Most influential person in American History

It was ironic sarcasm, Boss, largely directed at an American audience who will understand the references . . .

Believe it or not--when I saw the topic, I said to myself, "I'll bet steissd nominates Ronald Reagan."

Thanks, steissd, for not surprising me.

I'll vote for FDR. Saved the country during the Depression and WWII.

I swear to you that my first thought upon reading the thread opener was: Someone will nominate Reagan -- and I would not be surprised if it were Steissd.

I have decided that Steissd is a good guy -- a bit naive, but a guy with his heart in the right (!) place.

Gotta get off topic to say this once again: To all Israelis who are enamored of the American right -- you are making a pact with the devil. I guarantee it will bite all of you on the butt -- and not in the too distant future.

Don't trust 'em. A huge segment of their base would sooner piss on Israel than nurture it.

But I suspect that is a lesson you will have to learn the hard way.

The U.S. religious right supports Israel because they believe that Israel has to be a Jewish state to assure the second coming of Jesus. Then, of course, the Jews will all convert to Christianity (or be damned).

Though I don't support what the current Israeli gov't is doing (for the most part), I must say they're being smart in accepting this kind of support. I can imagine Sharon thinking, "If they want to believe this crazy BS, who am I to disagree?"

(OK, I promise not to digress on this thread anymore!]

Okay, I have a second candidate, oh and thanks for your comments about T.Jefferson. Please notice that I tried to indicate that Jefferson was not the sole author of America's most important documents,(I have read the George Mason history et al. and am not impressed.) As now, it is the public's perception of fact that writes and re-writes history, it was the words of Jefferson that moved this nation and not necessarily his actions or inactions. Given the British disinclination to allowing colonies to wander away unscathed I'm always surprised that there wasn't a War of 1779, War of 1781, War of 1790, War of 1795 before the War of 1812.

but now the second candidate for most influential person in American History: Eli Whitney.

Whitney devised any number of ways to do things but these two stand out:
interchangeble parts manufacture and the Cotton gin. My own view is that these two innovations helped split this country. The North used the first as the basis for vastly different fields of production and helped the North's manufacturing economy to become the engine for this nation's growth.
The 'gin caused the South to continue to embrace cotton production (with it's insipid use of slave labor) and an agraian economy.
By the time 1861 rolled around the differences in culture were astounding and it was Whitney who started it all.

I also chip in for Jefferson, albeit am not even an American. He may not have written the Bill of Rights, but it is largely based on his ideas, that were quite ahead of his time. Philosophically he compares to Locke even.
I am also a fan of Wilson, albeit for no other reason that he was an idealist to the bone and stuck with it, although the consequence of his contribution to the WWI finale was messing up part of Europe in the long term, but that's for another thread.
And I like the Roosevelts. One for the New Deal, the other for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - although the true thanks dutifully belongs to his wife, Eleanor. She was the sole cause that the process of drafting and approving took only 3 years, in international law a remarkably brief period of time, considering it took compromises on the side of delegations from around the world, of different cultures and civilizations.

This is patently false. The rights embodied in the first ten amendements are based on reactions to a variety historical situations, and the thinking of Montaigne, Rousseau, Locke, Berkeley, Hobbes -- a host of thinkers whose works influenced the generation of Americans who made the revolution. Jefferson was the all-time thief of the political philosophy of others; much of what he wrote was a product of what he had been taught when he read law with Wythe, who was not the shameless self-promoter Jefferson turned out to be. Much else came from George Mason, James Madison, James Wison and John Morris. The Bill of Rights also expands on many of the rights embodied in Magna Carta, as well as protecting the citizenry from what were seen as traditional tyrannical abuses existent in Europe at that time, such as restriction on membership in the militia, establishment of relgion, censorship of the press, imprisonment without charge or indictment, the quartering of troops. In fact, Jefferson had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, it was promised to the American people at the time of the ratification of the constitution, because the lack of a bill of rights was a major criticism of that document. Twelve amendments to the constitution were proposed in the First Congress. The first amendment proposed, for the representation in Congress of each 50,000 members of the population, has never been adopted. The second amendment proposed (in September, 1789) was adopted in May, 1992, as the 27th amendment. The third through twelfth amendments proposed were ratified as the first through tenth amendements to the constitution, and comprise the Bill of Rights. Jefferson was a self-serving hack, i have no hope that this will ever occur, but it would be lovely if the world came to know him for the fake he really was. He was a very bad man, and did his nation more harm than good.

George Washington, the father of our country, and the first American idol.

Gee, I thought we were just supposed to pick from presidents, but after reviewing the subject of this thread, it's clear that the field is open to all. So, here goes:

Elvis Presley. Think of how American pop culture is being exported all over the world and how that's now affecting global politics, for better or worse. That all started, one could argue, with Elvis!

Following....

Setanta wrote:


There's a statement I'd like to see proven. More harm than good? Luckily, for purposes of this discussion, it is influence, not good or harm, that we are measuring. Jefferson's still the most influential, blame it on his fantastic press agent if you want to, but still....

So what is being said is that Jefferson is most worthy of memory not for his writing but for his penmanship.
Um. and who actually wrote those? Whose words are they?

Until the Civil War, the US was really untried as a case of a government being sustainable. Consequently, as Dr Foote said, the Civil War turned this country from a plural to a singular verb, (As in the United States IS)
In order to realize that status, the Civil War needed to be won, and noone seemed able to do that as well as Grant. hes my nomination because , this country would probably be a balkanized collection of states without the fundamental restructure of the nation.

I too agree that Jeferson was a self promoting back-biting hack who had more "paint than engine". i see that hes given a status being a real Rennaissance man based on mostly his inept "fiddling" with stuff. If you ever visit Monticello as an engineering inquiry, you will be impressed at the massive waste of space and really DUMB design.

As a simple matter of courtesy, when you underlined a portion of what i'd written in your quote of what i'd written, you ought to have acknowledged that the emphasis was put there by you. Asherman would likely do a better job of Jefferson-bashing than I, but i'll just revert to a couple of points he made, although i'll use my own language to do it. When, in 1812, that marvelous patriot and political thinker, and very unfortunate President, James Madison, unwisely pushed for a war with England, the United States was woefully ill-prepared for war. Jefferson had strongly advocated the notion that we could defend our territory with militia and a "gun-boat" navy. Anyone who knows the history of the militia during the Revolution ought to have seen right through the first part of that nonsense, and had not a great deal of professionalism on the part of naval officers and a surviving fleet of first-class frigates existed, it is likely the Brits would have ridden rough-shod over our territory to a far greater extent than they did. At Queenston, Upper Canada (Ontario) in December 1812, the wounded could not be evacuated back across the Niagara River because the New York militia were pushing the wounded aside to get places on the boats and get the hell out of the fight. Without the professionalism and leadership of Winfield Scott, it is doubtful that any of them would have done any fighting at all. At Bladensburg in 1814, thousands of Maryland and Virginia militia dropped their weapons and ran, leaving open the road to Washington city. A handful of Marines and a few hundred sailors (refugees from the now sunken "gunboat navy") held of Packenham's Pennisular veterans. The English themselves had high praise for the sailors, one wrote that "they continued to serve the guns even after their officers had been shot down and we were among them with the bayonet." The Marines held their ground, fighting until the sun went down, and then marching off with all of their dead and wounded. The militia were likely already home by then, regaling their children with the tales of their courage, and raising their hair with the tales of their narrow, heroic escape from the evil red-coats. Later in the War, Winfield Scott had finally produced some reliable troops, no thanks to the Secretary of War, and freed from relying on the militia. At New Orleans, those veterans of Wellington's campaigns were stopped cold in their tracks, and Packenham himself killed, thanks to Andrew Jackson and the Tennessee volunteers. The Crescent City militia, largely Creole and Cajun fought pretty well, but, then, they were defending their homes, and they were at the firing line with the Kentucky and Tennessee volunteers--volunteers in our history have almost always fought well. The Kentucky militia on the west side of the river ran away as fast as their little legs would carry them. The American artillery was very well served by the sailors and the Marines, once again escaped from the "gunboat navy," which in this case now resided at the bottom of the Mississippi delta. Jefferson, had he had his way, would have destroyed the U.S. Navy, which, thanks to the professionalism of its officers, and the foresight of the Congress in th 1790's was still able to do a creditable job of facing off with the English.

As for Jefferson's intriguing against Hamilton while in Washington's cabinet, and the manner in which he lied to Washington and interferred with the financial plans of Hamilton--which plans put the nation back on a sound economic footingj--it would take me pages just to skim the surface on that one. Once again, perhaps Asherman will come here, and put in his oar. The subject of Jefferson's childish pouts and nasty backstabbing is a fertile field indeed.



I couldn't say if he wrote a fair hand or not, not having wasted my time researching his manuscripts. That almost all of what he wrote, and for which he is praised, was in it's substance, the work of others, is very simply proven. Again, i'm not interested in wasting my time or this forum's space in providing the details. Any honest history of our early political struggles will show that the Declaration of Independence is about the only document for which the authorship of Jefferson can be reasonably claimed. The ideas therein were not original, and the Continental Congress severely edited his first draft before issuing the document.



This quote refers to my statement that the third through twelfth amendents proposed in the First Congress were ratified as the first through tenth amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. I couldn't tell you who in that Congress wrote the actual text, although they were sent to the states for ratification over the signature of Augustus Muhlenberg, the Speaker of the House. It's a cinch they weren't Jefferson's words--he was in France at the time, chasing Sally Hemmings around the bedroom, neglecting his responsibilities as a husband and an ambassador. You should do the homework, however, if you want to refute what i've written, reading very much about Jefferson at once tends to make me nauseous. I get sickened very quickly by the fawning and undeserved praise, and the gross inaccuracies most often encountered, and it's a truly monumental task to dig through to the truth. If you want to admire Jefferson, you help yourself, you won't be alone--and you won't be justified, either.

POLitics! Jeesh! How about industrialists?

Henry Ford changed one or two things.
Thomas Edison has had some effect on our lives.
Carnegie?

The most influential person? The world has been stunned and changed by computers ... Fairchild, Moore, Shockley, Gates?

Who carries more influence all around the globe, to all 6 billion people on the planet?

Who invented TV? That one industry is far more powerful than any one country.

How about Jonas Salk?
How about Thomas Edison?
How about Bill Gates?
How about Richard J. Daley of Chicago?
How about Rosaland Yalow?
How about James Watson?
How about Dr. Sabin?

How about Dr. WaksMan


Guys:
If vaccines, vaccinations and antibiotics hadn't been developed in the USA, you would not be sitting at your computer, today, composing a thread on A2K.

Think about it!

Read a modern day textbook on Microbiology/Immunology.

That's why I sticking by my number two choice-- Eli Whitney. Revolutionized both American industry and agriculture.

I'm never speaking of Thomas Jefferson again, Setanta did such a good job of explaining that whole battle with the boats and such. (Sorry about not mentioning that the underline emphasis was mine. ) Completely changed my whole outlook.

No doubt Jefferson is someone hard to like, he was a player. He's still my favorite rascal, though.

Joe

I think a hatchet job was done on Thomas Jefferson in this thread. We owe plenty to the man -- and some of the stuff swilled here was uncalled for.

Rosa Parks>>Civil Rights Movement

Setanta, if Jefferson was a thief of ideas, we all are ;-) We all base our opinions and ideas on what we read/hear from others. I really don't care all that much for where he got the ideas, but what he firmly believed in and stood for.
As for Magna Charta Libertate, I don't think it is comparable with the Bill of Rights much. It was designed by the Lords to protect them from the king and give them a bit more independence, the ordinary peasant did not see much change other than the Lords had a tighter grip on them. Even the prevention of arbitrary arrest and a right to trial did not apply in practice to all. Same goes for the English Bill of Rights of 1689, that was to protect members of parliament, limit levying of taxes on the lords, etc. If you want to compare the Bill of rights to anything, I'd opt for the French Declaration des Droits de l'Homme, issued the same year.

Dagmarka, i'd not dispute your description of for whom Magna Carta was written, nor that such rights were never considered for extension to others outside the peerage and the baronage. My point was that such rights were included in the Bill of Rights as protections for all citizens (which, of course, did not include Blacks or the aboriginal tribes--we weren't perfect then, any more than now). I'm not so dense as to think that any of us are founts of nothing but original ideas, and that was not my point about Jefferson. My point was that he is given credit for being an original thinker when most often he was not. I said that he did the country more harm than good. That posits that some of what he said and did was good--but that most was not. I'll stand by that. Jefferson was governor of Virginia for a time during the Revolution. If ever he heard a shot fired in anger, it was because he didn't run away fast enough. By contrast, James Madison, a much more original thinker in terms of political theory, was a veteran of that war, having displayed a natural ability in leadership, and a commendable courage in combat. In fact, his leadership of the Virginia Line on the north end of Queen Street in Trenton, in December, 1776, was crucial to that victory, and the victory was crucial to the survival of the Revolution. It has always mystified and amazed me that someone such as Madison, who, although physically small in stature, especially in comparison to the relatively tall Jefferson, would have been so much under his influence during his own presidency, when, in terms of intelligence, original thinking, political virtue and personal valor, he towered over Jefferson. That was why i made so much mention of the War of 1812. Madison ought never to have done it, and the English regretted it as well--the orders in council were revoked, and news of that was on the way to America at the time war was declared. My point was that Madison subscribed to all of Jefferson's policies from his administration, when Madison was easily much more of a genuine leader than Jefferson. Jefferson's policies on the Army and Navy, which Madison continued, were based on bankrupt theories of the ideals of democracy, and cost us much that the nation should never have suffered. Jefferson's irresponsible, adolescent glee in the bloody course of the French revolution was irresponsible as well, and we paid the price in a decade long, undeclared naval war with the French during Washington's second term and the administration of John Adams. The French developed an unacceptably arrogant attitude toward the United States which can definitely be laid at Jefferson's door. When he bacame President, he made a complete hash of the war with the Barbary Pirates, at a time when the very professional Navy, built by Congress during the Washington and Adams administrations, was proving itself capable of dealing effectively with Tripoli. After all the grief the Navy went to, the capture of Philadelphia, her destruction by a Navy raiding party, very cleverly planned and executed by Stephen Decatur, and the eventual surrender of the Tripolitanians, along with the release of American prisoners in Tripoli, was completely wasted when Jefferson stepped up, paid them tribute, and promised them the Navy would not bother them again. New England merchants were again considered legitimate prey by the Tripolitanians, and the consequences for American commerce were enormous. He allowed the Army to languish, and, had not the Military Academy existed, we'd have had no army at all. As it was, the cadets were obliged to march off to the Niagara penninsula as a battalion unto themselves, because there was simply no regular army in the country, apart from a handful of artillerists, such as Winfield Scott had commanded at Queenston. Chauncey and Decatur were obliged to build their own fleets to deal with the threat from the British on the Great Lakes, and the blue-water Navy just barely held it's own, once again because of a professionalism and dedication in the officer corps which had survived Jefferson's attempts to dismantle that service. Jefferson had opposed the ratification of the constitution, and did all that he could in his two administrations to sabotage the government which had been created. Just as he had intrigued against Hamilton when he was Secretary of the Treasury in Washington's administration, and Jefferson was Secretary of State, lying to Washington about it all the while, so he attempted to dismantle the Bank of the United States during his own administration, when that organization had given the nation the economic life and health which made us prosperous in the early years. He hounded the Bank into the arms of the Federalists, and in a prime example of self-fulfilling prophecy, made it a cat's paw of the opposition. Had he left it alone, it is by no means reasonable to assume that the Bank would have been corrupted in the way it was by the time Jackson finally put it out of it's and the nation's misery. I admired Jefferson when i was young, but i've spent a life-time reading history, and honesty compells me to acknowledge what a disaster Jefferson very nearly was for the survival of the fledgeling republic. If Frank wants to consider this a hatchet job, so be it. I'm not going to back down from what thousands of pages of reading from a very wide variety of sources, many of them sympathetic to Jefferson, have lead me to conclude.