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-co.../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/...log_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-co...ds/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/hist...l-dilemma.html

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:

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.

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

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/show...ght=John+Adams

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

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.

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

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.

[quote-August]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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? :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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."


“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."

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. ;)

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)