RoR: Forum

James wrote:

"but I think we can all see that slavery may have been surgically dealt with in the 1860's"

I can't. It would have required a revolution in people's heads on a par with the one that fermented the revolt against England. More so in fact because it would have required people to give up benefits rather than reclaim them.

And what to do with the ex-slaves once they were free? By rights they should be compensated for their labour and that compensation should come from the Slaver's pocket.

What about those who tortured and murdered their slaves? By rights they should be punished. That isn't going to fly, not in the towns where lynching a black-man was an excuse for a family-picnic.

What to do with the ex-slaves then? Repatriate them? I can't see anyone in 1860s America being happy about a large number of black ex-slaves with the money to buy land etc. These are the same White-Americans who promised to let the American-Indians have their own country & 5 seconds later stole the land from underneath them. These are the same White-Americans who, 20 years earlier, annexed California et al from the Republic of Mexico just because they believed it was their "Manifest Destiny" to do so. The US paid for that land, but only after they had bludgeoned Mexico into submission first (The Mexican War 1845-48, the war that gave many Confederate & Union commanders their battle experience). As an aside why isn't Polk on these lists of worst US Presidents? You piss and moan about Lincoln. How about the bloke that fermented a war with Mexico and annexed half their bloody country??

And finally, in spite of there being public resistance to the Mexican War, these are the same White-Americans who rationalised away the scourging, branding and final brutal-hanging of 85 Irish-Catholic Americans who volunteered to defend Mexico against the invaders (the battalion known as the Los San Patricios). Even today many Americans see these men as traitors and believe they got what they deserved.

No, I can't see a surgical solution to 1860s US-slavery, unless you mean bigot-brain-surgery. There was too much at stake politically and an alarming shortage of principled men for the scourge of slavery to be removed peacefully.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 4/03, 11:25am)

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 4/03, 3:11pm)

Post 41

Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 11:47am

Winefield wrote:

You piss and moan about Lincoln. How about the bloke that fermented a war with Mexico and annexed half their bloody country??

The Mexico you are talking about was a fascist dictatorship which did not represent the people of Mexico. Like all dictatorships they made grand territorial claims they had no entitlement to.

Post 42

Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 2:13pm

"to put George W Bush ahead of Thomas Jefferson is a travesty of justice". --- I have to agree with James Heaps-Nelson [post 2] on this.

A great President has to be measured on his *actual* impact on the country ... and on the impact's being new and not something anyone else in office at the same time would have engineered or enact.

One can't judge him as great merely on his taking tentative or early steps ... or having good intentions and 'talking a good game'.

Let us concretize together:

1. Bush -- Domestically, his intentions to reduce the size of the welfare state have not yet born fruit (and may not-they are strongly opposed).

By contrast, he has been a big spender, vetoed no spending bills. He has not been a fiscal conservative. Or a major deregulator. He has been good on defense / aggressive on hunting down terrorists. But he has been bad on civil liberties.

Yes, on protecting the country, overseas and in terms of strong defense, he has done very important, good things (but not entirely so! -- the Iraq pacification and the state of our intelligence agencies and the bureaucratic Dept. of Homeland Security have all been clumsy and can be criticized on a number of counts).

2. Jefferson -- this point has been casually mentioned, but it's impact needs to be underscored: Jefferson -doubled- the size of the country, something no other President did (Louisiana Purchase). Imagine an America bounded by the Mississippi and who would have filled the vacuum to the West. Had Jefferson not vigorously moved to expand (and explore--Lewis and Clark expedition), it is likely France or Spain would have claimed the Western two-thirds of the continent. Being far stronger than a nascent and still weak U.S., they and possibly Britain (to our North) might have possibly conquered the U.S., or divided it up into spheres of influence.

So one could argue that this single action elevates Thomas Jefferson to the rank of great Presidents.

3-5. Jefferson -- Private property in land, the capitalist structure of the new states, peaceful independence of new states from old ones: "What would the land policy be? Here, again, the nation is in debt to Thomas Jefferson...the guiding spirit behind the great Land Ordinances of 1785 and 1787..." [American Economic History, Hughes]. One might leave this out since it predated his Presidency, but in office he -sustained- this radical new capitalist approach.

6. Jefferson -- Peaceful transition of power. After Washington and Adams, for the first time a President of a different and bitterly opposed party took office. It is hard to think of anyplace else in history when this change was not accompanied by purges, overturning of previous laws wholesale, and so on.

Jefferson settled forever that this would not happen, something just as important as the better-known precedent set by Washington choosing not to become a king and stepping aside for someone of his own political party.

7. Jefferson reversed many of the 'big government' tendencies of the Federalists, of Hamilton. He halted a drift to big government for a very long time by bringing a largely classical liberal party into power.

2 through 7 are radical moves or changes in direction, massively more important than anything George W. Bush has yet done. (I'm going to leave aside other good things Jefferson did...the Barbary Pirates, etc.)

8. Finally any great President can't be really *bad* in major areas, destructive, not to the extent that they counter-balance the good things. This would not be problem for Washington and Jefferson. But there is a serious question regarding Lincoln and Bush on these points. One might argue the harm done by Lincoln in expanding the power of the state is outweighed by destroying slavery and saving the Union..and that no one else in office at the time would have or could have done it (a key issue in adjudging a President great). [ The idea that any President in office when the country has been directly attacked (as on 9-11) would have been less aggressive in response than Bush is hardly an open-and-shut issue. ]

GWB seems to want to be a radical President, one slowing the growth of government ... but only in some spheres.

You judge a President on what he -has- accomplished and set firmly into place, changing history. Which is one reason you have to step back and let the cement harden for a little while.

--Philip Coates

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 4/03, 3:09pm)

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 4/03, 3:12pm)

Post 43

Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 3:08pm

Robert Davidson wrote "The Mexico you are talking about was a fascist dictatorship which did not represent the people of Mexico. Like all dictatorships they made grand territorial claims they had no entitlement to."

Santa Anna might have been a dictator but he was hardly in control of the country. From 1833 to 1855 Mexico had no fewer than thirty-six changes in presidency! We aren't talking about a cohesive fascist dictatorship like that in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy here. And, if the claims to New Mexico, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah and Nevada were so bogus, why sign the treaty of treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo & the "Gadsden Purchase" and pay Santa Anna $28,000,000 for 2/5ths of what he (incorrectly according to you) claimed to be Mexico?

But let us take your thesis and run with it. The solution to the relatively new and fascist Republic of Mexico is to use a piss-ant excuse to go to war with them. To invade their country defeat their army and take their capital city. Apart from the piss-ant excuse bit (IMHO of course!) this line of reasoning it isn't terribly different to that used to justify the current war in Iraq (which I support btw).

But this is the bit that gets up my nose: after a short amount of time Polk withdraws the army back across the Rio Grande and leaves the fascist dictator in place, making sure (of course) that the army annexes the land north of the river.

Fantastic solution that. Leave the Mexicans south of the Rio Grande in the shit, weakened and in turmoil. Ripe, in fact, for a (thankfully short lived) French invasion which materialises in ~1862...

America's efforts did nothing to alleviate the plight of the Mexican people. In light of the fact that Santa Anna lived until 1855, all Polk's invasion did was add to their frigging troubles. But Polk did manage to expand the sphere of US influence. Bravo!

What a shining example of a well executed armed robbery. Polk and the rest of the country didn't give two shits about Santa Anna, fascist dictatorships or the Mexican/Native Indian peoples that he was oppressing.

The redeeming feature of all of this has been how the people in California etc. have flourished under the US system of government in spite of presidents like Polk. I can only wonder at how the Mexicans would have faired had the US army had stayed and stabilised the political situation. One wonders whether there would be so much to do about Mexican illegal immigrants. The invasion of Mexico was bad enough, but leaving Mexico in turmoil after invading her was unforgivable!

So back to the original topic: Lincoln might have precipitated a war. But at least he liberated people after it was won.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 4/03, 3:26pm)

Post 44

Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 3:18pm

I want to put my points about Jefferson's Presidency in bullet form:

*doubled size of country
*protected it from conquest
*private property in land
*the capitalist structure of the new states
*peaceful independence of new states from old ones
*peaceful transition of power precedent
*reversal of 'big government' drift

Post 45

Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 3:49pm

I want to put my points about Jefferson's Presidency in bullet form:

*doubled size of country
*protected it from conquest
*private property in land
*the capitalist structure of the new states
*peaceful independence of new states from old ones
*peaceful transition of power precedent
*reversal of 'big government' drift

Hey there Phil. I agree with you. Jefferson is #1 on my list because of his character and philosophy. He was a strong, confident, virtuous man. And other countries knew it.

As for the 20th century...yikes...what a mess...Harry Truman stikes me as a good man though I'm not terribly familiar with his presidency. In my own lifetime, Carter (bad president!) and Reagan were good men. I even think W is a decent man. But it's so hard to judge a president's motivation nowadays. A good presidency is nearly impossible in the modern environment.

Post 46

Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 7:45pm

Winefield writes:

America's efforts did nothing to alleviate the plight of the Mexican people.

Why was that America's responsibility? Who alleviated the plight of Colonial Americans? Themselves, because they believed that death was preferable a life of oppression. They loved liberty and had the courage to fight for it, and that fight was not an easy one. They prevailed against the greatest military force in the then current world.

After which, when they were free, they set themselves to the task of industry and commerce, and, in spite of the wasted resources of life and treasure expended in fighting a Civil War, became the wealthest nation in the world in just one century.

But, I am sure you will respond with equally heroic stories about the Mexicans. I look forward to hearing them.

Post 47

Monday, April 4, 2005 - 6:09am

James Kilbourne said:

I would call Jefferson a great thinker and a great man. I would not call him a great president.

James,
By this statement, you have argued that being "a great thinker and a great man" don't constitute sufficient conditions for being a great president. By selecting W as one of the top four, you have shown that you don't think that these conditions are necessary either. Interesting.

Glenn

Post 48

Monday, April 4, 2005 - 12:22pm

James,

Wonderful inspiring article.

Don't let the Lincoln-bashers get you down. Lincoln stepped up within the context of his times and did the right thing - and almost single-handedly transformed the world by his example. One nation after another followed suit on the slavery issue.

The only thing that really rankles me about Bush is that damn Patriot Act thing. I know it was an emergency measure, but government foolishness rights-wise tends to grow, not go away. Time will tell. At least Bush gives his views concrete reality. People can judge what he says and what he does - and he does not back down from bullies - even when they gang up over at the UN.

Michael

Post 49

Monday, April 4, 2005 - 1:12pm

It is WAY too early to decide Bush's place in history, enough history has not yet elapsed to evaluate the long term implications of his policies. For one thing, the Iraq experiment is extremely uncertain. There's a very real possibility that Iraq could become a theocracy and a hotbed of Islamic militancy - something it wasn't before the invasion. And who knows how the budget deficits will affect us if they are not addressed - the consequences could be awful. History may frown on Bush depending on how those (among other things) work out...

Post 50

Monday, April 4, 2005 - 1:38pm

Glen, of course being a "great thinker and a great man" don't constitute sufficient conditions for being president. Do you seriously think that every great thinker and decent person is fit to be prez? No more than every great thinker and decent person is fit to be any particular profession that requires specific skills quite apart from pure intelligence and decency.

Leadership of the presidential variety (especially during monumental times) requires rare skills. A much "less-great" thinker who has those skills is far more fit to be president than a greater thinker who lacks those skills.

Alec

Post 51

Monday, April 4, 2005 - 2:53pm

Michael- US was no leader in abolishing slavery, it was quite behind the times. Britain (and its empire), France, Netherlands, Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, etc. had all ended slavery before the US did. Not many slaveholding countries were left in western Europe or the New World for US to serve as an example to - maybe Brazil or Cuba.

Post 52

Monday, April 4, 2005 - 9:16pm

Glen, of course being a "great thinker and a great man" don't constitute sufficient conditions for being president.

Alec, the president is a model for what America stands for. He is a kind of concretization (wonder who I get that from?) that projects the values of the nation.

The greatest potential power of a president is to be such a model. Look at the reverence toward the Pope. As far as good Pope's go John Paul II was hot stuff. A great president would evoke even more reverence, even more pride from (and in) the American people. Americans would excite toward virtuous action. The power of America is its people.

Projecting virtues is a big deal.

Post 53

Monday, April 4, 2005 - 10:01pm

Quoth James:

-----
Robert- you are absolutely right about the fact that I should have included Bush's step toward privatization in Medicare. The first step is the hardest, and he has been bold enough to take it often.
-----

I'm not sure I can buy the claim that the largest entitlement expansion since the inception of Medicare itself is a step toward "privatization."

With respect to Lincoln, let's just face it -- he, his presidency and his times were a great deal more complex than either "side" of the argument about him tends to acknowledge.

I'd put him near the bottom of any list of "good" presidents, but second only to Washington on any list of "presidents who substantially impacted the direction of the nation." Some of those impacts were good (whether he set out to do it or not, he was largely responsible for ending chattel slavery), some were bad (increased federal power and a tacit acknowledgement of the legitimacy of "emergency measures" such as suspension of habeas corpus, etc.).

Was he a "good guy?" That's another argument.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 54

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 1:34am

Aaron,

Thank you. I should not have said that without checking. As I lived in Brazil for so long, and there slavery was abolished after the USA, I made a false assumption. No excuse, though. I stand corrected.

Damn bad habit spouting off shit like that...

Michael

Post 55

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 1:40pm