Presidents and what you think about them

[razoredge]

Hey, its from wiki but sure doesnt sound to me like he had a whole lot to do with starting the war.

In the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, had campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed. The Republican victory in that election resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861. Both the outgoing and incoming US administrations rejected the legality of secession, considering it rebellion.

Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a US military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln responded by calling for a volunteer army from each state, leading to declarations of secession by four more Southern slave states

.

 

[razoredge]

Of course the Civil War and Emancipation Proclaimation overshadow the Homestead Act which was great for settling the west but the death of the Natives and life they once knew.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=31&page=transcript

the beginning of income taxs, which so many shun but damned if I can figure out how to run a country, schools, highways, public utilities such as sewage, water, storm drain and such without them
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=323

National Bank Act
Legal Tender Act
Dept of Agriculture
Pacific Railroad Act

These were busy times, of course Congress wrote them, Lincoln just signed them (in case anyone still thinks the "President runs the country")

 

[cookiecutter]

Cythraul I don't really know how to argue with you. We are looking at the same events and reaching the exact opposite conclusions. I'd point to the lessening of unemployment after the New Deal as evidence for its effectiveness. According to wikipedia, only 6% of historians agree with your view, whereas 27% of economists do, so my background in history might be affecting my view.

I'd rather be right than ideologically consistent though so I encourage you to post some evidence for your point of view. From there I'll try to write a coherent response. I have a US history exam coming up in about a week so this will be a good exercise for me.

Ther is plenty of evidence out there (although swept under the official rug) that we had plenty of fore-warning that the Japanese fleet was inbound and it was specifically ignored so we would receive a horrible attack to drag us into the war.

I've done a lot of reading about this and the consensus among historians is that it was an unfortunate failure rather than a deliberate holding back. There were definite warning signs but because of inter-organization rivalries between the army and navy and the general disbelief that Japan would be so stupid as to attack a nation with an economy five times larger than its own these were generally ignored.

Also, Hitler declared war on us because we were sending aid to Britain. That is an act of war on the part of the US, whether it was declared or not. This was also intentional. But of course, this wouldn't have even been an issue if we hadn't been inolved in WWI, as there would have been no Nazi Germany.

True, but I'd argue it was a positive thing to support Britain against Nazi Germany. And FDR can be hardly blamed for creating the conditions under which America felt the need to help its British ally.

This is an extremely shortsighted view. One of the main reasons Lincoln had to keep the southern states from seceding is because the South had control of many major ports as well as the mouth of the Mississippi. If they had broken off and become independent, they could have shut down the northern economy by attracting all foreign trade/denying access to the lower mississippi.

The Civil War, like all other wars, were about money/control. it had nothing to do with slavery specifically.

I think you misunderstood me because I agree with what you are saying here. I wasn't going into why Lincoln decided to not let the South go, I was merely saying that it was a difficult and ultimately very good decision.

 

[Cythraul]

I'd point to the lessening of unemployment after the New Deal as evidence for its effectiveness.

And I'd point out that if that's all there is to your line of reasoning then you are committing a blatant fallacy. The sun rose this morning, and now I'm drinking beer. Does that mean the rising of the sun caused my current beer drinking? How exactly do you know that unemployment decreased because of the New Deal and not despite it?

I'd also point out that it seems extremely odd that the longest and most severe depression by far in our history occurred during a period of state intervention into the economy whose extent was unprecedented up to that point. I don't know about you, but that seems just a little bit odd to me.

But let's get a little bit more concrete. For one thing, by 1940 the US economy had not yet fully recovered. In fact, the unemployment rate was at a whopping 14.6%. This is 7 years after Roosevelt began implementing his legislation. In that 7 year period the unemployment rate fluctuated and exhibited an extremely slow overall decline. Once the US entered WWII the standard macroeconomic indicators largely lost their meaning, given that the US economy at that time was something of a command economy. So after 1940 until the end of WWII the standard measures of macroeconomic performance are questionable, and in 1939 the unemployment rate was 14.6%; we were still in a depression. How exactly did Roosevelt get us out of this? How confident are you in the assertion that the unemployment rate would have been higher at that point had Roosevelt never done any of the things he did?

I'll point out a few factors involved in prolonging the depression. For one thing, evidence from public opinion polls and bond markets during the time indicates that Roosevelt's policies reduced the confidence of investors in the stability of private property rights. A predictable effect of this is that long-term private investment was prevented from fully recovering. Another factor is the National Recovery Administration, one of Roosevelt's most significant measures. The direct result of the NRA was a rise in labor costs, which meant that in just 6 months after the NRA took effect, industrial production dropped by 25%. From 1937-1938 the economy went through a sharp secondary depression. During this time unemployment rose from 14.3% in 1937 to 19% in 1938. It is significant that one major part of the New Deal was the Banking Act of 1935, which gave the Federal Reserve authority to mandate an increase in required reserve ratios for commercial banks, which, I think, played a large role in the 1937-1938 depression, though there were probably other factors involved. At any rate, that set back recovery for a number of years.

I could go on, but I've given you enough to chew on for now. It's far from clear to me that FDR got us out of the Great Depression. If anything it looks to me like he just made it worse, but I'm interested to see what you have to say about that.

 

[Dak]

I've done a lot of reading about this and the consensus among historians is that it was an unfortunate failure rather than a deliberate holding back. There were definite warning signs but because of inter-organization rivalries between the army and navy and the general disbelief that Japan would be so stupid as to attack a nation with an economy five times larger than its own these were generally ignored.

I disagree. Cutting off the lifeblood of a nation's war machine (oil, metals) while at war was plenty of reason to expect an attack. Anyone who thinks otherwise shouldn't be allowed to waste resources reading history books or anything with military relevance.

True, but I'd argue it was a positive thing to support Britain against Nazi Germany. And FDR can be hardly blamed for creating the conditions under which America felt the need to help its British ally.

#1 Britain never should have been an ally. Their military has been a joke since WWI (lack of manpower if for no other reason). Again, we wouldn't have even been in the predicament of needing to stop a guy like Hitler if we hadn't been involved in WWI. Imperial Germany was arguably better or at least equal in "moral standing" to any of the countries it expanded against.

America's foreign policy has long been a history of intervening, and then by intervening to create an even worse problem that requires more intervention in the future, and yet we still haven't learned our lesson.

 

[razoredge]

I disagree. Cutting off the lifeblood of a nation's war machine (oil, metals) while at war was plenty of reason to expect an attack. Anyone who thinks otherwise shouldn't be allowed to waste resources reading history books or anything with military relevance.



#1 Britain never should have been an ally. Their military has been a joke since WWI (lack of manpower if for no other reason). Again, we wouldn't have even been in the predicament of needing to stop a guy like Hitler if we hadn't been involved in WWI. Imperial Germany was arguably better or at least equal in "moral standing" to any of the countries it expanded against.

America's foreign policy has long been a history of intervening, and then by intervening to create an even worse problem that requires more intervention in the future, and yet we still haven't learned our lesson.

Holy shit dude... "Britian should never have been an ally" ? ? ?

I dont even know where to begin so I wont and just move to WWII because that IS what matters. First the Brits did a great job fending of the German attack.... sure they may very well have finally fallen... AND WOULDNT THAT HAVE BEEN GREAT... OH YEAH... THANK YOU VERY MUCH MAY I HAVE ANOTHER... Good grief man, we would have been next, with no support. If FDR made any mistake regarding WWII it was letting it get to the point it got to before going to kick some arrogant German ass, would have saved alot of lives, money and the massive destruction of Europe.

Regardless how many wars it took to give Germany its proper tune up IT HAD TO BE DONE. Japan changed its fucking tune too, now claiming to be the most peaceful loving nation in the world... but then the Japs were never accused of being stupid, they still conquered aMErica. Again THANK YOU VERY MUCH YOU STUPID HEART BLEEDING white gumbys.

 

[Dak]

WWI(specifically, US intervention turning the tide against Imperial Germany) created WWII. This cannot be ignored, despite your ignorant, shortsighted ramble.

Britain appeared to do a good job fending off the Germans because Germany was treating Britain like a joke. If Hitler had ever been serious about crushing them, he could have. He was more worried about Russia.

 

[razoredge]

WWI(specifically, US intervention turning the tide against Imperial Germany) created WWII. This cannot be ignored, despite your ignorant, shortsighted ramble.

Britain appeared to do a good job fending off the Germans because Germany was treating Britain like a joke. If Hitler had ever been serious about crushing them, he could have. He was more worried about Russia.

Dont matter, we cant have countries trying to "take over the world", those that tried during the past century were stopped, thats what can not be ignored... end of story.

Sorry I think Hitler was busy looting in France, the rest of Europe and pushing further south to deal with the Engish channel at that time. Talk about ignorance. His air assults and uboats were what he had and they did plenty of damage. We should have been there on day one.

 

[razoredge]

sounds like a tuff little country to me... "bro"... A Brit stands his ground and thus WHY we were Allied.

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

 

[Dak]

Dont matter, we cant have countries trying to "take over the world", those that tried during the past century were stopped, thats what can not be ignored... end of story.

Sorry I think Hitler was busy looting in France, the rest of Europe and pushing further south to deal with the Engish channel at that time. Talk about ignorance. His air assults and uboats were what he had and they did plenty of damage. We should have been there on day one.

Even a recreational WWII buff would find this analysis laughable. He pushed the Allies off of mainland Europe and then turned east.

The Blitz was to A. Demoralize and discourage any further attacks and B. To hopefully destroy industrial capacity.

If Germany had sent a sizable force into Britain they could have easily taken it. But they never did.

Germany declared war on the US following Pearl Harbor, assuming the US would be too busy chasing the Japs around the Pacific to give serious aid in Europe. Bad gamble, but the US and USSR were their only fear, not Britain or the rest of the allies, who got spanked out of Europe with ease until the US and Russia became heavily involved.

 

[Draehl]

I hate that the civil war is the "war over slavery" when it was clearly about state's rights. Such is the case of the winner writing the history books =/

 

[Matt]

I hate that the civil war is the "war over slavery" when it was clearly about state's rights. Such is the case of the winner writing the history books =/

Yeah, state's rights to keep slaves. The south's economy depending completely on it. Dummy.

 

[razoredge]

Even a recreational WWII buff would find this analysis laughable. He pushed the Allies off of mainland Europe and then turned east.

The Blitz was to A. Demoralize and discourage any further attacks and B. To hopefully destroy industrial capacity.

If Germany had sent a sizable force into Britain they could have easily taken it. But they never did.

Germany declared war on the US following Pearl Harbor, assuming the US would be too busy chasing the Japs around the Pacific to give serious aid in Europe. Bad gamble, but the US and USSR were their only fear, not Britain or the rest of the allies, who got spanked out of Europe with ease until the US and Russia became heavily involved.

The point was that the Blitz did not work. Also the rest of Europe fell like a limp noodle and at least the Brits gave a fight. Any moron would know that if all efforts were concentrated on Britian it wouldnt stand a chance, then further after that neither would the US alone. The world is lucky he was ass enough to go marching deep into Russia. I know all this shit you tool.

My response was in regards to stupid statements like "should have never been allied" and "that their military was a joke"

The RAF was active and successful in bombing Germany
The tank divisions also gave a good fight in North Africa

Sit there and talk like the Brits were not even players or the no shit Sherlock statement that Germany could not have been defeated if they put everything on one front. Thats why it was a World War and their was Axis and Allied powers. DUH ! What are you disappointed with the outcome ?

 

[Eligos]

Ronald Reagan was a good president, but a terrible Republican. His approach to fiscal policy was anything but conservative and he's the main reason China has its hand in our coffers.

 

[razoredge]

I hate that the civil war is the "war over slavery" when it was clearly about state's rights. Such is the case of the winner writing the history books =/

The history book says Lincoln only opposed the expansion of slavery and there was no war until the succeeded states attacked in a hissy fit to keep and expand their slave trade. The South had the "right" to do that and the North had the right to kick their asses. Theres been a multitude of Civils wars during mankinds history. Wouldnt this be a great fucking country split across the middle and ya'll still had your little slaves doing all your work for you.

 

[Eligos]

Yeah slavery as an issue was far greater in the South. They'd freak out whenever something happened that threatened their status quo. The Haitian Revolution, for example, filled them with fear over a similar slave uprising in the U.S.

 

[Dak]

My response was in regards to stupid statements like "should have never been allied" and "that their military was a joke"

The RAF was active and successful in bombing Germany
The tank divisions also gave a good fight in North Africa

The tank divisions in NA got their asses whipped up and down the desert until Germany cut supplies to Rommel, and even then, while vastly outgunned he managed to do serious damage.
"The RAF was active and successful in bombing Germany"..... The bitches flew at night, while the US bombed in broad daylight. The Brits were blindly bombing, and were unable to do any tactical bombing, instead just unloading massive amounts of bombs, most likely many times on civilians.

Sit there and talk like the Brits were not even players or the no shit Sherlock statement that Germany could not have been defeated if they put everything on one front. Thats why it was a World War and their was Axis and Allied powers.

You missed all my points in your delusional, self righteous fog. Hitler bit off more at one time than he could chew was the problem. He should have finished Britain off before turning east but didn't. He was a piss poor military strategist. The Brits were players, in "bit roles" while the US and Russia did the heavy lifting.

DUH ! What are you disappointed with the outcome ?

Yes, I am disappointed with the outcome of WWI. You act like the Allied powers were white knights riding on a horse named Righteousness. This is ignorance. The Allied powers committed atrocities equal to Hitler's.

 

[Dak]

The history book says Lincoln only opposed the expansion of slavery and there was no war until the succeeded states attacked in a hissy fit to keep and expand their slave trade.

I think you must be high all the time or never opened a history book. Fort Sumter was on Confederate land and the US had been told to withdraw from the fort. Instead they tried to reinforce it, so eventually the Confederates attacked it. Only a blind, ignorant parrot would see this as unwarrented aggression.

The South had the "right" to do that and the North had the right to kick their asses. Theres been a multitude of Civils wars during mankinds history. Wouldnt this be a great fucking country split across the middle and ya'll still had your little slaves doing all your work for you.

Your lack of basic spelling and grammar knowledge is only surpassed by your lack of history education.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were good, the rest were varying levels of shitty.

While Jackson had the biggest balls of all our presidents (which I respect), I really disapprove of his attitude towards Natives. I'm not a PC guy at all, but I really dislike anyone, past or present, with such an irrational hatred for Indians.
I agree w/ you about Jefferson being one of the best, though.
Teddy Roosevelt is my favorite. I kinda feel like he possessed the best qualities of Jefferson and Jackson both.

 

[Dak]

Don't get me wrong, Jackson had plenty of problems, but the biggest problem the US has ever had is private national banks, and Jackson was one of the few to fight the banksters.

The Natives are still being treated like shit, and yet no one is complaining now.