-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
RustyNails
Member
That was one of the many reprehensible things he said. Another thing he did was offer southern states to keep slavery status for 40 more years, till around 1900.
He finally gave in to the cause because of the crazy amount of losses Union troops were enduring in the Civil War. He needed a higher cause than just preserving the union at this point in order for people to be engaged, so he adopted the Abolitionists' principles.
The Librarian
Banned
BREAKING NEWS: Abraham Lincoln wasn't a "radical."
I know about all of that and I'd still rank him as number one. He was a moderate that was essentially forced to take radical positions to keep the country together. Despite his personal views, he did what was best for the country. Also, the war helped change his views about black people.
If you watched that three-part documentary, you should check out Eric Foner's The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. It goes into a lot of detail.
RustyNails
Member
I have to research more on 'ol Abe before I can definitely pass judgment. From what I gather though, the Abolitionists did all the hard work. They were persecuted for 40 years and driven out of their communities. Yet Abe got the credit for their work, and did so by using the movement as a political opportunity to unite the country against the south. Yeah I am sure his views changed on slavery and blacks later on. I'm of the view that persons are redeemable. Human morality is a very murky, complex and sometimes very dangerous territory and each of us navigates it through our own intellectual ability and capacity as individuals, which is usually a byproduct of our environment. There are many people who were radicals or used violence as means, but who tempered and became enlightened individuals.
Lawmaker, Pushing for Stand Your Ground Reform, Backs Down After Death Threats (Sam Seder, The Majority Report)
I think when you're ranking presidents what they accomplished should probably be much more important than why they accomplished it.
Even if he did it for the wrong reasons, Lincoln still did end up preserving the union and freeing the slaves. That kind of means quite a bit in the grand scheme of our country's history.
Even if he did it for the wrong reasons, Lincoln still did end up preserving the union and freeing the slaves. That kind of means quite a bit in the grand scheme of our country's history.
Pretty much. Other nations were starting to think about getting involved at the time though, the Confederacy had been lobbying abroad in hopes of gaining some kind of advantage. It all came down to needed a better justification for his own troops and making sure the rest of the world stayed out of it.
Black Mamba
Member
Reagan can get fucked.
War on drugs
Cold War myths
Poor economic record
Ruined economic thinking for a generation and perhaps more
Dismantled mental health in this country
Severely reduced power of unions
Policies led directly massive income inequality growth
I hope in 50 years people shit on him.
Interesting to see Jackson so high despite a genicide attempt.
War on drugs
Cold War myths
Poor economic record
Ruined economic thinking for a generation and perhaps more
Dismantled mental health in this country
Severely reduced power of unions
Policies led directly massive income inequality growth
I hope in 50 years people shit on him.
Interesting to see Jackson so high despite a genicide attempt.
Jackson gets love for paying off the National Debt for the first and last time in our history. Never mind he was a horrible person and should have been tried for all sorts of crimes.
Can you explain this? What wrong reasons? I'm not debating you I just haven't read into Lincoln as much as I hoped to these last few years.
In regards to rankings presidents, I'd have to go with:
1) Teddy
2) Lincoln
3) FDR
4) Washington
5) Jefferson
Truth. Bush I was better.
Others were explaining it before me, saying Lincoln did it more as political opportunism. He wasn't freeing the slaves because he really truly believed they should be free. He was freeing them because he wanted to preserve the union and have a higher moral goal to keep the rest of the world from siding with the south, etc. As others said, too, he apparently suggested sending them back to Africa or letting the south keep slavery for 40 years. I don't think that stuff really matters when you're talking overall accomplishments and ranking presidents. He did what he did whether he was doing it for a high moral reason or not.
And my comment was more of an 'even if' statement.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
You could say the same about George Washington sending Sullivan to raid Indian villages.
Jackson was worse because he defied the supreme court on the issue and broke numerous treaties with said nations.
Heckuva job electing senators, Kentucky.
We aren't mexico, why the hell should she be afraid of some random people threatening her?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Some of your guys comments about former presidents are absurd. You can not when ranking them judge base on current times and current values. You judge them how they handled the times they were in and the obstacles they faced
My ranking is
1)Lincoln (civil war was the biggest challenge in US history and he preserved the Union)
2)FDR (for leadership during WWII and saving capitalism from itself)
3) Teddy (made america a true world power and trustbusting, conservationism, plus millions of other things, probably my 2nd favorite)
4) washington (started the office and set president)
5) Wilson (racist man but helped the cause of freedom and liberalism in the world, father of international cooperation and did some good things with the economy, Fed, Income tax, womens suffrage)
awesome for gender equality. How many countries do this? I think Israel does.
Also are units still gonna be segregated?
My ranking is
1)Lincoln (civil war was the biggest challenge in US history and he preserved the Union)
2)FDR (for leadership during WWII and saving capitalism from itself)
3) Teddy (made america a true world power and trustbusting, conservationism, plus millions of other things, probably my 2nd favorite)
4) washington (started the office and set president)
5) Wilson (racist man but helped the cause of freedom and liberalism in the world, father of international cooperation and did some good things with the economy, Fed, Income tax, womens suffrage)
awesome for gender equality. How many countries do this? I think Israel does.
Also are units still gonna be segregated?
He probably saw Hillary at the hearings and was like, shit, give her a gun and see what happens.
I know you're kidding, but I've got the hearings on in the background and that's probably exactly what happened.
Am I the only one that feels really strange that this is a thing I'm reading nowadays? Like... why is there a ban now to begin with? I've felt the same way every single time I see it.
This isn't even a joke, it is already historical fact.
Black Mamba
Member
Because if a woman is in combat with men while they are under fire the man might uncontrollably whip his penis out and demand she fuck him.
Seems reasonable.
The Librarian
Banned
Hot off the heels of that redistricting fiasco, VA Senate moves to break up the state's electoral college votes.
First off, concerning Lincolns personal views about slavery, from what I remember of The Fiery Trial, he personally didnt like it (thats why he didnt want it to expand), but at the same time he wasnt going to do anything about it in the slave-holding states. As we know, he was a moderate.
Most importantly, I dont think youre viewing Lincolns presidency in the right context. Everything Lincoln did makes sense if you look at it all through the context that his number one goal and this was rightly his number one goal was, above all else, to preserve the Union. Everything else was secondary.
Not every slave-holding state (like Kentucky) seceded with the South. At the start of the Civil War, if your goal is to preserve the Union, you dont want to come out and advocate ending slavery immediately, thereby risk alienating (and very possibly causing the defection of) the slave-holding states on your side, and strengthening the Confederacy.
Now, because your goal is to preserve the Union, you need to get rid of slavery. Winning the war does not solve the problem. You are not preserving anything. Lincoln rightly realized this, and throughout the war he pushed for, and entertained, a variety of solutions to solve the slavery issue. These measures, either because they failed or because they weren't feasible, forced him to the point where he had to issue something like the Emancipation Proclamation. (One of these measures was having the people of the slave-holding states vote to end slavery, which he got to try out in Kentucky or one of the slave-holding states, but that didnt pan out).
This devotion to his number one goal eventually led him to his efforts to help pass the 13th Amendment through Congress, getting rid of the issue forever.
How sure are we that another president would have fought to win the war and deal with the slavery issue so absolutely? How sure are we that another president would have won the war and not just have left it at winning the war? We could have ended up with someone like Johnson, and you know how badly he turned out.
This is why Lincoln is the best. He set out to preserve the Union, and needless to say, the Union was preserved.
First off, concerning Lincolns personal views about slavery, from what I remember of The Fiery Trial, he personally didnt like it (thats why he didnt want it to expand), but at the same time he wasnt going to do anything about it in the slave-holding states. As we know, he was a moderate.
Most importantly, I dont think youre viewing Lincolns presidency in the right context. Everything Lincoln did makes sense if you look at it all through the context that his number one goal and this was rightly his number one goal was, above all else, to preserve the Union. Everything else was secondary.
Not every slave-holding state (like Kentucky) seceded with the South. At the start of the Civil War, if your goal is to preserve the Union, you dont want to come out and advocate ending slavery immediately, thereby risk alienating (and very possibly causing the defection of) the slave-holding states on your side, and strengthening the Confederacy.
Now, because your goal is to preserve the Union, you need to get rid of slavery. Winning the war does not solve the problem. You are not preserving anything. Lincoln rightly realized this, and throughout the war he pushed for, and entertained, a variety of solutions to solve the slavery issue. These measures, either because they failed or because they weren't feasible, forced him to the point where he had to issue something like the Emancipation Proclamation. (One of these measures was having the people of the slave-holding states vote to end slavery, which he got to try out in Kentucky or one of the slave-holding states, but that didnt pan out).
This devotion to his number one goal eventually led him to his efforts to help pass the 13th Amendment through Congress, getting rid of the issue forever.
How sure are we that another president would have fought to win the war and deal with the slavery issue so absolutely? How sure are we that another president would have won the war and not just have left it at winning the war? We could have ended up with someone like Johnson, and you know how badly he turned out.
This is why Lincoln is the best. He set out to preserve the Union, and needless to say, the Union was preserved.
Barring a scandal of equivalent or worse magnitude to Clinton's I can't imagine this assessment is that far off. He was dealt a ridiculously shitty hand and faced essentially the most obstructionist split Congress in history, and yet for all the legitimate bitching about said obstructionism, he oversaw the reversal of an economic collapse, made numerous significant foreign policy gains, passed numerous significant pieces of legislation in protection, gave minorities of all kinds a voice at the highest level with policy implications to back it up, and he's got four more years to govern with nothing left to run for the rest of his life. Obviously there are really significant negative aspects to his presidency but considered in total (again, catastrophes notwithstanding) I can't possibly imagine it winding up anywhere but well into the upper 1/4th in the eyes of history.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
His opinions on the character of black people may have modulated (in part because he came into contact with surprisingly few free men before entering the White House), but his opinions on slavery, once formulated, never seriously changed. "I am naturally anti-slavery," he wrote. "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not think so, and feel." There is very little reason to doubt him. Even before the election, Lincoln proved himself to be a fierce advocate of anti-slavery sentiment.
Lincoln's ultimately succeeded, I believe, because he could unify both the radicals and conservatives within the party. His core beliefs were anti-slavery, but his instincts were to work within the constraints of the political system and he rarely overreached in a way that set the whole cause back. It was one reason why he was nominated in the first place. Eric Foner explains this in more detail:
Rejoicing in the rejection of Seward and his "extreme opinions," Old Line Whigs such as Richard W. Thompson and Thomas Ewing worked for a Republican victory, described Lincoln as "a sound conservative man" who had no connection with the "abolitionists, higher-law and irrepressible-conflict men." But Radical Republicans campaigned with equal enthusiasm. "I am inclined to think," wrote the Boston correspondent of the New York Tribune, "that Mr. Lincoln is ahead of the anti-slavery sentiment of the Republican party, rather than behind it.
Even in the depths of 1864, when Lincoln thought he might lose the election, he refused to rescind the emancipation proclamation despite calls for him to do so. Just because he thought emancipation would expedite the chances of reunion with the south didn't mean that there was no moral thought to his actions (the Lincoln letter that many people cite, about how he would save the union without freeing any slaves, was written with the full intention to order the proclamation in the first place). Lincoln said that repudiating emancipation would amount to an immense betrayal. "As a matter of morals, could such treachery by any possibility, escape the curses of Heaven, or of any good man?" There are grounds upon which to criticize Lincoln, such as his views of colonization, but he was always considering the moral dimensions of his actions.
Because it's 2013 and the United States still doesn't have equal rights for women
ps. wonder if they'll change the draft now. (Wish they'd just get rid of it, though)
PhoenixDark
Banned
Joe Kennedy Jr. is already on the House Foreign Affairs Committee?
Did he mention "full hearted" at any point?
TIL not only that women were barred from certain positions in the military, but of the existence of the Selective Service System.
Well fuck, I was out of the country when I was 18 and never heard about this. I did do my JAPD (French military day of service) though, so I'll guess I'll sign up so the US doesn't get jealous.
The Librarian
Banned
RDreamer, I blame you for Ron Johnson.
Palom
Member
This quote just makes me want to punch through the Internet:
Never mind that these whole hearings are off base and political.
I really wish during these "negotiations," someone would come out and say something to the effect of, "Our belief is that we should not be cutting any low- and middle-income programs; both as a responsibility to these people and the effect on the economy. You tell us what you want us to cut and we will reexamine our position." Do this loud and publicly. If the Republicans refuse to give any specifics, then they obviously don't want to cut anything. If they won't tell us what to cut, we won't cut it. That way it's all pinned on Republicans. Push the President's budget through the Senate as a "see, we did it," then let the House reject it on party lines to show Republicans still refuse to cooperate.codhand said:
Ain't no thang for Hillary.
PhoenixDark
Banned
This entire hearing could be summed up between democrats throwing softballs and republicans displaying they haven't read the investigation report.
I'm wondering if most of the critics can even name all the Americans that died during the attack.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
SHOCKING!!! PD was wrong AGAIN. House GOP increased the debt limit for almost 4 months without any concession from Obama. PD, wrong 100% of the time, right for America.
PhoenixDark
Banned
They passed an unconstitutional bill (the congressional pay gimmick) therefore in the eyes of our founding fathers, I'm correct. The bill does not stand.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Did democrats vote for it?
edit: nevermind
edit: nevermind
80-something of them did, enough to make sure it would pass (it was a little iffy).
It should be understood that this is it for the debt ceiling -- a longer increase, or a permanent suspension, or even the McConnell provision, will get rolled into some budget bill in the next few months, and that'll be it. Once the GOP has admitted they can't get anything for it, there's no reason not to just wrap the whole thing up. They're just trying to get cover for themselves because they've spent so much time complaining about the debt ceiling that they can't now turn around and admit it's pointless and needs to be raised.
Rocket Scientist
Member
I hope that's going to happen. It really is pointless. I'm going to sleep now. When I wake up tomorrow am I going to read some filibuster news? Today is d-day for that or not?
Are we going to see the Ryan Budget on steroids?
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/boehner-house-to-vote-on-budget-86568.html from yesterday
The numbers:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...me-would-slash-federal-government-to-ribbons/
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/boehner-house-to-vote-on-budget-86568.html from yesterday
The numbers:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...me-would-slash-federal-government-to-ribbons/
- Status