PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Erase One Person from US History


notorious
06-24-2012, 12:17 PM
If you could erase one person and their policies from US history, who it be and why?

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 12:23 PM
FDR for obvious reasons. We have seen the results of his New Deal and the consequences since implemented down through the decades but now they are on ROIDS and if not stopped will ultimately destroy our country. :shake:

SNR
06-24-2012, 12:30 PM
Woodrow Wilson

Frazod
06-24-2012, 12:31 PM
Woodrow Wilson

That was my first thought.

mlyonsd
06-24-2012, 12:32 PM
John Wilkes Booth.

Brainiac
06-24-2012, 12:35 PM
Timothy McVeigh

LiveSteam
06-24-2012, 12:40 PM
Woody gets my vote to.

Taco John
06-24-2012, 01:07 PM
Either Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt. One made the other possible. Both were bad for America.

La literatura
06-24-2012, 01:09 PM
John Wilkes Booth.

Yes, this.

SNR
06-24-2012, 01:24 PM
I think we know what someone like Paul Krugman would say:

Aaron Burr :D

FD
06-24-2012, 01:25 PM
John Wilkes Booth.

Probably this.

Frazod
06-24-2012, 01:43 PM
Either Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt. One made the other possible. Both were bad for America.

Everything Roosevelt did after leaving office was bad. Roosevelt declaring himself a two term president at the end of his first team and then feeling duty-bound not to run for reelection even though he wanted to was bad. And creating the Bull Moose party, which split the Republican vote and thus enabled slimeball Wilson to win the election was the worst of the bad.

Teddy should have just kept his mouth shut and stayed in office. The wrong Roosevelt was a four term president.

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 01:46 PM
Woodrow Wilson

He was my 2nd choice.

DementedLogic
06-24-2012, 02:31 PM
Woodrow Wilson, hands down. Wilson laid the groundwork for big government spending. Without Wilson, we don't have FDR or Obama's policies.

Bump
06-24-2012, 02:39 PM
Sarah Conner

ClevelandBronco
06-24-2012, 02:55 PM
Sarah Conner

I that a chick that dumped you?

tredadda
06-24-2012, 02:57 PM
No one actually. If you were to remove that person, maybe someone worse takes their place and events change and not for the better.

patteeu
06-24-2012, 02:58 PM
Elizabeth Stanton or Susan B. Anthony, although it probably wouldn't do any good. Some other uppity gal would just take their place.

ClevelandBronco
06-24-2012, 03:01 PM
Frank Marshall Davis. No baby daddy, no baby.

Sannyasi
06-24-2012, 03:02 PM
No one actually. If you were to remove that person, maybe someone worse takes their place and events change and not for the better.

Twilight zone theme

Frazod
06-24-2012, 03:03 PM
Elizabeth Stanton or Susan B. Anthony, although it probably wouldn't do any good. Some other uppity gal would just take their place.

How about Carrie Nation? We can thank that bitch and her temperance movement for organized crime.

SNR
06-24-2012, 03:06 PM
Was there a big-name bitch behind prohibition? She can GTFO too

Johnny Vegas
06-24-2012, 03:18 PM
Richard Nixon. 'nuff said.

Dayze
06-24-2012, 04:19 PM
Woody. That pussy.

notorious
06-24-2012, 04:28 PM
John Elway

mlyonsd
06-24-2012, 04:30 PM
John ElwayI must admit I struggled between Elway and Booth.

Direckshun
06-24-2012, 04:33 PM
It would have to be one person that would have altered history in such a way that no other person would have done so, or been as successful doing it.

Meh... Buchanan? Or the general with his head so far up his own ass in Korea?

Pawnmower
06-24-2012, 04:51 PM
thurman thomas

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 04:56 PM
Frank Marshall Davis. No baby daddy, no baby.

ROFL:thumb:

ForeverChiefs58
06-24-2012, 05:31 PM
kicker that shall not be named?

SNR
06-24-2012, 07:00 PM
I wasn't even considering this angle we're going on now.

In that case: Matt Cassel

Aries Walker
06-24-2012, 07:04 PM
Aaron F***ing Burr. Worst American that ever lived, by far.

notorious
06-24-2012, 08:14 PM
I am surprised nobody has selected Lyndon Johnson.

Iz Zat Chew
06-24-2012, 09:13 PM
I am surprised nobody has selected Lyndon Johnson.

The president that put Social Security in the General Fund, yep, that would be a good one to delete.

Or Herman Edwards.

qabbaan
06-24-2012, 09:29 PM
Wilson is a good choice, I was thinking more of LBJ, but you'd have to say Wilson, all told.

La literatura
06-24-2012, 10:00 PM
I don't understand the severe dislike of Wilson. Is it more of his interventionism, or his progressive economic policies (policies that were increasingly popular before Wilson became President)?

SNR
06-24-2012, 10:03 PM
I don't understand the severe dislike of Wilson. Is it more of his interventionism, or his progressive economic policies (policies that were increasingly popular before Wilson became President)?Yes.

SNR
06-24-2012, 10:04 PM
Also, he is perhaps the most disgusting racist to hold the presidency since Andrew Jackson

LiveSteam
06-24-2012, 10:18 PM
Barry Switzer

La literatura
06-24-2012, 10:29 PM
Yes.

So, for instance, you disagree with the creation of the Fed?

I don't understand it because he was a person of his time, not before his time or after his time. Wilson wasn't a game-changer. If it hadn't been him starting the Fed, it would have been someone else. If it hadn't been him supporting progressive social policies, it would have been someone else.

That's different than someone like Andrew Johnson, who tried to cut off Reconstruction at the knees, or Booth, who shot Lincoln before his second term really kicked off. Can you imagine Lincoln's leadership after the Civil War? My God, that is a tragedy.

KC Dan
06-24-2012, 10:37 PM
Keynes

SNR
06-24-2012, 10:44 PM
So, for instance, you disagree with the creation of the Fed?

I don't understand it because he was a person of his time, not before his time or after his time. Wilson wasn't a game-changer. If it hadn't been him starting the Fed, it would have been someone else. If it hadn't been him supporting progressive social policies, it would have been someone else.

That's different than someone like Andrew Johnson, who tried to cut off Reconstruction at the knees, or Booth, who shot Lincoln before his second term really kicked off. Can you imagine Lincoln's leadership after the Civil War? My God, that is a tragedy.Pssh. I don't hate Lincoln, but I think he's vastly overrated as a president. What leadership? He was just a guy. He was president during the Civil War and won.

You were just speaking of Wilson as a person of his time, not before his time or after his time. What do you call Lincoln? The nation had just lost 600,000 lives for crying out loud. Any ordinary man elected to the office would have seen it as not just the right thing to do, but the TIMELY and PROPER thing to do.

Doing something an ordinary guy would have done doesn't grant him the status of a super president, so much that his death needs to be talked about within the frame of this question. I find that to be baloney.

stonedstooge
06-24-2012, 10:50 PM
Within my lifetime, Sirhan Sirhan. I wonder what would have happened to this country if he wouldn't have taken out Bobby Kennedy

La literatura
06-24-2012, 11:12 PM
Pssh. I don't hate Lincoln, but I think he's vastly overrated as a president. What leadership? He was just a guy. He was president during the Civil War and won.

You were just speaking of Wilson as a person of his time, not before his time or after his time. What do you call Lincoln? The nation had just lost 600,000 lives for crying out loud. Any ordinary man elected to the office would have seen it as not just the right thing to do, but the TIMELY and PROPER thing to do.

Doing something an ordinary guy would have done doesn't grant him the status of a super president, so much that his death needs to be talked about within the frame of this question. I find that to be baloney.

Lincoln was an incredible leader for the Union, and was set to be an incredible leader for the United States before he was assassinated. And I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "it" and "something."

SNR
06-24-2012, 11:12 PM
Lincoln was an incredible leader for the Union, and was set to be an incredible leader for the United States before he was assassinated. And I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "it" and "something."
Isn't it obvious? I'm talking about the Emancipation Proclamation

La literatura
06-24-2012, 11:17 PM
Isn't it obvious? I'm talking about the Emancipation Proclamation

Well, we can talk about the EP (it was issued in 1863, btw, not after the war). That was an incredibly tough call. There were several important secretaries in his cabinet that were strongly opposed to it.

SNR
06-24-2012, 11:20 PM
Well, we can talk about the EP (it was issued in 1863, btw, not after the war). That was an incredibly tough call. There were several important secretaries in his cabinet that were strongly opposed to it.I know it was issued before the end of the war.

Maybe I'm not a man of his time, but it would seem to me that if a bloody, vicious war was being fought over slavery (at its core) that the side fighting to end slavery would... well, you know... end slavery. Otherwise you're just killing your countrymen because... why?

La literatura
06-24-2012, 11:25 PM
I know it was issued before the end of the war.

Maybe I'm not a man of his time, but it would seem to me that if a bloody, vicious war was being fought over slavery (at its core) that the side fighting to end slavery would... well, you know... end slavery. Otherwise you're just killing your countrymen because... why?

1) You could wait til the end of the war to issue
2) You could not issue it at all because it would detract from the saving the union purpose
3) You could not issue it at all because an amendment would ban slavery (which did happen)
4) You could not issue it at all because a Congressional act would ban slavery

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 11:27 PM
I don't hate Lincoln, but I think he's vastly overrated as a president. What leadership? He was just a guy. He was president during the Civil War and won.

Doing something an ordinary guy would have done doesn't grant him the status of a super president, so much that his death needs to be talked about within the frame of this question. I find that to be baloney.

Lincoln was just guy that happened to be President during the CW that showed no leadership ??? :shake:

Demonpenz
06-24-2012, 11:30 PM
Lin Elliot

Pitt Gorilla
06-24-2012, 11:32 PM
Nickleback or Danny Manning.

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 11:32 PM
the kicker that shall go unnamed

Lynn ??:LOL:

SNR
06-24-2012, 11:34 PM
I'm answering the question. If I had a chance to "fix" history, I'm sorry, Abe. Your ass is gonna stay dead. There are far more pressing needs to be corrected than simply gaining four more years of unquantifiable leadership.

Andrew Johnson being an abortion is no reason speculate that if Lincoln had only been alive to serve his full 2nd term, we'd be flying around on the fucking Enterprise right now making peace with the Klingons and ending poverty on earth.

BillSelfsTrophycase
06-24-2012, 11:36 PM
Bernard Pollard

(obvious reasons are obvious)

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 11:43 PM
I'm answering the question. If I had a chance to "fix" history, I'm sorry, Abe. Your ass is gonna stay dead. There are far more pressing needs to be corrected than simply gaining four more years of unquantifiable leadership.

Andrew Johnson being an abortion is no reason speculate that if Lincoln had only been alive to serve his full 2nd term, we'd be flying around on the ****ing Enterprise right now making peace with the Klingons and ending poverty on earth.

Yes, but I am reading between the lines here and you really don't like Lincoln and almost have an axe to grind against ol Abe. You believe all that Lincoln revisionist BS false history that these black and white Lib haters of Lincoln write about?

La literatura
06-24-2012, 11:46 PM
Yes, but I am reading between the lines here and you really don't like Lincoln and almost have an axe to grind against ol Abe. You believe all that Lincoln revisionist BS false history that these black and white Lib haters of Lincoln write about?

Which liberals hate Lincoln?

Taco John
06-24-2012, 11:50 PM
Which liberals hate Lincoln?

The Vampires.

SNR
06-24-2012, 11:59 PM
Yes, but I am reading between the lines here and you really don't like Lincoln and almost have an axe to grind against ol Abe. You believe all that Lincoln revisionist BS false history that these black and white Lib haters of Lincoln write about?
Post #42

SNR
06-25-2012, 12:02 AM
Tell me about the BS false revisionist history I believe in. What have I said about Lincoln that was untrue? Nothing. You might disagree with my opinions about Lincoln, but that doesn't mean I've said anything false about him.

Opinions are conclusions derived from premises. They are not the premises themselves.

BucEyedPea
06-25-2012, 11:41 AM
No one actually. If you were to remove that person, maybe someone worse takes their place and events change and not for the better.

True but this is fun.

BucEyedPea
06-25-2012, 11:43 AM
The Vampires.

Are they the ones that just eat animals? Ya' know the vegetarian ones of the Vampire world.

BucEyedPea
06-25-2012, 11:47 AM
Yes, but I am reading between the lines here and you really don't like Lincoln and almost have an axe to grind against ol Abe. You believe all that Lincoln revisionist BS false history that these black and white Lib haters of Lincoln write about?

I've seen plenty of libs that defend or support Lincoln, because they see him as as a great progressive for freeing the slaves which is really based on false history. Lincoln was a corporatist for his time ... and let's not forget Marx admired him. The O'Marxist even wrote him a letter of praise.

BucEyedPea
06-25-2012, 11:49 AM
Elizabeth Stanton or Susan B. Anthony, although it probably wouldn't do any good. Some other uppity gal would just take their place.

ROFL :thumb: :LOL:

You're lucky I saw this on someone else's computer. Now I'm using my kids laptop.

BucEyedPea
06-25-2012, 12:01 PM
I'm gonna have to name Alexander Hamilton—the man who made all the other ones possible including Keynes — Lincoln, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR (Butler Case for one would have been decided differently as well as other bad legislation we live with today that stifle our liberty), Hoover, LBJ, Truman not to mention no first US Bank or a Federal Reserve. Hammy cleans them all out in one fell swoop. I like THIS kind of efficiency!

Yeah, I know, there would still be a Federalist/Whig faction trying to implement much of the same but it would have been more difficult and taken longer. Without Hammy working his poison on Washington, a key and very wily persuader of BIG govt, would have been a positive occurrence. Today both parties praise him, but his ideas paved the way for modern progressives to centralize power as well as what is happening today with globalism.

So that's my pick—like it or not!

SNR
06-25-2012, 01:38 PM
I'm gonna have to name Alexander Hamilton—the man who made all the other ones possible including Keynes — Lincoln, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR (Butler Case for one would have been decided differently as well as other bad legislation we live with today that stifle our liberty), Hoover, LBJ, Truman not to mention no first US Bank or a Federal Reserve. Hammy cleans them all out in one fell swoop. I like THIS kind of efficiency!

Yeah, I know, there would still be a Federalist/Whig faction trying to implement much of the same but it would have been more difficult and taken longer. Without Hammy working his poison on Washington, a key and very wily persuader of BIG govt, would have been a positive occurrence. Today both parties praise him, but his ideas paved the way for modern progressives to centralize power as well as what is happening today with globalism.

So that's my pick—like it or not!He was kind of useful during the revolution. Every officer counts. Couldn't you just go back in time and convince Aaron Burr to off him 15 years earlier?

BucEyedPea
06-25-2012, 01:42 PM
He was kind of useful during the revolution. Every officer counts. Couldn't you just go back in time and convince Aaron Burr to off him 15 years earlier?

That's another option I suppose. So long as it achieves the same end. Although, I'm not sure we'd have lost without him but I'd have to read up on more specifics.

SNR
06-25-2012, 01:49 PM
That's another option I suppose. So long as it achieves the same end. Although, I'm not sure we'd have lost without him but I'd have to read up on more specifics.I think he was only a lieutenant, but I'm not sure. I just hate to short the revolution of anybody who may have been even the smallest asset.

Aries Walker
06-25-2012, 01:51 PM
Among other things, he led the attack on the crucial point of Yorktown.

And all of the reasons why you hate him are the mirror opposites of why I hate Aaron Burr - plus, he was an unapologetic traitor who tried to carve his own country out of the west, and he's the forerunner of the filibuster in American politics. He never did anything that wasn't aimed to line his own pockets or fulfill his own ego; in that sense, he's the Al Davis of Early America.

The Kicker Who Shall Not Be Named, by the way, is a close second. *******.

SNR
06-25-2012, 01:52 PM
Wikipedia says he was a damn fine military officer to Washington. Better keep him around.

Hamilton was invited to become an aide to Nathanael Greene and to Henry Knox; however, he declined these invitations, believing his best chance for improving his station in life was glory on the battlefield. Hamilton eventually received an invitation he felt he could not refuse: to serve as Washington's aide, with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.[25] Hamilton served for four years as Washington's chief of staff. He handled letters to Congress, state governors, and the most powerful generals in the Continental Army; he drafted many of Washington's orders and letters at the latter's direction; he eventually issued orders from Washington over Hamilton's own signature.[2] Hamilton was involved in a wide variety of high-level duties, including intelligence, diplomacy, and negotiation with senior army officers as Washington's emissary.[26] The important duties with which he was entrusted attest to Washington's deep confidence in his abilities and character, then and afterward. At the points in their relationship when there was little personal attachment, there was still always a reciprocal confidence and respect.

During the war, Hamilton became close friends with several fellow officers. His letters to the Marquis de Lafayette[27] and to John Laurens, employing the sentimental literary conventions of the late eighteenth century and alluding to Greek history and mythology,[28] have been read by Jonathan Katz as revealing a homosocial or perhaps homosexual relationship, but few historians agree.[29]

Surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown by John Trumbull, oil on canvas, 1820
Hamilton married Elizabeth Schuyler on December 14, 1780. She was the daughter of Philip Schuyler, a general and wealthy landowner from one of the most prominent families in the state of New York. The marriage took place at Schuyler Mansion in Albany, New York.

Hamilton was also close to Eliza's older sister, Angelica, who eloped with John Barker Church, an Englishman who made a fortune in the American colonies during the Revolution. She returned with Church to London after the war, where she later become a joint friend of Maria Cosway and Thomas Jefferson.

While on Washington's staff, Hamilton long sought command in active combat. As the war drew nearer to a close, he knew that opportunities for military glory were fading. In February 1781, Hamilton was mildly reprimanded by Washington, and used this as an excuse to resign his staff position. He asked Washington and others for a field command. This continued until early July 1781, when Hamilton submitted a letter to Washington with his commission enclosed, "thus tacitly threatening to resign if he didn't get his desired command."[30]

On July 31, 1781, Washington relented and assigned Hamilton as commander of a New York light infantry battalion. In the planning for the assault on Yorktown, Hamilton was given command of three battalions, which were to fight in conjunction with French troops in taking Redoubts No. 9 and No. 10 of the British fortifications at Yorktown. Hamilton and his battalions fought bravely and took Redoubt No. 10 with bayonets, as planned. The French also fought bravely, took heavy casualties, and successfully took Redoubt #9. This action forced the British surrender of an entire army at Yorktown, effectively ending major British military operations in North America.[31]

loochy
06-25-2012, 01:57 PM
Isn't it obvious? I'm talking about the Emancipation Proclamation

I'm sorry, I don't listen to hip hop.

BucEyedPea
06-25-2012, 01:59 PM
Wikipedia says he was a damn fine military officer to Washington. Better keep him around.

Well, then, it's just a matter of when he needs to be eliminated from history.
Perhaps, it would be most advantageous if he just die of natural causes after the Constitution was ratified, since he was key there...even if he was being phony about it with plans to subvert it afterwards. Thread doesn't say when he'd have to be removed. Yeah! That sounds good.

Then again, perhaps someone even better would have stepped up during the Revolution. 'Er I mean our War for Independence (A capitalist war) from mercantilist England. Only Hammy implement an American version of mercantilism still plaguing us to this day. ( today it's called corporatism). This it what I am trying to eliminate from history afterall.

Bump
06-25-2012, 02:00 PM
I that a chick that dumped you?

I'm the terminator biotch

BucEyedPea
06-25-2012, 02:01 PM
Gonna have to cross-check that wiki article SNR. It's good for some things, or as a starting point. Afterall, look at how he mistreated veterans from that war too.

BucEyedPea
06-25-2012, 02:05 PM
Among other things, he led the attack on the crucial point of Yorktown.

You don't think there was anyone else just as able to lead that attack?

And all of the reasons why you hate him are the mirror opposites of why I hate Aaron Burr - plus, he was an unapologetic traitor who tried to carve his own country out of the west, and he's the forerunner of the filibuster in American politics. He never did anything that wasn't aimed to line his own pockets or fulfill his own ego; in that sense, he's the Al Davis of Early America.

The Kicker Who Shall Not Be Named, by the way, is a close second. *******.

Did I say I "hated" him? I just don't like some of things he did under Washington and stated why.

Hamilton was a traitor to the very idea of our Revolution which was really a war for free-market capitalism and trade. He and his fellow Fedralists/Whigs destroyed that idea and cause. Read, Judge Napolitano on the whole truth about Hamilton and who he was really allied with. The Revolution to Hammy was just a stepping stone for another bunch of cronies to do what the British had done for centuries. Furthermore, it was mercantilism that Marx was observing but which he labeled "capitalism" and which has confused generations—even today's Republicans. It's mercantilism that today's Progressives are really against without being for capitalism at the same time. And it's mercantilism that you see Republicans today defending. For instance HCF favors subsidies just to different things than the left. patteeu defends our "interests" using the military...iow for enforcing trade at the point of a gun. Same with Donger, who is really still British deep-down.

Hammy is another very whitewashed political figure.

BucEyedPea
06-25-2012, 02:10 PM
Among other things, he led the attack on the crucial point of Yorktown.

You don't think there was anyone else just as able to lead that attack?

And all of the reasons why you hate him are the mirror opposites of why I hate Aaron Burr - plus, he was an unapologetic traitor who tried to carve his own country out of the west, and he's the forerunner of the filibuster in American politics. He never did anything that wasn't aimed to line his own pockets or fulfill his own ego; in that sense, he's the Al Davis of Early America.

The Kicker Who Shall Not Be Named, by the way, is a close second. *******.

Hamilton was a traitor to the very idea of our Revolution which was really a war for free-market capitalism and trade. He and his fellow Federalists/Whigs destroyed that idea and cause. Read, Judge Napolitano on the whole truth about Hamilton and who he was really allied with. The Revolution to Hammy was just a stepping stone for another bunch of cronies to do what the British had done for centuries. Furthermore, it was mercantilism that Marx was observing but which he labeled "capitalism" and which has confused generations—even today's Republicans. It's mercantilism that today's Progressives are really against without being for capitalism at the same time. And it's mercantilism that you see Republicans today defending. For instance HCF favors subsidies just to different things than the left. patteeu defends our "interests" using the military...iow for enforcing trade at the point of a gun. Same with Donger, who is really still British deep-down.

Hammy is a very white-washed political figure....as was Lincoln and FDR. NeoCons LOVE Lincoln though. Still, we may not have had either if Hammy was eliminated.

Frazod
06-25-2012, 02:28 PM
You do realize that if it wasn't for that strong central government we'd be A FUCKING GERMAN COLONY RIGHT NOW, right? :shake:

Aries Walker
06-25-2012, 02:43 PM
You don't think there was anyone else just as able to lead that attack?
No, I don't, and that holds true for any military action. Anyone else might have failed.

Did I say I "hated" him? I just don't like some of things he did under Washington and stated why.
Okay. Substitute 'disagreed with strongly enough to want him erased'.

Hamilton was a traitor to the very idea of our Revolution which was really a war for free-market capitalism and trade. He and his fellow Federalists/Whigs destroyed that idea and cause later. Read, Judge Napolitano on the whole truth about Hamilton and who he was really allied with. The Revolution to Hammy was just a stepping stone for another bunch of cronies to do what the British had done for centuries. Furthermore, it was mercantilism that Marx was observing but which he labeled "capitalism" and which has confused generations—even today's Republicans.

Hammy is another very whitewashed political figure.
To say the American Revolution was about free-market capitalism is an awfully modernist way of looking at it. It was really to get out from under the British boot on our collective neck, and run things the way we wanted to run things. The problem was, we didn't agree on how we wanted to run things. The Revolution cost us a fortune, and the states were in debt from it.

Hamilton was definitely a Federalist; he liked the strong central government, which we have. He co-wrote the Federalist Papers, which we still rely on as the bases for a lot of our judicial interpretation of the Constitution. Speaking of which, he pushed for the Constitution's existence in the first place, since he found the Articles of Confederation too unclear - and he was right, they were.

As for Napolitano, all I could find on a Google search was this:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/985736256001/the-plain-truth-on-the-evils-of-compromise/

I was with Napolitano right up until he said he wanted Washington to be a King, which is patently untrue. Hamilton's idea was for a President for Life, which some of his political opponents spun as "He wants a King! See, he's a Monarchist! Evil! Evil!" But it wasn't true. Obviously, Hamilton's plan - which also had a really complex system of progressively narrow voting fields, extensive scrutiny, and a removal from office provision - didn't pass, but he wasn't trying to make Great Britain II. That's just rhetoric.

He was also in favor of what we now call regulation. Napolitano - a FOX News minion with whom I do not agree - obviously doesn't like regulation very much, but without it, all of these evil merchants and bankers who wanted their money back would have been far more unchained. Today, also, without regulation, prices would soar unchecked, banks would play pinball with our mortgages even more than they already do, and the skies would be like Springtime in Beijing as monolithic industrial corporations pollute with reckless abandon in the pursuit of the leaner bottom line.

Napolitano is demonizing Hamilton in order to make his own point, which isn't the way you're supposed to view the past. Nice touch with the flying-flag and scrolling-Constitution graphics, though.

tredadda
06-25-2012, 07:50 PM
Pssh. I don't hate Lincoln, but I think he's vastly overrated as a president. What leadership? He was just a guy. He was president during the Civil War and won.

You were just speaking of Wilson as a person of his time, not before his time or after his time. What do you call Lincoln? The nation had just lost 600,000 lives for crying out loud. Any ordinary man elected to the office would have seen it as not just the right thing to do, but the TIMELY and PROPER thing to do.

Doing something an ordinary guy would have done doesn't grant him the status of a super president, so much that his death needs to be talked about within the frame of this question. I find that to be baloney.

:spock: You don't seriously believe what you just wrote do you? He did what most ordinary men of his time could not have done. This what separates him from ordinary men, to ride the course of the war when tens of thousands of union and confederate soldiers were dying. Most "ordinary" men would have looked for a peace settlement during the darkest days of the war instead of pushing forward AND THEN issue the Emancipation Proclamation. He is easily one of if not our greatest president just for that and who knows what could have happened had he not been assassinated. The country could have used his steady calming leadership during Reconstruction, but instead he was assassinated which caused the north to be far harsher on the south than Lincoln would have been. This in turn played a large role in the south's treatment of minorities after this to include segregation, the KKK, and Jim Crow laws.

mlyonsd
06-25-2012, 07:58 PM
:spock: You don't seriously believe what you just wrote do you? He did what most ordinary men of his time could not have done. This what separates him from ordinary men, to ride the course of the war when tens of thousands of union and confederate soldiers were dying. Most "ordinary" men would have looked for a peace settlement during the darkest days of the war instead of pushing forward AND THEN issue the Emancipation Proclamation. He is easily one of if not our greatest president just for that and who knows what could have happened had he not been assassinated. The country could have used his steady calming leadership during Reconstruction, but instead he was assassinated which caused the north to be far harsher on the south than Lincoln would have been. This in turn played a large role in the south's treatment of minorities after this to include segregation, the KKK, and Jim Crow laws.Excellent post.

SNR
06-25-2012, 08:28 PM
:spock: You don't seriously believe what you just wrote do you? He did what most ordinary men of his time could not have done. This what separates him from ordinary men, to ride the course of the war when tens of thousands of union and confederate soldiers were dying. Most "ordinary" men would have looked for a peace settlement during the darkest days of the war instead of pushing forward AND THEN issue the Emancipation Proclamation. He is easily one of if not our greatest president just for that and who knows what could have happened had he not been assassinated. The country could have used his steady calming leadership during Reconstruction, but instead he was assassinated which caused the north to be far harsher on the south than Lincoln would have been. This in turn played a large role in the south's treatment of minorities after this to include segregation, the KKK, and Jim Crow laws.I keep hearing words like "leadership".

Explain how "calming leadership" would have made Reconstruction any less of a pain in the ass than it was. Also, explain how a president who suspended habeas corpus (albeit during a time of rebellion, which seems to be allowed in Article One Section 9) would have possessed the "calm leadership" to see that the Union was not as harsh to the seceding states.

I give Lincoln the credit of switching up his generals that commanded the entire army, since most of them "weren't fit to pour pee out of a boot with the instructions written under the heel."* It would have been easy for him to say, "I don't know anything about the military" and let the Union army dwindle, continuing to lose as many battles as it did. But that has nothing to do with John Wilkes Booth and the alternate universe where Lincoln stays alive throughout his entire second term.

Again, these kind of historical thought experiments are fun, but the problem is nothing can be substantiated. It's no different than making NFL season predictions. People have opinions about what's good and what's bad, and people have different opinions about the course of events following any change made. I happen to believe that Lincoln being alive a full second term wouldn't mean jack shit... or at least it wouldn't be great enough to waste my one-person-removal on him.


*-quote from The Killer Angels in reference to Union Army leadership.

Aries Walker
06-25-2012, 08:44 PM
But we can see what did happen. Johnson took over, and the northern-controlled Congress ran the South into the ground, ostensibly as punishment. They passed laws unconstitutionally removing powers from the President, including the one to choose his own Cabinet. When Johnson tried to stand up to him and fired the Congressionally-appointed War Secretary, they had him impeached.

I have to believe that Lincoln would have protected the South, and the country, better from the robber barons. Instead, we got Johnson, who was completely inept and left in disgrace, to be followed by a cavalcade of Presidents who were essentially puppets of big business, which gave us all kinds of corruption, graft, and Gilded Age industrial control of the nation.

I've always found it ironic that Booth, trying to avenge the South, actually killed the one guy who could have protected it.

mlyonsd
06-25-2012, 08:55 PM
But we can see what did happen. Johnson took over, and the northern-controlled Congress ran the South into the ground, ostensibly as punishment. They passed laws unconstitutionally removing powers from the President, including the one to choose his own Cabinet. When Johnson tried to stand up to him and fired the Congressionally-appointed War Secretary, they had him impeached.

I have to believe that Lincoln would have protected the South, and the country, better from the robber barons. Instead, we got Johnson, who was completely inept and left in disgrace, to be followed by a cavalcade of Presidents who were essentially puppets of big business, which gave us all kinds of corruption, graft, and Gilded Age industrial control of the nation.

I've always found it ironic that Booth, trying to avenge the South, actually killed the one guy who could have protected it.Another excellent post.

SNR
06-25-2012, 08:57 PM
Maybe we should be thinking about removing Lincoln from history, since Andrew Johnson was his pick

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111214064523/halo/images/d/dc/Troll_face.png

mlyonsd
06-25-2012, 09:02 PM
Maybe we should be thinking about removing Lincoln from history, since Andrew Johnson was his pick

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111214064523/halo/images/d/dc/Troll_face.pngI have to admit that made me :LOL:

BucEyedPea
06-25-2012, 10:19 PM
Aries Walker I responded to your last response to me but for some reason my log in didn't hold by the time I hit submit. It also wouldn't work when I tried to log in again either.I will re do it tomorrow as I don't have time tonight.