you might be giving him too much credit to give him the assembly line.

 

[loseyourname]

What about Andrew Carnegie? I can't think of any single person that better epitomizes the mythology of the American dream. He immigrated to the US as a poor boy with nothing but his wits, and using nothing but those wits, he climbed the ranks of industry until he was the second richest man in the entire world. He still holds the record for the largest personal buyout in the history of business. At his peak, he was far and away the most prolific manufacturer of steel in the world. He's probably the one person single most responsible for the enormous infrastructure buildup, including the development of the modern skyscraper made possible by steel skeletons, that resulted in the huge boom in the world prominence of US cities, particularly New York and Chicago. All the while he continued to control 18 English radical newspapers in the hopes of helping his native Scotland.

In retirement, he became the greatest philanthropist the world had ever seen, giving away over $350 million, which was more money than all but a handful of people had ever personally possessed. He established over 1600 public libraries in the US alone, and over 3000 worldwide, along with two universities. He was also the largest benefactor of Tuskegee University, one of the largest historically black colleges in the US.

Despite being the second-richest and one of the most powerful men in the world, he remained humble and thoughtful of others. In addition to the work he did to help Scotland, he was one of the most fervent critics of American imperialism. On his tombstone, his epithet praises the men he surrounded himself with for making his success possible. In addition to that personal success, he stands as an example to every self-made person who has come since, even commissioning a study of 500 millionaires that resulted in the publishing of Napoleon Hill's Laws of Success.

In his own words:

Man does not live by bread alone. I have known millionaires starving for lack of the nutriment which alone can sustain all that is human in man, and I know workmen, and many so-called poor men, who revel in luxuries beyond the power of those millionaires to reach. It is the mind that makes the body rich. There is no class so pitiably wretched as that which possesses money and nothing else. Money can only be the useful drudge of things immeasurably higher than itself. Exalted beyond this, as it sometimes is, it remains Caliban still and still plays the beast. My aspirations take a higher flight. Mine be it to have contributed to the enlightenment and the joys of the mind, to the things of the spirit, to all that tends to bring into the lives of the toilers of Pittsburgh sweetness and light. I hold this the noblest possible use of wealth.

To come up from nothing to become fabulously rich and powerful, not for the sake of being fabulously rich and powerful, but for the sake of using that wealth and power to improve the lives of everyone around you - if that is not the absolute pinnacle of the American dream, what is?

 

[FredGarvin]

Where did you get this from? I've been looking up sources to be sure, and everything I come up with says that Ransome Olds was the first manufacturer to use an assembly line and that Henry Ford was the first to use an assembly line on a conveyor belt, which is when modern factory techniques really took off. Whitney may have started mass production, but you might be giving him too much credit to give him the assembly line.

It might be a bit more precise to say that he invented the idea of mass production. Whitney invented the milling machine in an effort to remove specialized skills in musket making.

http://www.eliwhitney.org/inventor.htm

He was to lay the foundation and invent the techniques for what has become known as the "American System of Manufacture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production-line

From the processing of raw materials into useful goods, the next step was the concept of the assembly line, as introduced by Eli Whitney.

http://www.grohol.com/psypsych/Assembly_line

The assembly line was first introduced by Eli Whitney to create muskets for the U.S. Government

 

[Astronuc]

Reagan just happened to be president at the time that USSR was collapsing internally. It had little to do with US policy.

I also quoted some guys in the government of the USSR. Even they say Reagan's policies had an effect!

The collapse was inevitable. Unfortunately, the reforms being introduced by Andropov and then Gorbachev were being undermined internally and externally.

The war in Afghanistan affected USSR just like Vietnam affected US.

Well, not exactly - the US didn't collapse.

Clarification - I should have emphasized psychologically. Both the US and USSR population became disillusioned with the war, but in USSR this had a more severe impact.

But Reagan and Thatcher, rather help the situation contributed to the further demise of USSR...

Oh, so you do agree that Reagan "helped contribute to the further demise of the USSR"? So what are we arguing about? Anyway, what do you mean by "help the situation"? Should we have tried to keep the USSR from collapsing?

I do mean further. Collapse was inevitable. However, the collapse went too far, too fast. Corrupt communists, became corrupt oligarchs. There has been much pillaging of resources by politically connected people - it's as though some countries are being run by organized crime syndicates.

Dysfunctional is better than brutally oppressive. Just ask any of the guys that marched on Belgrade and took down one such leader.

Not according to some of my friends who have to deal with the current situation. In many ways, life is more dangerous now, and only a minority are doing 'much' better than before. Those doing the best mostly likely are doing it dishonestly.

Granted, the regimes in Romania (Nicolae Ceauşescu) and Albania (Enver Hoxha) were horrible. Those needed quick replacement.

As for Belgrade, I think you meant 'Bucharest'. The Romanias marched on Buchrest (Bucuresti).

On December 21, the mass meeting, held in what is now Revolution Square, degenerated into anarchy. A stunned Ceauşescu couple, failing to control the crowds, finally took cover inside the CC Building, where they remained until the next day. The rest of the day saw a revolt of the Bucharest population, who had assembled in University Square, and confronted the police and the army on barricades. These initial events are regarded to this day as the genuine revolution. However, the unarmed rioters were no match for the military apparatus concentrated in Bucharest, which cleared the streets by midnight and arrested hundreds of people in the process.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989

In Belgrade, Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic retained power through the early 1990's, and we know the tragic result - the mass homicides in Croatia and Bosna i Hercegovina, and the genocide in Kosovo.

Miloševic's mentor and close personal friend Ivan Stambolic was the party leader in the Serbian section of the ruling League of Communists of Yugoslavia. In September 1987, Stambolic became the President of Serbia and supported Miloševic in the elections for the new leader, to the dismay of the other leaders in the party. Stambolic spent three days advocating Miloševic's election and finally managed to secure him a tight victory, the tightest ever in the history of Serbian Communist Party internal elections.

Contrary to the liberal reforms of Communism in the Soviet Union at the time, Miloševic quickly took a hard line against liberalism in the party and proceeded to use such a policy to eliminate his political adversaries.

Dragiša Pavlovic, Miloševic's fairly liberal successor at the head of the Belgrade Committee of the party, opposed his policy towards the solving of the issues of the Kosovo Serbs, calling it "hastily promised speed". Miloševic denounced Pavlovic as being soft on Albanian radicals, contrary to advice from Stambolic. In 23 September/24th, on the subsequent eighth session of the Central Committee, one that lasted around 30 hours, and was broadcast live on the state television, Miloševic had Pavlovic deposed, to the utter embarrassment of Ivan Stambolic, who resigned under pressure from Miloševic's supporters a few days later.

In February 1988, Stambolic was officially voted off the position and Miloševic could take his place. Miloševic would later be charged with ordering the murder of Stambolic. Ivan Stambolic was kidnapped in the summer of 2000; his body was found three years later. As of 2004, members of Serbian criminal gangs close to Miloševic are indicted at the Belgrade court for this murder (among others).


On the 14th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia in January 1990, the delegation of Serbia led by Miloševic insisted on the reversal of 1974 Constitution policy that empowered the republics and rather wanted to introduce a policy of "one person, one vote", which would empower the majority population, the Serbs. This caused the Slovenian and Croatian delegations (led by Milan Kucan and Ivica Racan, resp.) to leave the Congress in protest and marked a culmination in the rift of the Yugoslav ruling party.

Miloševic presided over the transformation of the League of Communists of Serbia into the Socialist Party of Serbia (July 1990) and the adoption of a new Serbian constitution (September 1990) providing for the direct election of a president with increased powers. Miloševic was subsequently re-elected president of the Serbian Republic in the direct elections of December 1990 and December 1992.

In the first free parliamentary elections of December 1990, Miloševic's Socialist Party won 80.5% of the vote. The ethnic Albanians in Kosovo largely boycotted the election, effectively eliminating even what little opposition Miloševic had. Miloševic himself won the presidential election with even higher percentage of the vote.

from Wikipedia

...and many people are worse off than during communism.

And many more are better. What are you trying to say - the world would be better off if the USSR were intact?

No, the many are not doing better, as I have witnessed in person.

My position is that the transition to democracy and free market system could have been handled differently and with a better outcome. Instead the West (US included) made big mistakes in allowing the USSR to collapse as quickly as it did. Neither Reagan or Bush saw it coming and were unprepared to lend proper assistance. The result has been an unnecessary and avoidable amount of suffering, and much less security in the world.

 

[McGyver]

How Do I Get on the List

I was wondering how I might get placed on this list?

I've done some very extraordinary things over the last 13 years in public policy, science, volunteering, and helping others in need - all after I suffered a 1992 brain injury, and without any financial remuneration. So I think I should be considered for this list of Great Americans.

I also did many remarkable things in earlier years - like save a man (stranger) while scuba diving who nearly killed us both, and fixed a demolished vehicle with a steak knife and electrical tape in Mexico in order to get a group of 5 women and teens back to the states.

I too would like consideration for this list.

Stephen Dolle
www.diaceph.com

 

[Astronuc]

I've done some very extraordinary things over the last 13 years in public policy, science, volunteering, and helping others in need - all after I suffered a 1992 brain injury, and without any financial remuneration. So I think I should be considered for this list of Great Americans.

I also did many remarkable things in earlier years - like save a man (stranger) while scuba diving who nearly killed us both, and fixed a demolished vehicle with a steak knife and electrical tape in Mexico in order to get a group of 5 women and teens back to the states.

You have my vote.

 

[SOS2008]

Back to the OP, while like most Americans I personally liked Reagan (for the most part), no modern person can be more revered than Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. And as I said earlier in GD, Dubya hasn't even finished his second term, and much more time is needed to know how he will be viewed historically. As someone posted, the results of this poll probably reflects a lack of historical knowledge among Americans, which is sad.

Aside from that, Reagan was not responsible for the collapse of the USSR anymore than Dubya can take credit for elections in Lebanon or anywhere else. These presidents are only legends in their supporter's minds.

 

[kaos]

The greatest American? The native american chief that got Custer. Now that's something. Too bad his success was not repeated often.

 

[McGyver]

Thanks for the vote, Astronuc. As I'm an optimist, that means I'm tied for last place, but now moving up on the list.

 

[russ_watters]

My position is that the transition to democracy and free market system could have been handled differently and with a better outcome. Instead the West (US included) made big mistakes in allowing the USSR to collapse as quickly as it did. Neither Reagan or Bush saw it coming and were unprepared to lend proper assistance. The result has been an unnecessary and avoidable amount of suffering, and much less security in the world.

I don't know if it would have been possible for the US to intervene to help stabilize the USSR or not, but I do think that it was far more important to us to ensure that the USSR did collapse.

And Reagan most certainly did see it coming. One of the links I provided is about the flip-flop of the Democrats: while Reagan claimed that collapse was inevitable and a final push by us could topple the USSR quickly, a great many Democrats claimed that the USSR was economically and politically stable. Then after the collapse, many of the very same people flipped and started saying it was inevitable and Reagan did little to nothing to effect it. Whether they actually believed it was stable in 1980 or just said it to counter Reagan is irrelevant - they said it.

As for Belgrade, I think you meant 'Bucharest'. The Romanias marched on Buchrest (Bucuresti).

No, I meant Belgrade - Milosevich was taken down by a popular revolt following us cutting him off at the knee with our bombing campaign.

No, the many are not doing better, as I have witnessed in person.

And I've been to Poland and Lituania. But that's all just anecdotal anyway. While its true that the situation for many Russians, specifically, has worstened, there are a good dozen other countries that were behind the iron curtain or were part of the USSR. Whether the overall situation behind the iron curtain is better or worse than in 1988, I honestly don't know, but I suspect it is better - either by total population or country by country (but of course, Russia is the largest). And I'm actually more concerned with those other countries than Russia itself because of the way they were raped by the USSR.

 

[Informal Logic]

...you could claim it was all part of a long, slow decline starting they day after the revolution ended (which, frankly, I believe)...

Yep, this is what I claim (does that make me a kettle?).

...Here's the first reasonable link I found: http://wais.stanford.edu/History/history_ussrandreagan.htm )...

From your link:

Several WAISers disagreed with Christopher Jones, who denied Reagan's role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Harry Papasotiriou writes: "The Soviet Union certainly collapsed of its own weight, but Reagan helped speed up the process. The following paragraphs are from a forthcoming book that I am co-authoring.

Reagan’s conviction that the Soviet Union was both a dangerous military power and a collapsing economic system derived not from any deep knowledge of the Soviet Union. Yet he proved to be the proverbial right man in the right place at the right time.

To clarify all this, if the USSR had been stable before Reagan became president, do you think he could have caused a collapse? No. He could only push over what was already toppling. Even as highlighted in your other source, at best Reagan can only be given credit for accelerating the collapse. So what are you arguing?

Back to the OP, do you feel Reagan should be #1 -- ahead of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, etc.? Because I do not, and this is really the point I was making.

 

[russ_watters]

Yep, this is what I claim (does that make me a kettle?).

No, it just makes you miss the point.

To clarify all this, if the USSR had been stable before Reagan became president, do you think he could have caused a collapse? No. He could only push over what was already toppling. Even as highlighted in your other source, at best Reagan can only be given credit for accelerating the collapse. So what are you arguing?

That is precisely what I'm arguing: that Reagan accelerated the collapse of the USSR. Its what I said in post 25 in response to someone else's claim that Reagan had "nothing to do with the fall of the [USSR]". That assertion is false and you seem to agree that its false since you seem to agree that he helped accelerate its collapse. If you don't disagree with my claim that "Reagan help[ed] to destroy the USSR" (ie, he "accelerated" it, as you suggested), why are you arguing with me?

Back to the OP, do you feel Reagan should be #1 -- ahead of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, etc.? Because I do not, and this is really the point I was making.

No I don't - a question which I answered in post 31

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Oliver Evans, the inventor of the refrigerator.

I believe that this is an invention which does not get the credit due. The refrigerator has made starvation a thing of the past for countries with energy/electricity. It also made food a semi non-perishable, so that most of us can devote our lives to things other than gathering food and leave that to others in a more manageable way.

 

[Art]

I believe that this is an invention which does not get the credit due. The refrigerator has made starvation a thing of the past for countries with energy/electricity.

Isn't that the food replicator in Star Trek you're thinking of jk

 

[Mercator]

Werner Von Braun. I cannot think of a man who symbolizes the true American spirit more.

 

[Art]

Where did you get this from? I've been looking up sources to be sure, and everything I come up with says that Ransome Olds was the first manufacturer to use an assembly line and that Henry Ford was the first to use an assembly line on a conveyor belt, which is when modern factory techniques really took off. Whitney may have started mass production, but you might be giving him too much credit to give him the assembly line.

Didn't Whitney invent the concept of geometric tolerances (limits and fits) thus allowing the interchangeability of parts?

 

[russ_watters]

Oliver Evans, the inventor of the refrigerator.

I believe that this is an invention which does not get the credit due. The refrigerator has made starvation a thing of the past for countries with energy/electricity. It also made food a semi non-perishable, so that most of us can devote our lives to things other than gathering food and leave that to others in a more manageable way.

Yeah, its often the little things we take for granted that have the most profound impact.

 

[FredGarvin]

Didn't Whitney invent the concept of geometric tolerances (limits and fits) thus allowing the interchangeability of parts?

Limits and fits is very diffferent than GD&T. I have a few sources on GD&T and I can't nail down a single "inventor" of GD&T. Although, e-funda has about the best short description:

Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing symbols have been in use since at least the turn of the century. GDT was especially important during the Second World War in relation to extremely high volume production of Liberty Ships, aircraft, and ground vehicles. The automotive industry, with its high volumes, has also benefited from GDT. The computer industry, in particular mass storage manufacturers, have used GDT extensively to increase their yields of high-volume and low-margin hard disk drives. However, as with most engineering and scientific methodologies, GDT was not rigorously established and documented until later in the twentieth century. The American National Standards Institute publication in 1982 of ANSI Y14.5M-1982 was a turning point in the rigorous, unambiguous standardization of the methodology.

I think the big swing in the development came when Taguchi came about with his pre six sigma quality stuff at Motorola.

 

[Art]

Limits and fits is very diffferent than GD&T. I have a few sources on GD&T and I can't nail down a single "inventor" of GD&T. Although, e-funda has about the best short description:

I don't understand why you say they are different? Limits and fits as devised by Whitney to allow the mass production of muskets is a system which acknowledges the impossibility of ever making 2 parts identical and so instead limits the degree of variance to specific parameters, i.e. dimensions are specified in the form 100 +/- 0.01 for example. Geometrical tolerances is an expansion of this idea using standard notation to cover the 4 areas which an engineering machinist might want to control. These are;

a. Location
b. Form
c. Runout
d. Orientation

 

[Informal Logic]

...That is precisely what I'm arguing: that Reagan accelerated the collapse of the USSR.

So helping and causing are two different things, and 'helping' was only possible due to timing. That means Reagan was not responsible for the collapse of the USSR, in that you have to be the cause of something to take credit for the effect.

No I don't - a question which I answered in post 31

I only asked this because it seemed some were arguing that Reagan should be #1 because he was responsible for the collapse of the USSR. I just wanted to clarify consistency in position on both of these arguments.

And as was posted earlier, the same 'cause and effect' logic applies to Bush in regard to "democratic practices" such as elections, specifically in the Middle East. These are all the same kind of reasoning/arguments running through several threads.

Once again, in regard to the OP, Reagan was #1, and I think Bush was #6. These presidents--along with Clinton--should not be so highly ranked. It is absurd, and so are the reasonings people are giving to support such rankings.

 

[FredGarvin]

I don't understand why you say they are different? Limits and fits as devised by Whitney to allow the mass production of muskets is a system which acknowledges the impossibility of ever making 2 parts identical and so instead limits the degree of variance to specific parameters, i.e. dimensions are specified in the form 100 +/- 0.01 for example. Geometrical tolerances is an expansion of this idea using standard notation to cover the 4 areas which an engineering machinist might want to control. These are;

a. Location
b. Form
c. Runout
d. Orientation

GD&T is a much more precise tolerancing scheme that accomplishes things that standard limit tolerancing can not. It's based on a part's function or it's relation to another part. For example, you can not (or would be extremely difficult) to limit tolerance the position of a hole to three datums, which you can do with one callout in GD&T. The two are completely separate beings. They are used in conjunction.

 

[Andy]

Well as far as I am concerned there is only two candidates for the greatest American.

1, Homer Simpson.
2, Al Bundy.

 

[russ_watters]

So helping and causing are two different things, and 'helping' was only possible due to timing. That means Reagan was not responsible for the collapse of the USSR, in that you have to be the cause of something to take credit for the effect.

That depends on what specifically you are talking about him "causing". He certainly "caused" the acceleration of the collapse. He certainly "caused" the USSR to collapse sooner rather than later. He is therefore certainly responsible for that effect.

And since I am the one who made the specific claim and you are the one responding to it, you need to follow my meaning: that Reagan caused the acceleration of the collapse. Otherwise, you're arguing a straw-man.

I only asked this because it seemed some were arguing that Reagan should be #1 because he was responsible for the collapse of the USSR. I just wanted to clarify consistency in position on both of these arguments.

No problem - just don't jump to conclusions about my opinions. This shouldn't be an issue because I am very open about them.

And as was posted earlier, the same 'cause and effect' logic applies to Bush in regard to "democratic practices" such as elections, specifically in the Middle East. These are all the same kind of reasoning/arguments running through several threads.

It depends on what you mean there - with Bush and, say, Lebanon, the only effect Bush could have had was indirect (ie, that he scared Syria into leaving without doing anything specific to actually threaten them). While it may be true it is impossible to prove unless 20 years from now a Syrian leader writes a book and says 'we left Lebanon because we were afraid Bush would attack us if we didn't.' Reagan had a direct effect on the USSR in that they changed internal policy in response to his policies - and years later, Russian officials did say precisely that.

 

[SOS2008]

Well as far as I am concerned there is only two candidates for the greatest American.

1, Homer Simpson.
2, Al Bundy.

It's "greatest" not typical.