Ranking of U.S. Presidents by historians

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_St ates

Discuss.

[Betonov]

I'll leave the discussion to americans, but I just want to make one comment. Teddy Roosevelt #1

[tater]

The notion that these polls are even close to unbiased is of course absurd. Academic historians share the same overwhelming one-sidedness in political affiliation that other academics have. The book "In Denial" talks at some length (with publication statistics supplied) about academia's treatment of communism, for example.

Odd to see Johnson up there in the top 20 all the time, he was awful. Ditto Wilson, arguably the more repressive president ever.

[Sailor Steve]

I like that they show the results of all the polls taken over the years. Of course the rankings are biased. It's impossible for anyone to not have a bias, period.

I still put Washington first, because without his honest dislike of power our history could have been far different, and worse. When John Adams wanted congress to give him the title "His Excellence, The President Of The United States And Defender Of Their Freedoms", it was Washington himself who suggested "Mister President" might be more appropriate.

[Jimbuna]

America have had some excellent Presidents but IMHO Roosevelt was the most helpful and friendly toward the UK.

[TLAM Strike]

America have had some excellent Presidents but IMHO Roosevelt was the most helpful and friendly toward the UK.

Guessing you mean FDR?

FWI there were two President Roosevelts. :salute:

[tater]

America have had some excellent Presidents but IMHO Roosevelt was the most helpful and friendly toward the UK.

FDR was actually kind of scary when you look at his constraints on civil liberties—not just during the war, but also on private commerce in his poor attempts to fix the Depression (experiments that were actually counter-productive).

[thorn69]

Down South, Lincoln is not well liked at all, nor was Grant. Depending if you believe in States rights or not - Lincoln was wrong and Grant was a war criminal. Thank God, Sherman was never a President! His actions in the South definitely equate to war crimes! (Burning down entire towns and cities and encouraging the raping and pillaging of your enemy IS a war crime)

You also have to consider that history has been rewritten to make some of these folks seem like national heroes. Lincoln is thought to be the man that ended slavery and racial discrimination in the US. This is far from the truth however. He didn't value blacks as ever being equals to whites at all. He even had slaves working for him throughout his entire life. He freed the slaves in the South during a time he had no control over the South. The South was a separate country at that time. His actions to free the slaves weren't based on compassion or even one of human equality. They were based on stirring up trouble for the South and to get blacks in the South to rise up against wealthy Southerners. Foolishly, many blacks and whites thought and still think it was about some rich white guy in power caring about blacks. How simple minded people are!

The Civil war was started because of Lincolns tyrannical rule and taxing system - NOT SLAVERY as is taught in many school systems these days. He tried to tax the hell out of rich Southern plantation owners and aimed a tax directly at them. it wasn't going to effect rich Northerners like himself and his family. When the South refused to pay this unfair tax, they united and agreed to secede from the Union. When told of this, Lincoln was quoted as having said, "Now who am I going to tax?"

If you watch the movie "Glory", based on the life of Col. Robert Gould Shaw and the 54th Massachusetts regiment, you will clearly see that northerners didn't value blacks as their equals. When the 54th was founded, Col. Robert Gould Shaw (a white man) was placed in command of an ALL black regiment. However, when it came time to pay his troops at the end of the month, his troops were only given 1/2 the pay of a white troop. All northern black troops petitioned this DISCRIMINATION to Congress and were eventually back-paid in full AFTER the war was over - considering of course they lived through it.

People should realize that when you win a war you get the advantage of talking bad about your enemy and making them look as evil as Satan himself. After all, they lost. You get the advantage of rewriting history because people tend to side with the victor. Nobody likes to hang with the losing side. Look at how we bash Nazi Germany today. Imagine if the Nazis had won. What would your history book tell you then? Of course you'd believe it because you'd be brainwashed that any other opinion that differed from your own was wrong, anybody who opposed you was a racist, etc etc etc. Just think, YOU'D be the biggest, proudest, Nazi in the world right now!

That's how history works folks! It's filled with a bunch of untruths and personal bias. It's the fact that we'd rather side ourselves with the victor instead of the loser and that's exactly what makes us a bunch of sheeple willing to listen and obey anything we're told.

[MH]

Ronald Regan :salute:

[Jimbuna]

Guessing you mean FDR?

FWI there were two President Roosevelts. :salute:

I honestly wasn't aware....but yes FDR, the 32nd POTUS :DL

FDR was actually kind of scary when you look at his constraints on civil liberties—not just during the war, but also on private commerce in his poor attempts to fix the Depression (experiments that were actually counter-productive).

I'll take your word for it because I can't say I know much about him :up:

What I do know/recall is the way he helped the UK when she stood alone against the Axis :salute:

[August]

It's filled with a bunch of untruths and personal bias.

That is caused by rabble rousers on both sides. Take the stuff you just wrote for example. That evil Yankee Despoiler theme remains quite popular among certain segments of the south even today, mostly those who want to redirect attention away from the fact that their oh so pure southern ancestors bought and sold human beings like cattle and it took a huge and bloody civil war to get them to stop it. But the more it's repeated the more good people such as yourself begin to believe it.

[thorn69]

That is caused by rabble rousers on both sides. Take the stuff you just wrote for example. That evil Yankee Despoiler theme remains quite popular among certain segments of the south even today, mostly those who want to redirect attention away from the fact that their oh so pure southern ancestors bought and sold human beings like cattle and it took a huge and bloody civil war to get them to stop it.


I wrote nothing about evil yankees in my post. Re-read it and point it out. I'm not attacking the north but I am attacking the popular mistruths that originated from the north after the civil war was won.

Fact is August - northerners bought and sold human beings as well. As a matter of fact, it was done more in the north than it was in the south. The US Constitution even claimed that slaves were property of their owners and explained what to do about runaways. This is the same Constitution that many northern presidents used as a power basis and made no qualms about it while they were in power. You try to blame Southerners for practicing what was considered law of the time and paint them with the same vile brush as being all the same. Paint your northern brethren with that same brush while you're at it. They were just as guilty for slavery if not more so. Just because they won the war, doesn't give them the right to vilify their foe with falsifications and push the entire blame of slavery on them to boot. That's just appalling!

[tater]

Some stuff about the Civil War not being predicated by slavery

Nonsense. The reaction to Lincoln was absolutely about slavery, not taxes. The (brand new) Republican party was heavy with abolitionists. The South feared the new administration for that reason, it had squat to do with taxes.

This has been done to death, with modern state's rights people trying to paint the CW as "State's Rights" when it was all about a State's right to OWNB HUMAN BEINGS.

[thorn69]

Nonsense. The reaction to Lincoln was absolutely about slavery, not taxes. The (brand new) Republican party was heavy with abolitionists. The South feared the new administration for that reason, it had squat to do with taxes.

This has been done to death, with modern state's rights people trying to paint the CW as "State's Rights" when it was all about a State's right to OWNB HUMAN BEINGS.


Um, No! You're completely wrong about that. Look further than your liberal northern school books. Do some research for yourself and you will see that the civil war didn't really have anything to do with slavery at all. It began based on unfair taxes that Lincoln aimed at the wealthy South. You can't escape from the truth. It's been written!

I know the truth hurts, but you must accept what you've been denied your entire life. Lincoln is not your savior. He was just a rich man who had blacks sewing his pants just like Jefferson had.

[Tchocky]

Do some research for yourself and you will see that the civil war didn't really have anything to do with slavery at all. It began based on unfair taxes that Lincoln aimed at the wealthy South.
In all fairness, I think the onus is on you here to show something.
"Nothing to do with slavery" sounds like hooey to me.

As far as I recall, the taxation/tariff system in place was put in place to protect Southern agriculture (cotton etc) and was unfair to the growing industrial North. Could well be wrong, mind. Anyone know?


EDIT - Just going to post this (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_a nd_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_th e_Federal_Union) for some source material

[tater]

Um, No! You're completely wrong about that. Look further than your liberal northern school books. Do some research for yourself and you will see that the civil war didn't really have anything to do with slavery at all. It began based on unfair taxes that Lincoln aimed at the wealthy South. You can't escape from the truth. It's been written!

I know the truth hurts, but you must accept what you've been denied your entire life. Lincoln is not your savior. He was just a rich man who had blacks sewing his pants just like Jefferson had.

You're delusional.

I don't own any "northern school books." Or do you consider historians like Shelby Foote liberal, northerners?

The war was about slavery, period, this has been done to death here, with you silly POV entirely discredited. It is revisionism, plain and simple.

I'm highly conservative, BTW.

[Platapus]

I would imagine that everyone has their own "ranking" of the Presidents according to the individual's opinion. Why we would need some sort of list like this escapes me as the likelihood of anyone agreeing with the list in total, is practically nil.

[Sailor Steve]

Actually, thorn, you're the one who is twisting history to suit your own desire to deflect blame. We just had this discussion three months ago. Where were you then?

Read this, then maybe we can have a real discussion without seeing only our own agendas.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1358229&postcount=47

[Takeda Shingen]

I always get the urge to jump into this type of thread, but I always remind myself that I would look foolish next to Steve: SubSim's own American history and constitutional scholar. He's spent some serious time with some serious books. I am no intellectual slouch: I hold a Ph.D; I am a tenured university professor. My position also entails heavy professional research. Still, I confess to being intimidated by the depth of Steve's knowledge on the subject. I know that is not his intention, but I cannot stave off the sensation.

[tater]

In general, the notion of "ranking" Presidents is silly on its face.

President #2 is how much better than #3? 2.0389y87668% better? LOL.

There are only 4 broad placements for Presidents that are not entirely subjective.

1-termers

2+-termers

1 termers who were prevented from running a 2d time (death, etc)

Impeached Presidents.

2+ terms beats 1, by an objective measure, the choice of the electorate.

1 termers who died are arguable subjectively (he would have won a 2d term...)

Impeached are at the bottom (have ti say the dishonor trumps even a 2d term).

[thorn69]

In all fairness, I think the onus is on you here to show something.
"Nothing to do with slavery" sounds like hooey to me.

As far as I recall, the taxation/tariff system in place was put in place to protect Southern agriculture (cotton etc) and was unfair to the growing industrial North. Could well be wrong, mind. Anyone know?


EDIT - Just going to post this (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_a nd_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_th e_Federal_Union) for some source material


The only thing it had to do with slavery was Lincoln and other abolitionists saw that slavery was making the South very rich. Lincoln imposed a tax directed at wealthy Southerners in order to reap that wealth away from the South to give away to the North.

Nobody in the US had a problem with slavery until they saw that OTHER people were becoming rich from it. Then the jealousy kicked in, and if you look you will see that 99% of the abolitionist originated up north where farming and agriculture was scarce. These people couldn't benefit from slavery so they became bitterly jealous of the South for profiting from it.

It was a Constitutional RIGHT to own and buy slaves at that time. Don't forget that it was Lincoln who invaded and ATTACKED the South and began the actual war. So why would anybody resort to armed combat first in a civil dispute unless they knew they were wrong? Usually the side that shoots first in that matter is the wrong side because they've allowed themselves to become so consumed with absolutism and deemed that violence is the only method to win their case.

What grounds would Lincoln have to attack the South, or why would the South secede from the north over slavery when it was still their legal RIGHT to buy and sell slaves according to the US Constitution of 1861? That doesn't make any sense at all!

Furthermore, all this nonsense about beating slaves is a bit much. Why would a Southern plantation owner buy a slave (which cost them quite a bit of money back then) just to blatantly beat and kill him? That makes no sense at all either. Besides, it was called "flogging". It was the common form of discipline used on EVERYBODY during that time period. Military deserters who were caught would be often be flogged in the same manner, if not shot, or hanged just the same. So much fiction has influenced the facts of what was real and what wasn't. I just don't see slave buyers beating slaves just to beat them. What good is an injured, sick, or dead slave when you're trying to make a profit off their labor? I think much of this is one or two incidents that ballooned up into something more than it really happened. I could be wrong but I'm betting I'm not since I'm using common sense and to think about much of this and not some biased liberal school book that was printed up north.

I'm just asking that people use some common sense and think for themselves about this. The popular opinion about things is not always right. In most cases it's wrong because people tend to believe in something because it's personally benefiting them. It's greed opinion and unfortunately that's what's popular. Just like I said before. If Nazi Germany had won the war, you'd be a strong believer in Nazism and anything else would be "crazy" sounding to you.

Like I've also said, blacks were treated just like slaves up in the north as well. This is documented. It wasn't until the 1960s civil rights movement that blacks were ever really "free" in the US and there were just as many segregated schools and water fountains in New York city as there ever was in Birmingham, Alabama believe it or not. All this racism AFTER the civil war. So quit trying to act like the people up north had a heart for the blacks and the people in the south didn't. That's what modern history is teaching people today and that's just wrong.

Fact: Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and other founding forefathers added the RIGHTS to slavery into the US Constitution. They said that it troubled them to think about it but they found it to be a necessity for the foundation of our country. What the people in the South were doing was exactly what Franklin and Jefferson and all the others saw as a necessity for the country to grow. Therefore, Lincoln declared war on the South for practicing their Constitutional RIGHT if you're still thinking the war was about slavery. In either case, Lincoln was wrong to attack the South and what the South was doing was their Constitutional right at that time. Maybe not morally right, but I think I've shown several times now that the north didn't really have a problem with slavery as much as they had a problem with the people who were benefiting from it the most.

[Tribesman]

:roll:Wow
How someone could write that after the offer given above in #18 and endorsement of the value of that offer in......I always remind myself that I would look foolish next to Steve: SubSim's own American history and constitutional scholar.

[thorn69]

Actually, thorn, you're the one who is twisting history to suit your own desire to deflect blame. We just had this discussion three months ago. Where were you then?

Read this, then maybe we can have a real discussion without seeing only our own agendas.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1358229&postcount=47


Looks like nothing more than the "popular opinion" expressed by a man with one of the most post counts on this forum using his position, along with the aid of his moderator buddies to bully that opinion onto others. Here's a challenge for you Steve... Why don't you man-up and actually argue for the unpopular opinion for once? It's so easy to hide behind years and years of prejudice teachings that depict the losing side as being the wrong one!

Like I said before, it's people like Steve here who'd be the biggest Nazi supporter had they won. :nope:

[thorn69]

:roll:Wow
How someone could write that after the offer given above in #18 and endorsement of the value of that offer in......

Because Steve is not right in this case. He's ashamed of his own ancestry for practicing their Constitutional rights of that time and standing up in the face of tyrannical rule and refusing to be taxed unfairly on their Constitutional right to buy and own slaves. This tax is why the South seceded and Lincoln just couldn't allow that. The Union would have floundered without the South's money and their crops!

I find it deplorable that one would belittle his own ancestry. That's just sad. :nope:

Imagine if people like Steve here got their way in today's modern battle against a person's Constitutional right. Now the issue is firearms. People like Steve will side with the winning side because he's safe there. He has no real opinion or credibility in my book. I don't associate myself with people that can't think outside their box that was erected by someone else.

[Sailor Steve]

:o Yeah, wow. :roll:

Lincoln imposed a tax directed at wealthy Southerners in order to reap that wealth away from the South to give away to the North.
The first seven states seceeded upon Lincoln's election, several months before he took office. Exactly how did he impose this tax?

The other four seceeded specifically because of Lincoln's call for volunteers to "Put down the rebellion."

You need to provide documentation for everything you say on a subject this touchy.

Nobody in the US had a problem with slavery until they saw that OTHER people were becoming rich from it. Then the jealousy kicked in, and if you look you will see that 99% of the abolitionist originated up north where farming and agriculture was scarce. These people couldn't benefit from slavery so they became bitterly jealous of the South for profiting from it.
The northern states tried to outlaw slavery in the Constitution itself, seventy years before the secession began. They certainly weren't jealous then.

It was a Constitutional RIGHT to own and buy slaves at that time. Don't forget that it was Lincoln who invaded and ATTACKED the South and began the actual war.
Actually the South fired first, attacking the Federal fort in Charleston Bay.

So why would anybody resort to armed combat first in a civil dispute unless they knew they were wrong? Usually the side that shoots first in that matter is the wrong side because they've allowed themselves to become so consumed with absolutism and deemed that violence is the only method to win their case.
You're absolutely right. See my post above.

What grounds would Lincoln have to attack the South, or why would the South secede from the north over slavery when it was still their legal RIGHT to buy and sell slaves according to the US Constitution of 1861? That doesn't make any sense at all!
The US Constitution was written in 1787. They agreed to Southern terms at the time because they felt that without ALL the states joining in they would fail. As Benjamin Franklin had said during the revolution, "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately." Lincoln was of the very next generation, and that feeling still prevailed, which is why he felt the need to put the Union first ahead of the Abolition questiion.

Furthermore, all this nonsense about beating slaves is a bit much.
I don't know why Southern owners would beat slaves, but the photographic evidence makes the proper question "Why DID they?" Because they most certainly did.

I'm just asking that people use some common sense and think for themselves about this.
Please read the post I referred you to, and then you can ask that same question of yourself.

Fact: Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and other founding forefathers added the RIGHTS to slavery into the US Constitution.
Only because they had no choice.

They said that it troubled them to think about it but they found it to be a necessity for the foundation of our country.
They felt they had to bow to the demands of the southern States or lose the whole country. Read Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention.

Before you post what you've been spoon-fed, follow your own advice and read what they wrote at the time, both the Constitutional arguments and the arguments leading to the Civil War.

Again, read my linked post and answer my statements directly, one-at-a-time, and use documents from that time. I'm curious to see what you come up with.

[razark]

Impeached are at the bottom (have ti say the dishonor trumps even a 2d term).

Where does "resigned" fall in this ranking?

[Sailor Steve]

Looks like nothing more than the "popular opinion" expressed by a man with one of the most post counts on this forum using his position, along with the aid of his moderator buddies to bully that opinion onto others.
Can you back that up with facts, or is it just your opinion?

Here's a challenge for you Steve... Why don't you man-up and actually argue for the unpopular opinion for once? It's so easy to hide behind years and years of prejudice teachings that depict the losing side as being the wrong one!
Popularity of opinion has nothing to do with it. I look at everything that is said in every case, and I judge it accordingly. Unlike you, I have nothing to lie about.

Like I said before, it's people like Steve here who'd be the biggest Nazi supporter had they won. :nope:
Again, opinion, or do you have facts. I don't cast aspersions on you. I did say when I thought you were wrong, but that's not the same thing. And as for nazis, I'm not the one who recommended killing people just for being in the country illegally.

Because Steve is not right in this case. He's ashamed of his own ancestry for practicing their Constitutional rights of that time and standing up in the face of tyrannical rule and refusing to be taxed unfairly on their Constitutional right to buy and own slaves. This tax is why the South seceded and Lincoln just couldn't allow that. The Union would have floundered without the South's money and their crops!
Again, you need to show factual evidence of this tax that was imposed before Lincoln took office.

[/quote]I find it deplorable that one would belittle his own ancestry. That's just sad. :nope:[/quote]
I'm not belittling anything, nor am I ashamed of it. Like all history, it just is. Or was.

Imagine if people like Steve here got their way in today's modern battle against a person's Constitutional right. Now the issue is firearms. People like Steve will side with the winning side because he's safe there. He has no real opinion or credibility in my book. I don't associate myself with people that can't think outside their box that was erected by someone else.
So you don't associate with yourself? You are guilty of the very thing you accuse me of.

"Constitutional right?" Where in the Constitution does it say one man has the right to deny another his own rights by "owning" him? Chapter and verse, please.

Now please answer my arguments with actual facts. If you can't show proper documentation to back up what you say, then you are stating opinion, not fact. Lincoln passed a tax that made the southern states seceed? You've said it several times, now prove it. Until you do, it's all hot air.

And while we're on the subject, what kind of discussion is it wherein one party produces evidence and the other counters it with name-calling and derision. Do you actually have any facts at all?

[Sailor Steve]

Where does "resigned" fall in this ranking?
At the bottom, I would say. On the other hand, Like LBJ, Nixon was a good administrator. His biggest problems seems to have been paranoia.

As to Impeachment, two presidents have been impeached so far, and in both cases it was a witchhunt by opposing parties. And in both cases they were exonerated. Being found guilty and removed from office would have been bad for them, but since "impeachment" does not equal "conviction", I don't rate them because of that. I'm not a big fan of either one of them, but I don't think that's the criterion that should be used here.

Besides, it's never good to rate someone of your own generation. That is best left for the future.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

How did this become a Civil War thread!?!?!?!? :damn:

[Sailor Steve]

Because someone with an axe to grind wasn't satisfied with saying he didn't like two presidents, but felt the need to rant about his pet cause.

That's the way it happens sometimes.

[thorn69]

How did this become a Civil War thread!?!?!?!? :damn:

My fault I guess. Just pointing out that the ranking of Presidents is flawed depending on where you go and who you talk to. Others posted to argue my stance on why Lincoln and Grant should be further down on the list. But oh well, that's how these threads work sometimes. People feel the need to force those of us without the popular opinion into their large group of lemmings. Sorry, but I don't want to be a member of that cliche. It just leads to hypocritical changes when they eventually fall. Sooner or later the unpopular opinion will become the popular one and I'm gonna laugh when all these folks jump ship and join up with those they opposed for so long. There's nothing better than watching the Clinton two-step take place! It's become quite a popular political dance I hear! :rotfl2:

[thorn69]

Because someone with an axe to grind wasn't satisfied with saying he didn't like two presidents, but felt the need to rant about his pet cause.

That's the way it happens sometimes.


And YOU'RE NOT guilty of the same exact thing? How dishonest of you! But I expected nothing less.

BTW, to answer a part of your very tiresome post from earlier. It was called the "Fugitive Slavery Clause". It was in the US Constitution. Look it up if you're unaware of what this is or what it was. Only a few states (3 of them) had banned slavery (all of them up North) but it was Federal law that the government had to help slave catchers retrieve their runaway property even in states that weren't participating in the slavery trade.

Also, Lincoln never got around to imposing the tax on the South. He stated before his election what he would do if he was elected. Of course when he got elected the South knew what it was facing. An Obama of the past, Lincoln was a tyrant who sought to steal from the wealthy and give to the poor. Lincoln was the nations first socialist puppet. Really, he didn't care about slavery, or that it existed, he cared that it wasn't making him or any of the people up north rich. Just like the people of today don't really care who's rich or not. They just care that they aren't and are bitterly jealous they don't have any money. Of course when they get money they want to convert to the republican/pro-capitalist side of thinking since it benefits them. Why would they want to give their money away to any poor person? :roll: And there's the Clinton two-step for ya if you didn't know how to do that dance. :rotfl2:

[razark]

At the bottom, I would say. On the other hand, Like LBJ, Nixon was a good administrator. His biggest problems seems to have been paranoia.

As to Impeachment, two presidents have been impeached so far, and in both cases it was a witchhunt by opposing parties. And in both cases they were exonerated. Being found guilty and removed from office would have been bad for them, but since "impeachment" does not equal "conviction", I don't rate them because of that. I'm not a big fan of either one of them, but I don't think that's the criterion that should be used here.

So, impeachment is above resignation, and resignation is above impeachment with conviction, then? Seems this ranking system could be improved. As could any ranking system.

Besides, it's never good to rate someone of your own generation. That is best left for the future.

And each generation will rank the preceding ones differently. I don't think there will ever be a definitive best-to-worst presidential ranking system.

[Takeda Shingen]

And YOU'RE NOT guilty of the same exact thing? How dishonest of you! But I expected nothing less.

BTW, to answer a part of your very tiresome post from earlier. It was called the "Fugitive Slavery Clause". It was in the US Constitution. Look it up if you're unaware of what this is or what it was. Only a few states (3 of them) had banned slavery (all of them up North) but it was Federal law that the government had to help slave catchers retrieve their runaway property even in states that weren't participating in the slavery trade.

So pray tell why the fugitive slave act was passed?

[tater]

Where does "resigned" fall in this ranking?

Resigned would certainly chuck you down a notch as well, unless it was for some legit reason (sickness, etc).

So Clinton is a two termer, Impeached, so chuck him in the 1-termer pile, perhaps. And Nixon is a 2 termer who resigned under impeachment, so he's a 1-termer in terms quality as well. Both are at the bottom of the 1 termers, though, or even underneath for the same reason.

Fair?

[tater]

thorn69 posits something that no thinking person can agree with, hence instant derailment.

SS has no agenda at all. Gotta love thorn69 saying that he'd be a nazi supporter had THEY won. Absurd. Facts are facts. Southern secession had the fate of slavery as the primary cause.

Thorn claims it was the Morrill Tariff that made the South break apart, even though it was passed AFTER the bulk of States had already left (which is precisely how it passed (signed 2 days before Lincoln took office, BTW) since the reduced congress was unbalanced to the North politically then.

Quit while you're only behind a lot.

[Sailor Steve]

My fault I guess. Just pointing out that the ranking of Presidents is flawed depending on where you go and who you talk to. Others posted to argue my stance on why Lincoln and Grant should be further down on the list.
Not at all. You have every right to your opinion on Lincoln and Grant, and I fully support your right to that opinion. You didn't wait for someone to disagree; you launched into a tirade on slavery right from the start.

But oh well, that's how these threads work sometimes. People feel the need to force those of us without the popular opinion into their large group of lemmings.
An interesting accusation, but you still have provided no facts for any of your claims, about the war or about me. And you end with another attack. I could care less about opinions, popular or otherwise. Facts are what I'm interested in. Where are yours?

[thorn69]

thorn69 posits something that no thinking person can agree with, hence instant derailment.

SS has no agenda at all. Gotta love thorn69 saying that he'd be a nazi supporter had THEY won. Absurd. Facts are facts. Southern secession had the fate of slavery as the primary cause.

Thorn claims it was the Morrill Tariff that made the South break apart, even though it was passed AFTER the bulk of States had already left (which is precisely how it passed (signed 2 days before Lincoln took office, BTW) since the reduced congress was unbalanced to the North politically then.

Quit while you're only behind a lot.

Believe what you want but you're only making yourself look foolish. The South didn't secede from the north over slavery. It was their constitutional right to buy and own slaves at that time. You're logic doesn't make any sense at all. Unfair taxes targeted at wealthy Southerners is what caused the Southern states to secede from the north. All of it falls under states rights and US Constitutional rights. Slavery was mixed into all of this because people had the right to buy and sell slaves, but that one thing had very little if anything to do with the want to secede from the Union.

@Tak Shin - I've said before that slavery was thought to be a necessity for building the foundations of our nation. This is why it was added to the Constitution. The north depended on slavery just as much as the South. But once people got jealous about how prosperous people in the South were getting off slavery - something had to be done to stop it. It was never the fact that those people grew a heart and wanted it to stop. They were bitterly jealous of the growth in the South and making only a few coins in a sweat shop up north as a white man didn't seem right when you saw another white man in the South living the high life off doing very little himself.

But what's changed? Today we don't call it slavery but in essence everyone is a slave to somebody. You make like 1/1000th that your employer makes most likely. You work for him just like a slave had to work for his master. You hate him for being rich and powerful and making you work so hard for your keep but you remain quite about it because you know that only fools bite the hand that feeds them! So we don't call it slavery and before someone states that you're not forced to work I think you're wrong. Try to live a life without a job in the country and see if you don't land in jail eventually. You still owe taxes believe it or not. Imagine all the homeless people going to go to Federal prison under Obama's health care plan. Can't pay for health care you get fined. Don't pay the fine - Go to prison and still get fined! That's freedom? Give me a break! :rotfl2:

[Sailor Steve]

And YOU'RE NOT guilty of the same exact thing? How dishonest of you! But I expected nothing less.
Derailing threads? Only all the time. And every time someone has called me on it I've apologised.

You expected "nothing less"? You seem bent on branding me as opinionated, and yet you haven't once backed up any of your opinions with facts. Fair enough, a little about me. I came to a point some time ago where I realized that I knew a lot less than I thought I did. If you had read my sig last month you would have seen "They say the more you learn the less you know. I've reached a point in my life where I've learned so much I don't know anything." While couched in humor, I fully believe that to be true. If I can't show facts, I try not to espouse an opinion, because I've been wrong far too many times for my own satisfaction. I once had a sig that was mildly offensive to some. When someone pointed that out I immediately apologised and took it down.

Does this mean I think I'm a good person? Not at all. I like to say I could never be an "ist" of any kind because I would first have to find someone who was lower on the scale than I am.

I read from you 'Stones' thread that you are married. Are you a good husband? If you have children, are you a good father? If so, then you are a better person than I am. I was a lousy husband and a mediocre father. I'm not overly bright, but I am blessed and cursed with an outstanding memory. Blessed because I can remember where I read things and know where to look them up; cursed because I still remember stupid things I did fifty years ago. That's embarrasing.

These days I try not to have an opinion on anything. If there aren't facts to show it, then I don't know and neither does anybody else.

Is there a God? I don't know. I won't deny it, but I would like to see some evidence.

UFOs? Kennedy conspiracy? Trade Center? OJ? I don't know. I look at the evidence that is there and it's inconclusive in every case.

BTW, to answer a part of your very tiresome post from earlier. It was called the "Fugitive Slavery Clause". It was in the US Constitution. Look it up if you're unaware of what this is or what it was. Only a few states (3 of them) had banned slavery (all of them up North) but it was Federal law that the government had to help slave catchers retrieve their runaway property even in states that weren't participating in the slavery trade.
I'm well aware of the Fugitive Slave Law. Again, it was a compromise that was forced by the Southern States if they were going to join. Are you saying that part of secession was about that? If so, then it was about slavery after all.

Also, Lincoln never got around to imposing the tax on the South. He stated before his election what he would do if he was elected.
Quote please? When did he say this? If I'm wrong of course I'll admit it.

Lincoln was a tyrant who sought to steal from the wealthy and give to the poor. Lincoln was the nations first socialist puppet. Really, he didn't care about slavery, or that it existed, he cared that it wasn't making him or any of the people up north rich.
Again, please give actual evidence. You seem to like to accuse people without any.

Also, please actually answer my comments in the other thread. The Southern States' Declarations of Causes? Any real comment, or just more diatribe?

[Takeda Shingen]

@Tak Shin - I've said before that slavery was thought to be a necessity for building the foundations of our nation. This is why it was added to the Constitution. The north depended on slavery just as much as the South. But once people got jealous about how prosperous people in the South were getting off slavery - something had to be done to stop it. It was never the fact that those people grew a heart and wanted it to stop. They were bitterly jealous of the growth in the South and making only a few coins in a sweat shop up north as a white man didn't seem right when you saw another white man in the South living the high life off doing very little himself.

And so, the Fugitive Slave Act was part of the Compromise of 1850, which sought to achieve political balance between states relying upon forced labor and those not. This five-part legislative peace lasted until the Kansas-Missouri Act of 1854, which insenced both sides of the argument. At it's core was the economic reality of the slave-based agricultural system and it's survival. As such, the right to own slaves was the central issue of every event that lead to the beginning of the American Civil War, even by your own admission.

Quo erat demonstratum.

[tater]

Unfair taxes targeted at wealthy Southerners is what caused the Southern states to secede from the north.

What taxes, name them.

You said Lincoln imposed the taxes and therefore caused them to leave, yet the bulk of the Confederacy was already formed before Lincoln actually took office.

So you are claiming that Lincoln taxed the South which caused them to secede before he was elected. Also, the tax to which you almost certainly refer was passed into law AFTER they seceded, so I guess you think they were overtaxed after they left?

Slavery was the primary cause. Everything else was secondary to it, or related. There were mostly rich southerners entirely because of slavery (reinvigorated after the cotton gin was invented). So even southern wealth relates to slavery. The "State's Right" they wished to protect was SLAVERY. Nothing more.

Your take is revisionism, and makes serious conservatives (like myself) look like idiots when we're painted with the same brush.

[Bilge_Rat]

I would rank Abraham Lincoln in the top 3 with Washington and FDR and would personally rank him no. 1

A great president is one who had a profound influence on the history of the USA.

In 1861, the USA was a collection of individual states heading towards anarchy. 13 states left before he even took office. The federal government was powerless. Every governor, congressman and senator had his own idea on running the war. Members of his cabinet thought him a country fool and openly plotted to replace him. His own generals were generally a bunch of incompetent drunks. Foreign governements were hoping the CSA would win, etc.,

Despite all these problems, Lincoln turned out to be a very smart politician and statesman who managed to win the war and change the country for the better, despite fighting the bloodiest war in america's history. Even his decision to rid the country of slavery was more of a smart political calculation than an ideological decision.

There were countless times during the Civil War when the Union could have fallen apart if a weaker or less able person was in command. He was the right man at the right time and he created the modern USA that we know today.

[razark]

@Tak Shin - I've said before that slavery was thought to be a necessity for building the foundations of our nation. This is why it was added to the Constitution.
To be clear, the northern states kept slavery because with out it, the southern states wouldn't have ratified the Constitution.

The northern states considered slavery necessary for the foundation of the country, not for "building the foundations of our nation." There's a difference.

[Sailor Steve]

Bilge_Rat, I agree about Lincoln, but there actually are a couple of things that make me rate Washington first.

1. Lincoln was a much more astute politician than most of his contemporaries gave him credit for. In his inaugural address he swore he wouldn't fire the first shot, and then carefully manipulated President Davis and Governor Pickens into doing just that. He wasn't the country bumpkin he played himself to be, and he was good at what he did. That said, I think he honestly believed that the Union had to be preserved at any cost, including slavery and including his own life.

2. He was a lawyer.
:rotfl2:

[Takeda Shingen]

Bilge_Rat, I agree about Lincoln, but there actually are a couple of things that make me rate Washington first.

1. Lincoln was a much more astute politician than most of his contemporaries gave him credit for. In his inaugural address he swore he wouldn't fire the first shot, and then carefully manipulated President Davis and Governor Pickens into doing just that. He wasn't the country bumpkin he played himself to be, and he was good at what he did. That said, I think he honestly believed that the Union had to be preserved at any cost, including slavery and including his own life.

2. He was a lawyer.
:rotfl2:

I'd agree with that. Abraham Lincoln was a politican, and a shrewd one at that. There is no reason that a great politician would not make for a great politician.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Bilge_Rat, I agree about Lincoln, but there actually are a couple of things that make me rate Washington first.

1. Lincoln was a much more astute politician than most of his contemporaries gave him credit for. In his inaugural address he swore he wouldn't fire the first shot, and then carefully manipulated President Davis and Governor Pickens into doing just that. He wasn't the country bumpkin he played himself to be, and he was good at what he did. That said, I think he honestly believed that the Union had to be preserved at any cost, including slavery and including his own life.

2. He was a lawyer.
:rotfl2:

Picture of Lincoln practicing law before becoming President:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PuZoLkvmBbc/SdUaE73o2HI/AAAAAAAADME/ldgysiOT64A/s320/Hyper-Chicken+Lawyer.jpg

[Bilge_Rat]

I'd agree with that. Abraham Lincoln was a politican, and a shrewd one at that. There is no reason that a great politician would not make for a great politician.

Politicians tend to get bad press. They rank at about the same level as used car dealers, yet you need a good politician who knows not only what needs to be done, but how it can be done. When you need open heart surgery, do you go to the surgeon with 20 years experience or the wet behind the ears rookie fresh out of school?

Lincoln was very smart about looking at the big picture and how to get there, not only the grand vision, but the endless deals, maneuvering, ego managing that goes into building a coalition. He had no ego (for a politician), he played the country hick card to the hilt, even though he was always 2-3 steps ahead of anyone else.

The more interesting question is what modern president could have done as good a job as Lincoln in his place?

Kennedy, Eisenhower and Obama did not have the experience. Reagan, Bush sr. and jr., Carter did not have the political skills. LBJ could'nt make the hard military decisions. Nixon did not have sufficient gravitas to rally the country.

I think only FDR and perhaps Truman would have had a shot.

[UnderseaLcpl]

My nomination would be a tie between Washington and Jefferson, with Andrew Jackson as a runner-up. The steps these men took to prevent concentrations of power, even at their own expense, sets them above every other noteable president to date, imo. They were exemplary leaders in most aspects of their careers, which is more than can be said for any presidents in this century, save perhaps Wilson's efforts with the League of Nations (until the coward caved).

My least favorites include Lincoln and FDR, as both were conniving rat-bastards who purposely engineered wars without regard to the lives that would be lost to further their own agendas. I see there are fans of both here, but the first question I would ask of them is "If they were such great presidents, why did they preside over the most and second-most costly conflicts America has ever fought?" A detailed examination of their conduct in office reveals that both were, above all else, manipulators and hypocrites. It irks me that they are remembered as great leaders simply because of wartime propaganda to that effect. If any wish to challenge that belief, I have ample evidence to back it up. Name something "great" they did, and I will give you something more ignoble done under the same auspices.

I'm reserving a spot on the "least favorites" list for President Obama once the major economic effects of his reckless policies have made themselves felt, sometime between mid-2012 and 2015, sooner if he is re-elected and the Democrats retain a majority in both houses. The full effects will not be felt for between six months and a few years after that, depending upon how the global market is affected. It's something of a toss-up between "worse than now" and "another depression".

[Takeda Shingen]

The more interesting question is what modern president could have done as good a job as Lincoln in his place?

Kennedy, Eisenhower and Obama did not have the experience. Reagan, Bush sr. and jr., Carter did not have the political skills. LBJ could'nt make the hard military decisions. Nixon did not have sufficient gravitas to rally the country.

I think only FDR and perhaps Truman would have had a shot.

That is an interesting question. I would say that FDR, more than Truman, would fit the mold. Truman certainly was and is underestimated in terms of political acumen, but he really lacked the the oratory ability of his predecessor. One could not have instituted sort of unpopular and controversial, yet necessary acts of Lincoln's administration without this abililty. In that one would have to consider both Ronald Reagan and William Jefferson Clinton, as both had the ability to smooth the public opinion through speech, reassuring them that 'everything is going to be alright.'

We have to remember that Lincoln did, in fact, lack the much touted executive experience, and was a military novice; though to his credit he spend endless hours schooling himself on the matters. Still, his adminstration made more than it's share of blunders, as did he in the position of Commander-in-Chief as illustrated by the revolving door of commanders of The Army of the Potomac.

[Takeda Shingen]

My least favorites include Lincoln and FDR, as both were conniving rat-bastards who purposely engineered wars without regard to the lives that would be lost to further their own agendas. I see there are fans of both here, but the first question I would ask of them is "If they were such great presidents, why did they preside over the most and second-most costly conflicts America has ever fought?" A detailed examination of their conduct in office reveals that both were, above all else, manipulators and hypocrites. It irks me that they are remembered as great leaders simply because of wartime propaganda to that effect. If any wish to challenge that belief, I have ample evidence to back it up. Name something "great" they did, and I will give you something more ignoble done under the same auspices.

Come on now. The road to the American Civil War began at the ratification of the Consitution. By 1854 the republic in a de-facto state of civil war. To lay it upon the doorstep of Lincoln is intellectually dishonest.

In terms of your 'great' and 'ignoble' statement, the same can be said for every political leader, including Washington, Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

[Sailor Steve]

My nomination would be a tie between Washington and Jefferson, with Andrew Jackson as a runner-up.
I haven't studied Jackson that much, but I would disagree on Jefferson. I'm a huge fan of the man, and as I've said before I read seven different biographies of him between July 2006 and December 2007, including Dumas Malone's titanic 3500-page 6-volume Jefferson the Virginian.

While I admire him as a philosopher and scientist, I believe that both he and Madison were brilliant politcal theorists who weren't all that good when it came to actually doing the job. They both had their good points as presidents, but they both suffered from short-sightedness as well. Jefferson's embargo against England hurt American merchants without affecting the British at all, and his idea of doing away with the ocean-going navy in favor of a bunch of gunboats was silly at best.

Now that I think of it, I always put Washington first because of his qualities as a man, but as an actual politician I think he was weak. He did manage to keep the US neutral in the Anglo-French war, but as soon as Jefferson stepped down as Secretary of State he succumbed to Madison's finagling and authorized that awful Jay Treaty.

As for Lincoln, you make some interesting points. I prefer to see him as willing to do what needed to be done to keep the country together.

[thorn69]

I haven't studied Jackson that much, but I would disagree on Jefferson. I'm a huge fan of the man, and as I've said before I read seven different biographies of him between July 2006 and December 2007, including Dumas Malone's titanic 3500-page 6-volume Jefferson the Virginian.

While I admire him as a philosopher and scientist, I believe that both he and Madison were brilliant politcal theorists who weren't all that good when it came to actually doing the job. They both had their good points as presidents, but they both suffered from short-sightedness as well. Jefferson's embargo against England hurt American merchants without affecting the British at all, and his idea of doing away with the ocean-going navy in favor of a bunch of gunboats was silly at best.

Now that I think of it, I always put Washington first because of his qualities as a man, but as an actual politician I think he was weak. He did manage to keep the US neutral in the Anglo-French war, but as soon as Jefferson stepped down as Secretary of State he succumbed to Madison's finagling and authorized that awful Jay Treaty.

As for Lincoln, you make some interesting points. I prefer to see him as willing to do what needed to be done to keep the country together.

But Jefferson was a slave owner himself. Look it up! Some think he may have even raped black women considering they couldn't really refuse their master! Funny how you'd side yourself with a man with such evil morals and then ridicule the South for doing the same exact thing!

Jefferson was a typical Clinton minded person himself. On one note he hated the idea of slavery but on the other hand he just couldn't stop himself from supporting it. Sort of like how Clinton hated drugs but later swore up and down he didn't inhale! :roll: Heck, according to Clinton he was just using his penis as a tongue depressor to make sure Monica didn't have strep throat! :rotfl2: It was ANYTHING but sexual relations in other words!

Why would you support these sleaze-balls and liars?

Btw, the greatest president in US history was "Ike". He's the only one that I can see that didn't have some form of personal agenda and did the job to protect American's and America alike. Washington as well, but then again, he didn't want the job and was just forced into the position. Being first makes him immune from having any scandalous personal agendas to use the country for his own personal gain.

Worst president ever - Lincoln hands down. Forced the nation into a bloody civil war that's still really not over. Just not as bloody these days. He did this for personal reasons despite the unpopularity of the entire thing. Nobody wanted to go to war. He got the war started. Charleston was in the South. South Carolina had already seceded. Fort Sumter was in Southern hands at that point. Lincoln invaded the South. There are stories on both sides about who shot first. Of course the north claims the South shot first. Typical. We did nothing wrong - yet you're warships just happened to be entering the harbor! Give me a freakin break!

Second worst - Obama. Probably going to lead us into another bloody civil war. Also promotes socialism and redistribution of wealth. All anti-capitalist ideologies and that have been proven to fail. Why work if you're going to pay people to be lazy bums? Where's the incentive for people to want to work? Also, people are not happy under socialism. Why? Because there's no self satisfaction in it. Life is a game. Nobody wants the government to play the game for them (unless they're really lazy). People like earning things on their own. People like to explore their options and grow on their own. When the government controls the people, the game is played for you. You're just a puppet and life is dull and boring.

Third worst - Clinton. Allowed international terrorists to go unchecked during his entire 8 year watch even when they attacked this nation during his first 4 year reign. While his economic plan seemed like it was working out well for the country, it eventually floundered when the trade towers fell. Thus, he really did leave a mess in GWB's lap and left him no choice but to engage in a war on terrorism that is still to this day draining this economy more and more.

He was also a sleazebag liar that womanized and cheated on his own wife during his watch. That's unacceptable! All signs of a person who thinks they are above God just because of their political position in the country. Also, because he appointed Al "freakin" Gore as his running mate. Talk about another disgusting sleazebag! He is currently under investigation for sexually assaulting a woman in Seattle. Hope he gets slapped with a sex crime. He's just disgusting! Glad his wife left his disgusting butt too! I can't see why she stayed with him so long!? :nope:

[Platapus]

As to Impeachment, two presidents have been impeached so far, and in both cases it was a witchhunt by opposing parties. And in both cases they were exonerated.

In both cases, they were found Not Guilty. Neither of them was ever "exonerated". In a criminal case, Exoneration must come after conviction.

[Bilge_Rat]

Worst president ever - Lincoln hands down. Forced the nation into a bloody civil war that's still really not over. Just not as bloody these days. He did this for personal reasons despite the unpopularity of the entire thing. Nobody wanted to go to war. He got the war started. Charleston was in the South. South Carolina had already seceded. Fort Sumter was in Southern hands at that point. Lincoln invaded the South. There are stories on both sides about who shot first. Of course the north claims the South shot first. Typical. We did nothing wrong - yet you're warships just happened to be entering the harbor! Give me a freakin break!



Thorn69, I'm guessing you're from the South?

nothing wrong with that, its just interesting to see that feelings still run so deep 145 years after the end of the war.

[thorn69]

Thorn69, I'm guessing you're from the South?

nothing wrong with that, its just interesting to see that feelings still run so deep 145 years after the end of the war.

I grew up in Richmond, Va.

My mother's side fought for the North. Great Great grandfather was from New York and was a Capt. He died at Gettysburg. Don't know much else about him because I'm more interested in the South.

Father's side fought for the South. Great Great grandfather fought at the battle of Bentonville, NC and was wounded. He also fought at the battle of Battery Wagner (Fort Wagner), SC against the 54th Mass lead by Col. Robert Gould Shaw as depicted in the book and movie "Glory". He was an artilleryman as well as an infantryman with a NC regiment. He's got my respect wholeheartedly. Never owned a slave either. Just did what was right for NC at the time and fought for his State's right to secede.

[Sailor Steve]

But Jefferson was a slave owner himself. Look it up!
After the books I've listed as having read on the man, you think you need to tell me to look it up? Of course he was a slaveowner, as were Madison and Washington. Have you read Jefferson's writings on the subject? He was conflicted at the very least, if not actually hypocritical. He tried to get Virginia to free the slaves twice, then seemed to slip into a torpid complacency. Jefferson is an enigma, and remains so to this day.

Some think he may have even raped black women considering they couldn't really refuse their master!
Yes, I'm very well versed on Sally Hemings, and can show you all the pro-and-con evidence if you have a few hours to spare.

Funny how you'd side yourself with a man with such evil morals and then ridicule the South for doing the same exact thing!
And you're attacking again, for no apparent reason. When have I ever ridiculed the South? I simply answered your allegations with facts, which you still haven't bothered to answer.

Why would you support these sleaze-balls and liars?
Jefferson was a true genius, and fascinates me, warts and all. What makes you think I ever supported Clinton? You seem to be making this up as you go along.

He did this for personal reasons despite the unpopularity of the entire thing.
Didn't you just get done accusing me of only siding with the "popular opinion?" Which is it?

He was also a sleazebag liar that womanized and cheated on his own wife during his watch.
Just like Ike?

I'm still waiting for you to produce facts rather than shout diatribe.

[thorn69]

After the books I've listed as having read on the man, you think you need to tell me to look it up? Of course he was a slaveowner, as were Madison and Washington. Have you read Jefferson's writings on the subject? He was conflicted at the very least, if not actually hypocritical. He tried to get Virginia to free the slaves twice, then seemed to slip into a torpid complacency. Jefferson is an enigma, and remains so to this day.


Yes, I'm very well versed on Sally Hemings, and can show you all the pro-and-con evidence if you have a few hours to spare.


And you're attacking again, for no apparent reason. When have I ever ridiculed the South? I simply answered your allegations with facts, which you still haven't bothered to answer.


Jefferson was a true genius, and fascinates me, warts and all. What makes you think I ever supported Clinton? You seem to be making this up as you go along.


Didn't you just get done accusing me of only siding with the "popular opinion?" Which is it?


Just like Ike?

I'm still waiting for you to produce facts rather than shout diatribe.

True, Ike tried to divorce his wife and was known to have marital problems BEFORE being elected. He was in a war zone when he found another woman, unlike Clinton who just had an affair with a lowly intern and never in his life was ever close to a war zone. Big time draft dodger!

Ike had his fling PRIOR to being elected and I'm not all that sure that Summersby's account is all that accurate considering her book was written way after (1977) the man died (1969). That's a bit low. Of course she got the last word so that makes her right in your book. Typical. :roll:

[Snestorm]

Might as well enter the fray.

Top of the list:
1: Jefferson
2: Jackson
3: Grant

Bottom of the list:
1: Wilson
2: Johnson (LBJ)
3: Roosevelt (FDR)

[thorn69]

Might as well enter the fray.

Top of the list:
1: Jefferson
2: Jackson
3: Grant

Bottom of the list:
1: Wilson
2: Johnson (LBJ)
3: Roosevelt (FDR)


That's a good list. Though I'd put JFK in place of your LBJ. It was JFK that got us involved with Vietnam. LBJ just went all out after JFK and destroyed all those innocent trees! Never hit crap as far as NVA and VC goes (they were underground getting a headache) but he did kill a helluva lot of trees. I got to give him credit for pissing off the tree-hugger crowd - F'n hippies!. :har:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Come on now. The road to the American Civil War began at the ratification of the Consitution. By 1854 the republic in a de-facto state of civil war. To lay it upon the doorstep of Lincoln is intellectually dishonest.

I trust you won't be surprised if I disagree. You may be surprised to hear that I've heard the same argument from Southern nationalists, many of whom believe that North and South cannot coexist without one dominating the other. I consider that to be lazy thinking on their part, and to some degree, on the part of Yanks (for lack of a word I like using more to describe Northerners :DL)

In my view, the primary causation behind the war was purely economic. It is somewhat difficult to find statements to this effect, given the political atmoshpere of those times, but I believe the numbers speak for themselves, as they often do in the years following a "good" war. The North was suffering from a lack of cotton to fuel its growing textile industry, as it simply could not compete the prices Britain was willing to pay. The agricultural advances that would make the US the breadbasket of the world were not yet in place, and in any case the worldwide demand was not there, as most nations of the time were still largely agrarian. While thousands upon thousands flocked from the farms to the mills to earn a better wage and (contrary to popular belief, better working conditions), the mills themselves were without supply, which raised prices, which forced demand down. The North was in an economic pickle.

The South controlled the primary market (agrarian), by virtue of its usage of slaves, which made the then-labor-intensive industry considerably more practical. Were it not for slaves, it is dubious that the South ever would have risen to its status as the number one cotton exporter in the world in such a short time. None of us would condone the usage of slaves today, but both the North and South did at the time, as the South used the slaves and the North supplied them. People tend to overlook this fact and the nature of the slave trade when they subscribe to the common "knowledge" that the North refuted slavery while the South endorsed it.

There were two primary factors behind the usage of the abolitionists' cause as a way to dictate policy in the South, both economic. The first was that tariffs levied unevenly on exports would make it more attractive for the South to sell cotton to the North, while a tariff on British imports of machinery would make Northern goods more appealing to Southern consumers. This is the reason oft-touted by Southern nationalists and apologists when they argue that the cause of the South was, in fact, States' Rights. I also used to be a proponent of the same argument until I flipped the table and looked at things from the Southerners' economic point of view; their industry simply wasn't viable if slavery was abolished. It was simply too labor-intensive and too seasonal. This is evidenced by the fact that after slavery was abolished, it was replaced by share-cropping, which was virtually always little more than indentured servitude.

This leads us to the second reason for the North adopting the abolitionists' cause, and it is again an economic rationale. If the former slaves had to be paid, Southern exports would become more expensive and thus less attractive to British consumers, forcing Southern producers to export to the North instead, as there was no significant importer overseas (other than France, whose trade was impeded by Britain) who would pay enough to make the shipping costs worth the while. As it turns out, this was the weaker part of the reason, due to the aforementioned adoption of sharecropping, which the North evidently didn't care about.

The next interesting phenomenon, though not a cause of the war, is also purely economic, and it comes in the form of maltreatment that blacks suffered in the North. Free blacks were almost always paid less, and violence was used against them when they undercut the wages of white immigrant workers. Enslaved blacks in the South were often treated with a "paternalistic" attitude, though this does nothing to alleviate the fact that they were slaves and that they were cared for because they were property, but it does provide a stark contrast to the way blacks were treated in the North when they were "free men".

The final nail in the coffin is the way the Union itself treated blacks, both slave and free, during the war and reconstruction. Don't make me go over what a bunch of horse-crap the Emancipation Proclamation was, we all know it didn't free anyone. Similarly, I will not discuss the Union's acceptance of slavery in member states. We should already know about that by now. But what is really interesting is the number of black Confederates who served in the war, or who remained in the service of their former master's families thereafter. This could be attributed to poor education, as I'll readily admit, and it could be due to the natural relationships that people tend to develop over time, or both, but it is interesting that so many newly "free" men would choose to remain in their place of bondage. Numbers from the period are sketchy at best, but there is plenty of written testimony, and even today there is a far higher percentage of blacks in former Confederate states than in former Union states. Did they stay because they didn't know anything else? Did they stay because they were comfortable there? Did they stay just because others did? I don't know, but it seems like the South wasn't full of black slaves who were willing to run for the North at the first opportunity.

My intent is not to prove that slavery is, or ever has been, an acceptable institution, nor is it to mitigate the plight of slaves, but I would like to shed some light on whether or not slavery was really the cause of the civil war or whether there were other, more prominent economic motives, as often tends to be the case.

In terms of your 'great' and 'ignoble' statement, the same can be said for every political leader, including Washington, Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.
I sincerely doubt that, but I guess it depends upon how we define greatness and ignobility. I've already described what I see as "greatness" in the aforementioned presidents, and I trust the cost in lives and material between Lincoln and FDR are aleady well understood. In what case did any of my picks outweigh the discrepancy between the two?

[Sailor Steve]

Typical. :roll:
And again with the insults. I'm still waiting for your rebuttal of the Declarations of Causes documents. You haven't posted a single fact yet.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Thorn69, I'm guessing you're from the South?

nothing wrong with that, its just interesting to see that feelings still run so deep 145 years after the end of the war.

That reminds me of an old story where a Northerner asks a Southerner "When will you guys just accept that the war is over?"

To which the Southerner replies "I guess when you damnyankees stop shooting at us":DL

[krashkart]

(for lack of a word I like using more to describe Northerners :DL)

I prefer 'human'. Thanks. ;)

[thorn69]

And again with the insults. I'm still waiting for your rebuttal of the Declarations of Causes documents. You haven't posted a single fact yet.

Most of these "facts" you've claimed are real are biased "he said/he said" arguments from long ago and aren't really facts Steve. It's always been one side's story or the other. People have to choose which side they want to believe in I guess. There's just as much "fact" on both sides of this argument. But what was really right back then Steve? Going to war against the South and burning down their cities and homes for choosing to leave in peace? According to the Constitution, they had that right. Would you condone a nasty war like that today if Obama wanted to invade Arizona for passing their law and enforcing it? Come on, you're smart enough to say "No" to that I'd hope! Anytime the government resorts to military use against it's own people in order to force policy on them - it's wrong. As you can see, Lincoln's goal of keeping the Union as a whole hasn't really kept us together. It's just lead to a back and forth argument that will never die. It's pointless to continue to argue. You'll never get me to see things your way and you'll never see things mine.

When you grow up in a city that had a lovely street called Monument Ave. lined with beautiful statues of some of the Civil war's greatest Southern Generals trashed with a statue of Arthur Ashe holding a tennis racket and a book, maybe you'd understand! It was obviously done as a slap in the face to anybody who has respect for the South. Or when Robert E. Lee Blvd got it's name changed to Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd to appease the blacks in the city and once again slap the face of Southern respect!

Richmond was the Capital of the Confederacy. It's also the city I grew up in a long time ago. Now it's being dismounted by sheer ignorance and people who for some reason believe the war was fought on the grounds of slavery. That's just ignorant BS! It's these same people who want the truth about the Civil war to be swept away. Funny how it's not us good ole boy Southerners that want it changed. We have nothing to hide. We want it to stay the way it is. It's history after all and a part of the foundation of the US and the way it is today. Love it or leave it!

[UnderseaLcpl]

I prefer 'human'. Thanks. ;)

You got it, half-Yank:DL

[Onkel Neal]

Most of these "facts" you've claimed are real are biased "he said/he said" arguments from long ago and aren't really facts Steve. It's always been one side's story or the other. People have to choose which side they want to believe in I guess. There's just as much "fact" on both sides of this argument. But what was really right back then Steve? Going to war against the South and burning down their cities and homes for choosing to leave in peace? According to the Constitution, they had that right. Would you condone a nasty war like that today if Obama wanted to invade Arizona for passing their law and enforcing it? Come on, you're smart enough to say "No" to that I'd hope! Anytime the government resorts to military use against it's own people in order to force policy on them - it's wrong. As you can see, Lincoln's goal of keeping the Union as a whole hasn't really kept us together. It's just lead to a back and forth argument that will never die. It's pointless to continue to argue. You'll never get me to see things your way and you'll never see things mine.

When you grow up in a city that had a lovely street called Monument Ave. lined with beautiful statues of some of the Civil war's greatest Southern Generals trashed with a statue of Arthur Ashe holding a tennis racket and a book, maybe you'd understand! It was obviously done as a slap in the face to anybody who has respect for the South. Or when Robert E. Lee Blvd got it's name changed to Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd to appease the blacks in the city and once again slap the face of Southern respect!

Richmond was the Capital of the Confederacy. It's also the city I grew up in a long time ago. Now it's being dismounted by sheer ignorance and people who for some reason believe the war was fought on the grounds of slavery. That's just ignorant BS! It's these same people who want the truth about the Civil war to be swept away. Funny how it's not us good ole boy Southerners that want it changed. We have nothing to hide. We want it to stay the way it is. It's history after all and a part of the foundation of the US and the way it is today. Love it or leave it!

Why don't you calm down, Steve is not your enemy. I happen to believe the Civil War was fought over slavery myself, always seemed pretty obvious. But no matter, if you disagree, that's ok. Just be civil.

Neal

[Highbury]

I am actually going to discuss the OP and not the Civil War... hope nobody minds... :yawn:

I would have to say the underrated Woodrow Wilson deserves a tip of the hat. His timing of keeping the US out of WWI until the right moment when the world's previous dominant powers were all but spent was the foundation of the superpower the country is today.

I could be really picky and say the list leaves out the 13 Presidents prior to Washington though :arrgh!:

[Moeceefus]

I am actually going to discuss the OP and not the Civil War... hope nobody minds... :yawn:

I would have to say the underrated Woodrow Wilson deserves a tip of the hat. His timing of keeping the US out of WWI until the right moment when the world's previous dominant powers were all but spent was the foundation of the superpower the country is today.

I could be really picky and say the list leaves out the 13 Presidents prior to Washington though :arrgh!:


Wilson and friends played a huge part in the outbreak of WW2 I'd say. As for the Civil War, regardless of the issues involved, Lincoln did the right thing keeping the country united. Imagine the states as thier own fractious nations. We certainly wouldn't have the power we have enjoyed over the years and would have been invaded by foriegn powers by now I'd think. It could have ended up the nazi or soviet states of america had history played out differently in regards to the civil war.

[thorn69]

Why don't you calm down, Steve is not your enemy. I happen to believe the Civil War was fought over slavery myself, always seemed pretty obvious. But no matter, if you disagree, that's ok. Just be civil.

Neal

Was I not being civil? Certainly opposing Steve's views, and apparently yours, doesn't make me uncivil? I'm not trash talking anybody and don't plan on it. I wanted to drop the issue earlier but Steve persisted in continuing the argument.

BTW Neal, the Civil War was fought over States rights. I realize that slavery falls into that, but it was not the main cause for the war. It would appear that you've fallen victim to the same liberal teachings the rest of us have. I had to put down "what they wanted to hear" on my tests just to pass grade school - Not what I believed to be right and what other publications have stated. Instead of school systems teaching BOTH sides of the argument, they only teach the one side that won the war's argument. But like I've said, the victor is not always right. They just had better numbers on their side. And in the case of the Civil War - The repeating rifle.

Why do I support States rights? Simple. Because what affects the people in one state doesn't necessarily affect the people in another. Therefore they are ignorant to the problem. For instance, it's simple for people up north to condemn Arizona about its stance with illegal immigration. They don't have to contend with the problem themselves. It may even bolster their numbers to have these people given a free pass to vote democratic on the next election! I would imagine they would have a different opinion if they had to face the problem on a daily basis though. It's not like their jobs are being sold out to the lowest bidder who's willing to work for less than minimum wage!

Honestly, I think Arizona should just abandon their new law and just change it to say that illegal immigration is OK - just not here. Offer the illegals bus fare to New York State, Michigan, Vermont, and Maine. Let those people chew on the bleak reality they seem to be so in favor of. I doubt they'd be so welcoming. Bottom line - It's so easy to sit in judgment over others when the problems aren't your own.

And as Forrest Gump said best, "That's all I have to say about that" ;)

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I am actually going to discuss the OP and not the Civil War... hope nobody minds... :yawn:

I would have to say the underrated Woodrow Wilson deserves a tip of the hat. His timing of keeping the US out of WWI until the right moment when the world's previous dominant powers were all but spent was the foundation of the superpower the country is today.

I could be really picky and say the list leaves out the 13 Presidents prior to Washington though :arrgh!:

Wilson never wanted to go to war, ever. He burst into tears when the Declaration of War went through Congress.

[Bilge_Rat]

Might as well enter the fray.

Top of the list:
1: Jefferson
2: Jackson
3: Grant

Bottom of the list:
1: Wilson
2: Johnson (LBJ)
3: Roosevelt (FDR)

interesting choices, but why Grant? I have a lot of respect for him as a general, but he was not really cut out to be a politician.

[Takeda Shingen]

BTW Neal, the Civil War was fought over States rights. I realize that slavery falls into that, but it was not the main cause for the war. It would appear that you've fallen victim to the same liberal teachings the rest of us have. I had to put down "what they wanted to hear" on my tests just to pass grade school - Not what I believed to be right and what other publications have stated. Instead of school systems teaching BOTH sides of the argument, they only teach the one side that won the war's argument. But like I've said, the victor is not always right. They just had better numbers on their side. And in the case of the Civil War - The repeating rifle.

And for the umteenth time: Then cite the evidence! Otherwise, everything you said is nothing more than conjecture.

[Bilge_Rat]

Was I not being civil? Certainly opposing Steve's views, and apparently yours, doesn't make me uncivil? I'm not trash talking anybody and don't plan on it. I wanted to drop the issue earlier but Steve persisted in continuing the argument.

BTW Neal, the Civil War was fought over States rights. I realize that slavery falls into that, but it was not the main cause for the war. It would appear that you've fallen victim to the same liberal teachings the rest of us have. I had to put down "what they wanted to hear" on my tests just to pass grade school - Not what I believed to be right and what other publications have stated. Instead of school systems teaching BOTH sides of the argument, they only teach the one side that won the war's argument. But like I've said, the victor is not always right. They just had better numbers on their side. And in the case of the Civil War - The repeating rifle.

Why do I support States rights? Simple. Because what affects the people in one state doesn't necessarily affect the people in another. Therefore they are ignorant to the problem. For instance, it's simple for people up north to condemn Arizona about its stance with illegal immigration. They don't have to contend with the problem themselves. It may even bolster their numbers to have these people given a free pass to vote democratic on the next election! I would imagine they would have a different opinion if they had to face the problem on a daily basis though. It's not like their jobs are being sold out to the lowest bidder who's willing to work for less than minimum wage!

Honestly, I think Arizona should just abandon their new law and just change it to say that illegal immigration is OK - just not here. Offer the illegals bus fare to New York State, Michigan, Vermont, and Maine. Let those people chew on the bleak reality they seem to be so in favor of. I doubt they'd be so welcoming. Bottom line - It's so easy to sit in judgment over others when the problems aren't your own.

And as Forrest Gump said best, "That's all I have to say about that" ;)

States rights was just a convenient excuse. Countries dont go to war over whether certain powers should be exercised at the state or federal level. The primary cause was slavery. The southern radicals like Senator Robert Rhett who pushed South carolina to declare independence wanted not only to preserve slavery, but to bring back the African slave trade.

Whether individual states had a right to secede was legally debatable, you had as many argument on one side as the other. The federal government was perfectly within its rights to say individual states do not have a right to secede and will be brought back into the Union by force, if required.

The irony of course is that Lincoln was quite ready to live with slavery to preserve the Union. If the southern states had not attempted to break away, it would have been pretty much business as usual. As late as the summer of 1862, Lincoln would have been willing to maintain slavery in the South in exchange for a return of the rebel states to the Union.

[Takeda Shingen]

I trust you won't be surprised if I disagree. You may be surprised to hear that I've heard the same argument from Southern nationalists, many of whom believe that North and South cannot coexist without one dominating the other. I consider that to be lazy thinking on their part, and to some degree, on the part of Yanks (for lack of a word I like using more to describe Northerners :DL)

Do you start all of your papers with an insult?

In my view, the primary causation behind the war was purely economic. It is somewhat difficult to find statements to this effect, given the political atmoshpere of those times, but I believe the numbers speak for themselves, as they often do in the years following a "good" war. The North was suffering from a lack of cotton to fuel its growing textile industry, as it simply could not compete the prices Britain was willing to pay. The agricultural advances that would make the US the breadbasket of the world were not yet in place, and in any case the worldwide demand was not there, as most nations of the time were still largely agrarian. While thousands upon thousands flocked from the farms to the mills to earn a better wage and (contrary to popular belief, better working conditions), the mills themselves were without supply, which raised prices, which forced demand down. The North was in an economic pickle.

You have side-stepped a whole lot to try and prove your point, but the facts of history are against you. However, you are correct about one thing: Modern agricultural techniques were not in place. The gains of the industrial revoluntion, however, were in full swing. The northern states' industrial capacity, of which the textile industry was only a small part, gave those states an enormous amount of wealth and manufacuring capacity, which translated into jobs, population, and ultimately, power. The South, being an agrarian society, was largely the proverbial one-trick pony. It relied on slavery to fuel it's output. In fact, it relied so heavily on slavery that anywhere from 35-44% of the some 9 million people in the southern states was the property of another person.

The south was reeling after the Tariff of 1828, and following the Nullification Crisis in 1832, in which President Jackson prepared to use the US Army to enforce a compromise tariff in South Carolina, the southern states were, to say the least, sore. With western expansion imminent, and the northern abolition movement catching the ears of their politicians, the southern economic way of life was threatened. So, yes, economic reasons were the primary concern of the south, but at the heart of every economic issue was that of slavery. It is inescapable.

The South controlled the primary market (agrarian), by virtue of its usage of slaves, which made the then-labor-intensive industry considerably more practical. Were it not for slaves, it is dubious that the South ever would have risen to its status as the number one cotton exporter in the world in such a short time. None of us would condone the usage of slaves today, but both the North and South did at the time, as the South used the slaves and the North supplied them. People tend to overlook this fact and the nature of the slave trade when they subscribe to the common "knowledge" that the North refuted slavery while the South endorsed it.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the 1804 establishment of the Mason-Dixon Line and the 1808 ban of the importing of African slaves would speak otherwise. While it is true that this process did not eliminate slavery overnight, and that some states, like Pennsylvania, reported slaves on the census into the mid-19th century, this became the exception, rather than the rule.

There were two primary factors behind the usage of the abolitionists' cause as a way to dictate policy in the South, both economic. The first was that tariffs levied unevenly on exports would make it more attractive for the South to sell cotton to the North, while a tariff on British imports of machinery would make Northern goods more appealing to Southern consumers.

See Tariff of 1828.

This is the reason oft-touted by Southern nationalists and apologists when they argue that the cause of the South was, in fact, States' Rights. I also used to be a proponent of the same argument until I flipped the table and looked at things from the Southerners' economic point of view; their industry simply wasn't viable if slavery was abolished. It was simply too labor-intensive and too seasonal. This is evidenced by the fact that after slavery was abolished, it was replaced by share-cropping, which was virtually always little more than indentured servitude.

Finally, we agree on something.

This leads us to the second reason for the North adopting the abolitionists' cause, and it is again an economic rationale. If the former slaves had to be paid, Southern exports would become more expensive and thus less attractive to British consumers, forcing Southern producers to export to the North instead, as there was no significant importer overseas (other than France, whose trade was impeded by Britain) who would pay enough to make the shipping costs worth the while. As it turns out, this was the weaker part of the reason, due to the aforementioned adoption of sharecropping, which the North evidently didn't care about.

This is sophism. You ignore the wealth, political control, and industrial capacity of the north in order to make your point. To reiterate, it was the south who was economically and politically threatened by the north. Hence, a change in policy towards slavery was a real threat to southern prosperity. You, to prove your point, have inverted the equation.

The next interesting phenomenon, though not a cause of the war, is also purely economic, and it comes in the form of maltreatment that blacks suffered in the North. Free blacks were almost always paid less, and violence was used against them when they undercut the wages of white immigrant workers. Enslaved blacks in the South were often treated with a "paternalistic" attitude, though this does nothing to alleviate the fact that they were slaves and that they were cared for because they were property, but it does provide a stark contrast to the way blacks were treated in the North when they were "free men".

I would take Steve's line in stating that photographic evidence refutes the above.

The final nail in the coffin is the way the Union itself treated blacks, both slave and free, during the war and reconstruction. Don't make me go over what a bunch of horse-crap the Emancipation Proclamation was, we all know it didn't free anyone.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a political maneuver, designed to state that Union victory was inevitable, and as such, it did not require southern consent in eliminating slavery. A shrewd decision, in my opinion.

Similarly, I will not discuss the Union's acceptance of slavery in member states.

Please do.

But what is really interesting is the number of black Confederates who served in the war, or who remained in the service of their former master's families thereafter. This could be attributed to poor education, as I'll readily admit, and it could be due to the natural relationships that people tend to develop over time, or both, but it is interesting that so many newly "free" men would choose to remain in their place of bondage. Numbers from the period are sketchy at best, but there is plenty of written testimony, and even today there is a far higher percentage of blacks in former Confederate states than in former Union states. Did they stay because they didn't know anything else? Did they stay because they were comfortable there? Did they stay just because others did? I don't know, but it seems like the South wasn't full of black slaves who were willing to run for the North at the first opportunity.

According to the official records:

Total African American Recruitment
Union Army: 186,097
Confederate Army: Less than 50

My intent is not to prove that slavery is, or ever has been, an acceptable institution, nor is it to mitigate the plight of slaves, but I would like to shed some light on whether or not slavery was really the cause of the civil war or whether there were other, more prominent economic motives, as often tends to be the case.

No one is calling you a white supremacist or an advocate of the institution of slavery, and I will take exception to anyone who does.


I sincerely doubt that, but I guess it depends upon how we define greatness and ignobility. I've already described what I see as "greatness" in the aforementioned presidents, and I trust the cost in lives and material between Lincoln and FDR are aleady well understood. In what case did any of my picks outweigh the discrepancy between the two?

See above for a small piece on Andrew Jackson. Of course, he also supported slavery and was an outspoken advocate of the Native American genocide, let alone discussion of the Battle of Horseshoe bend and the subsequent Treaty of Fort Jackson.

Thomas Jefferson could be cited as an example of weak vacillation, unable to part with his creature comforts and effectively end the abominable practice of slavery.

George Washington could be characterized as a second-rate milita colonel, who's near limitless ambition, masked by a pretentious pseudo-modesty, cost countless lives and required the efforts of a foreign military to rectify.

Of course, much of the above is true, as are Lincoln's failing. Still, they common trait they all share is that the quality of their work and their legacies outweighs their flaws. It is more than most of us could expect of ourselves.

[Sailor Steve]

Most of these "facts" you've claimed are real are biased "he said/he said" arguments from long ago and aren't really facts Steve.
You started this by claiming the Civil War was not about slavery. For everyone's benefit I'll repeat the facts that you claim are only "he said/she said".

Texas
the Federal Government has failed to accomplish the purposes of the compact of union between these States, in giving protection either to the persons of our people upon an exposed frontier, or to the property of our citizens; and, whereas, the action of the Northern States of the Union is violative of the compact between the States and the guarantees of the Constitution; and whereas the recent developments in Federal affairs, make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and prosperity of the people of Texas and her Sister slaveholding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression:

South Carolina
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River. The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

Mississippi
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Alabama
WHEREAS, anti-slavery agitation persistently continued in the non-slaveholding States of this Union...

Georgia
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

I'm still waiting.

[thorn69]

And for the umteenth time: Then cite the evidence! Otherwise, everything you said is nothing more than conjecture.

The simple fact that Lincoln didn't free any slaves until mid-war should be evident enough that the war was not fought over slavery. Lincoln himself said something along the lines of wishing he could end the war without freeing a single slave at one point during the war when he thought it was getting too nasty to stomach. This is further evidence that slavery was not Lincoln's main focal point for going to war. Why would he mentally abandon his main goal, if slavery was his main goal, for going to war? That doesn't make any sense at all! If that was the case, he would have just retreated and ended the war!

So again, for the umpteenth time, it was fought over the States seceding themselves from the Union. You have to remember that the north won the war so it was therefore given the customary "bragging rights" that most winners tend to get. However, there was quite a bit of guilt in the stomachs of many northerners after the war and there is plenty of evidence of this. They had to come up with some sort of nonsensical motive to justify their invasion of the South and for all the mass murder, raping, pillaging, burning cities to the ground, etc... So, to make themselves look noble rather than barbaric the whole "we did it to free the slaves and reunite the country" themes emerged AFTER the war. Do you really think they'd ever admit any form of guilt - especially when they won? :roll:

Just answer this: Why was the war fought over slavery when the Southern States had already seceded from the Union? The South was a separate country at that point. So why would the northerners really care about slavery anymore in THEIR own country? It was gone when the South left! The north had their own country to run anyway they saw fit and if they didn't want slavery then so be it. So, why invade another country and conquer it? So there's further evidence for you that the war wasn't fought over slavery.

I do agree that slavery falls into the mix but it wasn't the single focal point of the war. Even Lincoln himself didn't free a single slave until mid-war. So there's further evidence that it was not really about slavery, at least to him.

Honestly, I think up north the war was fought over financial reasons and control of the South. In the South, the war was fought for the States rights to secede from the Union and to escape the hands of a very controlling and tyrannical north. In a way, the north may have freed individual black slaves but it still enslaved the entire South as a whole AFTER the war by still demanding cotton and other raw goods be farmed and delivered. It's quite ironic really.

[Takeda Shingen]

The simple fact that Lincoln didn't free any slaves until mid-war should be evident enough that the war was not fought over slavery. Lincoln himself said something along the lines of wishing he could end the war without freeing a single slave at one point during the war when he thought it was getting too nasty to stomach. This is further evidence that slavery was not Lincoln's main focal point for going to war. Why would he mentally abandon his main goal, if slavery was his main goal, for going to war? That doesn't make any sense at all! If that was the case, he would have just retreated and ended the war!

So again, for the umpteenth time, it was fought over the States seceding themselves from the Union. You have to remember that the north won the war so it was therefore given the customary "bragging rights" that most winners tend to get. However, there was quite a bit of guilt in the stomachs of many northerners after the war and there is plenty of evidence of this. They had to come up with some sort of nonsensical motive to justify their invasion of the South and for all the mass murder, raping, pillaging, burning cities to the ground, etc... So, to make themselves look noble rather than barbaric the whole "we did it to free the slaves and reunite the country" themes emerged AFTER the war. Do you really think they'd ever admit any form of guilt - especially when they won? :roll:

Just answer this: Why was the war fought over slavery when the Southern States had already seceded from the Union? The South was a separate country at that point. So why would the northerners really care about slavery anymore in THEIR own country? It was gone when the South left! The north had their own country to run anyway they saw fit and if they didn't want slavery then so be it. So, why invade another country and conquer it? So there's further evidence for you that the war wasn't fought over slavery.

I do agree that slavery falls into the mix but it wasn't the single focal point of the war. Even Lincoln himself didn't free a single slave until mid-war. So there's further evidence that it was not really about slavery, at least to him.

Honestly, I think up north the war was fought over financial reasons and control of the South. In the South, the war was fought for the States rights to secede from the Union and to escape the hands of a very controlling and tyrannical north. In a way, the north may have freed individual black slaves but it still enslaved the entire South as a whole AFTER the war by still demanding cotton and other raw goods be farmed and delivered. It's quite ironic really.

I'm tired of typing those quote brackets, so I'm going to answer here in block form.

The Emancipation Proclaimation, as I said in an earlier response, freed no slave. It was a political maneuver to persuade the south that defeat was inevitable.

To your second point, for the umpteenth time, why did the southern states seceed? Steve has already done the hard work for us, and posted the actual words from the states. Fear of the abolition of slavery. No 'bragging rights' about it. It is their own words.

There was no invasion. The confederate forces fired first. Also, no nation, not France, Great Britian or any other world power recognized the south's right to seceed to the union. Why would the union, then, accept it, especially after being attacked?

History's facts are against you. You can skew them as you like to prove your point, but the fact of the matter is very clear, whether you like it or not.

[Bilge_Rat]

Thorn69,

You are assuming the South had the right to secede, the federal government did not recognize the right of the rebel states to leave the Union unilaterally. They viewed that action as illegal.

If the Southern states really wanted to assert or confirm their legal right to withdraw from the Union, the proper channel was to the US Supreme Court which is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution

so yes, you are right that the immediate cause was whether the secessionist states had the right to leave, but that begs the question, why did they leave in the first place? It was because they were worried that the election of Lincoln as president would endanger the institution of slavery.

[thorn69]

I'm tired of typing those quote brackets, so I'm going to answer here in block form.

The Emancipation Proclaimation, as I said in an earlier response, freed no slave. It was a political maneuver to persuade the south that defeat was inevitable.

To your second point, for the umpteenth time, why did the southern states seceed? Steve has already done the hard work for us, and posted the actual words from the states. Fear of the abolition of slavery. No 'bragging rights' about it. It is their own words.

There was no invasion. The confederate forces fired first. Also, no nation, not France, Great Britian or any other world power recognized the south's right to seceed to the union. Why would the union, then, accept it, especially after being attacked?

History's facts are against you. You can skew them as you like to prove your point, but the fact of the matter is very clear, whether you like it or not.

To answer you for the umpteeth time... (Made it bold with underlining so you don't miss it this time)

The South seceded because of a controlling and tyrannical north.

The people up north were ignorant to the way things had to be done in the South. They wanted to control the South through legislative bills and taxes that would ensure the South would go into poverty. This would allow the north to have further control and power over the South. Money is power and when the South was garnishing in more power than the north at that time through slave labor then the north wanted it stopped at all costs. It's not like the people up north all grew a heart for the black man! This is evident enough in our history considering black people were never really "equals" to white people in any state until the 1960s civil rights era.

Lincoln sent war ships into to Charleston Bay and told them to invade the harbor. That is an act of war. You have no problems with this today when somebody invades Israels waters do you! Quit being so "pick and choose"! You can't have your cake and eat it to in this discussion. Sorry! ;)

[thorn69]

Thorn69,

You are assuming the South had the right to secede, the federal government did not recognize the right of the rebel states to leave the Union unilaterally. They viewed that action as illegal.

If the Southern states really wanted to assert or confirm their legal right to withdraw from the Union, the proper channel was to the US Supreme Court which is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution

so yes, you are right that the immediate cause was whether the secessionist states had the right to leave, but that begs the question, why did they leave in the first place? It was because they were worried that the election of Lincoln as president would endanger the institution of slavery.

They didn't recognize the right to secede until AFTER it was already done. That's sort of like how King George didn't give the colonies the right to secede from Great Britain to form their own nation. If the South had won the war, the north's law's and how they interpreted them wouldn't have made a damn now would it?! ;) Just like we don't give a damn how Britain runs it's country today. You also have to consider the bias intereptation that the north took into account when reading over the Constitution. It was the north that decided what the law was and its legality - not the South's.

[Onkel Neal]

States' rights. Yeah, the right to own slaves :haha:

Anyway, at least the right side won.

[thorn69]

Thorn69,

so yes, you are right that the immediate cause was whether the secessionist states had the right to leave, but that begs the question, why did they leave in the first place? It was because they were worried that the election of Lincoln as president would endanger the institution of slavery.

Spoken like a true northerner still clinging to his justification for the invasion, mass murder, rape, pillaging, and burning down of Southern cities and towns. "We did it for the black man"! Yeah right! That's why it took another century for the black man to get rights? Get real! I don't buy it! :nope:

[thorn69]

States' rights. Yeah, the right to own slaves :haha:

Anyway, at least the right side won.

That WAS their right at that time Neal. It was the law of the land during that time period. It's easy for us today to ridicule the people of the past for what they did, or didn't do, but they didn't know any better. They did what they thought they had to do for survival and were just following the pathway that our founding forefathers chose to follow. It was our founding forefathers that had a chance to end slavery before it ever started when this nation began but they chose to keep it because they needed it to build the country up. The people in the South were just following the same concept.

And chances are, if you were born in the South during that time period and had no concept of how the war would have turned out and what life today would be like, you'd be Whistling Dixie and standing up for your State's right to secede from the tyrannical north! ;)

But it's so easy to side with the winning side and belittle the loser when you know all the details and how things turned out. But nobody can really say how life would have turned out if the South had won! It could have ended up better or it could have ended up worse. We'll never know!

[Takeda Shingen]

To answer you for the umpteeth time... (Made it bold with underlining so you don't miss it this time)

The South seceded because of a controlling and tyrannical north.

Nope. Their words speak otherwise. You should read them.

The people up north were ignorant to the way things had to be done in the South. They wanted to control the South through legislative bills and taxes that would ensure the South would go into poverty. This would allow the north to have further control and power over the South. Money is power and when the South was garnishing in more power than the north at that time through slave labor then the north wanted it stopped at all costs. It's not like the people up north all grew a heart for the black man! This is evident enough in our history considering black people were never really "equals" to white people in any state until the 1960s civil rights era.

Conjecture.

Lincoln sent war ships into to Charleston Bay and told them to invade the harbor. That is an act of war.

Yes, it is an act of war if done against a foreign nation, which the south, legally, was not.

You have no problems with this today when somebody invades Israels waters do you! Quit being so "pick and choose"! You can't have your cake and eat it to in this discussion. Sorry! ;)

When did I say anything about Israel? When did anyone say anything about Israel? Enough with the misdirection already. You are bested here.

[Tchocky]

Spoken like a true northerner still clinging to his justification for the invasion, mass murder, rape, pillaging, and burning down of Southern cities and towns. "We did it for the black man"! Yeah right! That's why it took another century for the black man to get rights? Get real! I don't buy it! :nope:

You may not "buy it", but what you responded with is nothing to do with bilge_rats question.

[thorn69]

[/SIZE]

Nope. Their words speak otherwise. You should read them.



Conjecture.



Yes, it is an act of war if done against a foreign nation, which the south, legally, was not.



When did I say anything about Israel? When did anyone say anything about Israel? Enough with the misdirection already. You are bested here.

The South was legally not allowed to secede - but it already had! It had already left and it was it's own nation for 4 years! After the war was over and the South was conquered by the north, the laws passed that said that seceding is not an option. Like I said before, if the South had won, it wouldn't really have made a damn bit of difference what the north said was legal or not!

[Tribesman]

The South was legally not allowed to secede - but it already had!
Which means it hadn't.
It had already left and it was it's own nation for 4 years!
No it wasn't, it claimed it was because it had but it hadn't really so it wasn't at all, which is why it didn't get recognised.

[August]

Like I said before, if the South had won, it wouldn't really have made a damn bit of difference what the north said was legal or not!

And if your aunt had stones she'd be your uncle. The Confederates lost their war for the right to keep slaves, get over it.

The "South" remains part of the USA and that is a good thing for the entire country including the south.

[Snestorm]

interesting choices, but why Grant? I have a lot of respect for him as a general, but he was not really cut out to be a politician.

A small sub-quote, from within your quote:
". . . he was not really cut out to be a politician."

That in itself, is ONE of the big reasons why.

He also had the guts to say "no" to some very powerful people.
He paid a price for that too, but I'd prefer to stay away from that subject, for the time being.

[razark]

It had already left and it was it's own nation for 4 years!
No, it tried to leave, and failed. It wasn't a separate country, it was a rebellious area.

[krashkart]

You got it, half-Yank:DL

That's what she said before giving me a half-yank.... :shifty:













She did get the hang of starting the lawn mower after a few more tries, though. :yep:

[thorn69]

No, it tried to leave, and failed. It wasn't a separate country, it was a rebellious area.

So says the winner of the war. Had you not won, your argument would be null and void.

This is the point I've been trying to make all along. American history has been written in a way to make America look good at all times - no exceptions. It's never been wrong or ever lost a war (cough cough Vietnam)!

Yeah, that's right! We LOST Vietnam! Anybody want to argue that one! America was so valiant and noble invading Vietnam in the name of the French! JFK, a Catholic, looking out for his Catholic French buddy's best interest by occupying southern Vietnam! Yeah, that was REAL noble! Let's put a spin on it and say we did it in the name of thwarting off communism so we'll look a little better! Instead of fighting really big communist countries like China and Russia we'll just take on third world communist countries that we know we can beat. It will send a message to communist Russia and China to cease and desist their current political ideologies and convert to our way of Capitalism! :har:

Give me a flippin break! Oh, and some of us will "man-up" and side step the "loss" and call it a "tie" just to be fair to ourselves! :rotfl2:

Let's go back a little later though to just AFTER the Civil war, around the 1870-90 period. Was it not this same Union that less than 20 years earlier decried slavery as being wrong but now encouraged genocide of the American Natives and just about wiped them off the face of the planet? Yep! That was real noble as well. Grant, a former Union Civil war general was one of the Presidents in term and gave the Army the orders to slaughter off those people, all in the name of the Union!

So you try to argue that the Civil war was not about control and power? Yeah right! :roll:

That's what it's ALWAYS been about. Control and Power! Slavery is just a cop out excuse to make yourselves feel good about what happened.

[Tchocky]

That's what it's ALWAYS been about. Control and Power! Slavery is just a cop out excuse

Interesting, it was about control and power, but somehow that excludes human slavery/

[thorn69]

Interesting, it was about control and power, but somehow that excludes human slavery/

Was the South not entirely enslaved to the north AFTER the war? I'd say it was! If invading the South was not an act of control and power then what was it? After the war, the South as a whole was a slave to the north. Still is in many ways!

[razark]

So says the winner of the war. Had you not won, your argument would be null and void.
Well, yeah. It's kind of what the entire war was deciding.

If the Americans had lost the Revolution, they would still be British. It would not have been the start of a separate country, it would have been a failed rebellion like the south during the Civil War. The rebels don't get to be a separate country until they win.

By the way, what do you mean "Had you not won..."? I'm not that old. Whatever. Troll on, man.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Do you start all of papers with an insult? It wasn't intended to be an insult, save the playful jab at yanks, but if I offended you then you have my apologies.



You have side-stepped a whole lot to try and prove your point, but the facts of history are against you. However, you are correct about one thing: Modern agricultural techniques were not in place. The gains of the industrial revoluntion, however, were in full swing. The northern states' industrial capacity, of which the textile industry was only a small part, gave those states an enormous amount of wealth and manufacuring capacity, which translated into jobs, population, and ultimately, power. I partially agree, and I suppose you could say the industrial revolution was in full swing, but the explosion of industrial growth (in the textile industry, esp.) after the war suggests that there was a lot of built-up supply-side pressure. Much of the North's industry just couldn't compete with Britain for the large markets, and was therefore utilized domestically. Textiles are my favorite example because, as you mention, the industry was quite small, but global demand was tremendous. It wasn't until the North controlled the cotton that textile-weaving really took off.
So, yes, economic reasons were the primary concern of the south, but at the heart of every economic issue was that of slavery. It is inescapable. I agree that the heart of every southern economic issue was slavery.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the 1804 establishment of the Mason-Dixon Line and the 1808 ban of the importing of African slaves would speak otherwise. While it is true that this process did not eliminate slavery overnight, and that some states, like Pennsylvania, reported slaves on the census into the mid-19th century, this became the exception, rather than the rule. And yet the rum-slave-molasses trade triangle, of which a point was the ports of New England, continued unabated until just before the war.(Daniel P. Mannix, Black Cargoes, Viking Press, New York, NY:1962, p245) The North was only removed from the slave trade geographically, as they sold slaves in the West Indies, from whence they were transported to the auctions, or even bought right there. American slave ships plied the Atlantic well into the 1850's, protected by the stars and stripes, as the US was not a party to any international agreements banning slave trade. The practice was so prevalent that European slave ships would occassionally have a "Captain of the Flag". That is, they had an American national on board who would "buy" the ship upon sight of a British warship, raise the US flag, and thus be immune to capture.

This is sophism. You ignore the wealth, political control, and industrial capacity of the north in order to make your point. To reiterate, it was the south who was economically and politically threatened by the north. Hence, a change in policy towards slavery was a real threat to southern prosperity. You, to prove your point, have inverted the equation.
"Let the South go? Let the South go!? Where then shall we get our revenues?"- Abraham Lincoln, as cited in Origin of the Late War, Lunt, 1866

As with all things in trade, no one party ever totally commands another. The North was just as threatened by the South as the South was by the North in this arena. Even though the South preferred to trade with England, they had to use Northern ships to do it, and there was a substantial industry invested in getting Southern produce and English manufacutred goods to where they would fetch the best price.


I would take Steve's line in stating that photographic evidence refutes the above.

"Prejudice of race appears to be stronger in States that have abolished slaves than in states where slavery still exists. WHite caprenters, white bricklayers, and white painters will not work side by side with the blacks in the North, but do it in almost every Southern State."- Alexis de Tocqueville
"The free colored people were looked upon as an inferior caste to whom liberty was a curse, and their lot worse than that of the slaves"- William Lloyd Garrison

I've got like, a hundred of these, and the resolutions passed by Northern states during the war that barred the entry of "Negroes and Mulattos" Either Northerners were racist or they just didn't want the competition. I see an interesting parallel in the resistance to free trade agreements and immigration, both legal and illegal, that we see today. Times are gentler and words are kinder, but some people still don't like competing and they still don't like people who are different from them, sadly.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a political maneuver, designed to state that Union victory was inevitable, and as such, it did not require southern consent in eliminating slavery. A shrewd decision, in my opinion.
I'd call it a serious compromise of integrity, given that Lincoln didn't free any slaves he actually had control over. I'd also cause it a really poor attempt at starting a slave insurrection in the South, which, it is interesting to note, never happened, despite the absence of so many armed men.
Please do.
Okay, about which one of four and/or what would you like me to elaborate on?


According to the official records:

Total African American Recruitment
Union Army: 186,097
Confederate Army: Less than 50

1) Many blacks African Americans who served the Confederacy literally "served" the Confederacy, i.e. accompanied their masters to war, and as such were not enlisted
2) I'm not sure where you got the figure 50. Every estimate I've seen is upwards of 60,000. I don't doubt you, but I'm curious as to which official figures you refer.
3) About 10% of the African Americans who enlisted in the Union Army were draftees. I'm not sure whether or not the Confederates ever drafted any black men, with the obvious exception of those who went with their owners. I do know that there was a quota for 300,000 Confederate African American enlistees, but by what means they were to be obtained I cannot say.

All things considered, and assuming that the 60,000 figure I keep finding is correct, one would expect to find a much wider gap between numbers of African American enlisted in the armies.
No one is calling you a white supremacist or an advocate of the institution of slavery, and I will take exception to anyone who does.
Thanks. I just find that I usually have to make some kind of disclaimer whenever this issue is brought up, as I have met a great many people in my time who assume that anyone who questions the purity of the Union's motives is a racist bastard. I suppose I can't blame them, as there are number of highly visible pro-Southern groups who actually are racist bastards, and I spit on them for giving the rest of us a bad name. :nope:


See above for a small piece on Andrew Jackson. Of course, he also supported slavery and was an outspoken advocate of the Native American genocide, let alone discussion of the Battle of Horseshoe bend and the subsequent Treaty of Fort Jackson.

Thomas Jefferson could be cited as an example of weak vacillation, unable to part with his creature comforts and effectively end the abominable practice of slavery.

George Washington could be characterized as a second-rate milita colonel, who's near limitless ambition, masked by a pretentious pseudo-modesty, cost countless lives and required the efforts of a foreign military to rectify.

Good points, but I think those failings pale in comparison to those of FDR and Lincoln, especially in terms of lives lost and whether or not the situation would have been avoidable.

Obviously, I think the Civil War was not inevitable, and that it was manufactured more for Northern economic gain than anything else, as the brutal economic policies of the "reconstruction" era evidence. As such, I doubt Lincoln's ability and character. I also doubt his wartime leadership ability, as it is well known that Union regiments were often ineptly led and trained, and that the North won mostly through attrition. That is not how great leaders conduct a war, imo, whether or not they win.

FDR seemed to have much the same mentality, enacted a good deal of unconstitutional legislation, and tried to pack the Supreme Court to boot!
He consciously tried to force Japan into a war, allied with the unprecedentedly brutal Soviet Union, of all people, and also fought a war of attrition. Better to have no legacy than to have one such as those, imo. It is disappointing that history remembers such men fondly for no ther reason than that the smokescreen surrounding their agendas had to be so thick that it lingers to this day.

I don't think, given the mindsets and economic realities of their times, that there was much else my three faves could have done differently, save perhaps Jackson, who was willfully cruel to the native populace, as you rightly assert. I guess at least he was honest about it.

Jefferson would have had a nigh-impossible battle trying to end slavery. The South needed workers, and the alternative was share-cropping, which is even worse than slavery at the level of personal subsistence, if not personal dignity. He never quite seemed to come to grips with it himself.
As bad as slavery in America was, I guess it was better than slavery in Africa, or even just being in Africa. Africans were treated quite badly by the colonial powers and each other.

Washington may not have been the best commander, but he did inspire his troops to victory, and there is plenty of evidence that his men thought highly of him (though not at first). His modesty may have been false, not that I believe that, but he translated it into reality, and to my mind that's as good as real modesty.

It is for these reasons, and all the civil war bush that the thread train was derailed into to explain them, that I stand behind my nominees for best, and worst, presidents of the United States.

[August]

JFK, a Catholic, looking out for his Catholic French buddy's best interest by occupying southern Vietnam!

Your post would be amusing if it weren't such a blatant neo-nazi talking point. Catholics indeed. :roll:

You do realize that US troops were first sent to Indochina during the Eisenhower administration right? You do realize that the significant troop escalations all occured under LBJ's administration, right?

[Takeda Shingen]

Lance, I agree with your last statement that we really have taken this one into left field, and for that I apologize. Let me try to bow out on this one by stating that, first, I was not and am not offended by your opening. I knew that you were taking a playful jab at me, and I jabbed back. I blame the colorless language of teh internets.

I did not expect that either of us would leave with our minds changed, but I can understand now from where your view originates. Had I grown in a different area and under differnt circumstances, I may have seen the world in another light than I see it now. In any case, although I disagree with your viewpoint, as you disagree with mine, I can see that it is a thoughtful and logical picture, and for that you have my respect. There is nothing 'knee-jerk', if you will, about you. As I have found your words quite enlightening, I thank you for sharing them. It would appear that I have learned something today.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Lance, I agree with your last statement that we really have taken this one into left field, and for that I apologize. Let me try to bow out on this one by stating that, first, I was not and am not offended by your opening. I knew that you were taking a playful jab at me, and I jabbed back. I blame the colorless language of teh internets.

I did not expect that either of us would leave with our minds changed, but I can understand now from where your view originates. Had I grown in a different area and under differnt circumstances, I may have seen the world in another light than I see it now. In any case, although I disagree with your viewpoint, as you disagree with mine, I can see that it is a thoughtful and logical picture, and for that you have my respect. There is nothing 'knee-jerk', if you will, about you. As I have found your words quite enlightening, I thank you for sharing them. It would appear that I have learned something today.

As have I. It's nice to have my views called into question because then I have to defend them and also make them interpretable to other parties. In doing so , I must challenge them myself, and I occasionally stumble upon evidence that I had not previously considered. At times, my own views get changed while I'm trying to defend them, despite assertions that it is impossible to change anyone's mind on a forum.

Thanks for the discussion, Tak. You helped make my day a little better:shucks:

[krashkart]

^^ Undersea - what is a half-Yank anyway? :rotfl2::DL

It's never been wrong or ever lost a war (cough cough Vietnam)!

Yeah, that's right! We LOST Vietnam! Anybody want to argue that one!

I have noticed a broad spectrum in your arguments. One moment we are reading about the Civil War, the next we are reading about Vietnam and a hint at JFK's religious background. How do you keep track of anything? :06:

BTW, we won Vietnam -- it depends on which 'we' we allude to. :03:

[tater]

UnderseaLcpl, I for one have never argued some sort of pure motivation for the North in the CW. The North had interests, which it pursued, as did the South.

When I have said the cause of the war was slavery, I was NOT saying the cause was abolitionism, or some long-term plan to cease the practice. Thorn69 seems to argue this way (his arguments being poorly constructed), as if we're saying that the North wages war to free slaves—it did NOT do this. That is irrelevant to the primary cause of the war. Slavery is a necessary condition for the CW to have occurred. Had slavery been abolished before the CW, there would never have been a CW.

Here's a bit by thorn69 that shows how he entirely misunderstands the arguments being made. If he weren't clearly American, I might think english wasn't his first language, this is the kind of thing you see in arguments with such a fundamental misunderstanding going on.
That's what it's ALWAYS been about. Control and Power! Slavery is just a cop out excuse to make yourselves feel good about what happened.

That last bit suggests that thorn69 thinks we are saying the CW was prosecuted by the North to free the slaves, and we hang our hat on that.

Who said that?

We said slavery was the CAUSE of the CW, not that the North fought the CW to end slavery, it did not. Ending slavery quicker was just a plus. So the entire argument about Grant and the Indians is meaningless. Grant wasn't fighting to free slaves, he had no higher purpose, he was fighting a war for his side to win, nothing more, nothing less. Ditto racism, freeing slaves wasn't the rationale, even though slavery was the cause of the war.

[Sailor Steve]

The war was fought over the question of secession. Did they have that right? That's a different argument altogether. But the documentation in their own words says they seceeded over slavery. Period.

As for Vietnam, I was there, and we did lose. We could have won but we would have had to use extreme force and then maintain control of a people who didn't want us there. Couple that with the concept that we never should have been there in the first place and it's no wonder we lost.

But I'm still waiting for you to answer the fact of those secession documents. You're very good at weaving and ducking and jabbing, not very good with logic, reason and facts.

[Jimbuna]

If you'll pardon the intrusion from an ignorant (topic wise) Brit....I'd just like to say that I have learned more about the American Civil War on this thread than I ever learned during history classes at school :up:

[Tchocky]

If you'll pardon the intrusion from an ignorant (topic wise) Brit....I'd just like to say that I have learned more about the American Civil War on this thread than I ever learned during history classes at school :up:
The only explanation I ever got when I was young was from an American relative - "Well, it was a war in the United States between the guys who liked United and the guys who liked States"

To my 10-year old ears that slotted in nicely alongside the war between Drogheda United and Dundalk Football Club :O:

[Moeceefus]

That WAS their right at that time Neal. It was the law of the land during that time period. It's easy for us today to ridicule the people of the past for what they did, or didn't do, but they didn't know any better. They did what they thought they had to do for survival and were just following the pathway that our founding forefathers chose to follow. It was our founding forefathers that had a chance to end slavery before it ever started when this nation began but they chose to keep it because they needed it to build the country up. The people in the South were just following the same concept.

And chances are, if you were born in the South during that time period and had no concept of how the war would have turned out and what life today would be like, you'd be Whistling Dixie and standing up for your State's right to secede from the tyrannical north! ;)

But it's so easy to side with the winning side and belittle the loser when you know all the details and how things turned out. But nobody can really say how life would have turned out if the South had won! It could have ended up better or it could have ended up worse. We'll never know!


What is your point/purpose of this arguement. The fact is the south lost and order was restored. Whatever the reasons for the outbreak of the war, it doesn't matter. Slavery is an evil institution and all nations involved in it carry that taint forever regardless of the race enslaved.

Who cares if you say the south needed slave labor to grow? No they didn't, they could've gotten off thier own asses and worked hard (a principle the nation was founded on) but they found it more productive to go to war instead under the guise of states rights. They may not have developed as fast without slaves, but they could have done it.

For anyone to say that even to this day, that northerners are more racist to the blacks than southerners is laughable. People can be ignorant no matter where they are from, but I wonder how many southerners with your mind set supported the idea of our current president even running. Bottom line is the south lost, end of story. Slavery is wrong no matter the excuse. Racism is also wrong no matter the excuse. Anyone with racist views needs to look in the mirror and ask themselves what makes them so damn superior. Is it a birth right?

[Bilge_Rat]

The U.S. Civil War is a fascinating subject. I have read many books on it and what you see in this thread is really just a summary of the main points.

As you can see, for a lot of americans, the war has never really ended....:arrgh!:

[Moeceefus]

The only explanation I ever got when I was young was from an American relative - "Well, it was a war in the United States between the guys who liked United and the guys who liked States"

To my 10-year old ears that slotted in nicely alongside the war between Drogheda United and Dundalk Football Club :O:


That has a nice ring to it.

[Jimbuna]

The U.S. Civil War is a fascinating subject. I have read many books on it and what you see in this thread is really just a summary of the main points.

As you can see, for a lot of americans, the war has never really ended....:arrgh!:

Not any different in the UK in some areas....but I'll not go there :DL

[Sailor Steve]

It wasn't intended to be an insult, save the playful jab at yanks, but if I offended you then you have my apologies.
And that's why I like you so much, James - you remind me of myself.

"Let the South go? Let the South go!? Where then shall we get our revenues?"- Abraham Lincoln, as cited in Origin of the Late War, Lunt, 1866
Finally, someone who believes that the South represented money for the North comes up with a real quote! Thank you for that.

"Prejudice of race appears to be stronger in States that have abolished slaves than in states where slavery still exists. WHite caprenters, white bricklayers, and white painters will not work side by side with the blacks in the North, but do it in almost every Southern State."- Alexis de Tocqueville
Another good one! De Tocqueville was a valuable observer.

"The free colored people were looked upon as an inferior caste to whom liberty was a curse, and their lot worse than that of the slaves"- William Lloyd Garrison
A good observation, but they were still owned by other human beings. Anyone who got a chance to be free ususally took it, preferring destitution to slavery.

Either Northerners were racist or they just didn't want the competition.
I completely agree. I've never said the North were the Good Guys and the South were the Bad Guys, despite some people trying to put words in my mouth. All I've ever said was that the Southern States gave Slavery as their prime motive for seceeding.

I'd call it a serious compromise of integrity, given that Lincoln didn't free any slaves he actually had control over.
I'd call it prudence, since he certainly didn't want more States trying to seceed.

I'd also cause it a really poor attempt at starting a slave insurrection in the South, which, it is interesting to note, never happened, despite the absence of so many armed men.
I have to agree there. It was an odd move if pictured in any other light.

The points you mentioned were all valid arguing points, and I have no disagreement with them.

Obviously, I think the Civil War was not inevitable, and that it was manufactured more for Northern economic gain than anything else, as the brutal economic policies of the "reconstruction" era evidence.
I disagree there. Lincoln insisted that the South be welcomed back as brothers with no recriminations. After his murder he was succeeded by Andrew Johnson, a weak president at best. Johnson was of the same mind as Lincoln, especially since he was a Southern Democrat, which was why Lincoln selected his as running mate in the first place. He let himself be pushed by Northern politicians and moneymen into allowing Reconstruction to proceed as it did, and of course the rest is history. I completely agree that Reconstruction was a great evil, I just disagree that Lincoln had anything to do with it.

It is for these reasons, and all the civil war bush that the thread train was derailed into to explain them, that I stand behind my nominees for best, and worst, presidents of the United States.
Great job, as always! :rock:

[Sailor Steve]

The only explanation I ever got when I was young was from an American relative - "Well, it was a war in the United States between the guys who liked United and the guys who liked States"
:rotfl2:That's GREAT! I love it! :rock:

[nikimcbee]

Bilge_Rat, I agree about Lincoln, but there actually are a couple of things that make me rate Washington first.

1. Lincoln was a much more astute politician than most of his contemporaries gave him credit for. In his inaugural address he swore he wouldn't fire the first shot, and then carefully manipulated President Davis and Governor Pickens into doing just that. He wasn't the country bumpkin he played himself to be, and he was good at what he did. That said, I think he honestly believed that the Union had to be preserved at any cost, including slavery and including his own life.

2. He was a lawyer.
:rotfl2:

Well said. Slavery issue aside, let's ask Pres. Lincoln about Nergo rights. Enter the political answer....:D

[nikimcbee]

The U.S. Civil War is a fascinating subject. I have read many books on it and what you see in this thread is really just a summary of the main points.

As you can see, for a lot of americans, the war has never really ended....:arrgh!:
It's my Civil War re-enacting time of year. So, I hear tons of interesting discussions on the subject. It's funny how many people get so worked up over it/:-?

[UnderseaLcpl]

And that's why I like you so much, James - you remind me of myself.
As flattering as that is, what kind of reason is that to like anyone?:DL
People also commit atrocious crimes because other people aren't like themselves. I'll take it as a complement, given how much older and well-versed in life you are than I am, but I question the logic.

Finally, someone who believes that the South represented money for the North comes up with a real quote! Thank you for that.
I've got, like, 400 more from Lincoln and his cabinet and a number of Northern newspapers, if you'd like to hear any. I've managed to find my old books since our last discussion on this topic.

What worries me is that this evidence is so difficult to find online. I have plenty of first-hand and post-bellum evidence that suggests that the motives for the war were purely economic, but when I try to find the same evidence online I mostly come up with evidence to the contrary or crap spewed by people even more extreme than myself. Have defenders of the Souther cause been proven wrong and I missed it? Has popular history overtaken the actual facts? To quote you, I don't know.


Another good one! De Tocqueville was a valuable observer.
He was indeed, but he, too, had a bias. IIRC, De Tocqueville was focussed upon social inequities. I also have a bunch of quotes from people who observed the same thing, but I figured that De Tocqueville's name would be more readily recognizable.

A good observation, but they were still owned by other human beings. Anyone who got a chance to be free ususally took it, preferring destitution to slavery.
I'm not so sure about that one. There are a lot of first-hand accounts by slaves where they describe their unwillingness to seperate from their masters, even after they were freed. There are also a lot of accounts of slaves who couldn't wait to get away from their masters. It is difficult to discern exactly what was going on at that time, but I have noticed one thing: where I look for accounts of abused slaves, I often end up finding the same stories, or things that allude to "Uncle Tom's Cabin". When I look for stories by slaves who thought they were well-treated, I find a considerable variety.

Again, this may well be a case of uneducated slaves who simply didn't know any better, but I've also found a number of cases where slaveowners taught their slaves to read and gave them further education, and the slaves then stuck with them, right up until their funerals, many years later. Though I despise the idea of slavery, or even any kind of uneccesary government control, as you well know, I have to wonder if the slaves were better-off as slaves at that time. The post-war testimony seems to indicate that they thought as much, and the Confederate Constitution, unlike that of the US, had a provision for the banning of international slave trade, though it did promote owenrship of slaves
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm
Overall, the Confederate constitution was one that promoted slavery, whilst simultaneously seeking to end it. I think that most of the SOuth was caught in the same quandry that Jefferson found himself in; slavery was an economic neccessity, but also an abridgement of human rights. At the same time, there was a social perspective that African natives could be "trained" into being "good people", hence the paternalistic attitude towards slaves.

I completely agree. I've never said the North were the Good Guys and the South were the Bad Guys, despite some people trying to put words in my mouth. All I've ever said was that the Southern States gave Slavery as their prime motive for seceeding.
True enough. I have found absolutely no evidence to suggest that modern states' rights theorists are correct about states' rights other than slavery being a primary cause for secession. What the North did was something else again.

I'd call it prudence, since he certainly didn't want more States trying to seceed. Blame it on the Marine in me, but I simply cannot accept such "prudence" as a mark of success. Victory should be the result of exemplary leadership and selfless dedication to a defined principle, not some half-baked idiocy that seeks to undermine the opposing faction. The South already had a desire to end slavery, and I think that a little more time and diplmatic effort would have resolved the problem.


I have to agree there. It was an odd move if pictured in any other light.
At least odd enough to be worthy of scrutiny, I think. Nonetheless, the Emancipation Proclamation is championed as a landmrk in human sciences.

The points you mentioned were all valid arguing points, and I have no disagreement with them.
And also no agreement with them, I presume? That's okay, I just want people to question what they think they know about the causations of the Civil War.


I disagree there. Lincoln insisted that the South be welcomed back as brothers with no recriminations. After his murder he was succeeded by Andrew Johnson, a weak president at best. Johnson was of the same mind as Lincoln, especially since he was a Southern Democrat, which was why Lincoln selected his as running mate in the first place. He let himself be pushed by Northern politicians and moneymen into allowing Reconstruction to proceed as it did, and of course the rest is history. I completely agree that Reconstruction was a great evil, I just disagree that Lincoln had anything to do with it.

In that case, Lincoln was not so shrewd, after all. he was obviously well aware of the economic pressures that gave rise to the conflict, why did he do nothing about them if he was so great? To me, he's just another wartime politician, no more, but much less, as he sanctioned violence against fellow Americans for economic gain. He may well have been a good man, but I put him in the same category as Wilson during the Versailles Treaty negotiations. At best, he was a failed idealist, at worst, he was a weak party to party politics. "Honest Abe", my butt.

[August]

In that case, Lincoln was not so shrewd, after all. he was obviously well aware of the economic pressures that gave rise to the conflict, why did he do nothing about them if he was so great? To me, he's just another wartime politician, no more, but much less, as he sanctioned violence against fellow Americans for economic gain. He may well have been a good man, but I put him in the same category as Wilson during the Versailles Treaty negotiations. At best, he was a failed idealist, at worst, he was a weak party to party politics. "Honest Abe", my butt.

But Lincoln was assassinated only 6 days after Lee surrendered at Appromattox so he can hardly be blamed for the failures of Reconstruction. There is just no comparison with Wilson who actually did have a chance to lead in the post war era.

[Sailor Steve]

As flattering as that is, what kind of reason is that to like anyone?:DL
I simply meant in that you are quick to apologise at the first hint that you may have caused unintentional offense. And you think about things, and don't automatically assume you are right, but look at all the facts carefully.

ve got, like, 400 more from Lincoln and his cabinet and a number of Northern newspapers, if you'd like to hear any. I've managed to find my old books since our last discussion on this topic.
Maybe next time we talk. Or in a PM in case no one else is interested.


I'm not so sure about that one. There are a lot of first-hand accounts by slaves where they describe their unwillingness to seperate from their masters, even after they were freed. There are also a lot of accounts of slaves who couldn't wait to get away from their masters.
One thing to explore is not so much accounts of abuse, but try to count how many ran away. Also there is some photographic evidence of abuse, but I found something I'm going to have to buy:
http://www.paperlessarchives.com/african-american_slave_testimo.html

I think that most of the SOuth was caught in the same quandry that Jefferson found himself in; slavery was an economic neccessity, but also an abridgement of human rights. At the same time, there was a social perspective that African natives could be "trained" into being "good people", hence the paternalistic attitude towards slaves.
Jefferson's conundrum was that he couldn't see how thousands of poorly educated and untrained workers could survive in the world without some kind of education. That, coupled with the Virginia law that required all freed slaves to leave the state within one year, had him totally flustered. Madison was accused by a friend of his of being a hypocrite, writing about freedom while owning slaves. The friend had a unique solution: He sold his plantation and moved the entire household to Kentucky, where he divided it equally between himself and all his former slaves. They then set up their own society. I can't give his name at the moment because the Madison biography I have it from is a library book.

Blame it on the Marine in me, but I simply cannot accept such "prudence" as a mark of success.
Okay, it's the Marine in you. :D

Actually that might be partly true, as we are all victims of our backgrounds. Lincoln as president might well have foreseen the possibility of further dissention if he tried to free the slaves in the border states. We do have to consider every possibility, and there is no way for us to know what was actually in his head at the time.

The South already had a desire to end slavery, and I think that a little more time and diplmatic effort would have resolved the problem.
Possibly, but that's true of both sides. Should the South have not seceeded, and looked for a better solution? I think so, but I wasn't there, so my opinion is no better than anyone else's.

And also no agreement with them, I presume?
Nothing one way or the other. A true argument deserves consideration. That I don't disagree was meant to indicate that I consider them 'worthy' arguments, i.e. ones that deserve more than a quick answer.

That's okay, I just want people to question what they think they know about the causations of the Civil War.
Question everything you think you know, I always say. Somebody who is sure he 'knows' something is usually wrong.

In that case, Lincoln was not so shrewd, after all. he was obviously well aware of the economic pressures that gave rise to the conflict, why did he do nothing about them if he was so great? To me, he's just another wartime politician, no more, but much less, as he sanctioned violence against fellow Americans for economic gain.
What could he have done? The seceeded before he took office. He had been in office less than a month when the shooting began. While I do believe he was incredibly shrewd in maneuvering the South into firing first, I also believe that by that point the economics were a moot point. His goal was to preserve the Union, and that could no longer be done with political manipulation. If there was no war, there would be no reunion (at least not immediately), and he almost certainly believed that the nation would not survive as two separate countries. Sooner or later the Southern coalition would start to fail (as it did when the Confederate Congress instituted a draft and States started talking about secession from the Confederacy), and at that point the British and the French would be more than glad to 'befriend' them.

The whole 'American Experiment' was still pretty much that at the time. For Lincoln, failure could possibly mean the failure of the whole thing. Possibly not true, but I believe that was foremost in his mind.

[Snestorm]

If you'll pardon the intrusion from an ignorant (topic wise) Brit....I'd just like to say that I have learned more about the American Civil War on this thread than I ever learned during history classes at school :up:

Me too.

There sure is a-lot of knowledge here.

[thorn69]

Lance, I agree with your last statement that we really have taken this one into left field, and for that I apologize. Let me try to bow out on this one by stating that, first, I was not and am not offended by your opening. I knew that you were taking a playful jab at me, and I jabbed back. I blame the colorless language of teh internets.

I did not expect that either of us would leave with our minds changed, but I can understand now from where your view originates. Had I grown in a different area and under differnt circumstances, I may have seen the world in another light than I see it now. In any case, although I disagree with your viewpoint, as you disagree with mine, I can see that it is a thoughtful and logical picture, and for that you have my respect. There is nothing 'knee-jerk', if you will, about you. As I have found your words quite enlightening, I thank you for sharing them. It would appear that I have learned something today.


BAH!! I apologize for nothing yanks!!! :arrgh!:

Quoting Baby Face Nelson as he aimed his tommy gun at some misfortunate FBI drones - "I know you wear vests, so I'm gonna give it to ya coppers both high and low" 'BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM' :rotfl2:

For real, I can't dispute that how the war ended was ultimately the best thing for both sides. Southern pride still runs deep where I'm from though. But that's the price to be paid for losing I suppose. By the end of the war, most Southerners were just glad it was over.

I remember reading a true story somewhere a long time ago about a veteran of the north trying to pick a fight with a veteran of the South in a bar shortly after the war ended. The northerner asked, while shoving his hand into the Southerner's back, "Hey boy! You Southern rebel boys still got some fight left in you?" The Southerner turned slowly around on his bar stool to look up and face the northerner and grimly replied, "Sir, my father is dead and so are my 3 brothers. No sir, this boy has got no more fight left him" and slowly turned back around in his seat to tend to his whiskey in peace. The northerner then relaxed his stance and pulled up a stool right next to the Southerner and ordered two shots of whiskey from the bar. One for himself and the other for his new friend.:()1:

[Bilge_Rat]

The situation of blacks in america pre-Civil War was never (pardon the pun) black or white.

In 1860, there were 260,000 "free negroes" living in the South, including the wealthiest landowner in a county in Virginia. 1 in 500 blacks themselves owned slaves.

There were many very overt acts of racism in the North that are shocking when seen through the prism of 2010.

The living standards of an ordinary laborer in a Northern factory was not substantially different from that of an ordinary slave in the South.

Yet you still had many slaves who tried to escape and took the long trip along the underground railway up to Canada and freedom.

Catton's "A Stillness at Appomattox" has a whole chapter on black soldiers in the Union Army. There was a lot of resistance at first to the very idea for very racist reasons (they are undependable, lazy, stupid, cowards, etc). Blacks were finally allowed into uniforms for purely practical reasons, the casualty lists were horrendous, white enlistment was down and here was a ready source of manpower.

What the raw statistics don't show however is the immense sense of pride felt by black Union soldiers who for the first time in their lives were being recognized by their own government as the equal of whites. They volonteered in droves even though they knew they were cannon fodder, drew some tough dangerous assignment and suffered heavy casualties. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Crater

By 1864-65, most Union officers recognized that black regiments fought as well as white ones.

[UnderseaLcpl]

But Lincoln was assassinated only 6 days after Lee surrendered at Appromattox so he can hardly be blamed for the failures of Reconstruction. There is just no comparison with Wilson who actually did have a chance to lead in the post war era.

Ture enough, but that still buys him nothing in my eyes. Lincoln was privvy to enough acts of brutality in occupied areas during the war that I have no difficulty believing that he would have done nothing to soften the reconstruction afterwards. The sentiment that the South needed to be punished was very strong at the time, and if he was the shrewd politician everyone says he was, it would have been politically unwise to attempt a gentle reconciliation.


What could he have done? The seceeded before he took office. He had been in office less than a month when the shooting began. While I do believe he was incredibly shrewd in maneuvering the South into firing first, I also believe that by that point the economics were a moot point. His goal was to preserve the Union, and that could no longer be done with political manipulation. If there was no war, there would be no reunion (at least not immediately), and he almost certainly believed that the nation would not survive as two separate countries. Sooner or later the Southern coalition would start to fail (as it did when the Confederate Congress instituted a draft and States started talking about secession from the Confederacy), and at that point the British and the French would be more than glad to 'befriend' them.

The whole 'American Experiment' was still pretty much that at the time. For Lincoln, failure could possibly mean the failure of the whole thing. Possibly not true, but I believe that was foremost in his mind.

Very good points,as usual Steve. I admit that I hadn't really considered things from that perspective. My economic instinct tells me that something could have been done to peacefully bring the South back into the fold, but I'll have to think about that one and do some more reading before I can decide one way or the other.

[August]

politically unwise to attempt a gentle reconciliation.

I find it ironic that you can slam Lincoln for not doing what he didn't have a chance to do before he was assassinated yet accuse him of not bringing about a gentle reconciliation as if that was a realistic possibility.

Bottom line here is that Lincoln kept the Union together and in doing so ended slavery in our country. That alone makes him one of the greatest US presidents ever in my book.

[Stealth Hunter]

FDR was actually kind of scary when you look at his constraints on civil liberties—not just during the war, but also on private commerce in his poor attempts to fix the Depression (experiments that were actually counter-productive).Actually the New Deal was not the "counter-productive" government movement too many have erroneously labeled it today. But this is nothing new. People were slandering it as this clear back to H.L. Mencken in 1934, who called it "a saturnalia of expropriation and waste".

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/mar/24/00025/

Truth is, New Deal spending boosted consumption, which led to an increase in necessary production, reducing unemployment, ultimately ending the Depression, being aided as well by the state of war existing between the Axis Powers and United States after the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Empire of Japan and subsequent declaration of war ON the United States by Germany and Italy.

The World War II era's beneficial effects for the United States aside, Roosevelt's New Deal plan can and should be labeled essentially as an industrial/work force stimulus package.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/wp-content/uploads/figure-14.jpg

The above graph displays the United States' GDP and government spending for the Great Depression. The GDP line clearly marks the Great Contraction of 1929-1932, the Recession within the Depression of 1937, and the subsequent return of the GDP to pre-crash levels, eventually soaring past what the rates had been under the Hoover Administration by over $20 billion, from 1938-1940. The method used was deficit spending; i.e. the concept of government borrowing moving future consumption to the present and hopefully boosting the economy to a permanently higher level. And it did indeed work, also growing the work force.

http://www.cato.org/images/homepage/200901_blog_firey3.jpg

Did Roosevelt borrow money to fund the programs of the New Deal? Yes. Did he need to borrow much? No.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/wp-content/uploads/figure2.jpg

As a share of GDP, the New Deal deficit peaked at 5.41% of GDP, or $3.6 billion, in 1934. Additionally, doubling the fixed exchange rate for the dollar relative to gold helped to stabilize and indeed benefit the economy by acting as a monetary stimulus thusly leading to large amounts of gold flowing into the United States. Twice as many dollars could therein be purchased. That supported bank deposits and increased bank willingness to lend, encouraging investments to be made. This lending led to a huge increase in the currency supply, which pushed against price deflation and increased consumption.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html

In summary, the New Deal's monetary policies ended the Great Depression, the programs like the Civilian Construction Corps, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Federal Security Agency (among others) acted as initiatives and helped to put the unemployed back to work to both forward the national production sector and get currency flowing through the country again, welfare helped to support the people of the nation who were unable to work or who could not find work survive, before the establishment of the aforementioned programs, mistakes were made, lessons were learned, but in the end, we did get out of it, and that's all that matters.

As far as civil liberties are concerned, he really wasn't any worse than Adams, who passed the Sedition Act of 1798 and pissed off the Jeffersonians and Federalists David Brown and Charles Pinckney, or even Lincoln, who suspended Habeus Corpus, suspended Civil Law in all the border states that remained in the Union during the Civil War or had been taken by Union military forces, declared martial law, imposed censorship on numerous journals and newspapers, and placed hefty restrictions on commerce.

http://politics.usnews.com/news/history/articles/2009/02/10/revoking-civil-liberties-lincolns-constitutional-dilemma.html

[Sailor Steve]

Good post, SH. I've wandered back and forth many times on my opinion of Roosevelt, but I think we were fortunate to have him there when the war came. The right man at the right time, and all that.

I do want to take one minor exception to your comments though:

As far as civil liberties are concerned, he really wasn't any worse than Adams, who passed the Sedition Act of 1798 and pissed off the Jeffersonians and Federalists...
It was Hamilton and his Federalists who put up the Alien and Sedition Acts, and Federalst members in the cabinet who convinced Adams to sign it. The Jeffersonian Republicans hated it, but the Federalists weren't unhappy at all.

[Moeceefus]

Speaking of Adams, I must say the HBO miniseries they did on him was superb. Everybody seen it?

[Sailor Steve]

I own a copy, and I only have one complaint:

It was about 10 hours too short! They had to leave out too much good stuff.

Anyway, here's the thread that Neal started back when it aired on HBO.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=133225&highlight=John+Adams

I also have a copy of the George Washington miniseries from the '80s with Barry Bostwick and Patty Duke.

[Platapus]

Good post, SH. I've wandered back and forth many times on my opinion of Roosevelt, but I think we were fortunate to have him there when the war came. The right man at the right time, and all that.




I think it is very important to, as you stated, consider the man with respect to the time. FDR probably would not have been a good President in the 1880's nor in the 1980's. One can't evaluate his programs without evaluating the environment at the time. He was President in some very bad times. He had to do some extreme measures to fix the problems. In the long term, perhaps some of his programs would not have been the best choice. But at the time, FDR did not have the luxury of thinking long term. He had to fix those problems and fix them fast.

I truly think he did the best he could and generally, I think his programs were appropriate for those times.

[Stealth Hunter]

The Jeffersonian Republicans hated it, but the Federalists weren't unhappy at all.

I was thinking more along the lines of David Brown and Charles Pinckney. Should have been more clear on that; my bad.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I find it ironic that you can slam Lincoln for not doing what he didn't have a chance to do before he was assassinated yet accuse him of not bringing about a gentle reconciliation as if that was a realistic possibility.
I'm not entriely sure that qualifies as irony, but if you don't believe that peaceful reconciliation was a possibility then you likely won't believe anything I say to try to change your mind.

Bottom line here is that Lincoln kept the Union together and in doing so ended slavery in our country. That alone makes him one of the greatest US presidents ever in my book.

The ends justify the means? I expect a little more from our nation's highest office, especially when it comes to resolving matters of state. We're both conservatives, albeit of different grains, but as such I would think you would handily percieve Lincoln's moral folly in immediately resorting to military force to control a rebellious populace. To put it another way, if B.O. responded to a popular upheaval concerning states' rights with military force, I'd expect to see you on the same side as me, not siding with the Feds for the sole purpose of preserving what they consider to be the union. Admittedly, I'm not including an affront to human dignity like slavery in the case because I can't think of a comparable example, but I think I've provided ample evidence that slavery wasn't exactly high on the union's list of priorities, anyway.

If nothing else, you can't make a case for the number of Union lives simply thrown away in a grinding war of attrition. Lincoln endorsed Grant, who was also known as "The Butcher" by his own troops for his willingness to simply throw them into a meat grinder. He was like a Zhukov of the 19th century. I think Lincoln's defense of Grant alone speaks volumes about what kind of leader he was.

[August]

I'm not entriely sure that qualifies as irony, but if you don't believe that peaceful reconciliation was a possibility then you likely won't believe anything I say to try to change your mind.

Well I have never read anything from either side which indicates that war was not inevitable once the southern states seceded. Why are you so quick to claim I won't believe anything you say to the contrary? Is that because you think i'm too stubborn to seriously consider the possibility or is your argument on that subject just too weak to sway anyone, let alone a Yankee like me? :)

The ends justify the means? I expect a little more from our nation's highest office, especially when it comes to resolving matters of state. We're both conservatives, albeit of different grains, but as such I would think you would handily percieve Lincoln's moral folly in immediately resorting to military force to control a rebellious populace. To put it another way, if B.O. responded to a popular upheaval concerning states' rights with military force, I'd expect to see you on the same side as me, not siding with the Feds for the sole purpose of preserving what they consider to be the union.But dude declaring independence rather than accepting the valid election of a president who personally didn't believe that American states should have the right to keep human slaves is not the same thing as some modern day undefined military response to some equally undefined "popular upheaval concerning states' rights".

If the issues and characters are the same as they were in 1861 then sorry but, fellow political traveller or not, i'm going to side with the Union over a bunch of rebel slave holders every time.

Admittedly, I'm not including an affront to human dignity like slavery in the case because I can't think of a comparable example, but I think I've provided ample evidence that slavery wasn't exactly high on the union's list of priorities, anyway. Preserving the union and defeating the rebellion were of course higher priorities but you can't not include slavery in any discussion about the civil war whether it be about the causes, the conduct or the aftermath. It is just too central to all aspects of the conflict to be ignored. Had the institution of slavery not existed then the south would not have rebelled. Most of them even specifically mention slavery as the reason they were declaring independence. You just can dismiss that because it's inconvenient to your argument.

If nothing else, you can't make a case for the number of Union lives simply thrown away in a grinding war of attrition. Lincoln endorsed Grant, who was also known as "The Butcher" by his own troops for his willingness to simply throw them into a meat grinder. He was like a Zhukov of the 19th century. I think Lincoln's defense of Grant alone speaks volumes about what kind of leader he was.You may look down your nose at Grants tactics but face it, a war of attrition is what it ultimately took to beat the Confederacy. Grant might have been considered a butcher to some but but at least he got results for the lives he expended. Something his equally bloody handed predecessors were unable to achieve.

And while you consider that, consider this. US Grant, in spite of what you say about him, in spite of his Zhukov like tactics, even in spite of his scandal ridden administration still remained popular enough for voters, most of them Union veterans, to elect him by landslide margins not once, but twice. Apparently they had a higher opinion of him than you do.

[Moeceefus]

If nothing else, you can't make a case for the number of Union lives simply thrown away in a grinding war of attrition. Lincoln endorsed Grant, who was also known as "The Butcher" by his own troops for his willingness to simply throw them into a meat grinder. He was like a Zhukov of the 19th century. I think Lincoln's defense of Grant alone speaks volumes about what kind of leader he was.


You'd think Andersonville or Pickett's charge never happened, amongst other atrocities on both sides, sheesh. War is hell on either side of a conflict.


"Following the promulgation of the Emancipation Proclamation on New Year's Day, 1863, the North began enlisting former slaves into the Federal army. Confederate President Jefferson Davis declared that "all Negro slaves captured in arms" and their White officers should be delivered over to the South to be dealt with according to law. That could mean rigorous prosecution under strict laws relating to Negro insurrections."

If slavery and racism wasn't a huge factor, whats this about?


Also, Davis knew the south would lose and continued dragging it out. Did he not throw away the lives of confederate soilders in his own war of attrition? While Lee surrendered like a man, Davis was caught fleeing in his wifes overcoat! He was charged with treason and never tried for it, which is a shame.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Well I have never read anything from either side which indicates that war was not inevitable once the southern states seceded. Why are you so quick to claim I won't believe anything you say to the contrary? Is that because you think i'm too stubborn to seriously consider the possibility or is your argument on that subject just too weak to sway anyone, let alone a Yankee like me? :)

I think you miss my point, boss. I said that if you accepted the conflict as an inevitability then you would not likely consider my opinion, as most of it is based upon the war not being inevitable.

Now, suggesting that my argument is too weak to be considered is just uncalled-for. I've spent a lot of time studying history and both sides of the US political fence, and I think I have a valid case for at least casting doubt upon the generally accepted view of the American Civil War. I'm not just some troll, August, I actually put quite a bit of thought into these positions, you damnyankee:DL

But dude declaring independence rather than accepting the valid election of a president who personally didn't believe that American states should have the right to keep human slaves is not the same thing as some modern day undefined military response to some equally undefined "popular upheaval concerning states' rights".
OK, let's start over. I already eliminated slavery as a primary motivation for the North's war against the South. Maybe you buy that argument, and maybe you don't, but even then you have to put yourself into the shoes of early 19th-century America and ask yourself how this issue of slavery should be resolved. It isn't as if the issue was resolved peacefully (Thanks, Lincoln) and it isn't as if African Americans enjoyed a markedly better existence for the next hundred years. Even if you really believe that the Civil war was fought for the interests of African-Americans and that Lincoln really was sincere in his efforts, you have to admit that they were a failure.

If the issues and characters are the same as they were in 1861 then sorry but, fellow political traveller or not, i'm going to side with the Union over a bunch of rebel slave holders every time.
And I'd likely side with you if that were the case, but that isn't the case, and we don't live in the times when slave labor was an economic "neccesity":nope: (not my view, just the popular view at the time).

Preserving the union and defeating the rebellion were of course higher priorities but you can't not include slavery in any discussion about the civil war whether it be about the causes, the conduct or the aftermath. It is just too central to all aspects of the conflict to be ignored. Had the institution of slavery not existed then the south would not have rebelled. Most of them even specifically mention slavery as the reason they were declaring independence. You just can't dismiss that because it's inconvenient to your argument.

I can dismiss slavery and I will, in the same way that I dismiss the justification for American involvement in WW2 being that the Axis was going to take over the world. It's complete nonsense developed for public consumption. The US supposedly intended to rectify the war in Europe, and ended up leaving, what, 13 European states in Soviet hands? That may not be a big deal to many people, but just talk to the people who had to live under that regime. Similarly, the North fought a war to preserve the Union and free the slaves, supposedly, and the first thing they did when they won was rape to the South and make absolutely no significant advances in preserving the rights of blacks until.......even today? All in the name of Federalism? C'mon, man.

You may look down your nose at Grants tactics but face it, a war of attrition is what it ultimately took to beat the Confederacy. Grant might have been considered a butcher to some but but at least he got results for the lives he expended. Something his equally bloody handed predecessors were unable to achieve.
1) There was no Union general that cost as many lives as Grant did, so while they may have been just as incompetent, they were not as bloody-handed
2) Are you seriously going to make an argument in defense of Grant? As a military man? I mean, really? Do you have any WW1 French or British generals you'd like to nominate while you're at it?

I hate to be so direct, August, especially with you, but think about it, boss.


And while you consider that, consider this. US Grant, in spite of what you say about him, in spite of his Zhukov like tactics, even in spite of his scandal ridden administration still remained popular enough for voters, most of them Union veterans, to elect him by landslide margins not once, but twice. Apparently they had a higher opinion of him than you do.


People have a higher opinion of many Presidents and Generals than I do, but then again, most of those people are not economists, or philosophers, or soldiers, or even working middle-class Americans. Don't tell me that you suddenly believe that the electorate knows what is best for the country, not after everything our constitution stands for. Not after decades of special interests marching under the Democratic banner.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Also, Davis knew the south would lose and continued dragging it out. Did he not throw away the lives of confederate soilders in his own war of attrition? While Lee surrendered like a man, Davis was caught fleeing in his wifes overcoat! He was charged with treason and never tried for it, which is a shame.

Another good point. Davis was a lousy president. However, you may be interested in this quote from General Lee at a public meeting in Texas, spoken to a confidant: (abridged, I can't find the page:damn:)
"Had I known what those people (Lee's preferred term for Yanks) would do to our nation, I would have rather died with my men at Appamattox."

[Snestorm]

I am not as well versed in USA's political history as some of the posters here.
This is more of a personal perception, and is open to critisizm, or expansion.

The political elite of the south could not allow their own people to percieve that succession was over slavery.

Why?:
Because slavery at that time had the same effect on the poor man's economy, as does mass immigration of exploitable peoples today.

Supply and demand of labor:
More workers = less job oppertunities, and lower wages.

Therefore/therefor (derfor) the question arises:
Could the south have raised an army had the object of interest not been shifted to states' rights?
Personaly, I have my doubts.

[Moeceefus]

OK, let's start over. I already eliminated slavery as a primary motivation for the North's war against the South.




Have you read Jefferson Davis' own book, "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" ?

If only this line from The Declaration of Independence was followed to the letter to begin with, this wouldn't be an issue, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Another good point. Davis was a lousy president. However, you may be interested in this quote from General Lee at a public meeting in Texas, spoken to a confidant: (abridged, I can't find the page:damn:)
"Had I known what those people (Lee's preferred term for Yanks) would do to our nation, I would have rather died with my men at Appamattox."


“Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand.”
General Robert E. Lee, August 1870 to Governor Stockdale of Texas.

Here are some other interesting Lee quotes.

"The war... was an unnecessary condition of affairs, and might have been avoided if forebearance and wisdom had been practiced on both sides."

"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained. "

"They do not know what they say. If it came to a conflict of arms, the war will last at least four years. Northern politicians will not appreciate the determination and pluck of the South, and Southern politicians do not appreciate the numbers, resources, and patient perseverance of the North. Both sides forget that we are all Americans. I foresee that our country will pass through a terrible ordeal, a necessary expiation, perhaps, for our national sins."

"The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He can not only forgive; he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which imparts sufficient strength to let the past be put the past."

[tater]

Locking up people based on surname certainly puts FDR in the lower end of civil liberties, does it not? US support for various chinese forces during the war is also pretty scary when you srat looking at what we got for our effort/money—they did not fight the japs, they fought other chinese, to the tune of some pretty large-scale democide (the various US service branches had their own intel ops in addition to the new OSS, in central China it was actually of all things the USN that was involved. Got pretty sketchy, actually, with the USN funding nationalist chinese secret service forces that mostly murdered internal political enemies.

That's aside from using the FBI to spy on political enemies, etc (standard practice, Truman did the same). Some of us might argue that starting social security was a major attack on liberty as well. ;)

[Bilge_Rat]

Here are some other interesting Lee quotes.


"They do not know what they say. If it came to a conflict of arms, the war will last at least four years. Northern politicians will not appreciate the determination and pluck of the South, and Southern politicians do not appreciate the numbers, resources, and patient perseverance of the North. Both sides forget that we are all Americans. I foresee that our country will pass through a terrible ordeal, a necessary expiation, perhaps, for our national sins."



wise words indeed.

and my favorite Lee quote:

"It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow too fond of it. "

spoken after the battle (or rather massacre) at Fredericksburg, dec. 13, 1862. (2,000 dead, 15,000 wounded)

[UnderseaLcpl]

@Moceefus - thanks for finding the quote I couldn't find, and the other ones.:salute: And no, I have not read Davis' book, but I plan on adding it and a good deal of other books to my collection when I have the funds for it.


In summary, the New Deal's monetary policies ended the Great Depression


That's not what your source says, and that's not what conventional economic wisdom says, either. Your source (economic library) cites many of the failures of the New Deal and supports the claim that it exacerbated the Depression, rather than rectifying it. It also casts doubt on your figures for GDP and employment. This is all in the last half of the document.

Furthermore, while I have no doubt that FDR was little better than Lincoln when it came to civil liberties, you make no mention of his attempt to pack the Supreme Court. That, in conjunction with his political control of Congress, and his adamant refusal to leave office, makes him the closest thing to a dictator this nation has ever had. Sorry, but he's staying on my "Worst Presidents" list.

[Bilge_Rat]

Ture enough, but that still buys him nothing in my eyes. Lincoln was privvy to enough acts of brutality in occupied areas during the war that I have no difficulty believing that he would have done nothing to soften the reconstruction afterwards. The sentiment that the South needed to be punished was very strong at the time, and if he was the shrewd politician everyone says he was, it would have been politically unwise to attempt a gentle reconciliation.



Based on Lincoln's speeches and actions during the war, it is probable he would have had a gentler reconciliation policy than Johnson.

He encouraged and approved the very generous surrender terms Grant gave to Lee at Appomattox.

Of course, we wil never know what would have happened because of that idiot Booth.

[Bilge_Rat]

OK, let's start over. I already eliminated slavery as a primary motivation for the North's war against the South. Maybe you buy that argument, and maybe you don't, but even then you have to put yourself into the shoes of early 19th-century America and ask yourself how this issue of slavery should be resolved. It isn't as if the issue was resolved peacefully (Thanks, Lincoln) and it isn't as if African Americans enjoyed a markedly better existence for the next hundred years. Even if you really believe that the Civil war was fought for the interests of African-Americans and that Lincoln really was sincere in his efforts, you have to admit that they were a failure.



Slavery was the primary reason why the South seceded.

The USA fought the war primarily to preserve the Union. Lincoln was legally elected president of the United States and took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States. You could not expect him to just stand by and do nothing after 11 states just illegally walked out because they did not like the election results.

The South bears as much or more responsibility for the war by refusing any type of compromise solution, leaving the federal government no choice but to resort to force.

[Bilge_Rat]

1) There was no Union general that cost as many lives as Grant did, so while they may have been just as incompetent, they were not as bloody-handed
2) Are you seriously going to make an argument in defense of Grant? As a military man? I mean, really? Do you have any WW1 French or British generals you'd like to nominate while you're at it?



Grant's reputation as a "Butcher" was undeserved, he was one of the best general ever produced by the USA. His big problem is that he is always compared with Robert E. Lee who was the best general ever to come out of the USA. Its the same problem Andy Roddick has...:DL

His 1863 campaign was a masterpiece of generalship, utilising misdirection, combined arms and bold planning to outmaneuver and bottle up a Rebel army in Vicksburg.

In the 1864 campaign, he was always trying to outmaneuver and outflank Lee. His problem was that the Union generals in the Army of the Potomac always moved a bit slower and with a bit less determination than Lee's generals. Even when he did steal a march on Lee and landed a Corps in front of an undefended Petersburg, the General in charge completely bungled the attack.

In 1865, after he had reorganized the Army and put in his own men, he was able to cut off and bottle up the Army of Northern Virginia in 10 days, leaving Lee with no option but surrender.

[Sailor Steve]

"…my mind is fixed. I know no other Country, no other Government, than the United States & their Constitution."
—Robert E. Lee to Edward Childe (January 9, 1857)

"…if the slaves of the South were mine, I would surrender them all with out a struggle, to avert this war."
—Robert E. Lee to Bishop Joseph P. B. Wilmer (Spring 1861)

"A measure which makes at once Four Millions of people … voters in every part of the land … is indeed a measure of grander importance than any other one act of the kind from the foundation of our free government to the present day."
—Ulysses S. Grant, message to Congress following the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment (March 30, 1870)

"We all thought Richmond, protected as it was by our splendid fortifications and defended by our army of veterans, could not be taken. Yet Grant turned his face to our Capital, and never turned it away until we had surrendered. Now, I have carefully searched the military records of both ancient and modern history, and have never found Grant's superior as a general. I doubt that his superior can be found in all history."
--Robert E. Lee

"We all form our preconceived ideas of men of whom we have heard a great deal, and I had certain definite notions as to the appearance and character of General Grant, but I was never so completely surprised in all my life as when I met him and found him a different person, so entirely different from my idea of him. His spare figure, simple manners, lack of all ostentation, extreme politeness, and charm of conversation were a revelation to me, for I had pictured him as a man of a directly opposite type of character, and expected to find in him only the bluntness of a soldier. Notwithstanding the fact that he talks so well, it is plain he has more brains than tongue. He is one of the most remarkable men I have ever met. He does not seem to be aware of his powers."
-- Former Vice-President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens who met Grant towards the end of the war

"Dear General: I have watched your movements from the hour you gave me my horse and sword and told me to go home and assist in making a crop.' I have been proud to see the nation do you honor. And now, dear Genl. in this the hour of your tribulation I weep that so brave, so magananimous a soul must suffer as you do .. and be assured that I am not the only ex-Confederate who sends his prayers daily to the Throne of Grace for the Grandest, the noblest, the bravest soldier and the Purist Statesman who ever graced the annals of history ... I am Dear General, Yours Most Affectly, A. M. Arnold, Rockbridge Bath, Va."
-- A.M. Arnold, Confederate Veteran in a letter to Grant during his illness

Confederate General Joe Johnston was one of the pallbearers at Grant's funeral.

[August]

Don't tell me that you suddenly believe that the electorate knows what is best for the country, not after everything our constitution stands for. Not after decades of special interests marching under the Democratic banner.

First off please don't call me Boss. August or Dave will suffice.

Now as to your post. I was mainly joking when I suggested that you may not have much of an argument but only because you won't present it. Instead you try to lead me on this Grant the Butcher boondoggle which Steve and Bilge Rat have already addressed.

So far you have not eliminated slavery from the argument to my or anyone elses satisfaction. I'll say it again, had the institution of slavery never existed the south would not have seceded. Protecting that "right" is what pushed them into rebellion. They said it themselves so you can't just dismiss it.

Oh and Thanks a lot Confederates for making the first big test of states rights to be about the right to keep slaves! Had it been about something like illegal immigration instead maybe we could have resolved this in court and avoided the war. :)

[UnderseaLcpl]

I'm not saying the war or the secession wasn't about slavery. Steve proved that to me some time ago. I'm just saying that slavery was not the primary motivation behind the North's invasion. In any case, sorry for leading you on a "boondoggle", August.
--------------------------------------------------------------
As for Grant, since I started this,
The Civil War Sites Advisory Commission reports that at Cold Harbor, the North suffered 13, 000 casualties while the South had only 2,500. Some reports indicate that Grant lost 6,000 men in a one-hour period. Lacking appropriate military skills, Grant callously pushed more and more soldiers into his front lines, ignoring the number of casualties in order to wear down the Confederates. For ruthlessly sacrificing the lives of these young men, Grant was given the designation "Grant the Butcher."

[August]

As for Grant, since I started this,

Horrible certainly but a war of attrition is ultimately what it took to defeat Lee. Everything else had been tried and nothing else had worked.

If you're looking for answers to why the north was so hard on the south after the war maybe it was that necessity, well that and an assassinated President, which caused it.

[Sailor Steve]

Actually Andrew Johnson wanted a quiet and peaceful reconstruction just as much as Lincoln did. The problem was a powerful faction in Congress who saw the money to be made, and that they could make the South suffer at the same time. The fights between Johnson and the Carpetbaggers was fierce, and ultimately led to Johnson's impeachment.

Grant also tried to smooth things over, and was quite active in these battles, which is why so many of his former enemies (Lee included) had so much respect for him.

Some more of what his enemies had to say:

"There is one West Pointer, I think in Missouri, little known, and whom I hope the northern people will not find out. I mean Sam Grant. I knew him well at the Academy and in Mexico. I should fear him more than any of their officers I have yet heard of. He is not a man of genius, but he is clear-headed, quick and daring."
-Confederate General Richard S. Ewell to Robert E. Lee, May, 1861

"Do you know Grant? Well, I do. I was in the Corps of Cadets with him at West Point for three years. I was present at his wedding. I served in the same army with him in Mexico. I have observed his methods of warfare in the West, and I believe I know him through and through and I tell you that we cannot afford to underrate him and the army he now commands."
-General James Longstreet, to his fellows who were joking about Grant's abilities

"Grant is not a retreating man. Gentlemen, the Army of the Potomac has a head."
-Robert E. Lee

[Bilge_Rat]

Cold harbor was a mistake. Grant stated afterwards that he regretted not having called off the attack and this was the battle he regretted the most.

Grant originally ordered the attack late on june 1st for early morning june 2nd, when all reports showed there were few confederate troops there and there was a good chance to break open the road to Richmond. (Cold harbor was only 10 miles from Richmond).

However, due to typical sloppy staff work from the Army of the Potomac and general battlefield confusion (orders being issued late, being delivered late or not at all, units leaving late or taking the wrong road at night, etc.), troops were not anywhere near ready to jump off early june 2nd so the entire attack was postponed 24 hours.

well, in 24 hours, Lee's army could turn its lines into an impregnable fortress, which is what happened...

more importantly, Grant never again ordered that type of frontal assault for the rest of the war, which lasted for another 10 months.

Grant was not the only one to make mistakes, check out Malvern Hill or Pickett's charge, both ordered by Lee. Making mistakes is human, the difference is that we can start the game over, a general who makes a mistake in RL has to live with the consequences for the rest of his life. The important question is not whether they made a mistake, but whether they learned from it; both Lee and Grant were quick learners.

[Moeceefus]

"The Civil War Sites Advisory Commission reports that at Cold Harbor, the North suffered 13, 000 casualties while the South had only 2,500. Some reports indicate that Grant lost 6,000 men in a one-hour period. Lacking appropriate military skills, Grant callously pushed more and more soldiers into his front lines, ignoring the number of casualties in order to wear down the Confederates. For ruthlessly sacrificing the lives of these young men, Grant was given the designation "Grant the Butcher."


Its safe to say mistakes were made on both sides.


"The infantry assault was preceded by a massive artillery bombardment that was meant to soften up the Union defense and silence its artillery, but it was largely ineffective. Approximately 12,500 men in nine infantry brigades advanced over open fields for three-quarters of a mile under heavy Union artillery and rifle fire. Although some Confederates were able to breach the low stone wall that shielded many of the Union defenders, they could not maintain their hold and were repulsed with over 50% casualties, a decisive defeat that ended the three-day battle and Lee's campaign into Pennsylvannia. Years later, when asked why his charge at Gettysburg failed, General Pickett replied: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."


Lee ordered this charge, yet one can not question his ability as a general because of its failure.

"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our
most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by
reading newspapers that these geniuses plainly saw all my strategic
defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late.
Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these obviously
superior intellects, and I'll, in turn, do my best for the Cause by
writing editorials - after the fact."

- Robert E. Lee, 1863

[thorn69]

My personal opinion is the South had much better fighters (more fight in their blood) and much better Generals to lead them. Just look at the battles throughout the entire war and the evidence is written in the blood that was spilled.

Lee was a fricken genius in my book and knew how to make the most with the least amount of resources. Probably the most militaristic and strategic minded person this world has ever known. He's up there with Douglas MacArthur in my list of "men who knew how to fight a war". He was a very disciplined person and never received a single demerit at West Point during his 4 years there. That's unheard of for a school that's so strict!

To me, Grant wasn't a great General at all. And I'm not saying this because I'm so pro-South. The fact is, he just had a lot more men to throw at the South. Give him a small force and he'd lose. Give him a big force and he'd win, but you could rest assured that his big force would be nothing more than a handful of wounded men by the end of the battle. I think this led to him becoming such a bad drunk. It's got to be hard to swallow the "could of/should of" reality when you're responsible for the literally thousands of young lives being lost due in large part to your poor military tactics I can imagine.

It's my opinion that the north suffered such heavy losses during the war because of Grant's poor leadership. There were other northern Generals that used this same method as well. It's so easy to just throw numbers at the enemy to win. Anybody who's into RTS games will know this. We're all guilty of doing the same thing in games like Red Alert. Just create a ton of infantry and charge at the enemy with them and you'll most likely win no matter what equipment they have on their side or how they're strategically setup on the map. You're gonna suffer heavy losses but you're guaranteed to win.

[Sailor Steve]

You may not think Grant was a great general, but his enemies, including Lee, said he was.

Lee was a great defensive commander, but the two times he went on the attack he lost. He was beaten by McLellan and he was beaten by Meade. If either of those two had bothered to chase him the war might have ended much sooner.

[thorn69]

You may not think Grant was a great general, but his enemies, including Lee, said he was.

Lee was a great defensive commander, but the two times he went on the attack he lost. He was beaten by McLellan and he was beaten by Meade. If either of those two had bothered to chase him the war might have ended much sooner.

This is due to their much larger numbers of course.

If Lee had fought for the north, the war would have been over in a month.

[August]

I'm so pro-South.

You are indeed. Far more than RE Lee himself apparently.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I have to admit, I'm a little shocked to see just how many people think Grant was a great general. With the vast superiority in resources he had, I would expect more from a really great general, but it seems that everyone else thinks he is, and I assume you probably have reasons for that in addition to what you've posted here, so I cede the argument. Grant was a great general, apparently. I can't believe I said that. Yes, people's minds can be changed on the internet.

However, if one person.... and I mean even one person suggests that Bernard Montgomery was a great general, I will personally execute you all KGB-style.:DL

[Sailor Steve]

This is due to their much larger numbers of course.
At Antietam, that's arguably true, but at Gettysburg Lee ignored Longstreet's advice and ordered Pickett's charge. I don't think it can be denied that that was a major blunder. He had developed a case of what pilots call "target fixation."

If Lee had fought for the north, the war would have been over in a month.
I don't think it would have been that quick or easy, but I agree with your point. I'm not denying that Lee was one of the greats, both as a general and as a man, but he made some of the same mistakes Grant did. I'm merely saying that contemporary quotes from Lee and others show Grant to be underrated as both by later generations.

[thorn69]

At Antietam, that's arguably true, but at Gettysburg Lee ignored Longstreet's advice and ordered Pickett's charge. I don't think it can be denied that that was a major blunder. He had developed a case of what pilots call "target fixation."


I don't think it would have been that quick or easy, but I agree with your point. I'm not denying that Lee was one of the greats, both as a general and as a man, but he made some of the same mistakes Grant did. I'm merely saying that contemporary quotes from Lee and others show Grant to be underrated as both by later generations.

I won't deny that Lee screwed up at Gettysburg. I think he got a little over zealous in that battle and thought he had it whupped. He could have won that battle had he listened to Longstreet! But it's a good thing for the north that he did screw up. Otherwise Lincoln was about ready to abandon ship and end the war. Lincoln wasn't going to allow and couldn't afford to let the South to invade the north like the north had been invading the South.

[August]

I have to admit, I'm a little shocked to see just how many people think Grant was a great general. With the vast superiority in resources he had, I would expect more from a really great general, but it seems that everyone else thinks he is, and I assume you probably have reasons for that in addition to what you've posted here, so I cede the argument. Grant was a great general, apparently. I can't believe I said that. Yes, people's minds can be changed on the internet.

This is why we like you so much.

However, if one person.... and I mean even one person suggests that Bernard Montgomery was a great general, I will personally execute you all KGB-style.:DL

Well it won't be me. I'm a Paratrooper and as you know the Airborne community has had a long standing beef with that man.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I didn't figure it would be you, August. I just wanted you to agree with me, as I get tired of disagreeing with you when there are other opinions that are so much more disagreeable. :DL I prefer to be on the same side as you.:salute:

[August]

I didn't figure it would be you, August. I just wanted you to agree with me, as I get tired of disagreeing with you when there are other opinions that are so much more disagreeable. :DL I prefer to be on the same side as you.:salute:

I just would like to thank you for allowing me to express my dislike of Montgomery. I would do it all again. :up:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Feel free. I'll help: Monty sucked!

[Snestorm]

This is due to their much larger numbers of course.

If Lee had fought for the north, the war would have been over in a month.

The attacker requires at least a 3 to 1 superiority in numbers to assure success, and will almost always suffer heavier casualties. (The latter situation has been offset largely in modern warfare.)

[Bilge_Rat]

a couple of points:

1. superiority of men and material is nice, but has never been a garantee of success (as Napoleon, the German Army in 1940-42 and the IDF can attest :ping:). You still need someone on top who knows what he is doing and the determination to do it. If the commanding general is incompetent (Pope, Burnside) or does not have the killer instinct (McClellan, Hooker, Meade), numerical superiority means squat. McClellan blew numerous chances to crush Lee's army before, during and after Antietam; its doubtful Grant would have made the same mistakes. Just compare the speed and the fury shown by Grant in his pursuit of Lee in April 1865 with the very cautious approach shown by McClellan and Meade after Antietam and Gettysburg, respectively;

2. I have not seen any evidence that the average Confederate soldier or officer was better than his Union counterpart. The results are skewed by Lee's performance in the East. The results in the West were closer to what you would expect given the Union's superiority. Many confederate generals in the ANV look very good when all they were doing is following Lee's orders. Many of the same generals performed much worse when given an independent command (Hood, Longstreet);

3. Lee's performance and reputation were helped by having a brillant subordinate. His greatest successes came in 1862-63 when Stonewall Jackson, who in many ways was as brillant as Lee, was his point man. After Stonewall was killed, the performance of the ANV dropped off measurably. It is interesting to speculate how Gettysburg would have turned out if Stonewall was still around;

4. Grant's reputation as a drunk was overblown. There is no evidence that he drank when campaigning, certainly not during the 1864 overland campaign against Lee in may-june 1864. The rest of the time it was about average for a Civil War General (they tended to be a hard drinking lot :arrgh!:);

5. as to Monty, I guess we can keep that for another thread...:D

[Raptor1]

The attacker requires at least a 3 to 1 superiority in numbers to assure success, and will almost always suffer heavier casualties. (The latter situation has been offset largely in modern warfare.)

This has to be the most often cited and possibly least accurate theory about warfare I have ever head (And keep hearing). There's no such thing as 'assure success' and the amount of forces required by an attacker to have a reasonably high chances of succeeding is heavily dependent on the state of the defending force.

Also, an attack can suffer much less casualties regardless of ridiculously high numerical superiority if it's properly executed.

[Snestorm]

This has to be the most often cited and possibly least accurate theory about warfare I have ever head (And keep hearing). There's no such thing as 'assure success' and the amount of forces required by an attacker to have a reasonably high chances of succeeding is heavily dependent on the state of the defending force.

Also, an attack can suffer much less casualties regardless of ridiculously high numerical superiority if it's properly executed.

Your point is well taken in modern warfare, but USA's civil war was the beginning of the end of linear tactics, and restrictions.

Let's luck at muzzleloaders (Springfield / Enfield).
Defender: Fire, reload, fire, at capacity.
Attacker: Fix bayonette. Advance. Usualy 1 shot, if one lives to fire it.

Artillary.
Attacker: Pre-advance barage.
Defender: Fire, reload, fire, at capacity. Final round = grapeshot.

That's where that 3 to 1 pretext came from. However, in the end, you are correct. Nothing is even close to being written in stone, and there are infinate possabilities that can have a minor, or major effect.

An often overlooked handicap of the attacker is logistics. It's a whole discussion in itself.
And a very complex one at that.

[August]

The 3-1 superiority rule of thumb comes from the concept that fortifications can increase a defenders combat effectiveness against an enemy who is attacking in the open. The specific term is "Force Multiplier". Technology can also be a force multiplier as can esprit de corps.

The 3-1 ratio *I think* comes from WW1 and is based upon the weaponry, armor and defensive structures of that time period. Obviously that will change as technology and training levels improve over time.

[Snestorm]

WWI?
I was under the impression that it was much older than that, and had by WWII become completely obsolete.

[August]

WWI?
I was under the impression that it was much older than that, and had by WWII become completely obsolete.

You might be right. I think it was WW1 but that might just be where I first heard of it, not when it was actually created.

[antikristuseke]

I don't think 3-1 worked too well against interlocked machine gun fire.

[Sailor Steve]

The Civil War was the beginning of the end of another conception as well - that forts were unassailable by ships. The use of ironclad batteries by the British and French against Sevastapol in 1855 was the first time that floating weapons had been even possible against fortified positions, and by the 1860s there were finally floating weapons powerful enough to be effective against mortar and stone, and at ranges long enough that the fort's guns had difficulty hitting the ships.

It was the beginning of the end for coastal forts.

[Snestorm]

Very good point, Mr Steve.

[August]

I don't think 3-1 worked too well against interlocked machine gun fire.

Machine guns are indeed force multipliers that would change whatever attacker/defender ratio there was beforehand, but so would any new weapon or tactic.

For example, interlocking machine gun fire was not effective at all against poison gas and MG fire was not as effective if aircraft are strafing and bombing their position keeping the crews heads down while the attacking troops advance across the kill zone.

Even changes in doctrine for existing weapons change the ratio. For another example: Pickets charge might have achieved it's objective if the rebels had been able to keep their artillery barrage going right up until the leading ranks reached the stone wall.

[Raptor1]

Your point is well taken in modern warfare, but USA's civil war was the beginning of the end of linear tactics, and restrictions.

Let's luck at muzzleloaders (Springfield / Enfield).
Defender: Fire, reload, fire, at capacity.
Attacker: Fix bayonette. Advance. Usualy 1 shot, if one lives to fire it.

Artillary.
Attacker: Pre-advance barage.
Defender: Fire, reload, fire, at capacity. Final round = grapeshot.

That's where that 3 to 1 pretext came from. However, in the end, you are correct. Nothing is even close to being written in stone, and there are infinate possabilities that can have a minor, or major effect.

An often overlooked handicap of the attacker is logistics. It's a whole discussion in itself.
And a very complex one at that.

Or it could go like this:

Defender: Fire. Reload as fast as possible under heavy rifled artillery barrage. Fire again, but you're blinded by your own smoke so you can't aim well.

Attacker: Close range, fire massed volley. Fix bayonets and charge the disoriented and shocked enemy, breaking and dispersing them while taking negligable casualties.

As I said, it all depends on a huge number of factors regardless of the era the battle takes place in.

I can even think of cases in WWI, where defensive technology far outpaced offensive doctrine, in which outnumbered but properly led and handled troops could attack strong defensive positions while taking far fewer casualties than the defenders.

And logistics can effect the defender just as much as the attacker.

[Stealth Hunter]

That's not what your source says,

I cited more than one source...

and that's not what conventional economic wisdom says, either.

As a matter of opinion, you mean.

Your source (economic library) cites many of the failures of the New Deal and supports the claim that it exacerbated the Depression, rather than rectifying it.

Though it proves my point: that doubling the fixed exchange rate for the dollar relative to gold helped to stabilize and indeed benefit the economy by acting as a monetary stimulus thusly leading to large amounts of gold flowing into the United States. Twice as many dollars could therein be purchased. That supported bank deposits and increased bank willingness to lend, encouraging investments to be made. This lending led to a huge increase in the currency supply, which pushed against price deflation and increased consumption, thus helping to end the Great Depression.

It also casts doubt on your figures for GDP and employment. This is all in the last half of the document.

Mr. Smiley is accurate on some things, not so much on others, with my particular reason for using this viewpoint article being its excellent summary of the standard, which can be substantiated from the following source:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200403022/default.htm

Moreover, you've switched that up: my figures for GDP and employment cast doubt on his article, which does not cite any sources. My figures, on the otherhand, DO have sources. This can (and does) furthermore serve to confirm my point that, he is accurate on some things, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve citation above, not so much on others (which stresses why it's so important to look around ;)).

Furthermore, while I have no doubt that FDR was little better than Lincoln when it came to civil liberties, you make no mention of his attempt to pack the Supreme Court.

On the concernancy of civil liberties, we are arguing on what presidents did do, not what they tried to do. His Judiciary Reorganization Bill did not pass and did not come anywhere close to passing in Congress. Not that this was going to do anything terrible to the Supreme Court anyway. For those who aren't aware, the only real thing the integration of it into a law would have done would have been to limit the ages of the justices. Roosevelt felt there were too many elderly justices and that they could not perform their duties adequately (funnily enough, this is exactly what we have been seeing these past few years). For each justice who did not retire and stayed active to 70 and 1/2 years of age, a new justice(s) would be added (preferably, of a younger age), until the respective justice(s) died. Naturally, the justices, and indeed many of the politicians who had gained connections as lawyers from working with the justices opposed the plan, but eventually it evened itself out when two of the Supreme Court's members died, and Roosevelt was able to replace them with younger substitutes, who luckily agreed with many of his policies.

http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/679281

But again, fact is the bill never passed. So it's really pointless to bring it into this discussion.

That, in conjunction with his political control of Congress,

What is that even supposed to mean? "Political control of Congress"? You mean as in having a Democratic majority to support him on his policies (which they did not, for the record, support him on the Judiciary Reorganization Bill) or as in being a skilled politician who knew how to use Congress to actually get it to do something? (The latter, of which, was true, before, during, and shortly after the Hoover Administration- particularly towards the subject of the Great Depression as Hoover's Conservative leanings led him to favor a Trickle-Down Economy to fix the horrid status the country was in; this is precisely why he gets my vote as being one of the worst presidents in the United States' history).

and his adamant refusal to leave office,

Presidents LONG before Roosevelt were allowed to remain in office for as long as they wished. The two-full terms thing was only done with a few presidents prior to him: Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Grant, and Wilson (2,922 days for each man)- not counting Cleveland as he ran three times and served nonconsecutively (though it did amount to 2,922 days for him, in the end of it all). It wasn't until after he died that Truman approved the 22nd Amendment.

makes him the closest thing to a dictator this nation has ever had.

Not really, as he never did act unconstitutionally nor did he assume total control of the country during the Second World War. He was no better and no worse than Lincoln was, even considering the times and circumstances.

Sorry, but he's staying on my "Worst Presidents" list.

Well he's been ranked as the best president since 1982 in each statistical research session the Siena Research Institute has launched.

http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/independent_research/Presidents%20Release_2010_final.pdf

And consistently as one of the better presidents in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_St ates

Think we can all agree on who's one of the worst...

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=iV4lJr6AhJA&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch#%21v=iV4lJr6AhJA&feature=related)

http://media.ign.com/boardfaces/13.gif

[gimpy117]

no surprise with W and his abysmal ranking

[UnderseaLcpl]

Excellent post, SH, but I think youre overlooking some things. Prepare yourself for a veritable barrage of classical and post-modern economic theory, replete with empyrical evidence.:D There's a reason that the Keynesian economic theory prevalent in the New Deal has been overturned and I intend to show you what that reason is.

For the time being, however, I'm just messing around on the GT forums. I'll get on the case tommorrow afternoon or something. Sorry for the wait, I'm just too tired to do any serious research or dig out the boxes that my books are packed in. :yawn: That's a real yawn, not a sarcastic one.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Well, this this thread has strayed from its original topic a tad.

[tater]

Well, this this thread has strayed from its original topic a tad.

It was certainly bound to do so. As I said way up there, any "ranking" is absurd. It's no different than the idiotic shows on the History ( Military?) Channel that rank the "Ten best Submarines." It's not like they pick some simple, objective standard like, "total tonnage sunk by the class," or better, the tonnage sunk per submarine in class lost. No, they add stuff like "fear factor" (whatever the hell that is), then rank submarines that are without question deadly, but have NEVER proven themselves in combat.

Meaningless.

As is any ranking of Presidents, it is in fact a popularity contest that measures not the Presidents, but the historians. The relative rankings show the overall bias of the academic historians polled, and tell us virtually nothing about the Presidents in question.

[Bilge_Rat]

well, it made me finally begin to read "Lincoln: the War Years" by Carl sandburg which my dad gave me years ago and was just sitting on my book shelf gathering dust, so an excellent thread as far as I am concerned.:DL

[tater]

well, it made me finally begin to read "Lincoln: the War Years" by Carl sandburg which my dad gave me years ago and was just sitting on my book shelf gathering dust, so an excellent thread as far as I am concerned.:DL

A friend (history grad student) recommended Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution (McPherson), which I also found to be quite good.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

It was certainly bound to do so. As I said way up there, any "ranking" is absurd. It's no different than the idiotic shows on the History ( Military?) Channel that rank the "Ten best Submarines." It's not like they pick some simple, objective standard like, "total tonnage sunk by the class," or better, the tonnage sunk per submarine in class lost. No, they add stuff like "fear factor" (whatever the hell that is), then rank submarines that are without question deadly, but have NEVER proven themselves in combat.

Meaningless.

As is any ranking of Presidents, it is in fact a popularity contest that measures not the Presidents, but the historians. The relative rankings show the overall bias of the academic historians polled, and tell us virtually nothing about the Presidents in question.

Could it be Presidents you philosophically agree with are ranked lower than you'd want?

I thought these kinds of surveys polled historians from all kinds of philosophical backgrounds.

[tater]

Could it be Presidents you philosophically agree with are ranked lower than you'd want?

No, it's that ranking people 1 to whatever is absurd, and subjective—which is what I said.

Again, exactly how much better is President #1 from President #2? 1.378658765% better? What does that mean, did he tie his shoes 1.378658765% faster?

The analogy to those shows on the history channel is spot-on.

So while I think you could possibly put Presidents into some zoological piles like "effective," "ineffective," etc, saying that one is better than another based on having one more vote by some historian is absurd.

I would say such a ranking was absurd regardless of who was on top, or what the % of philosophical backgrounds is. It's SILLY.

I thought these kinds of surveys polled historians from all kinds of philosophical backgrounds.

Really? Where is the methodology section of the poll? I checked out the Sienna Poll, and in none of their materials does it list each historian polled, along with his party affiliation. That's what it would take for you to demonstrate that the poll had no political bias, you'd need equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats polled. Since ~80% of university profs are registered Democrats (have seen numbers in that area in a few different polls before)—and the remaining 20% is not Republicans, it's split along with parties LEFT of the democrats—it would be hard to get a 50/50 split without some proof of party affiliation.

So what we have is a silly idea—ranking Presidents—executed in an almost certainly biased way.

[Sailor Steve]

Well said, tater.

So while I think you could possibly put Presidents into some zoological piles like "effective," "ineffective," etc...
Even then effectiveness is affected by congressional agreement and opposition. One president may accomplish all his goals because congress is on his side, while another may be blocked at every turn. One may also be a strong leader and get a lot of wrong things done, and another may try to do the right things but not be very good at them.

[tater]

Well said, tater.


Even then effectiveness is affected by congressional agreement and opposition. One president may accomplish all his goals because congress is on his side, while another may be blocked at every turn. One may also be a strong leader and get a lot of wrong things done, and another may try to do the right things but not be very good at them.

True enough, I was at first thinking that was objective—policy goals stated vs achieved, but I suppose that it could also be weighted based on the relatie weight of that president's party in Congress. You'd be more effective if you got your bill through a more hostile congress than a rubber stamp.

Dunno. Even that falls into subjectivity.

It's like ranking restaurants. My fave might be a thai place, and you might love food, but hate thai food (you could be one of those folks who taste cilantro as soapy, in which case it's hard-wired for you to dislike it).

[Wolfehunter]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100714/world/us_iowa_obama_billboard_4

Some people really don't like there current president? May I ask why they voted for him then? :hmmm:

That billboard is hardcore... :o

[TLAM Strike]

That billboard is hardcore... :o

Anyone see Rich Sanchez (of CNN) label the people on the billboard "Hitler, Obama, and Stalin". He corrected himself about a half hour later but it was an fantastic "History Fail".

I just wish I had a picture of it.

[Platapus]

I got a kick out of the tag line: Radical leaders prey on the fearful and the naive.

There are pots and kettles.....

[Bubblehead1980]

I'll leave the discussion to americans, but I just want to make one comment. Teddy Roosevelt #1

TR's foreign policy was great, not so much the domestic.

[Platapus]

TR's foreign policy was great, not so much the domestic.

And he did not care all that much about Native Americans also. :nope:

[August]

All that statement proves is he was a man of his times. TR still did great things domestically. The national park system for one thing.

[krashkart]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100714/world/us_iowa_obama_billboard_4

Some people really don't like there current president? May I ask why they voted for him then? :hmmm:

That billboard is hardcore... :o

Heh. I'm learning not to be too surprised by anything these days. That billboard was taken down and has been replaced with a PSA.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

All that statement proves is he was a man of his times. TR still did great things domestically. The national park system for one thing.

Trust busting is another.

[Platapus]

All that statement proves is he was a man of his times. TR still did great things domestically. The national park system for one thing.


TR was definitely one for the environment. :yeah:

[UnderseaLcpl]

All that statement proves is he was a man of his times. TR still did great things domestically. The national park system for one thing.

I have mixed feelings about that and the rest of TR's legacy. I'd call Teddy a good statesman, for the most part, but I strongly disapprove of his interventionist foreign policy and his (imo), uneccessary strengthening of government.

[Moeceefus]

Off topic a bit, Teddy was one of the few presidents I feel could kick the crap out of somebody. A strong image is important for a world leader.

[Stealth Hunter]

Off topic a bit, Teddy was one of the few presidents I feel could kick the crap out of somebody. A strong image is important for a world leader.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick.":up:

[The Third Man]

I think a better measure would be to rate presidents by how they handled things which are presented to them.

Washinton because he was the first and wanted to set an example for a new nation. Not to trade King George for an king George.

Jefferson for understanding the need for exploration and expansion of a fledginlg nation hoping to make its mark in a world filled with real colonial empires.

Jackson, who, through what many would consider an iron hand, transformed a back water nation into a country of expansive power unlike the world had not seen to that point.

Lincoln, who subverted every constitutional boundary to save a nation.

T. Roosevelt, who through is inpsiration started what is now the enviromental movement.

F. D. Roosevelt who showed us that limits should be placed on the presidency and brought us through the second world war.


I'll stop there so as not to prejudice more recent administrations and illustrate the need to place presidents in their time and allow for the circumstances they were dealt.

[August]

I think a better measure would be to rate presidents by how they handled things which are presented to them.

Washinton because he was the first and wanted to set an example for a new nation. Not to trade King George for an king George.

Jefferson for understanding the need for exploration and expansion of a fledginlg nation hoping to make its mark in a world filled with real colonial empires.

Jackson, who, through what many would consider an iron hand, transformed a back water nation into a country of expansive power unlike the world had not seen to that point.

Lincoln, who subverted every constitutional boundary to save a nation.

T. Roosevelt, who through is inpsiration started what is now the enviromental movement.

F. D. Roosevelt who showed us that limits should be placed on the presidency and brought us through the second world war.


I'll stop there so as not to prejudice more recent administrations and illustrate the need to place presidents in their time and allow for the circumstances they were dealt.

Well said.

[Sailor Steve]

Off topic a bit, Teddy was one of the few presidents I feel could kick the crap out of somebody. A strong image is important for a world leader.
Even further off topic: He hated being called "Teddy".

[UnderseaLcpl]

Even further off topic: He hated being called "Teddy".

That's where the Teddy bear came from, IIRC.

[Sailor Steve]

That's where the Teddy bear came from, IIRC.
:yep: It was to honor his creation of the National Parks system. From what I've heard he hated that too.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I have mixed feelings about that and the rest of TR's legacy. I'd call Teddy a good statesman, for the most part, but I strongly disapprove of his interventionist foreign policy and his (imo), uneccessary strengthening of government.

Well, he strengthened our navy and got the Panama canal built. Our ability to quickly shuffle ships between the Atlantic and Pacific fleets via the canal strengthened our hand in foreign relations immensely.

Question: do you have a problem w/immensely powerful private entities that only answer to their boards and stockholders?

[August]

As I understand it the origin of Teddy Bear comes from this Washington Post cartoon which depicts an incident that happened during a Presidential hunting trip:

http://www.blueribbonbears.com/images/manufpics/trcarton.jpg

Apparently his handlers had caught a bear cub and tied it to a tree so TR could shoot it but he refused considering it to be unsportsmanlike. Some smart marketing guy came up with the idea of applying the name to a stuffed bear.

[Platapus]

That's where the Teddy bear came from, IIRC.

http://www.ehow.com/about_4571261_teddy-bear-got-its-name.html