Washington was great, and the father of our country, but how did he top freeing slaves or toppling segregation? (I’m honestly asking here. I’m not as well versed in my early American history as I should be, so maybe I’m missing something.)
Americans were treated poorly by Great Britain, sure, but I don’t think the “Intolerable Acts” were anything close to what blacks in America had to deal with for another 200 years after the American Revolution. And after independence was won, did President Washington advance civil rights in any significant way?
Washington did at least free his slaves - when he died, after which they were of no value to him anymore anyway. But that was still better than Jefferson did, despite all his flighty verbiage about all men being created equal, and the influence *that *had in the civil rights movement. Among pre-war Presidents, the only other one that even deserves mention might be JQ Adams, who later in life argued the case that freed the *Amistad *slaves.
George Washington was human, and had great character traits and great flaws. His behavior on civil rights was not one of his strengths, and in some cases, he behaved monstrously. Other founding fathers, like Ben Franklin and John Adams, were far more admirable with regards to civil rights (though they were far from perfect as well).
Women were among the first to speak out for civil rights (not just for African Americans, but for Native Americans, and for all women.) Among the activists who should be mentioned are Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Coffin Mott, Susan B. Anthony, Lydia Marie Child, and Harriet Beecher Stowe. (Lincoln called her “the little woman who made the great war”.)
In fact, IIRC, the real push for women’s rights in the U.S. began when women abolitionists were not allowed to speak at an anti-slavery rally.
:shrug: Sorry, I thought I made it clear that I was asking a serious question. I was certainly intending to, at any rate:
In all seriousness, why on earth should “second greatest” even be a thing, let alone something worth debating? Clearly you feel it is, and it is…so, why?
Would you prefer we debate who was the third greatest?
The question seems legitimate. There is a consensus that Dr. King is at the top. Is there a similar consensus who is next? So far, it appears there isn’t.
He freed America. But did he really free Americans? Washington was no advocate of popular democracy. He didn’t think women, black people, Native Americans, or poor people should have the vote. He just thought America should be run by well-connected Americans rather than well-connected Britons. So while he espoused a cause, I don’t think that cause was civil rights.
Ok, gotcha. If the purpose is to determine if there is a consensus as to second place, I get it. Still not sure why it matters, but I get it.
Of course, I’m not sure there is truly a consensus about Dr. King, but stipulating that, solid cases can be made for Johnson, Lincoln, Parks, Tubman, Stowe, Bobby Kennedy, and Malcolm X. At the very least.
Disagree. To use an A through F grading system, Lincoln helped bring our civil rights record from an F to a D-. It was a very big jump, actually… it was a deep and low F before Lincoln, and it went all the way up to a D-. In the several decades between Lincoln and MLK Jr., I’d say we went from a D- to a D. MLK Jr. was instrumental in bringing us from a D to a C+ or even a B-.
Ending slavery was obviously necessary for Civil Rights reasons, but it was the barest first step – black people were still treated barbarically by society and those in power for a hundred years after. So I think MLK Jr. was more instrumental in our Civil Rights history.
Lincoln raised it to an A++. For a brief period after his death the Freedmen did have equality, but then my Southern brothers put an end to all that. Having grown up in the 60’s I have to say MLK was a great man but, hard to believe, I Have a Dream was ignored for even a longer time than Gettysburg Address. LBJ was going to push the Civil Rights Act through MLK or no MLK, it was that law that made all the difference, you can’t move a world of ignorant redneck southern idiots with speeches but a few good laws and a bunch of lawsuits works miracles.
The galvanizing effect of this tragedy on the American public cannot be overstated. The eventual (but imminent) success of the civil rights movement became inevitable the moment those boys were murdered.
In terms of what we consider the U.S. civil rights era, I’d argue that if Thurgood Marshall deserves to share the stage with MLK, and that’s no small thing.
I would put in Jefferson, all of those who wrote the Constitution - perhaps a generic Founding Fathers list in the top 5 of Civil Rights figures. The Constitution has provided a framework for individual rights. Yes, it had and still has its flaws - but it has been a necessary part of our nation’s evolution.
Marshall deserves a huge amount of credit for doing a lot of the nuts and bolts work of the civil rights movement while others were changing popular opinion by inspirational acts and speeches. Marshall’s strategy was to chip away at the legal structure that supporting racism and demolish it one piece after another until it collapsed.
Now eliminating racist laws wouldn’t have changed the way people thought. But by the same token, there was no point in changing the way people thought if you left the racist laws intact.
