PDA

View Full Version : American Presidents Suck



R.K.
10-22-2007, 02:39 PM
Most presidents the United States have had in the past haven't done a very good job at being president. Our current president, George W. Bush, is especially embarassing the country. The last good president we had was Abraham Lincoln, who was assassinated April 15, 1865.

WebDudette
10-22-2007, 02:42 PM
I disagree. All presidents suck. Anarchy!!!

R.K.
10-22-2007, 02:48 PM
I disagree. All presidents suck. Anarchy!!!

If all presidents suck, that would include American presidents. I didn't say only American presidents suck.
I'm sure you were joking, but I figured I should point that out incase you really are that stupid.

wheelchairman
10-22-2007, 03:13 PM
What are your criteria for why they suck? I don't know, it seems a bit more complicated than saying most of them suck. I mean Lincoln seems to be overrated as well. And both Kennedy and LBJ were quite good according to the criteria I appreciate, while the second Roosevelt was even better. But two of those 3 had some questionable foreign policy plans as well. I mean it's complicated when they affect so many spheres and their powers are (in theory) kept in check by the two other spheres of government.

Jojan
10-22-2007, 03:25 PM
yes us presidents is sucking often all the time

R.K.
10-22-2007, 03:55 PM
It's just a matter of opinion.

wheelchairman
10-22-2007, 03:58 PM
Indeed. But I like my opinions to have...oh I don't know....reasons behind them. I don't like having opinions for the sake of having opinions. but to each their own I guess.

TBD
10-22-2007, 05:17 PM
Yeah, in the time going from a middling country to the world's biggest economic superpower we haven't had one good president.

Makes sense.

0r4ng3
10-22-2007, 05:19 PM
All presidents anywhere ever suck.

up the punx!

TBD
10-22-2007, 05:21 PM
I think he just read through his high school American history textbook. Who else would post the exact day Abraham Lincoln died?

R.K.
10-22-2007, 06:12 PM
Actually, I was really just repeating something I was told. If it pisses you off that much, then let's all just stop posting in this thread now.

All About Eve
10-22-2007, 06:13 PM
Someone who didn't want to post the exact date Lincoln didn't die?

Mota Boy
10-22-2007, 08:23 PM
Actually, I was really just repeating something I was told.
Well, hopefully you've learned an important lesson about critical thinking.


I mean Lincoln seems to be overrated as well. And both Kennedy and LBJ were quite good according to the criteria I appreciate, while the second Roosevelt was even better.
Kennedy and LBJ? Christ, what criteria are those? Kennedy had some great rhetoric and a real ability to inspire, but he's generally ranked near the bottom of the ol' President list by those that bother with ranking. And LBJ was the cocksucker that got us mired into 'Nam, introduced "Great Society" programs that helped bankrupt the country and ultimately led to backlash against his entire agenda and was famously a dick.

It's hard to argue against FDR, though. The first Roosevelt was pretty badass too. On the whole, Reagan wasn't as bad as many on the left proclaim, though he has several flaws the right overlooks. Clinton, in retrospect, missed a real opportunity for establishing a consistent US foreign policy in the post-Cold War era, and screwed up a chance to implement sweeping reforms on the domestic front, but he wasn't a bad President by any means. He made real progress on certain economic issues which, unfortunately, were all undone a year after he left office.

Not Ozymandias
10-22-2007, 09:13 PM
Lincoln was our worst President, he fought a war to keep the South in America.
In what alternate universe does that make sense?

BustedKnuckles
10-22-2007, 11:59 PM
Lincoln was our worst President, he fought a war to keep the South in America.
In what alternate universe does that make sense?

Oh sweet Jesus...SIGGED!

F@ BANKZ
10-23-2007, 05:09 AM
I agree American Presidents Suck, generally, basically because none of them do anything and rely entirely on their advisors. They make some decisions but it's always a mistake when they do. I've read a little on the most appreciated presidents: George Washington can understandably be appreciated, Lincon was definitely something good but I do feel all of them seem to be praised for very simple actions, Washington aside. Lincon for example is remembered first of all for the abolition of slavery, but anybody in his situation with a shred of sanity would have made the same decision, if not compassionately but for benefit of their own country. Similarly Kennedy is remembered for assassination and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Will George Bush be remembered for his glorious retaliation on the nations of the Middle-East in the future?

Mota Boy
10-23-2007, 08:17 AM
Lincon for example is remembered first of all for the abolition of slavery, but anybody in his situation with a shred of sanity would have made the same decision, if not compassionately but for benefit of their own country.
I'm sorry, but I'll have to disregard any of your opinions from here on out. First off, Lincoln was the sixteenth US President - since the 3/5ths compromise enshrined it in the Constitution, fifteen Presidents had gone before Lincoln, not only not abolishing slavery, but decrying those that wished to tear the nation asunder. In the 1860 race, Lincoln only managed to win the Republican nomination over three other heavily-favored candidates, each of which wished to keep slavery, due to other candidates canceling each other out (Lincoln was the compromise solution), but in the national race he ran against three other candidates, all of whom wanted to keep the nation together at all costs.

I just can't even begin to describe how wrong your statements are without insulting you directly.

wheelchairman
10-23-2007, 09:46 AM
Kennedy and LBJ? Christ, what criteria are those? Kennedy had some great rhetoric and a real ability to inspire, but he's generally ranked near the bottom of the ol' President list by those that bother with ranking. And LBJ was the cocksucker that got us mired into 'Nam, introduced "Great Society" programs that helped bankrupt the country and ultimately led to backlash against his entire agenda and was famously a dick.

It's hard to argue against FDR, though. The first Roosevelt was pretty badass too. On the whole, Reagan wasn't as bad as many on the left proclaim, though he has several flaws the right overlooks. Clinton, in retrospect, missed a real opportunity for establishing a consistent US foreign policy in the post-Cold War era, and screwed up a chance to implement sweeping reforms on the domestic front, but he wasn't a bad President by any means. He made real progress on certain economic issues which, unfortunately, were all undone a year after he left office.

Well both LBJ and Kennedy were proponents of a functioning welfare state, which is something that I rather appreciate now that I live in one. I agree completely about LBJ and Vietnam, I also mentioned his negative points in the foreign policy category. I haven't really looked into it, but if I had to point to one thing that would bankrupt the government during this era, it would be the spiraling military budget. Which would actually mean that it's a budget problem and the bankruptcy could be blamed on any item in the budget. It's a matter of political perspective which one you choose I suppose.

And I agree about Clinton, but I refuse to consider him a part of history because I'm not that old yet, goddamnit.

Reagan was probably mediocre. I mean he has been given credit by the left and right in foreign policy and economic issues that were by and large not his fault (or not caused by him.) I never really cared enough about Reagan either way.

BustedKnuckles
10-23-2007, 10:36 AM
Just a little trivia for you which has no bearing on the current discussion: Howard Taft once got stuck in the White House bathtub he was so fat.

BREAK
10-23-2007, 10:52 AM
BustedKnuckles, stfu until you have something to contribute. kthx

skaterpunke
10-23-2007, 10:56 AM
I disagree. All presidents suck. Anarchy!!!

why cant we just do what the fuckin hippies did? FLOWER POWER!!!!!! no anarchy although its a good idea

BustedKnuckles
10-23-2007, 02:25 PM
BustedKnuckles, stfu until you have something to contribute. kthx

Same to you.


I think the problem with determining whether or not a president is good or bad lies directly on the media. The media spends most of their time covering the negative sides of stories instead of giving a balance of the positive and reporting on the negative. I generally agree with Mota Boy, but here is another problem: Everyone has their own set of guidelines that they judge people/presidents by, so to one person a president is horrible and to another he could be the greatest our nation has ever had. It's their opinion and they are entitled to it.

I also agree with wheelchairman in saying that it's been too short of time to call Clinton "history."

Ok BREAK, it's your turn to produce, that is if you can conjecture a sentence that doesn't contain "lolz" "stfu"s and the like.

wheelchairman
10-23-2007, 02:30 PM
Break is a master of creating opinions. He can even make bad ones seem good.

The media should be critical, a sycophantic media is the worst development ever. God I hate 60 minutes. And they're far from the worst.

Wolfbutter
10-23-2007, 02:45 PM
I don't think Lincoln is ovverrated at all. He was left to be president during one of the thoughest times in our nation's history, and he managed to actually pull out and win (I know this is mostly Grant's doing, however, I'm sure Lincoln contributed something). Also, he ended slavery. That's pretty good, considering he was a little racist himself. I also like how he managed to win when the odds are incredible for the other candidate, I think his last name was Johnson but I can't remember at the moment.

Also, I think America has had some fine presidents. I like Clinton very much, he just seems good to me. Also, George Washington is obvious, you can tell from his scriptures and presidential messages he wanted the country to be suscessful and well. Others include Roosevelt, and many others I have not learned about yet.

Also, what does everyone have against Andrew Jackson? I searched the web but couldn't really find a clear answer. What did he do that make people dislike what he did?

Also, the reason why American Presidents don't seem to be doing good all that time is because they're job is really hard and stressful. They are basically the leaders of a county that is the biggest world-power on Earth: they have to make some tough decisions.

BustedKnuckles
10-23-2007, 04:37 PM
The media should be critical, a sycophantic media is the worst development ever. God I hate 60 minutes. And they're far from the worst.

I totally agree with you. Although I must add that I hate news agencies that aren't afraid to show an insane bias to one side or the other. (NBC/Fox)

Jakebert
10-23-2007, 05:55 PM
I don't think Lincoln is ovverrated at all. He was left to be president during one of the thoughest times in our nation's history, and he managed to actually pull out and win (I know this is mostly Grant's doing, however, I'm sure Lincoln contributed something). Also, he ended slavery. That's pretty good, considering he was a little racist himself. I also like how he managed to win when the odds are incredible for the other candidate, I think his last name was Johnson but I can't remember at the moment.

Personally, the thing I admire most about Lincoln is that he put some of his fiercest political opponents in his own cabinet to assure he heard more than just one side of the story. I think that takes a lot of guts to challenge your own opinion in such a way.

BREAK
10-23-2007, 06:21 PM
Ok BREAK, it's your turn to produce, that is if you can conjecture a sentence that doesn't contain "lolz" "stfu"s and the like.

You don't know me and you don't know my style. Also, my admonition still stands.

People put too much emphasis on the office of the presidency, as if the actions of a single man effectively determine the direction of a nation. At this point the only real reason to vote someone into office is because you like their personality/public image, which I guess is pretty much what most people do anyway. There's so much behind-the-scenes shit that goes on in politics that rhetoric, qualifications, etc., are very much meaningless. Our system is structured to keep any substantial change to a medium. Whether you like a president or not is irrelevant in this climate. Meet new boss, same as old boss etc.

lolz.

BustedKnuckles
10-23-2007, 06:46 PM
People put too much emphasis on the office of the presidency, as if the actions of a single man effectively determine the direction of a nation. At this point the only real reason to vote someone into office is because you like their personality/public image, which I guess is pretty much what most people do anyway. There's so much behind-the-scenes shit that goes on in politics that rhetoric, qualifications, etc., are very much meaningless. Our system is structured to keep any substantial change to a medium. Whether you like a president or not is irrelevant in this climate. Meet new boss, same as old boss etc.



Hmm...very nice.


lolz.

I like it.

Mota Boy
10-23-2007, 06:49 PM
Personally, the thing I admire most about Lincoln is that he put some of his fiercest political opponents in his own cabinet to assure he heard more than just one side of the story. I think that takes a lot of guts to challenge your own opinion in such a way.Especially since his opponents were generally all better known and better connected than he was. Salmon P. Chase, his Secretary of the Treasury, even attempted to run against him in '84. Lincoln out-maneuvered him and got him to resign, but only after tolerating his ambitions for quite a bit longer than he probably should have. (I listened to Team of Rivals over the summer. Good book, but ultimately flawed by the author's supreme reverence for Lincoln - Goodwin cannot, for the life of her, admit that Lincoln may have been anything but a saint in all that he did)


Also, what does everyone have against Andrew Jackson? I searched the web but couldn't really find a clear answer. What did he do that make people dislike what he did?
Well, he's singularly responsible for the "Trail of Tears", which killed tens of thousands of Cherokee by forcibly removing them from their homes. The Cherokee actually sued the Georgia government, and the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. Jackson's comment: "The Supreme Court has made their decision - now let them carry it out." and he proceeded to use the army to remove the Cherokee anyway. Granted, everyone hated the Indians back then, but his blunt rejection of the Supreme Court's ruling was a severe blow to the balance of powers and the Constitution.

Likewise, in his megalomania, he did away with the official bank of the US, because he didn't like it. That, and something else he did at the very end of his term that I forget, caused the Panic of Somethingorother, and plunged the nation into a recession... I should probably Google that, as this is going back to what I recall from high school.

Economic Policy

Although Jackson had not made the Second Bank of the United States an issue in the 1828 election, he soon announced his belief that the bank, a private corporation established in 1816 and operating under a federal charter, had failed to provide a stable currency, had favored the privileged few at the expense of the common people in its financial operations, and had received a charter in violation of the Constitution. The bank's charter was not due to expire until 1836, but in July 1832 the president of the bank, Nicholas Biddle, encouraged by Jackson's political enemies—particularly Henry Clay and Daniel Webster—pushed a bill through Congress granting recharter. Jackson quickly (on July 10) vetoed the bill. The bank recharter was a major issue in the 1832 presidential election, in which Jackson (with Martin Van Buren as his running mate) overwhelmingly defeated Clay.

Jackson's war against the Bank of the United States extended throughout his second term of office. Angered by Biddle's use of bank funds to support anti-Jacksonian candidates, Jackson ordered federal deposits withdrawn from the bank in 1833. When two secretaries of the treasury refused to comply, Jackson, in another bold assertion of presidential power, removed both. That action earned him the censure of the Senate and, along with his use of the presidential veto, prompted his foes to charge him with abuse of power.

Although Jackson destroyed the Second Bank of the United States by withdrawing government money, his administration failed to develop a coherent national banking policy. In many states, especially in the South and West, state-chartered banks engaged in irresponsible and speculative issuance of paper currency—a policy that Jackson and other hard-money advocates opposed. (The federal government issued no paper legal tender prior to the Civil War.) Thus during the mid-1830s the United States was swept by a land boom. Sales of federal lands soared, helping to wipe out the national debt and creating a large federal surplus. By 1836, however, the boom was becoming increasingly speculative. Alarmed and determined to curb extensive use of paper currency issued by private state-chartered banks, Jackson, in the Specie Circular of 1836, forbade further purchases of federal land or payment of federal debts in any currency except federally issued coins. His actions, which created a demand for specie that led to many bank failures, were opposed by conservatives in the business community; they charged him with responsibility for disrupting the economy and blamed him for the Panic of 1837.

F@ BANKZ
10-25-2007, 06:04 AM
I'm sorry, but I'll have to disregard any of your opinions from here on out. First off, Lincoln was the sixteenth US President - since the 3/5ths compromise enshrined it in the Constitution, fifteen Presidents had gone before Lincoln, not only not abolishing slavery, but decrying those that wished to tear the nation asunder. In the 1860 race, Lincoln only managed to win the Republican nomination over three other heavily-favored candidates, each of which wished to keep slavery, due to other candidates canceling each other out (Lincoln was the compromise solution), but in the national race he ran against three other candidates, all of whom wanted to keep the nation together at all costs.

I just can't even begin to describe how wrong your statements are without insulting you directly.

I wasn't saying that all the good Lincon did was abolish slavery. I was saying that is unjustly what he is best remembered for among the other good deeds he performed. And that this was an overrated act as many, many other nations had abolished slavery by this time.

Also, you havn't proven any of my statements wrong, you've argued against a single example I gave.

Mota Boy
10-25-2007, 07:08 AM
Also, you havn't proven any of my statements wrong, you've argued against a single example I gave.There are a couple reasons for that. For one, I didn't really want to waste all that time on that post because it wouldn't feel like arguing a position, but explaining what should be obvious to anyone with a triple-digit I.Q., and I don't remember you normally needing things explained to you. Secondly, as I alluded to earlier, if I did actually make a case against you, it would be a lengthy post, and I'd blatantly call you an idiot, and I hoped I wouldn't have to do that. Would you like me to actually point out in detail just how stupid your opinion is?

To save me some time - unless of course you need it spelled out - Lincoln didn't just "free the slaves", he took it upon himself to right the greatest injustice in the nation at that time, taking head on the single most divisive issue of the entire nation, and he managed to lead the country through the biggest crisis it has ever faced, while managing to keep it intact. Do I honestly have to go by this on a point-by-point basis as if your argument was worth rebutting?

F@ BANKZ
10-25-2007, 03:09 PM
You've been digressing far from the central point in my initial post, but anyway... I state again I didn't say that was all I remember Lincon for, I was saying that is what he's predominantly remembered for by the masses. You're point that the act was far more than freeing slaves, elaborates on my point that people do not fully appreciate all the great deeds in detail. I put forward that it was beneficial for the country strongly, but I still believe that it was the inevitable action that would be taken within a few years of Lincon's presidency, if not during his terms, should any of the other major candidates have attained office. Many nations were abolishing slavery at the time, it was the way the world was heading; nobody believes that if not for Lincon the would be slaves around today. I hope you will not automatically consider my participation in this debate a provocative desire for you to "call me an idiot" and "spell it out", if that isn't too much to ask.

Wolfbutter
10-25-2007, 03:54 PM
nobody believes that if not for Lincon the would be slaves around today.

Nobody believes that statement, and you know it.

The general idea is, the country was very, very split. While in other countries like France or Britian, where abolishing slavery was pretty much what the entire public wanted. However, in the United States, it was a huge divide. That was what is so hard for Lincoln, and that is why slavery was not abolished beforehand: because they feared a civil war would erupt if slavery would be abolished. So, Linlcoln fought the civil war to keep the country together, and when the tension ended, he ended the slave trade. Lincoln pretty much marks the second era of the United States: a time of great progress.

And the shocking part it, it really wasn't that long ago. Interesting, to say the least.

F@ BANKZ
10-26-2007, 05:28 AM
Nobody believes that statement, and you know it.

Yes...

As I've said we've been digressing very far from the opinion I put forward. As now we seem to be revisiting the same ideas I don't really want to continue with this anymore. I gave other examples illustrating my point which have been ignored and I feel this selected example is so loosely based on my main point I don't consider it worth going over anymore. Just because Lincon wasn't an ideal representation, doesn't mean to say my point is invalid.

Wolfbutter
10-26-2007, 02:57 PM
I'm guessing your main point was that American presidents get remembered for simple acts. You have got to be our of your mind.

The thing is, things that sound simple on the outside are really incredibly complicated on the inside. Slavery in this country was like how abortion is today; only much worse. No matter what you do, there will be huge hysteria. It's like saying anybody with a "shred of sanity" would stop abortion.

GBH2
10-26-2007, 08:42 PM
i wonder why everyone is neglecting to mention James K. Polk. What a badass. Now that dude hade some concrete plans and actually followed them through.

Mota Boy
10-27-2007, 09:52 AM
First off, his name is "Lincoln". There are two "l"'s.

Look, plenty of other nations were abolishing slavery, but slavery was not a common practice in any of them, so it wasn't nearly as big a deal. However, in the American south, the entire economic system rested on slavery. The issue of slavery was such a divisive issue that it nearly tore the country apart at its very foundation, with Northerners wishing to ban it and Southerners declaring they would secede were that to come about. The entire history of the US, from 1789 to 1864, was the story of the continued, prolonged, confrontation between the North and the South over this issue. For three generations, US presidents had explicitly avoided the issue, tiptoeing around it and offering compromise after compromise.

You seem to be viewing it from the perspective of someone born towards the end of the 20th century - slavery was bad and it was an easy decision to free them. You claimed that "anybody in [Lincoln's] situation with a shred of sanity would have made the same decision"... and yet you appear completely oblivious to the fact that no, there were many, many many other politicians, both before Lincoln as well as during his era, that were vocally making very different decisions.

You somehow apparently view the decision - which led to four years of Civil War, as a very easy, inevitable one. However, if you read up on the history of the US, and of that era, you'll find just about every major politician was scrambling for a compromise, rather than taking the slavery issue head-on.

Lincoln is generally regarded as a great president for a large number of reasons, but the summation is simply that he "freed the slaves" because we tend to associate people with a simple issue. Washington is the "father of our country". Can you name anything that Washington did during his presidency? What about Jefferson? FDR? Usually, it's just one or two simple identifiers. Lincoln was a great President who happened to oversee the country during its time of turmoil. He's remembered as a great president, and the title "freed the slaves" is slapped on because it's easier to say three words than to drone out an entire paragraph enumerating his positive qualities.

F@ BANKZ
10-28-2007, 01:35 AM
I recite once more, the Lincoln issue was a mere example. One of three. If you want to discuss an actual point I presented go ahead, otherwise this is just drawn out, monotonous and virtually unrelated subject I don't want to participate in henceforth.

Sin Studly
10-28-2007, 01:49 AM
Most presidents the United States have had in the past haven't done a very good job at being president. Our current president, George W. Bush, is especially embarassing the country. The last good president we had was Abraham Lincoln, who was assassinated April 15, 1865.

lolz!

Abraham Lincoln ; Drove the USA into an unneccessary Civil War by dint of his own sense of morality, in which brother fought against brother, and over 600,000 soldiers died in combat, not counting those who died of illness and injuries after the war, nor civilians who were cut down or burned alive in their homes, nor those who starved to death after the vast majority of American agriculture was rendered barren, nor the hundreds of thousands of slaves who were slaughtered in fearful reprisals.

George W. Bush ; Hasn't yet driven the USA into a Civil War in which brother fought against brother, and over 600,000 soldiers died in combat, not counting those who died of illness and injuries after the war, nor civilians who were cut down or burned alive in their homes, nor those who starved to death after the vast majority of American agriculture was rendered barren, nor the hundreds of thousands of slaves who were slaughtered in fearful reprisals.

George W. Bush ; 1
Abraham Lincoln ; 0

(ps ; every other nation on the fucking planet managed to end slavery without causing a civil war, by doing it slowly and rationally and making economical compromises. One tyrant demanding slavery end here and now and fuck the consequences isn't the mark of a great leader. It's the mark of an egotistical psychopath who almost destroyed his own nation.)

XYlophonetreeZ
10-28-2007, 10:33 AM
James Buchanan drove the US into the Civil War. 7 southern states had already declared secession before Lincoln took office. James Buchanan didn't do shit about it and Lincoln was left with a damn big mess to clean up. It was either war or lose half the nation.

Sin Studly
10-28-2007, 04:23 PM
Manifest Destiny, sea to shining sea, and kill all those who oppose you, right? How do yankees manage to see the Union as the good guys in the civil war without seeing the British as the good guys in the War of Independence? It's basically the same scenario, right?

Wolfbutter
10-28-2007, 04:40 PM
Manifest Destiny, sea to shining sea, and kill all those who oppose you, right? How do yankees manage to see the Union as the good guys in the civil war without seeing the British as the good guys in the War of Independence? It's basically the same scenario, right?

Well, Britian was unfairly taxing the colonies. Even then, it's more about pride for your country than good versus bad. Most people realize that the colonizers were rebels and all that stuff. Same thing with the Civil War, most people know that the Union didn't necessarily have the right to keep them in, but they still like the history and to have pride for their own nation.

Mota Boy
10-30-2007, 05:24 AM
I recite once more, the Lincoln issue was a mere example.I really don't care about what you were saying, I was just correcting the one thunderingly stupid thing you mentioned. Why on earth do you think I care about whatever original point you made when I haven't once referenced it?


Justin - which other countries relied on it as the basis for their economic system? The economies of the North and South were vastly different in the run-up to the war, with the North beginning industrialization and the South sticking to large plantations run by slave labor - if you bothered to study the history of slavery in the US, you'd find it chock full of compromises - the 3/5ths Compromise, the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 are ones that pop to mind off the top of my head. It was just that the South was, from the beginning, entrenched in its views, and saw even the slightest movement towards negating slavery as worthy of threatening secession.

As for the Revolutionary War v. the Civil War in the American mind it all fits neatly into the narrative of the United States being the bastion of freedom and democracy. In both cases, the "right" side was reluctantly drawn into battle in order to defend a greater Truth against an oppressive regime.

Sin Studly
10-30-2007, 09:01 AM
Almost every country's economy relied on slavery at one point or another ; but in the European context, without the importation of minority slave workers, it was known as serfdom. Imperial Russia is probably the closest example to the American South ; a highly agrarian society which had the Great Emancipation within a decade or two of the emancipation within the United States.

If you want to differentiate the colonial slave-trade from the feudalist serfdom structure, every nation with a large colonial empire relied on overseas slave labour to produce and import the new resources vital to European trade and later industrialisation. Of course, one could argue that the European homelands profited from slavery yet didn't rely on it, but when you look at the insanely volatile power-keg that was Europe at the time, any economic weakness or social upheaval was an invitation to war and annexation by hungry neighbours.

F@ BANKZ
10-30-2007, 12:26 PM
I really don't care about what you were saying, I was just correcting the one thunderingly stupid thing you mentioned. Why on earth do you think I care about whatever original point you made when I haven't once referenced it?
...

I'm sorry, but I'll have to disregard any of your opinions from here on out. I just can't even begin to describe how wrong your statements are without insulting you directly.
...

nieh
10-30-2007, 04:50 PM
How do yankees manage to see the Union as the good guys in the civil war without seeing the British as the good guys in the War of Independence?

Because we won. Duh.

Llamas
10-30-2007, 09:39 PM
The US has often been one of the most heavily divided countries in the world. With such a big amount of land and huge population, it's a lot harder to resolve conflicts when the country is completely divided. Plus it was a very new country, and in some ways was still working out kinks and not operating as one nation yet (well, I guess it's still not really, compared to a lot of countries). France is not even a fifth the population of the US, though I'm not sure how big each country was when they had to get rid of slavery. But still, when you have so many people so divided on something, it's harder to deal with.

Also, didn't the French Revolutionary War play a part in that for France? I might have my facts messed up. So I'm asking.

And... slavery didn't officially become illegal in the US until 1865... but already in 1820, slave trading became a crime punishable by death. Maybe this law didn't work very well, but it wasn't like nobody in the US tried to do anything until Lincoln came around. And in 1807, the Transatlantic Slave Trade was abolished... and in Britain, their official ending to slavery wasn't until 1833... so it really wasn't that huge a difference.

Mota Boy
10-31-2007, 05:39 AM
Almost every country's economy relied on slavery at one point or another ; but in the European context, without the importation of minority slave workers, it was known as serfdom.Come to think of it, France's own end to serfdom didn't exactly go over bloodlessly, and Russia's system, along with the colonial systems that the Europeans kept in place through the sixties, was underclass labor by a different name (though, of course, so was the South under Jim Crow). I admit I don't know much about European social systems in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, so there isn't a whole lot I can say on the subject.


...

...You made multiple statements about Lincoln. My first reply only referenced your statements on the man. It should have been perfectly obvious to anyone that I was talking about that from the beginning. You act like I need to talk about your entire post in context as if this is some sort of structured debate rather than a free-flowing conversation.

F@ BANKZ
10-31-2007, 10:02 AM
No it wouldn't be perfectly obvious. I made two points about Lincoln, my initial point. The second, that he was "definitely something good" complies with your own and so surely cannot be considered wrong, thus you must have been referring to the other points in my post.

Sin Studly
10-31-2007, 07:12 PM
Come to think of it, France's own end to serfdom didn't exactly go over bloodlessly, and Russia's system, along with the colonial systems that the Europeans kept in place through the sixties, was underclass labor by a different name (though, of course, so was the South under Jim Crow). I admit I don't know much about European social systems in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, so there isn't a whole lot I can say on the subject.

Well, the Emancipation in Western Europe was mainly a reaction to the utter decimation the Black Death wreaked on the rural population, making the value of the common farmer skyrocket. Serfdom gradually shifted from being "slavery with a nicer name" to "freedom with a nastier name", out of economic neccessity rather than social enlightenment.

And yeah, the French Revolution wasn't exactly bloodless, but the Emancipation was just one little issue that was resolved during it, and hardly a pivotal cause of the Terror. Which is basically my point, economics need to be the leading cause for economic upheaval, not somebody's sense of morality. Old Abe forced an end to slavery before his nation was ready for it, and as a result he fucked America up really fucking badly. I think a lot of the continuing poverty in African-American communities can be traced all the way back to ending slavery too suddenly.

Sham
10-31-2007, 07:25 PM
Sin Studly, you're missing the big idea. The South basically hated the North and wanted to be their own country with slavery; they would not end it, and they certainly wouldn't want the North to make that decision. The entire country was incredibly divided; a war was bound to happen sooner or later. Besides, like that other guy said, seven states had already seceded before Lincoln was even in office.

Llamas
10-31-2007, 08:02 PM
F@ banks, you were wrong. you sounded stupid, mota called you out on it, and you got defensive and shifted your "point". Just shut up already.

Maria, thanks for the info.

F@ BANKZ
11-01-2007, 01:05 AM
Edited: On second thoughts I don't even consider you worth arguing with, since this thread has no longer anything to do with politics I will retire from it: people here are capeable of seeing things how they are.

rlplaymaker
11-13-2007, 10:50 PM
I disagree. All presidents suck. Anarchy!!!

yeah...that would fucking work....idiot

0r4ng3
11-14-2007, 04:21 AM
I didn't think it was that windy, but did anyone else hear that "whoosh" sound?

Sin Studly
11-14-2007, 04:50 AM
Somebody should register King George III's corpse for the Presidential Elections.

Mota Boy
11-14-2007, 05:51 AM
Which is basically my point, economics need to be the leading cause for economic upheaval, not somebody's sense of morality. Old Abe forced an end to slavery before his nation was ready for it, and as a result he fucked America up really fucking badly. I think a lot of the continuing poverty in African-American communities can be traced all the way back to ending slavery too suddenly.But slaves were only held by a slim minority of large plantation owners, who held almost all power in the antebellum South. It would always be economically viable for large farms to be run by the cheapest labor possible. And unlike the case in Western Europe, slavery in the US was clearly demarcated by race. The fear of black reprisals was one of the leading reasons for the intense Southern resistance against slavery across class lines. I can't imagine any economic conditions that would have led to the South willingly freeing slaves. Were we sitting around waiting for that day, we might still be waiting.

And hell, the North and South had been at each others' throats from the beginning of this country - again, the Constitution almost wasn't ratified over the issue. Blaming Lincoln for starting the Civil War when he did would be akin to blaming Ho Chi Min for the Vietnam War.

As for the reasons for continued black poverty, one of the main ones was the enforcement of Jim Crow laws in the South, which guaranteed that whites would continue to control the overwhelming majority of wealth.

Post-Jim Crow, however, the factors are debatable (average wages for black men have actually decreased in the past thirty years in the US, even as an increasing amount of African and Caribbean immigrants have worked their way up the economic ladder).

Sin Studly
11-14-2007, 07:05 AM
We wouldn't still be waiting. The slave trade was banned everywhere else in the civilised world but Denmark (I think). The United Kingdom had also taken it apon itself to hunt slavers in international waters, seizing and freeing their cargo, and let's not forget the Underground Railroad funnelling escaped slaves to the North. The value of the slave was rising exponentially, to the point where slaves were treated as valuable and nearly irreplacable property ; like horses in the middle ages. Slaves might have been uneducated and repressed, but they weren't stupid. They'd get more and more rebellious and demanding as they discovered how reluctant slave-owners would be to have them whipped or hanged. Add that to the massive influx of impoverished Irish, Pole and German immigrants arriving in America at that same time, most of whom were willing to work for little more than a slave's upkeep, and the benefits of holding slaves would become even less attractive. Then you'd get hit with the mechanisation of agriculture, where one qualified man and a tractor is worth one hundred slaves. And finally, if slavery wasn't naturally eradicated by then, it would be when the Great Depression hit and the vast majority of unemployed working-class Southerners would demand a cessation of slave labour so they could grab all their enviable jobs.

And yes, I still blame Abraham Lincoln for the war. He should have let the South secede peacefully.