Which President will history treat kinder, Bush Jnr or Clinton?

[jillian]

War presidents tend to be compared. In these two cases, many will question the justification of the wars. Going to happen, so Avatar is correct.

No war president, took as many presidential prerogatives as Lincoln, so I think the comparison will hold.

I doubt it. But if they are compared, Bush will not do well by the comparison.

 

[Annie]

I doubt it. But if they are compared, Bush will not do well by the comparison.

none of us have a clue how he'll be perceived in 100 years. Really.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I doubt it. But if they are compared, Bush will not do well by the comparison.

You don't know this. Like I said before, Jefferson is seen as a great president, yet was the most hypocritical.

 

[Annie]

You don't know this. Like I said before, Jefferson is seen as a great president, yet was the most hypocritical.

Jackson gives him a run for his money! For that matter, so does FDR and Lincoln.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Jackson gives him a run for his money! For that matter, so does FDR and Lincoln.

Yeah, but Jefferson hit the trifecta. Personal, political, and economical hypocricies while in office. He made his name before taking office. I used rank him high, now that I have actually studied history, I've changed my mind.

 

[Avatar4321]

I said I couldn't imagine it...not that it couldn't happen under any set of circumstances. :

But seriously, I haven't seen anything in him that indicates he gives quarter to his political rivals, much less people who would actually raise arms against him. Someone who puts "suspected" enemies in prison without charges doesn't seem to me to be someone who would allow his enemies to retain their arms in order to retain their dignity. Just my opinion, of course.

Yeah he doesnt give anything to his rivals. I mean he only let them write the no child left behind act which they designed to fail and then turn around and critisize him for it. He lets them pass stupid campaign finance reform. Gives them a chance vote for the Iraq resolution even though they already gave him authority to go into Iraq in the initial resolution after 911.

Please the man has done nothing but give to his rivals. and they spit him out and toss him back. That is why the conservatives are feeling pretty disappointed with him. We elected him to challenge and defeat his opponents in the market place of ideas. not let them run the show.

 

[Annie]

Yeah, but Jefferson hit the trifecta. Personal, political, and economical hypocricies while in office. He made his name before taking office. I used rank him high, now that I have actually studied history, I've changed my mind.

Really, the same could be said for Roosevelt, either of them. You are young, don't come down too hard on Jefferson, though I know what you mean. Still, step into the shoes, at that time and place.

BA+ in history, sociology, and political science. Also more than a few years of 'real life.'

 

[jillian]

You don't know this. Like I said before, Jefferson is seen as a great president, yet was the most hypocritical.

Most hypocritical? I dunno... I think most politicians have a bit of that streak. But I can't imagine someone who's viewed by 2/3 of the populace has having messed up can suddenly be lauded by historians. Doesn't mean it can't happen. I just don't see it.

 

[Annie]

Most hypocritical? I dunno... I think most politicians have a bit of that streak. But I can't imagine someone who's viewed by 2/3 of the populace has having messed up can suddenly be lauded by historians. Doesn't mean it can't happen. I just don't see it.

Lincoln was, seriously. It was just as weird that he won the second term as GW.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Lincoln was, seriously. It was just as weird that he won the second term as GW.

I don't know, Lincoln is up there, but Jefferson did things that even Lincoln would have been smart enough to avoid.

Jefferson was publically agianst slavery, but owned slaves. He felt the races shouldn't intermingle, yet he carried on an affair with a slave. He was against Hamilton's National bank, yet when the economy went into the shitter, low and behold, Jefferson is for the Bank. Need I go on, because I can. Especially on the slave issue.

 

[Annie]

I don't know, Lincoln is up there, but Jefferson did things that even Lincoln would have been smart enough to avoid.

Jefferson was publically agianst slavery, but owned slaves. He felt the races shouldn't intermingle, yet he carried on an affair with a slave. He was against Hamilton's National bank, yet when the economy went into the shitter, low and behold, Jefferson is for the Bank. Need I go on, because I can. Especially on the slave issue.

Ideology and practicality clash, such is life. From all accounts, he cared deeply for Sally Hemings and her offspring. You must remember, he truly believed that the slaves were not quite 'human.' I'm not saying he was right, not at all, but time and place.

Owning slaves, well unlike George Washington, Jefferson was never wealthy in the larger sense, it was all tied up in land. In order to do what he did, the plantation had to keep going, thus slaves. Economic necessesity, what some have a problem understanding regarding the war of 1860.

The Bank again, a necessary factor, which he was bright enough to understand. Much like the Louisiana Purchase, certainly questionable as far as executive decision, but the correct one.

 

[jillian]

Lincoln was, seriously. It was just as weird that he won the second term as GW.

Actually, according to the Kearns Goodwin bio, he was pretty well loved. Obviously, the south wasn't so thrilled with him during the war, but even they respected him after. Of course, there was no polling in those days. But no one thought he was a bad president as far as I've been able to ascertain.

 

[Annie]

Actually, according to the Kearns Goodwin bio, he was pretty well loved. Obviously, the south wasn't so thrilled with him during the war, but even they respected him after. Of course, there was no polling in those days. But no one thought he was a bad president as far as I've been able to ascertain.

Check out the Avolon project. Original documents.

 

[jillian]

Check out the Avolon project. Original documents.

Which documents do you think support your position? I found the Emancipation Proclamation and his inaugaural addresses as well as a statement by the confederate states.

 

[Annie]

Which documents do you think support your position? I found the Emancipation Proclamation and his inaugaural addresses as well as a statement by the confederate states.

Look for newpapers, journals, diaries, and magazines.

 

[jillian]

Yeah he doesnt give anything to his rivals. I mean he only let them write the no child left behind act which they designed to fail and then turn around and critisize him for it. He lets them pass stupid campaign finance reform. Gives them a chance vote for the Iraq resolution even though they already gave him authority to go into Iraq in the initial resolution after 911.

Please the man has done nothing but give to his rivals. and they spit him out and toss him back. That is why the conservatives are feeling pretty disappointed with him. We elected him to challenge and defeat his opponents in the market place of ideas. not let them run the show.

You think he's given to his "rivals". I see someone who makes every choice that will maximize the discomfort of those who disagree with him..... using wedge issues to create dissonance, appointment of the most distasteful candidates to key positions (e.g., the Bolton appointment which he did during recess so he wouldn't have to turn over documents; court appointments which most demoralize the opposition). So maybe he gave some bits and pieces, but on anything important he basically wiped the dems noses in it.

Thing is, after 9/11, he had an amazing opportunity to really represent everyone. He chose not to.

 

[Said1]

THis is just an aside, but from what i can remember, Canadian schools don't give much mention of American history in the event that it doesn't involve us as some point. Not nothing, just not much. As for slavery and the, from what I was taught, there was NO mention of anything else being considered.....that I can remember. This may have changed though. :huh:


Also, another side note, I think the demographics for slaves vs slave owners was getting skeery, IMHO.

 

[Gunny]

It couldn't, by definition, have been a war of imperialism. Imperialism is defined as:

The practice of one country extending its control over the territory, political system, or economic life of another country. Political opposition to this foreign domination is called "anti-imperialism."

www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html

I would also point out that the Dred Scott decision moved the country way closer to civil war, way more quickly, than might otherwise have happened if the divided Court, led by its southern Chief Justice, didn't try to extend slavery into the new territories. Otherwise, it just might have run its course.

I think this is a pretty balanced analysis.... It actually agrees with you on the use of force versus the courtroom argument.

http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html

au contrare, but it could easily be imperialism. The Confederate States of America seceeded from the United States. All states voluntarily entered the United States as it was mutually beneficial to all. No law, nor wording precluded any state from leaving if they saw fit. By seceeding, the Confederate States were no longer part of the US, nor subject to its laws.

In effect, the United States invaded a sovereign nation and annexed it against the will of its inhabitants. Fits the definition of imperialism as I've ever heard it.

The Dred Scott decision is "fluff." The war was about wealthy Northern industrialists and wealthy Southern planters, and who and which way of life was going to dominate this Nation.

Slavery would probably have run its course as it it was limited geographically as a viable commodity. The problem is the the number of free states and slave states in the Union. The South was unwilling to allow a swing in power against it in Congress; which, was inevitable as more states entered the Union where slavery was not a commodity. Dred Scott merely prolonged the inevitable.

But basically, the US Civil War was orchestrated by wealthy Southerners and wealthy Northerners each who wanted to dominate the laws of this Nation and legislate them in accordance with their needs based on their respective industries/ways of life.

My issue is the revisionist history that proclaims a virtuous US fighting a moral war to free the black man; which, is just BS. Ending slavery was a means of ending Southern agricultural therefore political power.

While there were abolitionists, and those morally opposed to slavery, they were a minority and did not drive the train. Lincoln himself was willing to allow slavery to continue if the Southern states would re-enter the Union. His subsequent freeing of the slaves in the Southern states was a strategic, not moral decision.

 

[Said1]

It's called Freedom of Speech, isn't it?

And how do I not fit the defintion of a moderate republican?

Are you a Canadian Republican? Do you want to dump the monarchy?

http://www.canadian-republic.ca/goals.html

Most Canadians don't refer to themselves as repulican, even if they support this. Conservative or Tory yes, rarely republican.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Ideology and practicality clash, such is life. From all accounts, he cared deeply for Sally Hemings and her offspring. You must remember, he truly believed that the slaves were not quite 'human.' I'm not saying he was right, not at all, but time and place.

Owning slaves, well unlike George Washington, Jefferson was never wealthy in the larger sense, it was all tied up in land. In order to do what he did, the plantation had to keep going, thus slaves. Economic necessesity, what some have a problem understanding regarding the war of 1860.

The Bank again, a necessary factor, which he was bright enough to understand. Much like the Louisiana Purchase, certainly questionable as far as executive decision, but the correct one.

The fact that he cared deeply for Sally Hemings, yet saw her as not quite human show his hypocracy. He didn't feel the white race should be mixed with the black race, yet he bore offspring of this nature. Time and place has nothing to do with it. A horse is a horse and hypocracy is hypocracy.