# Greatest American? (All Over on Page Eight)



## Mark (Jun 6, 2005)

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/greatestamerican/top100/top100.html

http://tv.channel.aol.com/greatestamerican

Muhammad Ali (Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr.)
Neil Alden Armstrong
Lance Armstrong
George W. Bush
Bill Clinton
Walt Disney
Thomas Edison
Albert Einstein
Henry Ford
Benjamin Franklin
Bill Gates
Billy Graham
Bob Hope
Thomas Jefferson
John F. Kennedy
Martin Luther King Jr.
Abraham Lincoln
Rosa Parks
Elvis Presley
Ronald Reagan
Eleanor Roosevelt (Anna Eleanor Roosevelt)
Franklin D. Roosevelt
George Washington
Oprah Winfrey
Wrights Brothers (Orville & Wilbur Wright)


----------



## Agamon (Jun 6, 2005)

I couldn't help but laugh at a couple of those choices...which shall remain nameless.  It's still a tough choice, but I had to go with JFK, though it was a tough pick between him and Martin Luther King Jr.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jun 6, 2005)

With no *Thomas Jefferson* up for voting, I went with *Thomas Edison*.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 6, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> With no *Thomas Jefferson* up for voting, I went with *Thomas Edison*.




..erm, look right between Bob Hope and JFK, Tef.   

Any actual Americans want to say anything?


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 6, 2005)

What no Arnold Schwarzenneger!!! (sp)


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jun 6, 2005)

George W...the original. Hands down.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 6, 2005)

No Carrottop?!?!


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 6, 2005)

Well I opted for ACHEIVMENT and went for FDR.

Chuck


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 6, 2005)

If it was "greatest human being who happened to be an American," I might have chosen someone else, but the person who best embodies being an American, who was most important to America becoming what it is today, who best defines America, Jefferson's my man.


----------



## James Heard (Jun 6, 2005)

I'm a fan of Jefferson too...but still went with Washington, because y'know without _him_ the whole American thing becomes a little irrelevant.

Of course, there was no "ME" option either.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 6, 2005)

I went with Jefferson myself.

George Washington was the creator of the US from a military perspective, securing soveriegnty.   Thomas Jefferson was the creator of the US from a civil perspective, ensuring a Republic and laying the foundation for American culture and civilization.  Washington won the War, Jefferson won the Peace.

Archaeologist, architect, diplomat, scholar, theologian, vintner, farmer, philosopher, statesman.  Author of the Declaration of Independence, founder of the University of Virginia, a founder of the Abolitionist movement in the United States, he was truly a man without equal.


----------



## MonsterMash (Jun 6, 2005)

Well I did  vote even if maybe I shouldn't as a foriegner - got to admit some of those choices surprised me.

Went for Thomas Jefferson, even though he was one of the ones linked to the War of Independence


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 6, 2005)

Rosa Parks paved the way for African-American equal rights.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 6, 2005)

Well, we will see how long this thread makes it...


----------



## Dagger75 (Jun 6, 2005)

Voted for Thomas Jefferson myself. George Washington was a very close second.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Jun 6, 2005)

Thomas Jefferson. Without him, I wouldn't have my job.   



> Archaeologist, architect, diplomat, scholar, theologian, vintner, farmer, philosopher, statesman. Author of the Declaration of Independence, founder of the University of Virginia, a founder of the Abolitionist movement in the United States, he was truly a man without equal.




That's just a little of what he did. Seriously, the man was amazing. His gravestone, which he designed to highlight the 3 things he felt were his most important acomplishments, says simply: 
HERE WAS BURIED THOMAS JEFFERSON
AUTHOR OF THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE
OF THE STATUTE OF VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
AND FATHER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

Doesn't say anything about being governor of Virginia, secretary of state, vice president, or president. Those wern't the things he was proudest of.


----------



## Digital M@ (Jun 6, 2005)

I was going to vote for Lance Armstrong, I mean riding a bike is almost as important and impacting as fighting and creating modern day democracy, being an influential scientist or sacraficing everything for civil rights.  For a sports icon, wouldn't Michael jordan have been a much stronger choice?

Oprah was another close vote for me, but she loves herself so much already


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Jun 6, 2005)

hmm...I don't see alot of my favorite americans on here such as Sitting Bull or Robert E. Lee.
I guess the loosers (even ones who fought completely and undeniably in the defense of their people such as many great native americans, Lee is obviously questionable) don't get recognized for sh*t.
I'll have to look over the list more closely later and consider who they'll let me vote for.


----------



## David Howery (Jun 6, 2005)

I went with Washington, as he did three important things: won the war, refused to be king afterwards, and set the precedent for the two-term limit....


----------



## Digital M@ (Jun 6, 2005)

Lee is an interesting choice.  On one hand he fought on the side of the Confederacy, which some would consider a very negative trait, yet if not for his strong sense of honor and belief in the reuniting of the country at the end of the war, the US Civil War would have ended very differently.  If Lee had taken to fighting a guerilla warfare/terror campaign the war may have ended with the South victorious in their independance.  Lee had many good qualities and his impact in Maerican history is significant.

In the end lists like these are pointless.  You can look at any one of these people and see good and bad.  JFK, morally was a disgrace to the office, yet his natural charisma and refusal to take the hardline against Russia and his consideration for Russia's pride led to a successful conclusion to the Cuban Missile Crisis.  If a hardliner were in office making threats to the Russians, there could have been a nuclear war.

Elvis Presley lauched a new style music, was taken advantage by those around him and everntually ended his life by trying to hide what he had become

T. Jefferson, primary author of the Declaration of Independence, was a slave owner even though he knew it to be wrong.  As a politician, he fought for slavery because it was importatn to the economy of his state and himself.  He also made a few stands against slavery, he wanted in particular to stop the importing of new slaves to the States, hoping that in the long run that would lead to the end of slavery.  


Rosa Parks, sacraficing her personal well being and comfort to fight for an equal place on the bus.  It seems small but is a steping stone to a massive change in American society.


There are hundreds of thousands of people who could be on this list and each one as important as the last.  Well except for Lance Armstrong and Oprah.


----------



## Jamdin (Jun 6, 2005)

Tough call but I went with FDR in the end.


----------



## Wombat (Jun 6, 2005)

I love lists like these, not in and of themselves but rather for the wider debates and thought they engender.  

I have this book:  _The 100:  The Most Influential Individuals in History_.  Now this is a book with thumbnail sketches (2-5 pages) of 100 people who widely influenced the world.  As the author is quick to point out, this is not a list of GOOD people or BAD people, simply Influential.  I used this book in several history classes to begin discussions on a variety of topics -- the students were sometimes confused, but often interested, even when they did not agree with the conclusions the book came to (for that matter, I don't agree with many of the placements in the book, either).  

The point of such books and lists is to help people sort out their own persepectives, feelings, and thought processes.  What does one mean by "Influential"?  How about "Great"?  "American"?  

Many of the people on this list deserve praise and notice.  I could easily go with Jefferson, King, FDR, Lincoln, and a couple of others.  I wouldn't choose JFK, mainly because many signature pieces of legislation he is identified with were actually passed by Johnson in the wake of JFK's assassination.  Still, I don't discount him entirely -- he is deserving of praise himself.  

In the end I went for Lincoln, though that is a tough call.  Mainly I praise the man who penned the words, "With malice towards none, with charity for all".  If only we could all live by that credo!  

Now back to the discussion in general


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 6, 2005)

Abraham Lincoln as without him their wouldn't be United States of America and those accomplishments that came later wouldn't have been Americans and the accomplishments of those that came before him wouldn't have mattered as much in retrospect.

And even in death Lincoln accomplished more than some of the above.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 6, 2005)

I picked George Washington, for reasons that others have listed above.

Also, I'm pleasently surprised that nobody has decided to do a political rant and get the thread shut down.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 6, 2005)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> Voted for Thomas Jefferson myself. George Washington was a very close second.



I was the exact opposite; I gave the edge to Washington, with Jefferson as a close second and Franklin and Lincoln hovering close at third.

Some of the choices on the list were downright embarrasing.  Oprah Winfrey?  Give me a break.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 6, 2005)

Digital M@ said:
			
		

> If Lee had taken to fighting a gorilla warfare/terror campaign the war may have ended with the South victorious in their independance.



Why doesn't anyone fight a good gorilla war these days?  That would rock!  "Silverbacks; into the breach!"  Instead, all we get are these nasty guerilla wars...


----------



## Digital M@ (Jun 6, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Why doesn't anyone fight a good gorilla war these days?  That would rock!  "Silverbacks; into the breach!"  Instead, all we get are these nasty guerilla wars...




I knew I was spelling it wrong, but was too lazy to figure it out, thanks,


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jun 6, 2005)

I went with FDR.  He led us through a war.  He gave thought to redefining America _after_ the war.  He drew up the GI Bill of Rights.  He fought excrushiating pain throughout all of it, and he refused to quit even when he knew the job was going to kill him.  And it did.  He died in the line of duty.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 6, 2005)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Rosa Parks paved the way for African-American equal rights.




I'd argue that she walked on a path that Lincoln laid the groundwork for.

I voted for Lincoln, although Jefferson was a close second. Lincoln transformed the United States from what it was before him into what Jefferson aspired for it to be. Jefferson _aspirted_ to a nation where slavery was abolished, but was unwilling to pay the political cost to get there. Lincoln paid the price, and it cost him his life. Lincoln also shepherded the nation through the most dire threat to its existence to date, when others, such as McClellan, would have given in to its dismemberment.

But without Jefferson, there is no Lincoln. Without Jefferson's aspirations, there is no goal to reach. Jefferson loses out just by a hair, because Lincoln made concrete progress to putting into place Jefferson's dreams.


----------



## Dagger75 (Jun 6, 2005)

Looking at who has been voted so far I see good examples of great Americans.  Nobody would have to defend any choices or debate anything on why they were chosen.  People will always be left off and then others I wonder how they made it on the list.  2 names in particular up there. I am sure they are nice and decent people though.


----------



## takyris (Jun 6, 2005)

Man, seeing this in the SF-TV-and-Movies-and-Books forum, I looked at the title and thought that we were going to be talking about the merits of running around in red bulletproof tights that give you the ability to fly.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 6, 2005)

Well, expain mt choice - I vote Bob Hope, why? because my uncle knew him and always spoke highly of him, I knew of his work and saw his creativity on TV and screen, he made me laugh and humor, like love is a great gift to give.  The only other people on the list I would consider would be the founding fathers, each equally in their way made America and those that came after a pale in comparison.  So, that is why I voted for Bob Hope.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 6, 2005)

Comes down to Jefferson or Washington for me...I ended up going with Washington.


----------



## MonsterMash (Jun 6, 2005)

I'm not really sure about the sportsmen being on the list, as even Ali who did have a bit more cultural significance can't really compare to someone like Einstein - who I'm not sure I class as an American or Jefforson. 

If you had a poll of greatest American sportsman then Ali and Lance Armstrong would belong in it with Jim Thorpe, Babe Ruth and Joe Montana.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Jefferson _aspirted_ to a nation where slavery was abolished, but was unwilling to pay the political cost to get there.



My reading of history indicates that it was also an inability to pay that cost -- that is, paying it would decrease or even eliminate his power to get other things done. Will wasn't the only issue.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 6, 2005)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> My reading of history indicates that it was also an inability to pay that cost -- that is, paying it would decrease or even eliminate his power to get other things done. Will wasn't the only issue.




There is a question of setting priorities. The political cost of getting rid of slavery would have prevented other, also desirable goals, and Jefferson chose those other goals. The price would have been the other goals. He was unwilling to pay the cost (and may not have been able to pull it off even if he had made it his first priority).

But, accomplishment of the goal is the main issue, and Lincoln did that where Jefferson could not, which is why Lincoln gets the nod from me just barely over Jefferson.


----------



## ragboy (Jun 6, 2005)

FDR edged out Lincoln for me. Both did more to rebuild this country after massive system-wide problems than anyone else on this list... Building a country is hard and admirable, but bringing it back from the brink (civil war, Great Depression, WWII) is pure herculean effort.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 6, 2005)

I've seen this mentioned twice now so I feel the need to correct it...  FDR did not rebuild America, or any other country, after WWII that would have been Truman.

I'm sort of sad not to see Truman on the list...  He made some tuff calls in his presidency and even manage to win reelection when the papers where reporting he lost the election.


----------



## James Heard (Jun 6, 2005)

Yeah, Truman certainly deserves to be on the list more than JFK - who quite frankly, though I'm sure he was a nice guy, didn't live quite long enough to establish the same sort of lasting legacy.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jun 6, 2005)

The really sad part is most of these people we really know very little about. Or how they really led the countries. Public schools teach things one way and when you begin to really examine history things tend to not line up with that and the way history is taught really biases people on polls like this.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 6, 2005)

Yeah, I invite anyone to read, or watch the documentary, April 1865: The Month That Saved America and not reanalyze their pick.  (Not saying your pick is wrong...  People just don't realize how close America was to being the Union and the Confederacy permanently.)


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 6, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Yeah, I invite anyone to read, or watch the documentary, April 1865: The Month That Saved America and not reanalyze their pick.  (Not saying your pick is wrong...  People just don't realize how close America was to being the Union and the Confederacy permanently.)



 I caught that documentary last month. Amazing. Really detailed and with tons of stuff, even if you know a good amount about the Civil War.

Despite that, though, I still had to go with Washington...but really, it was extremely hard to pick between Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln. and FDR(though Truman did handle the post-WWII stuff and deserves a bunch of credit for it, FDR handled the depression and WWII.)


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jun 6, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I caught that documentary last month. Amazing. Really detailed and with tons of stuff, even if you know a good amount about the Civil War.
> 
> Despite that, though, I still had to go with Washington...but really, it was extremely hard to pick between Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln. and FDR(though Truman did handle the post-WWII stuff and deserves a bunch of credit for it, FDR handled the depression and WWII.)





See, based on my own looking into history, neither Jefferson or FDR should be remembered as great Presidents. Really, unemployment and such went up after most of FDR's reforms. What really brought us out of the depression was WWII. Jefferson on the other hand managed to weaken the American military to the point that the British conquered Washington during the War of 1812.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 6, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> See, based on my own looking into history, neither Jefferson or FDR should be remembered as great Presidents. Really, unemployment and such went up after most of FDR's reforms. What really brought us out of the depression was WWII. Jefferson on the other hand managed to weaken the American military to the point that the British conquered Washington during the War of 1812.



 Well, that's why 'great' is a subjective term we can't all always agree on. 

And, technically, FDR was trying to get the US into the war before Pearl Harbor happened. Though without that, it would have likely enraged the isolationist majority of the time...hard to say what would have happened, but FDR wasn't exactly sitting around while things happened.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jun 6, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Well, that's why 'great' is a subjective term we can't all always agree on.
> 
> And, technically, FDR was trying to get the US into the war before Pearl Harbor happened. Though without that, it would have likely enraged the isolationist majority of the time...hard to say what would have happened, but FDR wasn't exactly sitting around while things happened.





Yeah. I love these things. But they make me really hate the American school system. ::shrug::


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 6, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And, technically, FDR was trying to get the US into the war before Pearl Harbor happened. Though without that, it would have likely enraged the isolationist majority of the time...hard to say what would have happened, but FDR wasn't exactly sitting around while things happened.




No, he was actively hopping that Japan would bomb us...

And WWII did pull us, and the rest of the world, out of the great depression and not the actions of FDR.


----------



## Andre (Jun 6, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> See, based on my own looking into history, neither Jefferson or FDR should be remembered as great Presidents. Really, unemployment and such went up after most of FDR's reforms. What really brought us out of the depression was WWII. Jefferson on the other hand managed to weaken the American military to the point that the British conquered Washington during the War of 1812.




Well, greatness can be defined in many ways, and certainly none of the choices is perfect. My picks, in order:

Washington - It's hard to overestimate the impact he had, not just in the US, but worldwide, when he chose voluntarily not to seek a third term. Until Washington, giving up power voluntarily just didn't happen. Just imagine the precedent that would have been set if he had died in office...   Instead the precedent set was a peaceful transfer of power to an individual elected by the nation. Add in his critical role in winning the Revolutionary War and guiding the constitutional convention, it's difficult to find someone who was more indispensible in the formation of this country.

Lincoln - Saved the country that Washington did so much to give birth to. Lincoln was focused on saving the Union and did so, whatever the cost, both personal and national. A lesser president would have failed and the entire history of the world would have changed (for the worse, IMO).

Madison/Franklin/Hamilton/Jefferson - Toss up. Their collective role during the Revolutionary War, the Constitutional Convention, and the early history of the country was vital. I'd be inclined to give the edge to Jefferson for two reasons: he was smart enough to initiate the Louisiana Purchase (despite considerable doubts over its constitutionality) and his personal achievements as a scholar. But Franklin's achievements were considerable, Madison was indispensible in crafting the Constitution, and Hamilton was vital in setting the new nation on firm financial footing. I'm glad the US was fortunate enough to have them all when needed.

FDR - Successfully guided the country through the Depression and the Second World War. A deeply flawed individual, he succeeded where many would have failed.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 6, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> No, he was actively hopping that Japan would bomb us...




Hopping in a wheelchair?  That's impressive.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 6, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Hopping in a wheelchair?  That's impressive.




I meant hoping but he wasn't sticky wheelchair bond... and that's far more impressive than one of my typos.

Nice recover huh?


----------



## TanisFrey (Jun 7, 2005)

Cthulhu's Librarian said:
			
		

> Thomas Jefferson. Without him, I wouldn't have my job.
> 
> That's just a little of what he did. Seriously, the man was amazing. His gravestone, which he designed to highlight the 3 things he felt were his most important acomplishments, says simply:
> HERE WAS BURIED THOMAS JEFFERSON
> ...




Yes, he was not proud of his time in the Presidency.  Let see one not put up yet.  Ingonore the Law and enforce an enlegal treaty.  He told the Supreme Court to inforce it own ruling about a treaty with an indian nation.  The treaty clealy spelled that there was a politicly prosses for the indian nation to ratifey the treaty.  The Inidian actualy sued the US over this and won then Jefferson enforced it anyway.

Washington on the other had the power of King and rejected it twice.  There were some after the revolution that wanted to give it to him and he peacefully gave up the Presidency.  King George the III of England was most suprised at Washington actions.

Also Washington keep the Revolutionary Army standing together for 3 years after the fighting to keep the British for reinvadeing after Yorktown.  Why did he keep it together?  The American alies led by France continuted to fight England for that time till the Treaty of Gent (I think that I am remembering the right treaty name).


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 7, 2005)

Lincoln saved the Union, defined the modern presidency and set the tone for every President that came after him. He inherited a colossal national crisis from his inept predecessor and wasn't afraid of controversy when it came to righting it.  Unlike Jefferson, who is as remembered for the things he'd have _liked_ to have done than what he actually _did_ do, Lincoln talked the talk and walked the walk.  'Nuff said.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 7, 2005)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> Lincoln saved the Union, defined the modern presidency and set the tone for every President that came after him. He inherited a colossal national crisis from his inept predecessor and wasn't afraid of controversy when it came to righting it.  Unlike Jefferson, who is as remembered for the things he'd have _liked_ to have done than what he actually _did_ do, Lincoln talked the talk and walked the walk.  'Nuff said.



Uh, well he _was_ the primary author of the Declaration of Independence.  It's not like he didn't do _anything_...


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 7, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Uh, well he _was_ the primary author of the Declaration of Independence.  It's not like he didn't do _anything_...



Of course, he handed his draft off to Franklin who helped edit it abit...  (said mostly in jest but Franklin did help with some of the more memorable lines.)


----------



## Steve Jung (Jun 7, 2005)

Ben Franklin for me.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jun 7, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Uh, well he _was_ the primary author of the Declaration of Independence.  It's not like he didn't do _anything_...





Main author of the words, not the ideas. He was picked for his eloquence to put down the ideas of the committee. And he managed to rip-off John Locke. But if you're going to steal ideas, he's a good one to do it from.


----------



## Ferret (Jun 7, 2005)

Since when was Einstein an american? 

I nearly sucumbed to voting Gates, but he only put the code and machine together. That was close.....


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 7, 2005)

Ferret said:
			
		

> Since when was Einstein an american?



He recieved United States Citizenship in 1940 (having renounced his German citizenship in 1933 and fled to America), which he retained for the rest of his life.  He was offered the first Presidency of Israel in 1948 but declined it to remain an American.  One thing traditionally great about America is that it isn't neccesarily where you're born, it is a place you can come to start a new life or be more than you could before.

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-bio.html

(I'm still sticking with Jefferson for all time, but Einstein is definitely one of the greats of the 20th century, along with FDR).


----------



## diaglo (Jun 7, 2005)

My Grandfather.
edit: but since i can't choose other i went with Ali.

he stood up for all the things i held to be worth being an American. he defended his rights to life, liberty, religion, etc... in front of millions. as a kid i believed him


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 7, 2005)

TanisFrey said:
			
		

> Yes, he was not proud of his time in the Presidency.  Let see one not put up yet.  Ingonore the Law and enforce an enlegal treaty.  He told the Supreme Court to inforce it own ruling about a treaty with an indian nation.  The treaty clealy spelled that there was a politicly prosses for the indian nation to ratifey the treaty.  The Inidian actualy sued the US over this and won then Jefferson enforced it anyway.




I believe that was Andrew Jackson, not Jefferson. Jackson's famous quote was "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."


----------



## TanisFrey (Jun 7, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I believe that was Andrew Jackson, not Jefferson. Jackson's famous quote was "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."



oops, sorry.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 7, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> I went with Jefferson myself.
> 
> George Washington was the creator of the US from a military perspective, securing soveriegnty.   Thomas Jefferson was the creator of the US from a civil perspective, ensuring a Republic and laying the foundation for American culture and civilization.  Washington won the War, Jefferson won the Peace.
> 
> Archaeologist, architect, diplomat, scholar, theologian, vintner, farmer, philosopher, statesman.  Author of the Declaration of Independence, founder of the University of Virginia, a founder of the Abolitionist movement in the United States, he was truly a man without equal.



Washington was not a creator of the US from a military perspective.  He turned down doing such a thing at Newburgh (look up the Newburgh Conspiracy).  For the American Revolution and the First War of American Independence, Washington was the indespensible man.

That said, the American Revolution was not complete until 1801 when Jefferson and the Republicans* took office, having defeated the Federalists in the 1800 election, and initiating the first bloodless regime change in history.

*no relation to modern Republican party . . . these Republicans eventually became the Democrat Party, which also has no relation to the modern Democrat party, though it is technically the origin of the modern party


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 7, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> Main author of the words, not the ideas. He was picked for his eloquence to put down the ideas of the committee. And he managed to rip-off John Locke. But if you're going to steal ideas, he's a good one to do it from.



Jefferson did not "rip off" John Locke.  The political philosophy of constitutionalism was in place in American before Locke's Second Treatise.  Locke's Second Treatise is an example of American Constitutional Political Philosophy, rather than the other way around.  It is more accurate to say that Locke and Jefferson pulled from a common political philosophy heritage (just like Tolkien didn't "rip off" Wagner, just used the same sources).


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jun 7, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Jefferson did not "rip off" John Locke.  The political philosophy of constitutionalism was in place in American before Locke's Second Treatise.  Locke's Second Treatise is an example of American Constitutional Political Philosophy, rather than the other way around.  It is more accurate to say that Locke and Jefferson pulled from a common political philosophy heritage (just like Tolkien didn't "rip off" Wagner, just used the same sources).




Wording. Life, liberty, property versus life, liberty, and the extremely vague "pursuit of happiness".


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 7, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> Wording. Life, liberty, property versus life, liberty, and the extremely vague "pursuit of happiness".



Yet if the words work, at least I think we are all in agreement that they do, isn't the above just splitting hairs?

It seems so in my opinion.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jun 7, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Yet if the words work, at least I think we are all in agreement that they do, isn't the above just splitting hairs?
> 
> It seems so in my opinion.




I just think Jefferson gets too much credit.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 7, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> See, based on my own looking into history, neither Jefferson or FDR should be remembered as great Presidents... Jefferson on the other hand managed to weaken the American military to the point that the British conquered Washington during the War of 1812.



Now, that is a very different version of the events of the War of 1812 than I am familiar with, and I just spent some time researching this last year in the wake of the most grossly innacurate History Channel "documentary" I've ever seen.  We Americans, after all, were the aggressors in that conflict, and the sacking of Washington was, arguably, the result of a weakened _defense_, not a weakened military.  After all, our military was apparently considered fit to be invading another Canada at the time.

EDITED for clarification and decrease of overall uppity-ness on my part


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 7, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> I just think Jefferson gets too much credit.




Looking at the voting I concur but its not because he had help writing an important  document I just think others did more for this country than him.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 7, 2005)

Canis, your thought on that quote is lost...  I can't figure it your talking about FDR or the war of 1812.  (You might want to edit that quote some.)


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 7, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Canis, your thought on that quote is lost...  I can't figure it your talking about FDR or the war of 1812.  (You might want to edit that quote some.)



 Well...I don't _think_ Washington was sacked during WWII, so its probably not about FDR. But then again...one never knows.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 7, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> Now, that is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened at that time.  We Americans, after all, were the aggressors in that conflict, and the sacking of Washington was, arguably, the result of a weakened _defense_, not a weakened military.  After all, our military was apparently considered fit to be invading another country at the time.




A belief that a military should be doing something, and the realityof the nature of that military may be very different things. The U.S. military was in shambles by 1812, although it was not all Jefferson's doing. That stemmed from a pervasive political culture that saw citizen militias and amatuer officers as the essential core of a nation's military, coupled with a disdain for professional military study and experience. Jefferson was a symptom of that culture, not a cause.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 7, 2005)

I'm certainly not familiar with the details of military structure (or lack thereof) in that time period, Storm Raven, as I've always been interested in political and social issues more than military detail.  But what you're saying lines up nicely with my own research.  Laying significant blame (as Capt. Tagon did) for the sacking of Washington on Jefferson's doorstep strikes me as hyperbolic at best, and gross misrepresentation at worst.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 7, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Well...I don't _think_ Washington was sacked during WWII, so its probably not about FDR. But then again...one never knows.




Hey, you never know what someone _might _believe happened...   (Not implying you would Canis.)


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 7, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> I'm certainly not familiar with the details of military structure (or lack thereof) in that time period, Storm Raven, as I've always been interested in political and social issues more than military detail.  But what you're saying lines up nicely with my own research.  Laying significant blame (as Capt. Tagon did) for the sacking of Washington on Jefferson's doorstep strikes me as hyperbolic at best, and gross misrepresentation at worst.




I'd lay most of the blame for the sacking on John Armstrong, the Secretary of War at the outset of the conflict, and who botched the call-up of the Maryland militia. Madison deserves a fair amount of the blame too, for handing command of the defense of the region over to a political crony (Winder).


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 7, 2005)

Jefferson was not President during the Second War of American Independence.


----------



## Phoenix (Jun 8, 2005)

No William Katt? Shame I say...shame...


----------



## danbuter (Jun 8, 2005)

I voted for Ben Franklin. Though I would have voted for Teddy Roosevelt if he was listed. 
And some of the people on that list really shouldn't be on it.


----------



## Mark (Jun 8, 2005)

danbuter said:
			
		

> I voted for Ben Franklin.





So did I.




			
				danbuter said:
			
		

> And some of the people on that list really shouldn't be on it.





I agree.


----------



## Templetroll (Jun 8, 2005)

George Washington.  he handed over the power of the Presidency peacefully and went home.  He set the standard.  The next best was Lincoln.  They are worthy of respect forever.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jun 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I'd lay most of the blame for the sacking on John Armstrong, the Secretary of War at the outset of the conflict, and who botched the call-up of the Maryland militia. Madison deserves a fair amount of the blame too, for handing command of the defense of the region over to a political crony (Winder).




These are hardly mistakes that weren't repeated over and over--even Lincoln and Washington made several of the same (consider Bull Run I, for example).  In fact, in terms of turning war into the horrific endeavor we know now, Lincoln may be the most guilty, supporting the likes of Sherman and Grant, after supporting some incredible incompetents to prosecute the war.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 8, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Lincoln may be the most guilty, supporting the likes of Sherman and Grant, after supporting some incredible incompetents to prosecute the war.




Their incompetence, like Burnside, and then there’s doing what needs to be done…  All Grant, followed by Sherman, offered the South the easy peace that ended the war and didn't lead to guerilla warfare.  (This easy peace was deeply upsetting to congress but was what Lincoln, and they, wanted.)

If their happened been Lee and Grant at Appomattox Courthouse the world would be a very different place and it would be a happy place. (IMHO)


----------



## beepeearr (Jun 8, 2005)

Greatest American uhh.

So do you pick the person who has had the biggest impact on American History, or do you pick someone who best exemplifies the qualities of America.  There is alot of Historic and Iconic americans on that list, some I like more than others.  History is written by the winners, not the losers, thats why you would never see sitting bull or Robert E Lee on the list.  Almost all politicians have a dark side, especially presidents, but thats okay, because the world isn't always a friendly place.

For Instance JFK got us into vietnam, but Nixon gets the blame, hell Johnson inherited the mess from JFK, along with a mourning nation in the middle of the civil rights movement.  The Country was being ripped apart from the inside, and he did a good job, but will forever be overshadowed by JFK.  Vietnam and the American press completely handicapp how America fights its wars now, and not in a good way.  And why isn't MLK Jr not being mentioned more.

A prime examples of History being written by the winners are both the Civil and Spanish American wars.  Both are wars that were fought for dubious reasons, but both changed the face of America.  The South decided to succeed from the union when they were denied the right to industialize the south.  This would have killed the economies of the North who relied on the raw materials the south created (ie cotton).  The war didn't become about ending slavery until much later in the war, and was done so only to drive away the South's European allies.  If the war was really about the equal treatment of all men, then we wouldn't have had to have the civil rights movement of the 1960's, because it would have already been taken care of in the years following the war.  I don't know if I would call lincoln a Great American, but I will say that he was a Smart American, because the south would have problably won if not for that PR stunt, and who knows how long slavery would continue.  As far as the Spanish American War since when has one detroyed warship justified the conquering of Half a continent.  It was all about the "Gold in them thar hills".    
And did you ever notice that we attempted to invade Canada whenever we had an excuse too (both during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812), hell we even had battleships on the great lakes. 

America isn't "Great" because of any one American, America is great because of the millions of people whose names we will never collectively know who have fought for this country, for those who have spent there lives slaving away in factories, for those who demanded equal rights, and for those who believe in the American Dream, that anybody can prosper (and yes that would even include Oprah Winfrey).


----------



## beepeearr (Jun 8, 2005)

> Their incompetence, like Burnside, and then there’s doing what needs to be done…




Theirs also doing what needs to be done, and then theres going too far.  Grant was ruthless in his march across the south, especially when his actions were primarly conducted against civilians, not civilians harboring military troops, just civilians.  His actions led to similiar tactics being used against the American Indians of the great plains.  If we can't find or fight thier army we'll kill their families and destroy thier property.  These are not things that need to be done, these are barbaric cowardly acts.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 8, 2005)

beepeearr said:
			
		

> And why isn't MLK Jr not being mentioned more.




Tied for third on this list.



			
				beepeearr said:
			
		

> I don't know if I would call lincoln a Great American, but I will say that he was a Smart American, because the south would have problably won if not for that PR stunt, and who knows how long slavery would continue.




Actually the south had very little chance of winning the war, even with allies, the money, the population, the industry, was all in the north.  Of course amazing things can sometimes be done but Lee and the South lost that Jackson died. 

As for it being a PR stunt, not hardly, not even close.  It was very much a surprise when Lincoln started talking like that cause a lot of the population in the north wasn’t ready for it to be the end of slavery.  Of course Lincoln did what few did, he didn’t back down and it cost him his life.



			
				beepeearr said:
			
		

> And did you ever notice that we attempted to invade Canada whenever we had an excuse too (both during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812), hell we even had battleships on the great lakes.




Ahhh one second:



			
				CIA: World Fact Book: Canada said:
			
		

> A land of vast distances and rich natural resources, Canada became a self-governing dominion in *1867* while retaining ties to the British crown.




Hey what do you know... That's part of Britain and that was even who we were fighting.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 8, 2005)

beepeearr said:
			
		

> Grant was ruthless in his march across the south, especially when his actions were primarly conducted against civilians, not civilians harboring military troops, just civilians.




Wrong General...  It was Sherman who did the above.


----------



## beepeearr (Jun 8, 2005)

I say PR stunt because it did what it was meant to do, It turned the Souths european allies against them.  This cost them dearly since all Industry was in the North, and the were counting on European aid too offset their lack of industry.  By the way I didn't say it wasn't brave, I only said he did it for a reason that had very little to do with the actual welfare of southern slaves.  

I think you missed my point about Canada.  We did try to invade Canada, since the Canadians wanted no part of our revolution.  The intent at least during 1812 was to completely oust britain from the continent, regardless of what the people occuping the land wanted.  Both colonies were paying the same taxes, but the American colonies did have more cities so therefor paid more taxes overall, and since most of these taxes were to pay for the french-indian war, which was primarily fought in the border regions (especially Canada) the average American colonists could care less, but the Canadian colonists were more than happy to have the british army nearby.  I'm not trying to say it was wrong, just merely trying to point out the differences in perspective.     



> President Lincoln on advice from Grant approved the idea. "I can make Georgia howl!" Sherman boasts.




Sorry, yes it was Sherman who did the actual destruction, and I should have stated as much, but Grant approved it as the Commander of all Union forces.  I tend to put the emphasis on him because he should have known better, and he had the power to stop sherman but didn't.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jun 8, 2005)

beepeearr said:
			
		

> As far as the Spanish American War since when has one detroyed warship justified the conquering of Half a continent.  It was all about the "Gold in them thar hills".
> And did you ever notice that we attempted to invade Canada whenever we had an excuse too (both during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812), hell we even had battleships on the great lakes.




The Spanish American War was fought in 1898, gold was found in California in 1848.  The Spanish American War was fought so that William Randolph Hearst could sell newspapers.  

The War with Mexico closer fits your description, but that was more about the ideology of Manifest Destiny than about gold, as it was fought in 1846, two years before gold was discovered.  It is more likely that the annexation of Texas was the cause of the War with Mexico, with Mexico's ceding of New Mexico, Arizona, and California happy byproducts of that war.  

I think it would be interesting to get a Canadian perspective on the causes of the War of 1812.  Official Marine Corps Doctrine is that the war was really the end of the Revolutionary War--establishing beyond a doubt that we were beyond British dreams of control.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 8, 2005)

Lincoln shouldn't be on this list for the war crimes he condoned by his generals against the Confederacy.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jun 8, 2005)

beepeearr said:
			
		

> The South decided to succeed from the union when they were denied the right to industialize the south.  This would have killed the economies of the North who relied on the raw materials the south created (ie cotton).  The war didn't become about ending slavery until much later in the war, and was done so only to drive away the South's European allies.




The war didn't become about slavery for the Union until the Emancipation Proclamation. For the Confederacy, the war was primarily about slavery from day one. Read every single order of secession starting with South Carolina complaining about the election of an "abolitionist president." Slavery is the main issue in every single one of them.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 8, 2005)

beepeearr said:
			
		

> Theirs also doing what needs to be done, and then theres going too far.  Grant was ruthless in his march across the south, especially when his actions were primarly conducted against civilians, not civilians harboring military troops, just civilians.  His actions led to similiar tactics being used against the American Indians of the great plains.  If we can't find or fight thier army we'll kill their families and destroy thier property.  These are not things that need to be done, these are barbaric cowardly acts.




The property was being used to provide for the war - mostly it was being used to feed the Confederate army, and move troops by the (handful) of railways. Much of the "property" taken from the Southerners were slaves, who were freed. Sherman spent much of his campaign in Georgia actually fighting: he was opposed by Johnston, and later Hood.

Striking at an enemy's source of supply isn't "going to far". Freeing enslaved humans he calls "property" isn't "going too far".


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 8, 2005)

Let's not make this political, I also have a lot of issues with some of the people on the list but...


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Jun 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The property was being used to provide for the war - mostly it was being used to feed the Confederate army, and move troops by the (handful) of railways. Much of the "property" taken from the Southerners were slaves, who were freed. Sherman spent much of his campaign in Georgia actually fighting: he was opposed by Johnston, and later Hood.
> 
> Striking at an enemy's source of supply isn't "going to far". Freeing enslaved humans he calls "property" isn't "going too far".




Actually, Sherman spent a lot of time torching houses, farms, and towns that had no able bodied men to defend them. Take the food and supplies needed to keep his army on the road, then burn whats left so nobody else could ever use it. Most of what he took wan't the enemies supplies, but their homes and property while only the women, childeren, and older population were there to defend it.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 8, 2005)

Cthulhu's Librarian said:
			
		

> Actually, Sherman spent a lot of time torching houses, farms, and towns that had no able bodied men to defend them. Take the food and supplies needed to keep his army on the road, then burn whats left so nobody else could ever use it. Most of what he took wan't the enemies supplies, but their homes and property while only the women, childeren, and older population were there to defend it.




Food that would have been used to supply to Confederate armies. There is a reason that Lee's men were starving, unclothed, and low on ammunition by the time Petersburg rolled around. Their sources of supply had been destroyed. Attacking the enemy's base of supply is a perfectly acceptable tactic in warfare, and Georgia and South Carolina were part of that.

I notice you didn't comment on the fact that Sherman was "taking" humans held as property and freeing them.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Jun 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Food that would have been used to supply to Confederate armies. There is a reason that Lee's men were starving, unclothed, and low on ammunition by the time Petersburg rolled around. Their sources of supply had been destroyed. Attacking the enemy's base of supply is a perfectly acceptable tactic in warfare, and Georgia and South Carolina were part of that.




He was torching civilian towns that were nowhere near the confederate army. Little towns that had little to no supplies to start with, and individual farms that didn't have anything to do with the confederate supply route. And he left thousands of starving women and children behind him, wiping out whole families, not just the men who were fighing in the army. 



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I notice you didn't comment on the fact that Sherman was "taking" humans held as property and freeing them.




What the hell is that supposed to mean? I wasn't responding to your comments about slavery, I was pointing out that he was ruthlessly destroying civilian homes and towns that had nothing to do with the confederate supply system.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 8, 2005)

How about everyone take 5-10 minute break before replying back to this thread...  I would like to see it stay open.  (Though I think the overall choice has been/is decided I’m curious to see who number two is.)


----------



## David Howery (Jun 8, 2005)

wow... for a minute there, I thought I'd accidently wandered onto the alternate history board I post on....


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 8, 2005)

I don't think I'm throwing anything on the fire here



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Jefferson was not President during the Second War of American Independence.



No, he wasn't.  But the implication made was that his policies were responsible for our problems a few years later during that war.  A point that doesn't seem particularly strong not least considering the grossly bad decisions made by his successor and the military themselves that led DIRECTLY to the problems.  It's sort of like me joining the Ultimate Fighting League (or whatever it's called) despite my lack of fighting skills, and retroactively blaming my father for not putting me in martial arts when I was 6.  Clearly, he SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that I was going to try and fight martial artists at some point, and it was his responsibility to prepare for that contingency.  After all, I can hardly be blamed for my own choices, right?  That's why we have parents.



			
				Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> I think it would be interesting to get a Canadian perspective on the causes of the War of 1812.  Official Marine Corps Doctrine is that the war was really the end of the Revolutionary War--establishing beyond a doubt that we were beyond British dreams of control.



Yep.  We made it irksomely expensive to keep kicking our arse repeatedly, to the point that it was easier for both parties to end the thing.  Them because they were sick of spending the money, and us because our arse hurt.

Nope.  No doubt there   

...OK.  Maybe I'm being a tad hyperbolic there, but that's the gist of it, IMO.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 8, 2005)

Cthulhu's Librarian said:
			
		

> He was torching civilian towns that were nowhere near the confederate army. Little towns that had little to no supplies to start with, and individual farms that didn't have anything to do with the confederate supply route. And he left thousands of starving women and children behind him, wiping out whole families, not just the men who were fighing in the army.




Georgia _was_ the Confederate supply system. Leaving those areas untouched would have just shifted the sources of supply to them. Leaving the food lying around would have meant that it would have been diverted into the hands of the Confederate army, probably by being expropriated by the government and then shipped north to places like Petersburg. You aren't thinking about logistics.



> _What the hell is that supposed to mean? I wasn't responding to your comments about slavery, I was pointing out that he was ruthlessly destroying civilian homes and towns that had nothing to do with the confederate supply system._





It means that "taking civlian property" was the right thing to do - expropriating slaves from their master's is _always_ the right thing to do. And it would have been impossible without his march across Georgia, and moves against those "innocent civlian towns".

Besides, Johnston and Hood were still trying to fight him. Ripping out their ability to forage for food, supplies, and support in the local area was necessary. Resistance wilted in Georgia _precisely_ because the support network was knocked out from under the Confederate armies.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 8, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> Yep.  We made it irksomely expensive to keep kicking our arse repeatedly, to the point that it was easier for both parties to end the thing.  Them because they were sick of spending the money, and us because our arse hurt.



It wasn't _quite_ that one-sided.  The Battle of Lake Eerie, the Battle of Chipewa, the Battle of Lake Champlain, the Battle of Baltimore, and the Battle of the Thames, for example, were notable American successes against British Canada and/or their Indian allies.  The Americans even burned York (later rebuilt and renamed Toronto) which probably precipitated the infamous burning of Washington in the first place.  Stephen Decatur, Isaac Hull and whatsisname Porter had some notable early naval successes.  And even though the timing made it ironically unnecessary, the Battle of New Orleans was hailed as a great victory for the Americans.

Although the War of 1812 is probably merely a footnote in British history, especially in light of their _other_ "War of 1812" against Napolean it had a profound impact on the national identity of both the U.S. and what would later emerge as Canada.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Jun 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Georgia _was_ the Confederate supply system. Leaving those areas untouched would have just shifted the sources of supply to them. Leaving the food lying around would have meant that it would have been diverted into the hands of the Confederate army, probably by being expropriated by the government and then shipped north to places like Petersburg. You aren't thinking about logistics.




What was the purpose of burning the houses and taking the food of individual homes? He would take everything, even when there was not even enough to support the families that lived in them, much less the confederate army. And no, I'm not talking about logistics, where taking the supplies away would help his cause. I'm talking about the ruthless destruction of the very way of life of thousands of people. He was destroying civilian populations, NOT military supplies in the majority of cases. His main purpose was to terrify the population, nothing else. 



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It means that "taking civlian property" was the right thing to do - expropriating slaves from their master's is _always_ the right thing to do. And it would have been impossible without his march across Georgia, and moves against those "innocent civlian towns".




Again, you're trying to put words into my mouth. I'm not talking about slavery. I'm talking about the methods he used against non-military populations. The people in most of those towns _were_ innocent civilians. After he left, people resorted to eating dead animal carcasses and grass in some cases, as he would leave them with nothing, taking what he could carry and burning or killing what was left.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Georgia _was_ the Confederate supply system. Leaving those areas untouched would have just shifted the sources of supply to them. Leaving the food lying around would have meant that it would have been diverted into the hands of the Confederate army, probably by being expropriated by the government and then shipped north to places like Petersburg. You aren't thinking about logistics.
> 
> [/i]
> 
> ...



You have just highlighted exactly why the Confederacy lost.  She wouldn't resort to such dirty tactics and attempted to fight an honorable war.

I wonder what your perspective is on such tactics by the U.S. in Vietnam and elsewhere.   Care to defend them as "logistics?"


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 8, 2005)

Cthulhu's Librarian said:
			
		

> What was the purpose of burning the houses and taking the food of individual homes? He would take everything, even when there was not even enough to support the families that lived in them, much less the confederate army.




Because if they had left, experience showed that the Confederacy would send the supplies to the army, as they had when the Union had laid siege to towns in the western theatre.



> _And no, I'm not talking about logistics, where taking the supplies away would help his cause. I'm talking about the ruthless destruction of the very way of life of thousands of people. He was destroying civilian populations, NOT military supplies in the majority of cases. His main purpose was to terrify the population, nothing else._





Food, and the ability to provide food, is a military supply, no matter how you cut it.



> _Again, you're trying to put words into my mouth. I'm not talking about slavery. I'm talking about the methods he used against non-military populations. The people in most of those towns were innocent civilians._





Not if they supported a regime that espoused slavery they weren't.



> _After he left, people resorted to eating dead animal carcasses and grass in some cases, as he would leave them with nothing, taking what he could carry and burning or killing what was left._



_

And? That meant they had nothing to send to their armies fighting in the north. It meant Johnston and Hood had no basis to supply their armies in Georgia by forage._


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Jun 8, 2005)

Storm Raven, you're missing the whole point that I'm trying to make. The people he was hurting didn't have ANYTHING to send to the confederate army. In most cases, the people he was hurting didn't have enough for themselves. He was terrorizing innocent people because he could.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 8, 2005)

Cthulhu's Librarian said:
			
		

> Storm Raven, you're missing the whole point that I'm trying to make. The people he was hurting didn't have ANYTHING to send to the confederate army. In most cases, the people he was hurting didn't have enough for themselves. He was terrorizing innocent people because he could.




I dunno about that. I hardly think Atlanta had nothing to send to the Confederate army in either supply or political will to continue to fight. There are plenty of people who feel this is morally justified, particularly when taking the war to the people who started it to defend an indefensible institution like slavery. Is it really any different from bombing German cities in WWII (particularly the night raids by the British and the raids on Desden, neither of which credibly targeted war industries)?
I think there have been too many times in history in which war is a remote idea, the brunt of the suffering borne by the soldiers, entered into capriciously by people scarcely affected by it.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Jun 8, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I dunno about that. I hardly think Atlanta had nothing to send to the Confederate army in either supply or political will to continue to fight.




But it wasn't just Atlanta that he did this to. There was a trail of death and destruction as he rampaged across the south, burnign everything he came to. Atlanta just happened to be the biggest city.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 8, 2005)

Ben Franklin, definately. He was the original font for some many ideas and concepts in both our political landscape and our culture that we may never know all of them.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 8, 2005)

Cthulhu's Librarian said:
			
		

> But it wasn't just Atlanta that he did this to. There was a trail of death and destruction as he rampaged across the south, burnign everything he came to. Atlanta just happened to be the biggest city.




But you know they'd think twice about firing on Fort Sumpter again. Mission accomplished.
On a less flippant note, there are people who still think that's justified. Burn the consequences of war into the collective memory by taking the war, on a very personal level, to the people and not just to the soldiers on the battlefield, where the suffering could otherwise be relatively contained. 
There are people who consider that wrong as well. Tough moral issue.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 8, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> It wasn't _quite_ that one-sided.  The Battle of Lake Eerie, the Battle of Chipewa, the Battle of Lake Champlain, the Battle of Baltimore, and the Battle of the Thames, for example, were notable American successes against British Canada and/or their Indian allies.  The Americans even burned York (later rebuilt and renamed Toronto) which probably precipitated the infamous burning of Washington in the first place.  Stephen Decatur, Isaac Hull and whatsisname Porter had some notable early naval successes.  And even though the timing made it ironically unnecessary, the Battle of New Orleans was hailed as a great victory for the Americans.
> 
> Although the War of 1812 is probably merely a footnote in British history, especially in light of their _other_ "War of 1812" against Napolean it had a profound impact on the national identity of both the U.S. and what would later emerge as Canada.



No arguing the historical significance for the U.S. and Canada, but my understanding is that if the British hadn't had badder fish to fry, they probably would have mopped the floor with us eventually.  

At least, that's what I've gleaned from some fairly casual looking and one conversation with a history professor since last year when I saw that dreadful documentary.  I'm no expert.  Like most of the country, I was given little more in history class than "we fought the British again in 1812" and didn't pursue it much until just recently.  You certainly are better informed than I, so don't be shy about correcting me further if my broad sweeps are a bit too broad.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 8, 2005)

Cthulhu's Librarian said:
			
		

> Storm Raven, you're missing the whole point that I'm trying to make. The people he was hurting didn't have ANYTHING to send to the confederate army. In most cases, the people he was hurting didn't have enough for themselves. He was terrorizing innocent people because he could.




Except that he had to worry about Johnston and Hood (primarily) who had shown a willingness to take those things for themselves, to supply their armies. You are assuming that civilian = not valuable to the war. In that you are wrong. And virtually no one in the South was "innocent", their farms and crops were used to support the war. Most actively supported slavery, many held slaves. Most of the food supplies for the Army of Northern Virginia came from Georgia and South Carolina (at least once Sheridan made the Shenandoah valley unusable for the Conmfederacy as a source of supply). Taking the food and support mechanism from the agricultural regions of the South meant that food could not be used  to support the army, and may very well require diverting food from other places to prop up the populace, once again depriving Johnston, Hood, and Lee of supplies.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Not if they supported a regime that espoused slavery they weren't.



That's funny, cos slavery was legal in the United States (Union) all throughout the War Between the States.  Also, slaverye existed under the flag of the United States far longer than it did under that of the Confederate States . . .


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Except that he had to worry about Johnston and Hood (primarily) who had shown a willingness to take those things for themselves, to supply their armies. You are assuming that civilian = not valuable to the war. In that you are wrong. And virtually no one in the South was "innocent", their farms and crops were used to support the war. Most actively supported slavery, many held slaves. Most of the food supplies for the Army of Northern Virginia came from Georgia and South Carolina (at least once Sheridan made the Shenandoah valley unusable for the Conmfederacy as a source of supply). Taking the food and support mechanism from the agricultural regions of the South meant that food could not be used  to support the army, and may very well require diverting food from other places to prop up the populace, once again depriving Johnston, Hood, and Lee of supplies.



Foraging was a common practice in that day, so yes, technically, the Confederate military could have used civilian supplies.  But in the rules of civilized war, civilians are not a target of the military if they are not actually fighting.  Not even the British terrorized and destroyed property during the Revolutionary War like Sherman did.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 8, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> No arguing the historical significance for the U.S. and Canada, but my understanding is that if the British hadn't had badder fish to fry, they probably would have mopped the floor with us eventually.
> 
> At least, that's what I've gleaned from some fairly casual looking and one conversation with a history professor since last year when I saw that dreadful documentary.  I'm no expert.  Like most of the country, I was given little more in history class than "we fought the British again in 1812" and didn't pursue it much until just recently.  You certainly are better informed than I, so don't be shy about correcting me further if my broad sweeps are a bit too broad.



You may be right, but it should be remembered that Andy Jackson and his "irregulars" whipped some British vets of the Napoleonic War at the Battle of New Orleans . . .


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 8, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Foraging was a common practice in that day, so yes, technically, the Confederate military could have used civilian supplies.  But in the rules of civilized war, civilians are not a target of the military if they are not actually fighting.




That hasn't been true for almost 200 years. Besides, Sherman didn't usually kill civilians, he expropriated contraband - war material, and the mechanisms to produce it. It just happens that the war material in question was food and slaves.



> _Not even the British terrorized and destroyed property during the Revolutionary War like Sherman did._





Which Revolutionary War have you been studying? The British campaign in the southern states was _notorious_ for targeting the civilian populace. For example: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/T/Ta/Tarletons_Raiders.htm


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 8, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> No arguing the historical significance for the U.S. and Canada, but my understanding is that if the British hadn't had badder fish to fry, they probably would have mopped the floor with us eventually.
> 
> At least, that's what I've gleaned from some fairly casual looking and one conversation with a history professor since last year when I saw that dreadful documentary.  I'm no expert.  Like most of the country, I was given little more in history class than "we fought the British again in 1812" and didn't pursue it much until just recently.  You certainly are better informed than I, so don't be shy about correcting me further if my broad sweeps are a bit too broad.



No, I think that's definately a fair statement, and quite likely true.  I just didn't construe that that was what you meant.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> That hasn't been true for almost 200 years.



The 1860s certainly falls into that era.  If you want to argue that the South following civilized rules of war was foolish on her part, that is another discussion entirely.


> Which Revolutionary War have you been studying? The British campaign in the southern states was _notorious_ for targeting the civilian populace. For example: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/T/Ta/Tarletons_Raiders.htm



I studied under Dr. James Kirby Martin.  I'm aware of Tarleton and the exaggerated version that appreared in "The Patriot."  I stand by my statement.  The British did not engage in the kind of terrorization and descruction among civilians like Sherman did.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Jun 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It just happens that the war material in question was food




Gee, maybe he should have taken all their water , clothes, and air as well?  :\ 
Regardless of what you are fighting for or against, you don't take a basic, life sustaining necessity away from civilians who are not actively involved in the conflict. That's just plain evil, and unjustified.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 8, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> No, I think that's definately a fair statement, and quite likely true.  I just didn't construe that that was what you meant.



No need for the embarrassed smiley.  It probably wasn't all that clear what I meant.  I've been suffering from a significant lack of clarity in my internet posts lately.  Probably from trying to do too many things at once.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jun 8, 2005)

He's not on the list, but I think the greatest American alive today is Mark Felt aka Deep Throat. He's a true patriot who didn't let party loyalty get in the way of doing what was right.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 8, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> But in the rules of civilized war, civilians are not a target of the military if they are not actually fighting.




When did those rules come out?  Honestly?  It’s pretty harsh to judge the world of yesterday with the rules of today.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Not even the British terrorized and destroyed property during the Revolutionary War like Sherman did.




No they waited to 1814 for that. 



			
				Cthulhu's Librarian said:
			
		

> That's just plain evil, and unjustified.




Rich, its not, it’s called winning the war.  Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe in the long run Sherman's saved lives by doing what he did?  He made it so the Confederacy couldn’t fight the war.  If he was such an evil monster, my words not yours, why did he give Johnston, and the south, an easy piece instead of taking it to them like congress was screaming for him to do?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 8, 2005)

In a way, Sherman's March can be compared to the dropping of the Atomic Bombs. Both ended up taking FAR more civilian lives, but very well may have prevented prolonging the war and saving other lives in the process.

War isn't exactly the best place to put morals...really, it all comes down to killing the other people. But, as BS said, Sherman could have done far, far worse. The war could have gone on much longer, and he could have continued fighting on like Congress wanted him to instead of actually trying to stop the fighting and settle for peace.

Not that this means his march was a GOOD thing, but it doesn't make him anymore evil than it does Truman for ordering the dropping of the Atomic Bombs.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 8, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> The 1860s certainly falls into that era.  If you want to argue that the South following civilized rules of war was foolish on her part, that is another discussion entirely.




The South was an anachronism fighting under outdated concepts of warfare. They lost to a modern nation. The "civilized rules of warfare" that the South espoused hadn't been a reality since before the Napoleaonic Wars.



> _I studied under Dr. James Kirby Martin.  I'm aware of Tarleton and the exaggerated version that appreared in "The Patriot."  I stand by my statement.  The British did not engage in the kind of terrorization and descruction among civilians like Sherman did._





You'd like to believe that, but Tarleton's raids amounted to little more than looting expeditions designed to terrorize the populace. And he wasn't the only one guilty of such actions. Yes, the _Patriot_ version was exaggerated, but it doesn't mean that atrocities didn't occur.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 8, 2005)

Cthulhu's Librarian said:
			
		

> Gee, maybe he should have taken all their water , clothes, and air as well?  :\




Were those contraband?



> _Regardless of what you are fighting for or against, you don't take a basic, life sustaining necessity away from civilians who are not actively involved in the conflict. That's just plain evil, and unjustified._





And leave the supplies for the Confederacy to forage for and supply their forces with? I'm glad you weren't prosecuting the war. We'd still be fighting it.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Jun 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Were those contraband?




And food was? What were they supposed to eat? Dirt?



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I'm glad you weren't prosecuting the war. We'd still be fighting it.




Let's not get personal, I haven't attacked you. 
I think I'm done here.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 8, 2005)

I voted for good ole Ben Franklin. Mainly because a lot of the wise things he said back in his day are still true now.

I don't really like list like these. How do you rate one achievement as more important than another.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 8, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Were those contraband?
> 
> [/i]
> 
> And leave the supplies for the Confederacy to forage for and supply their forces with? I'm glad you weren't prosecuting the war. We'd still be fighting it.




Sherman left a path of destruction and death. A general who did what he allowed his men to do today would be tried and convicted of war crimes. Burning down civilian's homes stealing all of there food and what he could not carry he burned. He allowed his men to rape and loot. They even went as far as digging up cementries to rob the dead in some of the areas they went through.

Sherman was a monster. And the fact that he freed slaves does not change what he was.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jun 9, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Sherman was a monster. And the fact that he freed slaves does not change what he was.





I think that one is debatable. And I'm one who still swears the Conferderacy should of been seen as a legitimate government. Sherman did what he did to win a war, and destroyed the ability of his enemy to continue waging said war. Luckily, as the world becomes even more high-tech this concept becomes easier to do in a "humane" manner, blowing up factories and the like. At the time of Sherman though, destroying the enemy's ability to wage war was a lot uglier.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 9, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Sherman was a monster. And the fact that he freed slaves does not change what he was.




Maybe in your opinion, which is fine with me, but I would be more than willing to post the orders Sherman gave on his march to the sea. Link 

Recap to Johnston's surrender to Sherman. Link 

He hardly seems like a monster to me.


----------



## TanisFrey (Jun 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The South was an anachronism fighting under outdated concepts of warfare. They lost to a modern nation. The "civilized rules of warfare" that the South espoused hadn't been a reality since before the Napoleaonic Wars.
> 
> [/i]
> 
> You'd like to believe that, but Tarleton's raids amounted to little more than looting expeditions designed to terrorize the populace. And he wasn't the only one guilty of such actions. Yes, the _Patriot_ version was exaggerated, but it doesn't mean that atrocities didn't occur.



The band of british soliders in green from the Patriot were that bad but the rest of the british forced in the south  were much less brutetal


----------



## TanisFrey (Jun 9, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> It wasn't _quite_ that one-sided.  The Battle of Lake Eerie, the Battle of Chipewa, the Battle of Lake Champlain, the Battle of Baltimore, and the Battle of the Thames, for example, were notable American successes against British Canada and/or their Indian allies.  The Americans even burned York (later rebuilt and renamed Toronto) which probably precipitated the infamous burning of Washington in the first place.  Stephen Decatur, Isaac Hull and whatsisname Porter had some notable early naval successes.  And even though the timing made it ironically unnecessary, the Battle of New Orleans was hailed as a great victory for the Americans.
> 
> Although the War of 1812 is probably merely a footnote in British history, especially in light of their _other_ "War of 1812" against Napolean it had a profound impact on the national identity of both the U.S. and what would later emerge as Canada.



Much more that just Washtion DC was torched in response.  YOU WILL NOT FIND A SINGLE BUIDLING BUIDLT BEFORE THE WAR OF 1812 in New York west of the Gennesese river, with the execption of Fort Niagara.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 9, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Maybe in your opinion, which is fine with me, but I would be more than willing to post the orders Sherman gave on his march to the sea. Link
> 
> Recap to Johnston's surrender to Sherman. Link
> 
> He hardly seems like a monster to me.




He accepted the surrender the way he did not because he was such a good man but because he did not want to prolong the war by having Johnston's men from a renegade army that kept fighting.

My family history was effected by Sherman and his men. My grandmother was the youngest daughter of a family who had the misfortune to have to deal with Sherman. Her grandfather was gunned down on his own land because he hid two chickens from the soldiers. They burned all the out buildings and tried to burn the main house. Lucky for the family the main house did not burn all the way. So they had partial shelter. Two of the children of the family died from illness brought on by lack of food.

This is not an unsual story. I heard plenty of accounts like this one growing up. I have read journals and newspaper articles on Sherman march to the sea. 

I have read that even Presdient Lincoln was dismayed at some of Sherman's actions.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 9, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> He accepted the surrender the way he did not because he was such a good man but because he did not want to prolong the war by having Johnston's men from a renegade army that kept fighting.




Then why did he give better terms of surrender than Grant?  (and I would hardly say that not wanting to see the war prolong would make him a bad man...  I would say that would make him a good or at least reasonable man.)



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> This is not an unsual story. I heard plenty of accounts like this one growing up. I have read journals and newspaper articles on Sherman march to the sea.




Then which ones do you suggest reading?

As for your families ordeal.  I'm not going to comment on that other than to say I'm sorry it happened.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 9, 2005)

I'd probably go with a friend of mine's ancestor, Richard D. Speight who made sure that we had the Bill of Rights in our Constitution by refusing to sign it until they were added.   

After that would probably be historical figures like George Washington, FDR, Thomas Edison, Thomas Jefferson, George Bush (both father and son) and Ronald Reagan. But I can't choose one outta that list....


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 9, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Sherman left a path of destruction and death. A general who did what he allowed his men to do today would be tried and convicted of war crimes.




Of course, he gave orders against killing civilians, and forbade confiscating items that were not contraband. And prosecuted many who violated those orders. But you'd rather not deal with the reality.



> _Burning down civilian's homes stealing all of there food and what he could not carry he burned._





Confiscating and destroying contraband.



> _He allowed his men to rape and loot. They even went as far as digging up cementries to rob the dead in some of the areas they went through._





Prohibited by his orders.



> _Sherman was a monster. And the fact that he freed slaves does not change what he was._





The South got no more than it deserved. In point of fact, it should have been worse.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 9, 2005)

Cthulhu's Librarian said:
			
		

> And food was? What were they supposed to eat? Dirt?




Yes, as a matter of fact. From a letter Sherman wrote to Grant _after_ reaching Savannah



> As to matters in the Southeast, I think Hardee, in Savannah, has good artillerists, some 5,000 or 6,000 infantry, and it may be a mongrel mass of 8,000 to 10,000 militia. In all our marching through Georgia he has not forced us to use anything but a skirmish line, though at several points he had erected fortifications and tried to alarm us by bombastic threats. In Savannah he has taken refuge in a line constructed behind swamps and overflowed rice fields, extending from a point on the Savannah River about three miles above the city around by a branch of the Little Ogeechee, which stream is impassable from its salt marshes and boggy swamps, crossed only by narrow causeways or common corduroy roads. There must be 25,000 citizens -- men, women, and children -- in Savannah that must also be fed, and how he is to feed them beyond a few days I cannot imagine, as *I know that his requisitions for corn on the interior counties were not filled, and we are in possession of the rice fields and mills which could alone be of service to him in this neighborhood. He can draw nothing from South Carolina, save from a small corner down in the southeast, and that by a disused wagon road.* I could easily get possession of this, but hardly deem it worth the risk of making a detachment, which would be in danger by its isolation from the main army.




That food, which Sherman confiscated, would have otherwise been used to supply the troops facing him. By cutting the Confederate supply line, he denied them war material in the form of rations to feed their troops.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 9, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> wow... for a minute there, I thought I'd accidently wandered onto the alternate history board I post on....





OOOOO..... where's that?


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 9, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> That's funny, cos slavery was legal in the United States (Union) all throughout the War Between the States.  Also, slaverye existed under the flag of the United States far longer than it did under that of the Confederate States . . .




Thre was this thing on the History Channel about Abraham Lincoln where he was going after slavery before the war but couldn't find a LEGAL way to get rid of it but figured that it would take a war to end it and guess what? That's exactly what happened!! And then worked and got the 13th Amendment passed, abolishing slavery in the US forever. And he had all these clemency plans for the South once the war ended that was alot soft-handed than the Reconstruction Period that did happen after his death.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jun 9, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> OOOOO..... where's that?




Seconded.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 9, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Then why did he give better terms of surrender than Grant?  (and I would hardly say that not wanting to see the war prolong would make him a bad man...  I would say that would make him a good or at least reasonable man.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Or a man who wanted the war over with a clean victory to his name. 

I will get back to you with things to read most of my stuff is packed in a warehouse at the moment.   It was a hobby of mine in the 80s before computers so I really don't have anything earmarked on the net. I will have to do a search and see if the journals and articles I have copies of are available on some web site.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 9, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Or a man who wanted the war over with a clean victory to his name.




I can see that, but not really from Sherman, that would have been more of a move I would expect out of Custer.  Sherman faded away, was promoted during Grant's tenure as president but really did nothing else to make himself note worthy.  He was solider and little more.

I don’t doubt that some of those 60,000 men did some pretty vile things…  Sadly that’s human nature and no general can keep things like that from happen.  Especially with the technology of 1860’s.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Of course, he gave orders against killing civilians, and forbade confiscating items that were not contraband. And prosecuted many who violated those orders. But you'd rather not deal with the reality.
> 
> [/i]
> 
> ...




Excuse me I do deal with reality. I have read and studied the Civil war. Not just the pap you get in your high school history books. He may have given orders to his men but that did not stop them from the looting and raping that they did. And as far as I can tell from my studies there is little evidence that I have found of men punished under his command for misconduct.  If someone has a link to where his men were punished I would like to read it.

The South did not desreve the punishment it got after the war. The south had every right to try and leave a country that was showing that it did not care what happened to to the economy and way of life of some of its states. 

The civil war was fought over state rights vs federal rights. I as a person of this century find the idea of slavery horrible and wrong. But to the south of that time it was not just a way of life it was the entire base of how the economy worked. And here came all these other states that did not have slaves and did not need them suddenly telling the south what to do. Without any thought of the consquences to the southern economy.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 9, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> The South did not desreve the punishment it got after the war. The south had every right to try and leave a country that was showing that it did not care what happened to to the economy and way of life of some of its states.




I agree totally, its a shame the Booth killed/assassinated the man that was going to give them the easy piece they deserved.   



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> The civil war was fought over state rights vs federal rights.




Again I agree totally.  The America we are now could not have been formed without the Civil War but I also think, and again this is opinion, that the world would be a worse off if the Confederacy had been allowed to succeed.  Small wars between the two countries would have happened and America wouldn’t have been around to be the backbone for the trials and tribulations of the 20th century.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 9, 2005)

I am going to leave aside the Civil War argument, aside from saying that in may ways the North and the South were fighting over two very different reasons rather than different sides of the same reason.

My choice was Franklin, with Jefferson a very close second.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 9, 2005)

I found some interesting things at this site on Sherman (Link)

Its a fare amount of text so I'll just highlight the things that I found intresting.



> He hated politics and rebuffed all attempts to draft him as a candidate for the Republican Party. "If nominated I will not accept. If elected I will not serve,"






> In 1891, he died of pneumonia at 71. His old adversary, Joe Johnston, helped carry his casket, and died of pneumonia not long after he had stood bareheaded in the rain at Sherman's funeral.






> For Sherman — the man who said, "War is all Hell" — his style of warfare was a military issue, not a moral one: "This may seem a hard species of warfare, but it brings the sad realities of war home to those who have been directly or indirectly instrumental in involving us in its attendant calamities,"






> If a traveler wanted to exactly follow Sherman's "March to the Sea," they would need an army tank and a lot of time, because Sherman's armies didn't take the interstate or travel together on the same single route. Splitting his army into four main columns, Sherman's men traveled on many different roads and bridges which don't exist today. They went through towns that are neither found on a map or on the ground. And towns have sprung up on his March route which didn't exist when his troops came through.


----------



## Mark (Jun 9, 2005)

Just a reminder, Sherman isn't on the list.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 9, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> Just a reminder, Sherman isn't on the list.



Very true, and with good reason, but people have libeled Lincoln and I only offer my support for him. 

Besides its fun to enjoy a friendly debate with others.


----------



## David Howery (Jun 9, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> OOOOO..... where's that?



it is, appropriately enough, alternatehistory.com.  These kinds of arguements take place there all the time... and even on this exact subject about the ACW, Sherman, etc.  WW2 gets a lot of coverage, and the Arab/Israeli wars get a lot of heated discussion as well.... if you go there, you'll find me there under the name of (prepare for a shock) Dave Howery....


----------



## The_lurkeR (Jun 9, 2005)

Tough choices, but I went with Franklin.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 9, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> Just a reminder, Sherman isn't on the list.



the War of Northern Aggression as it was taught in school


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 9, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> When did those rules come out?  Honestly?  It’s pretty harsh to judge the world of yesterday with the rules of today.



Those were the rules of that era.  Like I said, the debate on the wisdom of fighting by the rules of civilized warfare is another topic.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 9, 2005)

I'd also like to point out that the United States has never had a civil war.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 9, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I'd also like to point out that the United States has never had a civil war.



Semantics.

I really don't want to get into the debate on the ethics of the Civil War, but I want to make one side point:

Everyone is getting tied into knots about "the rules of civilized warfare" and other such nonsense phrases.  You're talking about the escalation of a situation where two parties have already come to the decision that killing vast numbers of people is a better solution to their differences than continuing to talk about it.  The question of which side is "more morally defensible" or more "civilized" is like asking which of these two apples is more like an orange.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 9, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> The question of which side is "more morally defensible" or more "civilized" is like asking which of these two apples is more like an orange.




the yellow one


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 9, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I'd also like to point out that the United States has never had a civil war.




you know I would like to point out...  but I'm going to.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 9, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> Semantics.



There is an important difference between "civil war" and the war between the United States and the Confederate States . . .


> Everyone is getting tied into knots about "the rules of civilized warfare" and other such nonsense phrases.  You're talking about the escalation of a situation where two parties have already come to the decision that killing vast numbers of people is a better solution to their differences than continuing to talk about it.



The United States invaded the Confederate States.  The decision the Confederate States made was to secede from the United States, not to invade her or capture her leaders, etc.

And as I said, the debate on the wisdom of fighting by the rules of civilized warfare is another topic.

My point is:  Lincoln doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 9, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> The United States invaded the Confederate States.  The decision the Confederate States made was to secede from the United States, not to invade her or capture her leaders, etc.






> In April 1861 Lincoln sent word to Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy. He told Davis he was sending needed supplies to the troops at Fort Sumter.
> 
> This left Davis with two choices. He could let the supplies in, or he could order his troops to fire on the fort. Davis ordered his troops to fire. The fort returned the fire. This was the beginning to the Civil War.




Source: Link

So the Confederacy didn't start the war?


----------



## diaglo (Jun 9, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Source: Link
> 
> So the Confederacy didn't start the war?



the way i was taught in elementary school.

the US troops were ask to leave.

they refused.

the South defended its sovereign soil.


but you can't always believe what you were taught now can you.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 9, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> but you can't always believe what you were taught now can you.




Probably not in this case...


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 9, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> I agree totally, its a shame the Booth killed/assassinated the man that was going to give them the easy piece they deserved.
> 
> 
> 
> Again I agree totally.  The America we are now could not have been formed without the Civil War but I also think, and again this is opinion, that the world would be a worse off if the Confederacy had been allowed to succeed.  Small wars between the two countries would have happened and America wouldn’t have been around to be the backbone for the trials and tribulations of the 20th century.




I agree that holding the states together at all costs was necessary. I have always felt that Lincoln was a great man. 

My family is from the south and  I have always been fascinated by history. So I used to spend my visits to my Grandmother in her nursing home asking to hear about her life. I used to spend hours talking to other residents as well. I learned so much of what happened after the war effected these people's lives. I heard the the family war stories that they had been told. A lot of them had families who suffered at Sherman's army hands. From hearing these stories and the reading I did it is hard for me not to think of him as a monster. Maybe part of it is that I was young "13" and these were flesh and blood people not cold hard facts in a history book.

I miss those days my Grandmother died when I was 14. It was amazing talking to people who were born before cars and planes and lived to see a man walk on the moon. A lot of history has been brought to life by talking to people who lived it. Like my uncle who was at Pearl Harbor or a friend of the family who lived through the blitz of London.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 9, 2005)

For those of you looking at Sherman as a monster or trying to claim that the Union army disregarded the rules of warfare more than the Confederacy, you should realize that war is brutal business and it generates examples of the both the best and worst in people and nobody is immune. 
Did the treatment of black soldiers at the Confederacy's hands conform to the rules of warfare at Poison Spring, Battle of the Crater, or Fort Pillow? I think not.

Was the society under attack by the Union armies, a society where a large segment of the agrarian economy was based on systematic abuse of human rights and racism, somehow not monstrous in its own right? I think not. I won't even get into the issue of reprisals against freed blacks once the war was over and Reconstruction under way. That would just get uglier.


For all the damage Sherman meted out, he's not the only person in that day and age who might be called monstrous by some.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 9, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> For those of you looking at Sherman as a monster or trying to claim that the Union army disregarded the rules of warfare more than the Confederacy, you should realize that war is brutal business and it generates examples of the both the best and worst in people and nobody is immune.
> Did the treatment of black soldiers at the Confederacy's hands conform to the rules of warfare at Poison Spring, Battle of the Crater, or Fort Pillow? I think not.
> 
> Was the society under attack by the Union armies, a society where a large segment of the agrarian economy was based on systematic abuse of human rights and racism, somehow not monstrous in its own right? I think not. I won't even get into the issue of reprisals against freed blacks once the war was over and Reconstruction under way. That would just get uglier.
> ...




There were other people who did some very evil acts in the war. Some of what went on out west was very bad whole towns burned and butchered. There were bad things done by both sides. War is hell and usually the innocents suffer the most. The people trapped where the war is raging. Looting and rape have been going on for centuries it part of war. But it does not make it right nor does it excuse the soldiers who particpatein it.

As for slavery you will get no argument from me that it is an evil thing. But please don't make it sound like the majority of union soldiers were some kind of freedom fighters they were not. Racism was just as alive in the north after the was as in the south. 

In the riots of New York city the mobs targeted blacks because they blamed them for the draft and having to go fight in the south.

Also not every southner owned slaves nor did all southners believe in slavery. I have noticed this new trend to say that all the south was evil and deserved whatever punishment they got. That is very naive. The only reason there was no slavery in the north was because it was not feasible the land was different the crops grown were different. Slavery was impratical. But to point out a song from the musical 1776 most of the slaves were brought in on New England ships.

Slavery is a horrible thing that has been praticed through mankind's history.


----------



## Mark (Jun 9, 2005)

I guess the things I like about Ben Franklin have to do with his being an inventor and a businessman, as well as a diplomat.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 9, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Also not every southner owned slaves nor did all southners believe in slavery. I have noticed this new trend to say that all the south was evil and deserved whatever punishment they got. That is very naive. The only reason there was no slavery in the north was because it was not feasible the land was different the crops grown were different.




I might disagree that the only reason there was no slavery in the north was because the crops didn't make it practical (religion and focus on industrial wage labor ideas on the economy were also factors), but I will agree that not all southerners believe in slavery. One of the little secrets of the Confederacy is that there were counties that opposed seccession, opposed slavery, and welcomed the Union armies. There was political diversity that broad brush treatments in most history books can't do justice to.

Now, I don't know what you really mean by the implication that Union soldiers were not somre sort of freedom fighters just because there was plenty of racism in the north. The abolition of slavery was a significant motivating factor for Union soldiers throughout the war. A lot of soldiers did march off to war singing "John Brown's Body", indicating that the extinction of the South's peculiar institution was on their minds. It was one of the issues people could actually wrap their brains around moreso than tarriff and nullification disputes and sectional political allegiances. The racist aspects of the New York draft riots exposes a current of resentment that people felt that they were being drafted to die fighting for the freedom of blacks (as well as other resentments like the ability of wealthier people to avoid the draft). 

But I will say fighting in opposition of slavery is a far cry from being free of all forms of racism. White northerners often considered blacks inferior, just not to the point of being consigned to slavery. So they were, in a sense, freedom fighters since that was one of their major aims. Fighters for racial equality, they were not.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 9, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> I guess the things I like about Ben Franklin have to do with his being an inventor and a businessman, as well as a diplomat.




He was also a total horn dog and sexual deviant based on the mores of the times. Tempting to vote for, but I ended up casting my vote for FDR.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 10, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Source: Link
> 
> So the Confederacy didn't start the war?



A fort in Confederate territory was attacked.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 10, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> A fort in Confederate territory was attacked.




Was it?  Seems to be it would be the sovereign land of the Union.  It’s how embassy works, its how it’s done on warships, and the US currently has a number of forts, military bases that are sovereign US soil...   

So I don't see any reason behind your way of thinking.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 10, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I might disagree that the only reason there was no slavery in the north was because the crops didn't make it practical (religion and focus on industrial wage labor ideas on the economy were also factors), but I will agree that not all southerners believe in slavery. One of the little secrets of the Confederacy is that there were counties that opposed seccession, opposed slavery, and welcomed the Union armies. There was political diversity that broad brush treatments in most history books can't do justice to.
> 
> Now, I don't know what you really mean by the implication that Union soldiers were not somre sort of freedom fighters just because there was plenty of racism in the north. The abolition of slavery was a significant motivating factor for Union soldiers throughout the war. A lot of soldiers did march off to war singing "John Brown's Body", indicating that the extinction of the South's peculiar institution was on their minds. It was one of the issues people could actually wrap their brains around moreso than tarriff and nullification disputes and sectional political allegiances. The racist aspects of the New York draft riots exposes a current of resentment that people felt that they were being drafted to die fighting for the freedom of blacks (as well as other resentments like the ability of wealthier people to avoid the draft).
> 
> But I will say fighting in opposition of slavery is a far cry from being free of all forms of racism. White northerners often considered blacks inferior, just not to the point of being consigned to slavery. So they were, in a sense, freedom fighters since that was one of their major aims. Fighters for racial equality, they were not.




In my readings most of the union soldiers were fighting to keep the union together not to free slaves. Its a very romantic notion of the union soldiers coming down south bearing arms to free the oppressed. Sure there were some who joined because of their anti slavery beliefs. But the majority were there to stop the south from leaving the union.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 10, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> In my readings most of the union soldiers were fighting to keep the union together not to free slaves.




Which is very much the truth.  Most of the northern where uneasy when Lincoln began speaking of freeing the slaves and also giving them the right to vote.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 10, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Very true, and with good reason, but people have libeled Lincoln and I only offer my support for him.




Like he ain't the only one to get "libeled"....   



> Besides its fun to enjoy a friendly debate with others.




Yup. Not to mention a "quickie" history lesson.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 10, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> the War of Northern Aggression as it was taught in school




You mean you actually got to learn about it in school?!?!?!   

"All I learned about the Civil War, I learned from my Mom (the Civil War buff)"


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 10, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Like he ain't the only one to get "libeled"....




Yeah but Oprea deserves it. 



			
				Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Yup. Not to mention a "quickie" history lesson.




I truly suggest the History Channel, their website, and a few books (nonfiction and historical fiction) over this thread for a true lesson.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 10, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I might disagree that the only reason there was no slavery in the north was because the crops didn't make it practical (religion and focus on industrial wage labor ideas on the economy were also factors), but I will agree that not all southerners believe in slavery. One of the little secrets of the Confederacy is that there were counties that opposed seccession, opposed slavery, and welcomed the Union armies. There was political diversity that broad brush treatments in most history books can't do justice to.




Not all Southerners could AFFORD slaves! It was only a small, select few landowners who had the capital to afford having slaves and only the VERY, VERY rich who had more than a small handful. Most that had slaves only had a few field hands and a small house staff. The super-large plantations were the ones who had a whole house staff and dozens if not about a hundred field hands. But the majority of white Southerners were too poor to even afford ONE slave, much less a multitude of them. 

The economics of the North was vastly different than the South; the North being more industrial which didn't lead to slavery as it was a more complex industry than most were willing to allow a "dumb" slave to do. Whereas the South was mostly agricultural which was much simpler to teach slaves to do than machinery. I don't recall of hearing about slaves doing more than either housework or farm work.

And racism was DEFINITELY everywhere. Not just with the blacks but Indians as well. Which is a pity as we're all the same under the darker skin tone if one gets to know us better!


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 10, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> I truly suggest the History Channel, their website, and a few books (nonfiction and historical fiction) over this thread for a true lesson.




That's why I said a "quickie" lesson.... I occasionally watch the History Channel and can quiz my mother about Civil War stuff and a couple of friends for other periods of history.

Not to mention using google....


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 10, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> That's why I said a "quickie" lesson...




After your last post I'm not sure if you really need any lessons.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 10, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> After your last post I'm not sure if you really need any lessons.




 

Everyone still needs history lessons. Even me..   Just 'cause I could put up a few Civil War-related posts.... A friend of mine and I had a history-related conversation that jumped back and forth between World War I, World War II, Ivan the Terrible, Attila the Hun, and a few other things.... and I nearly threw Napoleon into that mix as well....   My history is a smattering of what I can recall from school and the books I've read.


----------



## Mark (Jun 10, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> He was also a total horn dog and sexual deviant based on the mores of the times.





Greatest _American_.  _American_.


----------



## The_lurkeR (Jun 10, 2005)

I'll continue like Mark to support our buddy Ben and ignore the Civil war riff-raff 

Ben Franklin:
SCIENCE - Noted 18th Century Scientist
INVENTOR - Stove, lightning rod, bifocals and many others...
MEDICINE - Founded 1st U.S. Hospital
BANKING - Well known for maxims on thrift
AGRICULTURE - Introduced several crops to U.S.
PRINTING - Noted Colonial printer - "Patron Saint of Printing"
ELECTRICAL - Experiments and theories - Kite & Key
INSURANCE - Started 1st insurance company
HEATING - Franklin stove
COOLING - Had three methods of cooling
EDUCATOR - Involved in founding two colleges
OPTOMETRIC - Bifocal glasses
POSTAL - First postmaster
LIBRARIES - Started 1st circulating library
JOURNALISM - Wrote for several early newspapers
PUBLIC SAFETY - Started 1st police department
PUBLIC SAFETY II - Started 1st fire department
RELIGION - Introduced idea of prayer in Congress
MUSIC - Invented musical instrument - glass armonica
GOVERNMENT - Held numerous positions: Clerk, Postmaster, J.P., Alderman, Governor, Ambassador
MILITARY - Colonel in Militia
MASONIC - Grand Master of Pennsylvania
DIPLOMAT - Ambassador to England Minister to France
COMMUNITY SERVICE - Street lighting, paving and cleaning
UNIONS - Started Leather Apron Club
BUSINESSMAN - Owned and operated several businesses
PHILOSOPHER - Started American Philosophical Society
ABOLITIONIST - Started Society to Abolish Slavery
SALESMAN - Expert at marketing and sales
MERCHANT - Operated store as part of printshop
HUMORIST - Considered America's 1st writer of humor
TRAVELER - Traveled extensively throughout U.S.
FORECASTER - Published Poor Richards "Almanack"
FUND RAISER - Originated matching contributions idea
SAILING - Designed "sea anchors"
CARTOONIST - Drew 1st cartoon in an American newspaper
LINGUIST - Studied several languages and designed a phonetic alphabet
CARTOGRAPHER - Mapped the Gulf Stream and Routes for the post office
PHILANTHROPIST - Organized fund raising and contributed to many worthwhile causes
MENTOR - Acted as a counselor and guide to many of his contemporaries


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 10, 2005)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> I'll continue like Mark to support our buddy Ben and ignore the Civil war riff-raff




Man, I hope you copied that list off of some website...  I can’t imagine typing all that.  (especially from memory, though I was actually kind of proud of how many I knew already.  )


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 10, 2005)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> I'll continue like Mark to support our buddy Ben and ignore the Civil war riff-raff
> 
> Ben Franklin:





The History Channel had a good be on him and the man was amazing.  The Lightling Rod, saved thousand of lifes AND allowed building over three stories to become common!


----------



## diaglo (Jun 10, 2005)

where is Patrick Henry?

"Give me liberty or give me death"


to me, being the greatest American doesn't necessarily mean right or wrong or even good or bad.

it means taking those things which "should be" and acting on them. standing up for them. and not wavering.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Not all Southerners could AFFORD slaves! It was only a small, select few landowners who had the capital to afford having slaves and only the VERY, VERY rich who had more than a small handful. Most that had slaves only had a few field hands and a small house staff. The super-large plantations were the ones who had a whole house staff and dozens if not about a hundred field hands. But the majority of white Southerners were too poor to even afford ONE slave, much less a multitude of them.




True, but most Southerners supported the institution of slavery - those who did not own slaves still signed up in droves to fight for a system that espoused it not merely as a necessary evil, but as a positive good. Many Southerners, even those who did not own slaves, believed in the rightness of slavery, supported laws that kept it in place, and even accepted the doctrine that slavery was divinely mandated. You didn't have to own slaves to believe in the practice, and support it. Even acquiescence in such a practice should be considered a crime.



> _The economics of the North was vastly different than the South; the North being more industrial which didn't lead to slavery as it was a more complex industry than most were willing to allow a "dumb" slave to do. Whereas the South was mostly agricultural which was much simpler to teach slaves to do than machinery. I don't recall of hearing about slaves doing more than either housework or farm work._





I'd argue that the industrial society of the North stemmed from their rejection of slavery, rather than the rejection of slavery stemmed from the industrial character. Certainly, Massachusetts and the surrounding evirons were poorly suited to slavery from the outset (maritime socities having a hard time maintaining slavery in general), but places like Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Nebraska and so on (even Pennsylvania) could have _easily_ been prime slave holding territory, as they were mostly agricultural strongholds. However, the prevailing religious attitudes of the inhabitants there tended to work against the practice, so it wasn't adopted.



> _And racism was DEFINITELY everywhere. Not just with the blacks but Indians as well. Which is a pity as we're all the same under the darker skin tone if one gets to know us better!  _





Yes it was. The Free Soil movement was not about freeing slaves and making them equal, it was about preserving territory for free farmers. However, the North, under Lincoln's direction, took the ciritical step of emancipation, even though many did not want him to do so. Which is really what makes him the greatest american.


----------



## Mark (Jun 10, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> The History Channel had a good be on him and the man was amazing.  The Lightling Rod, saved thousand of lifes AND allowed building over three stories to become common!




Yup.  It's unfortunate but I think Ben Franklin is one of those people on the list for whom the downside isn't that you can argue whether or not they were great, nor to question if he was great in comparison to other Americans, but rather if because his contributions were felt so worldwide if he isn't well above being simply the Greatest American and moreso in the running for Greatest World Citizen.

Can a list like that above be compiled for any of the other people in that twenty-five?  I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a list half that long for any of the twenty-five.

How many people on that list are considered great because of one or two defining choices that were so clearly the right choices at the time that another peson in their position would have likely made the same choices?  Ben Franklin clearly made the right choices most of his life and purposefully put himself in the position to make right choices that effected the public good time after time.  There are some aspects of Ben Franklin's greatness where choices were thrust upon him but there are just as many where his greatness isn't simply a matter of circumstance and choice but rather him forging greatness from ideas conjured in his own mind.  A multifaceted greatness, if you will. 

I wonder how early in their lives each of the twenty-five on the list became "great" and how long they lived with their greatness.  For Ben Franklin, it pretty much comes upon him early in his adulthood and continues nearly to the day he dies.  Decades of greatness.

On that list of twenty-five, for me, only Thomas Jefferson comes close to being in a league with Ben Franklin.  I'd love for someone who voted for Jefferson to add a list to this thread of his accomplishments.  I think that if we looked at lists of both of their accomplishments side by side we'd note that the scales were tipped toward Franklin.  I think it could also be argued that Ben Franklin, himself, is a big part of what made Jefferson great.

As to flaws, the only one I've seen attributed to Ben Franklin (promiscuity/adulertery?) can also be attributed to Jefferson and even FDR, among others on the list.  I think some of the others had flaws, others entirely and some in addition to this one, that go beyond anything you can say about Ben Franklin.

Just a little more to consider...


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> True, but most Southerners supported the institution of slavery - those who did not own slaves still signed up in droves to fight for a system that espoused it not merely as a necessary evil, but as a positive good.




Yeah, their homeland was being invaded.  (Seems like a reasonable course of action to me.)


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 10, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Yeah, their homeland was being invaded.  (Seems like a reasonable course of action to me.)





I could go with that.. But it all started with the fear that when he was elected, that Lincoln would move immediately to abolish slavery. He didn't, fearing to piss off those "border states" that didn't have any but could sway either way in the whole thing. It wasn't until later that slavery became an issue in the war. And it was the south who fired first onto Fort Sumter.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Yeah, their homeland was being invaded.  (Seems like a reasonable course of action to me.)




Their homeland wasn't invaded until _after_ the Confederates had signed up in droves. They supported secession (via their elected state legislatures) based solely on the _possibility_ that Lincoln would abolish slavery based upon the fact that he was a Republican, and had once been a member of the Free Soil movement. In point of fact, until the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln ignored several extremely provocative moves made by Southerners, even to the point that he didn't call for volunteers until after the Fort was attacked.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Their homeland wasn't invaded until _after_ the Confederates had signed up in droves. They supported secession (via their elected state legislatures) based solely on the _possibility_ that Lincoln would abolish slavery based upon the fact that he was a Republican, and had once been a member of the Free Soil movement. In point of fact, until the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln ignored several extremely provocative moves made by Southerners, even to the point that he didn't call for volunteers until after the Fort was attacked.



are those the same "volunteers" who were attacked by union troops in the streets of new york later in the war?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> are those the same "volunteers" who were attacked by union troops in the streets of new york later in the war?




That was later, after the draft was instituted, and was mostly the result of the policy allowing someone to buy their way out of the draft for cash. The original call for union enlistment was for 75,000 volunteers for a 90 day stint.

In the three months that followed the election of Lincoln (before he even took office), seven states seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas. Representatives from these seven states quickly established a new political organization, the Confederate States of America.

On 8th February the Confederate States of America adopted a constitution and within ten days had elected Jefferson Davis as its president and Alexander Stephens, as vice-president. Montgomery, Alabama, became its capital (later moved to Richmond, Virginia) and the Stars and Bars was adopted as its flag. Davis was also authorized to raise 100,000 troops.

At his inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln attempted to avoid conflict by announcing that he had no intention "to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." He added: "The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without yourselves being the aggressors."

President Jefferson Davis took the view that after a state seceded, federal forts became the property of the state. On 12th April, 1861, General Pierre T. Beauregard demanded that Major Robert Anderson surrender Fort Sumter in Charleston harbour. Anderson replied that he would be willing to leave the fort in two days when his supplies were exhausted. Beauregard rejected this offer and ordered his Confederate troops to open fire. After 34 hours of bombardment the fort was severely damaged and Anderson was forced to surrender.

On hearing the news Lincoln called a special session of Congress and proclaimed a blockade of Gulf of Mexico ports. This strategy was based on the Anaconda Plan developed by General Winfield Scott, the commanding general of the Union Army. It involved the army occupying the line of the Mississippi and blockading Confederate ports. Scott believed if this was done successfully the South would negotiate a peace deal. However, at the start of the war, the US Navy, had only a small number of ships and was in no position to guard all 3,000 miles of Southern coast.

On 15th April, 1861, Lincoln called on the governors of the Northern states to provide 75,000 militia to serve for three months to put down the insurrection. Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee, all refused to send troops and joined the Confederacy. Kentucky and Missouri were also unwilling to supply men for the Union Army but decided not to take sides in the conflict.

Given this time line of events leading to the Civil War, I'm thinking that the Southerners were pretty beliigerent, and brought everything that came after onto their own heads.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Given this time line of events leading to the Civil War, I'm thinking that the Southerners were pretty beliigerent, and brought everything that came after onto their own heads.



don't forget the occupied state of Maryland.

the state song, Maryland My Maryland, is still a bash against Lincoln.

more Marylanders fought for the South than the North...considering Maryland is South of the Mason Dixon Line... it wasn't surprising.

slave owning states that remained loyal to the union were exempt initially from having to free their property.

edit: and Maryland.. a Catholic founded state... known as the Free State... was a common path for the Underground Railroad... it wasn't that Marylanders didn't believe in abolishing slavery...


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> don't forget the occupied state of Maryland.




The legislature voted not to seceed.



> _the state song, Maryland My Maryland, is still a bash against Lincoln._





But, oddly, not adopted as such until 1939. It was also not written (because the incident that sparked it did not occur) until after Fort Sumter.



> _more Marylanders fought for the South than the North...considering Maryland is South of the Mason Dixon Line... it wasn't surprising._





Incorrect, about 60,000 Marylanders served in the Union forces, and about 25,000 for the Confederacy.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Incorrect, about 60,000 Marylanders served in the Union forces, and about 25,000 for the Confederacy.



maybe they have revamped the numbers since i was in elementary school. but i was taught the numbers were more in favor of the south... 35000 CSA:  30000 USA.
edit: literally brother fought brother in the state.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 10, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> I could go with that.. But it all started with the fear that when he was elected, that Lincoln would move immediately to abolish slavery. He didn't, fearing to piss off those "border states" that didn't have any but could sway either way in the whole thing. It wasn't until later that slavery became an issue in the war. And it was the south who fired first onto Fort Sumter.




Exactly the freeing of the slaves came after the war had already been going on.

The south fired first because the commander of the fort was stalling giving the fort up. Since the south had proclaimed that it was no longer apart of the union then those forts that were in their soverign lands belonged to them. And I can understand why they did not want union troops to occupy them.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> maybe they have revamped the numbers since i was in elementary school. but i was taught the numbers were more in favor of the south... 35000 CSA:  30000 USA.
> edit: literally brother fought brother in the state.




Yes, and in many other states too. But statistics from the era are difficult to come by, since the USAs records were pretty bad, and the CSAs were atrocious.. The 60/25 split has been pretty much the best guess (given the numbers we can point to accurately, and some educated guessing) we have that matches with the records.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> The south fired first because the commander of the fort was stalling giving the fort up. Since the south had proclaimed that it was no longer apart of the union then those forts that were in their soverign lands belonged to them. And I can understand why they did not want union troops to occupy them.




Sucession was an illegal act to begin with, which makes their declaration that the forts were their sovereign land entirely spurious. Of course, even if the mere act of succession wasn't illegal, their seizure of Federal property was.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> True, but most Southerners supported the institution of slavery - those who did not own slaves still signed up in droves to fight for a system that espoused it not merely as a necessary evil, but as a positive good. Many Southerners, even those who did not own slaves, believed in the rightness of slavery, supported laws that kept it in place, and even accepted the doctrine that slavery was divinely mandated. You didn't have to own slaves to believe in the practice, and support it. Even acquiescence in such a practice should be considered a crime.
> 
> [/i]
> 
> ...





The problem with disscusions like this is when people bring modern day ethics into it. All southners are evil because they supported slavery or supported a goverment that allowed it.I guess anyone who has Italian blood has some taint because the Romans kept slaves oh so did a lot of the celtic populations and lets not forget the medeval serfs.

If you truly want to understand history you have to be able to look at it without so much prejudice. I have said before that I as a modern person find the idea of slavery to be truly evil and wrong. But I don't know what my belief would be if I was born 100 years earlier and raised in the south of that time.

People are a product of their upbring and their enviorment. Unfortunetly most people back then were bigots who really believed that blacks were an inferior species. It was this same mindset that allowed white settlers and Washington to allow the destruction of Indian tribes and to justify stealing their land.

I can study the civil war and understand why the south did what it did. They were fighting for their way of life. And I admire a lot of the southern generals and the soldiers who fought a much larger and better equipped force. The war should have been over a lot sooner but those southern soldiers were fighting for their homes and that made them fight harder and longer. I can admire that.

Just like I can admire the settlers who braved the unkown to head west. And admire the indian tribes who fought to keep what was theres.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 10, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Exactly the freeing of the slaves came after the war had already been going on.
> 
> The south fired first because the commander of the fort was stalling giving the fort up. Since the south had proclaimed that it was no longer apart of the union then those forts that were in their soverign lands belonged to them. And I can understand why they did not want union troops to occupy them.




Or, from another point of view, the Union, having most of the advantages that could be expected in a conflict between the two sides, gave the Confederates enough rope to hang themselves. And they cheerfully obliged by giving the Union the very pretext it wanted to take off the gloves.
Cagey guy that Lincoln.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Sucession was an illegal act to begin with, which makes their declaration that the forts were their sovereign land entirely spurious. Of course, even if the mere act of succession wasn't illegal, their seizure of Federal property was.




Yes it was illegal the same way when a century earlier certain colonies did the same thing when they broke from England and their rightful King to form the United States and I do believe they to seized property that belonged to the rightful goverment. The crown.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> The problem with disscusions like this is when people bring modern day ethics into it. All southners are evil because they supported slavery or supported a goverment that allowed it.I guess anyone who has Italian blood has some taint because the Romans kept slaves oh so did a lot of the celtic populations and lets not forget the medeval serfs.




Virtually every other Western society had abolished slavery by 1860. The Southern states were so far out of step with the moral attitudes of what was considered to be the "civilized" world of the time that it stretches credulity to argue that there is some sort of pass for morality of their practice based upon the mores of the era.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 10, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Or, from another point of view, the Union, having most of the advantages that could be expected in a conflict between the two sides, gave the Confederates enough rope to hang themselves. And they cheerfully obliged by giving the Union the very pretext it wanted to take off the gloves.
> Cagey guy that Lincoln.




Lincoln did not want war. He knew the cost and he was right. He did everything he could to prevent it.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Yes it was illegal the same way when a century earlier certain colonies did the same thing when they broke from England and their rightful King to form the United States and I do believe they to seized property that belonged to the rightful goverment. The crown.




There's not even a basis for that sort of comparison.

The States had agreed to the government of the United States via the U.S. Constitution, and were represented in Congress, allowed to vote for President and so on. They consented to the sovereignty of the United States by participating in the 1860 elections.

By contrast, the colonists were not represented in Parliament, had no say in the selection of their nation's chief executive, and could not fairly be said to have consented to their government at all.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Their homeland wasn't invaded until _after_ the Confederates had signed up in droves.




Every nation is allowed to have a standing army, with a few exceptions that gave away this right in peace treaties, its one of the things that define a sovereign state so I see no issue with this.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> They supported secession (via their elected state legislatures) based solely on the _possibility_ that Lincoln would abolish slavery based upon the fact that he was a Republican, and had once been a member of the Free Soil movement.




Indeed they did but as you have pointed out it was state legislatures and not everyone in the state.  Though things have changed since then money was still power, the money still had the slaves, and I'm willing to bet that more than a majority of representatives in the state legislatures had money.

So I still believe that the typical confederate soldier was defending their homeland and not slavery.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Virtually every other Western society had abolished slavery by 1860. The Southern states were so far out of step with the moral attitudes of what was considered to be the "civilized" world of the time that it stretches credulity to argue that there is some sort of pass for morality of their practice based upon the mores of the era.



yet slavery still exists. and did thru the 19th and 20th century too


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Or, from another point of view, the Union, having most of the advantages that could be expected in a conflict between the two sides, gave the Confederates enough rope to hang themselves. And they cheerfully obliged by giving the Union the very pretext it wanted to take off the gloves.
> Cagey guy that Lincoln.




If that were so, why did Major Anderson offer to surrender the Fort peacefully if given a few days to do so?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> yet slavery still exists. and did thru the 19th and 20th century too




But not in any nation that we would consider to be any kind of moral example. And that is the comparison to be made. The fact that the Ottoman Empire still condoned slavery in 1860 is irrelevant. Western society had rejected the morality of slavery decades before, and every Westernized nation save the U.S. had abolished it before then.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 10, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Or, from another point of view, the Union, having most of the advantages that could be expected in a conflict between the two sides, gave the Confederates enough rope to hang themselves. And they cheerfully obliged by giving the Union the very pretext it wanted to take off the gloves.
> Cagey guy that Lincoln.




Interesting point of view...  Of course its not even close to be right but it is interesting.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 10, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Lincoln did not want war. He knew the cost and he was right. He did everything he could to prevent it.




I think I'd be inclined to say he did everything he could to avoid _starting_ it, not preventing it completely. Once seccession was under way, it's hard to argue that war was not inevitable. Too many chances at compromise had been squandered on the way. Or, perhaps all of the previous compromises brokered by guys like Henry Clay, had finally delayed the impending conflict as long as they could.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> If that were so, why did Major Anderson offer to surrender the Fort peacefully if given a few days to do so?



he only needed a few days for Lincoln to send his troops.

stalling is a legit tactic of war.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 10, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Interesting point of view...  Of course its not even close to be right but it is interesting.




Prove it wrong.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Virtually every other Western society had abolished slavery by 1860. The Southern states were so far out of step with the moral attitudes of what was considered to be the "civilized" world of the time that it stretches credulity to argue that there is some sort of pass for morality of their practice based upon the mores of the era.




Do you have some understanding of what was entailed in just freeing the slaves? The south's economy was based on slavery. It was not something that could just change overnight with out destroying the south. 

I believe in time that it would have happened. Social pressure, the coming of more labor saving devices. Machines are cheaper than humans to maintain. 

Instead the south was backed against a wall and we know what the outcome of that was. The southern economy was destroyed for years it did not start to recover until the middle of the 1900s. Blacks certainly did not have an easy time of it a lot of them ended up as sharecroppers with no more protections than they had as slaves. Look how many blacks were lynched and most of the people doing it got away with it.  

Lincoln and the north may have freed the slaves but they did nothing to make sure the freeded slaves would be okay.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Every nation is allowed to have a standing army, with a few exceptions that gave away this right in peace treaties, its one of the things that define a sovereign state so I see no issue with this.




Signed up in droves to fight a war they provoked, for which the only realistic basis was the preservation of slavery. I' m not having a lot of sympathy for them.



> _Indeed they did but as you have pointed out it was state legislatures and not everyone in the state.  Though things have changed since then money was still power, the money still had the slaves, and I'm willing to bet that more than a majority of representatives in the state legislatures had money._





And were also the elected representatives of the populace. Those who did not want to support slavery had options. They could do what the counties of Virginia that became West Virginia did. They could have fought for the North, as some did. They could have opposed the war. They didn't.



> _So I still believe that the typical confederate soldier was defending their homeland and not slavery._





The only reasonable basis for sucession was the preservation of slavery. The spark that triggered it was the election of a Republican (and supposedly, at the time abolitionist) President. Signing up to fight for that regime is defending slavery, no matter how pretty a package you want to put it into.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> But not in any nation that we would consider to be any kind of moral example.




but we still trade with them.

and the UN still recognizes them


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> but we still trade with them.




Yes, but we should not.



> _and the UN still recognizes them_





Yes, and it should not.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> he only needed a few days for Lincoln to send his troops.




Except that Lincoln wasn't going to send him troops. He considered it to be too provocative an act.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 10, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> The problem with disscusions like this is when people bring modern day ethics into it. All southners are evil because they supported slavery or supported a goverment that allowed it.I guess anyone who has Italian blood has some taint because the Romans kept slaves oh so did a lot of the celtic populations and lets not forget the medeval serfs.




I agree with this, it wasn't as if everyone north of the Masion Dixion Line was apposed to slavery.  

Really both sides of the fight had good reasons to fight it; it wouldn't have taken the toll that it did if this wasn't abundantly clear, just like both sides had/has people to admire and people to despise.



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> If you truly want to understand history you have to be able to look at it without so much prejudice. I have said before that I as a modern person find the idea of slavery to be truly evil and wrong.




I agree with this too.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes, but we should not.
> 
> [/i]
> 
> Yes, and it should not.



i don't disagree.

i'm just waiting for a great american to have the balls to say something.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Except that Lincoln wasn't going to send him troops. He considered it to be too provocative an act.



but there was no telephone. he didn't know that.

he hoped and planned lincoln would

he gambled wrong

got attacked
and had to surrender


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And were also the elected representatives of the populace. Those who did not want to support slavery had options.




Right, the poor farmer with no slaves can really spare the time to run for elected office...  



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The only reasonable basis for sucession was the preservation of slavery.




I guess you've never heard of state rights, huh?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Do you have some understanding of what was entailed in just freeing the slaves? The south's economy was based on slavery. It was not something that could just change overnight with out destroying the south.




I do. And it doesn't matter. Slavery was important to the economy of many other nations, and they made the sacrifice. Slavery could have been abolished in the 1810s with a minimum of trauma, but it wasn't. Slavery could have been abolished in any number of ways, but it was not.



> _I believe in time that it would have happened. Social pressure, the coming of more labor saving devices. Machines are cheaper than humans to maintain.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> There's not even a basis for that sort of comparison.
> 
> The States had agreed to the government of the United States via the U.S. Constitution, and were represented in Congress, allowed to vote for President and so on. They consented to the sovereignty of the United States by participating in the 1860 elections.
> 
> By contrast, the colonists were not represented in Parliament, had no say in the selection of their nation's chief executive, and could not fairly be said to have consented to their government at all.




This really depends on what side you were on. The British felt that the colonies were represented by Parliament because Parliament represented everyone.

The point I was making is that the colonies formed there own country because they felt that England did not represent them. They felt Parliament did not have their best intrests when making laws and passing taxes.

The south felt the same way. They felt that the federal goverment would soon be controlled by a majority who did not have their best iintrests in mind when passing laws. So they did what their grandfathers did.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 10, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Do you have some understanding of what was entailed in just freeing the slaves? The south's economy was based on slavery. It was not something that could just change overnight with out destroying the south.




Yeah, it kind of makes you want to defend your homeland doesn't it?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Right, the poor farmer with no slaves can really spare the time to run for elected office...




Probably not, but he could afford to vote for representatives who wouldn't be in favor of sucession. And he could avoid serving in the Confederate army.



> _I guess you've never heard of state rights, huh?  _





The only states' rights issue that was being "threatened" was the right to keep slaves. And it wasn't.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> but there was no telephone. he didn't know that.




There was the telegraph.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 10, 2005)

Its hard to say WHAT the individual soldiers were really fighting for...but look at it this way.

For the north, it was much, much easier to tell the troops they were fighting to end slavery, instead of the convulted bunch of other reasons there really was.

For the south, they didn't need to be told they were defending their way of life. That was plainly obvious to them. But, at the same time, they did bring about what happened to them...that doesn't mean that the civilians deserved anything that occurred, but that, sadly, is something that happens in war. Every war. Civilians always end up paying some price because of the actions of their government, and it isn't always so easy to just pull out and fight for the other side if you don't agree with things.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> There was the telegraph.



which was cut to the fort


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> This really depends on what side you were on. The British felt that the colonies were represented by Parliament because Parliament represented everyone.




And which colonists got to vote on the membership? Which colonists consented to their government by participating in open and free elections?



> _The point I was making is that the colonies formed there own country because they felt that England did not represent them. They felt Parliament did not have their best intrests when making laws and passing taxes.
> 
> The south felt the same way. They felt that the federal goverment would soon be controlled by a majority who did not have their best iintrests in mind when passing laws. So they did what their grandfathers did._





And that is a smokescreen to cover the fact that the Southern states were fully represented in the government of the United States, and had consented to the government by participating in the national election. The fact that you got outvoted does not create a right to seceed. The fact that you weren't allowed to vote at all might.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I do. And it doesn't matter. Slavery was important to the economy of many other nations, and they made the sacrifice. Slavery could have been abolished in the 1810s with a minimum of trauma, but it wasn't. Slavery could have been abolished in any number of ways, but it was not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> which was cut to the fort




After the fighting started.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> After the fighting started.




and before, the relay was in southern hands.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Probably not, but he could afford to vote for representatives who wouldn't be in favor of sucession. And he could avoid serving in the Confederate army.




And watch his homeland get destroyed...



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The only states' rights issue that was being "threatened" was the right to keep slaves. And it wasn't.




A precedent is a precedent...  Pure simple fact.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 10, 2005)

in the last decade or so, didn't maine threaten to secede from the Union?

edit: or was that vermont?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 10, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Oh yes the nothners who came in and offered money and other bribes for the blacks to vote the way they wanted them too.




Sure there were some people who tried to profiteer. And who were caricatured by hostile Southerners as carpetbaggers. Voting Republican, for blacks, wasn't about "Northerners getting them to vote the way they wanted them to", it was about voting against the position of the KKK laden Democratic Party of the era in the Southern states.



> _I grew up in the deep south I remember segreation. I saw a lot of poor blacks who did not have any poltical or economic freedom. And it was just not the Klan doing it. Washington itself rarely stepped in._





And that happened long after the KKK had worked to ensure that they would be in that position. Up through Harrison's administration, the Federal government tried to improve the plight of blacks in the South. A concerted effort by what would now be called terrorists prevented this, and a political compromise forced by Harrison's weakness as President sealed the deal.



> _No matter how you look at the blacks in America were failed by the goverment for a l very long time after the war._





Only because the KKK and similar organizations (like the Democratic Party of the 1880s-1930s) prevented it from changing these things.


----------



## Ferret (Jun 10, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> He recieved United States Citizenship in 1940 (having renounced his German citizenship in 1933 and fled to America), which he retained for the rest of his life.  He was offered the first Presidency of Israel in 1948 but declined it to remain an American.  One thing traditionally great about America is that it isn't neccesarily where you're born, it is a place you can come to start a new life or be more than you could before.
> 
> http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-bio.html
> 
> (I'm still sticking with Jefferson for all time, but Einstein is definitely one of the greats of the 20th century, along with FDR).




I suspected that, but I wasn't sure whether that made you an american, or just an american citizen.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And which colonists got to vote on the membership? Which colonists consented to their government by participating in open and free elections?
> 
> [/i]
> 
> And that is a smokescreen to cover the fact that the Southern states were fully represented in the government of the United States, and had consented to the government by participating in the national election. The fact that you got outvoted does not create a right to seceed. The fact that you weren't allowed to vote at all might.




England's goverment worked a little differently than ours. In their eyes Parliament was the people. 

It was no smokescreen if new states joined the union and they were anti slavery then they would have the majority vote needed to abolish slavery. And the south who would be effected by this would have been powerless to do anything about it. 

This issue between federal and state rights had been brewing since the time of the first congress. There are two sides to an issue. And I can understand how they felt what right did other states have to push their beliefs onto the south because they were the majority espically on an issue that would not have an economic impact on the states forcing the issue.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 10, 2005)

i still say my grandfather.

he came here as a cook on a ship during ww i

filipinos could only be cooks or engine room in the US Navy then.

despite the fact he was treated as a second/third class citizen. he made it.

he married my grandmother in detroit. another immigrant. and during the great depression provided for his family and his in-laws. all of them 8 siblings plus parents.

he lost an eye, his hearing, and several fingers working in a factory for years. and still raised my dad and his siblings.

he lived to the ripe old age of 104. he saw three centuries.

born june 15, 1897 .. in the Spanish owned Philippines.
died dec 26, 2001 in new jersey.

he taught me that you can be whatever you want no matter what people do or say otherwise.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Sure there were some people who tried to profiteer. And who were caricatured by hostile Southerners as carpetbaggers. Voting Republican, for blacks, wasn't about "Northerners getting them to vote the way they wanted them to", it was about voting against the position of the KKK laden Democratic Party of the era in the Southern states.
> 
> [/i]
> 
> ...




Where was the norths outrage over the mistreatment? Why did Harrison have problems getting backing from the Republicans?  

After the war was over most people lost intrest in the situation. The blacks were no longer slaves and other issues took over.

It took a hundred years for the civil right movement to start addressing the issues. I am sorry but that fact that it took that long just shows that Washinton dropped the ball.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 10, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I grew up in the deep south I remember segreation. I saw a lot of poor blacks who did not have any poltical or economic freedom. And it was just not the Klan doing it. Washington itself rarely stepped in.
> 
> No matter how you look at the blacks in America were failed by the goverment for a l very long time after the war.




Definitely true. It wasn't just the Klan oppressing southern blacks. And Washington shouldn't have had to step in. 
But, not long after the so-called Radical Republicans' fire began to wane, the south became business as usual again with the same old political elites stepping back into power, disenfranchising the blacks who had only recently gotten the vote. 
Given that track record, maybe the feds were a little too lenient on the former Confederate states. Maybe the feds should have been a little more paternalistic it protecting its recently freed charges. But I don't think you could have seen a federal government doing anything quite that level until after FDR and the New Deal significantly changed the role of government in the every day lives of citizens. The New Deal brings in a massive change in the way government is conceived that makes a good many things possible. WIthout that change in conception, I doubt you'd have seen Brown v the Board of Education or quite a few civil liberties and civil rights decisions out of the Supreme Court that have all gone to protect our freedoms from the power of the states.


----------



## Mark (Jun 10, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i still say my grandfather.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> he taught me that you can be whatever you want no matter what people do or say otherwise.





That is impressive.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 10, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Where was the norths outrage over the mistreatment? Why did Harrison have problems getting backing from the Republicans?
> 
> After the war was over most people lost intrest in the situation. The blacks were no longer slaves and other issues took over.
> 
> It took a hundred years for the civil right movement to start addressing the issues. I am sorry but that fact that it took that long just shows that Washinton dropped the ball.




I think this leads to some very unpleasant instruction in the American political system. It's only been comparatively recently that the federal government, in any really meaningful sense, has become a body that serves the public in general rather than powerful elites. The civil rights movement in America campaigned long and hard for the gains they managed in 1948 with the desegregation of the armed forces, the desegregation of schools, the desegregation of public facilities, and the protection of voting rights. Heck, the NAACP was founded nearly 100 years ago (96 years ago, I believe). 
A significant part of 20th century American history is centered on the struggle of activists to organize regular folk into campaigns for protection and reform. Reform of the economy and employment practices. Reform of racist and sexist establishment structures. Protection from exploitation from independent powerful elites, whether it be exploitation of ourselves, our bodies, or our surroundings. And finally, not just the struggle to organize and be heard but also succeed in securing those changes.
And pretty much all of it has been extracted out of the government, local, state and federal levels, after years of long and painful work. And you still find many people who don't see any of these changes as good things who are actively trying to dismantle parts of them, indicating that these may still have to be fought for, constantly, to keep them even at the level they're at now.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 10, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> The problem with disscusions like this is when people bring modern day ethics into it. All southners are evil because they supported slavery or supported a goverment that allowed it.I guess anyone who has Italian blood has some taint because the Romans kept slaves oh so did a lot of the celtic populations and lets not forget the medeval serfs.




Probably makes me glad, from some people's POV, is that I'm not a true "southerner". Sure I live here, my family's here but I wasn't BORN here...   

Slavery has been around probably nearly as long as mankind has been here... The Romans were probably one of the bigger, if not the biggest, bunch of slaveholders in history. They enslaved anyone who was 1) not a Roman Citizen or 2) one of the conquered "barbaric" tribes they encountered. It wasn't racial to them. Just conquerer vs. conquered. Because most of their slaves were of the same race as they, with a smattering of Moors (and other Africans) thrown in for "good measure". But the majority were white like they were. Serfs had a bit more freedom than a slave did. They had a piece of their lord's lands that they worked and gave a portion of their crops as payment to the lord for the land they were granted the use of.



> If you truly want to understand history you have to be able to look at it without so much prejudice. I have said before that I as a modern person find the idea of slavery to be truly evil and wrong. But I don't know what my belief would be if I was born 100 years earlier and raised in the south of that time.




That's true. You have to be objective towards history as the people of the varying time periods had different views of things than we do today. Slavery is a prime example. The average Southerner before the Civil War accepted slavery as a part of southern life. It has been there and, if it hadn't been for a war, probably would STILL be there. Both the laws and religion seemed to "support" the idea of slavery from the viewpoint of those who were there at the time.



> People are a product of their upbring and their enviorment. Unfortunetly most people back then were bigots who really believed that blacks were an inferior species. It was this same mindset that allowed white settlers and Washington to allow the destruction of Indian tribes and to justify stealing their land.




Only from the point of view of modern man. We think they're a bunch of bigots but they didn't think so at the time.... it was "normal" for them to think that having slaves was ok and chasing Indians out of their ancestral lands was ok. 



> I can study the civil war and understand why the south did what it did. They were fighting for their way of life. And I admire a lot of the southern generals and the soldiers who fought a much larger and better equipped force. The war should have been over a lot sooner but those southern soldiers were fighting for their homes and that made them fight harder and longer. I can admire that.




The war woulda been over alot sooner had the southerners put down their pride and accepted Lincoln's offer of surrender and the allowance back into the Union. But they wouldn't give that up so that made the war drag on for about another 2 years longer than it should have.



> Just like I can admire the settlers who braved the unkown to head west. And admire the indian tribes who fought to keep what was theres.




I can agree there. The settlers were quite brave to travel to a distant, strange land to struggle to live there despite lots of hardships from both the land and unfriendly Indians who didn't want "those palefaces" in their ancestral lands, taking them over from them.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> There's not even a basis for that sort of comparison.
> 
> The States had agreed to the government of the United States via the U.S. Constitution, and were represented in Congress, allowed to vote for President and so on. They consented to the sovereignty of the United States by participating in the 1860 elections.
> 
> By contrast, the colonists were not represented in Parliament, had no say in the selection of their nation's chief executive, and could not fairly be said to have consented to their government at all.




It's kind of hard to have a say in the selection of monarch as that's hereditary and not elected like our presidents are.

Legally, it's hard to say which is more wrong.... The American Revolution to make ourselves our very own sovereign nation or the southern states seceding from the Union because they didn't agree with certain things.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 10, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Lincoln and the north may have freed the slaves but they did nothing to make sure the freeded slaves would be okay.




It's theorized that the "reconstruction period" the South went through would've been alot easier had Lincoln not been assassinated by Booth. He was more willing to work with the South to reintegrated them back into the union. And definitely alot more compassionate than his successor, Andrew Johnson, was. And he was willing, yes WILLING (a shocking prospect at the time) to allow blacks the right to VOTE. It's ideas like this that, had they come to fruition, might have staved off the need for the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s as the blacks would've had these same rights long before they had to fight for them, instead of having to wait 100 years and they still have problems with equality even now.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 10, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Yeah, it kind of makes you want to defend your homeland doesn't it?




Ain't my homeland, bro...   I just live here. But, as in an earlier post, I wasn't BORN here. Technically, I'd be a "Westerner".


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 10, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> but there was no telephone. he didn't know that.




Kinda hard when the telephone wasn't really invented until 1875, when Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone as we know it today. Sure there were earlier versions but not as effective as his version.

In the Civil War, they had to survive on the telegraph and messengers.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 10, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i still say my grandfather.
> 
> he came here as a cook on a ship during ww i
> 
> ...




I can agree with you there, diaglo. Your grandfather had seen/heard alot during his long, productive life. 

Frankly, to be a bit of a generalist, I think the "Greatest American" isn't just one person in particular. It's to all those who have served this great country of ours and lost their lives in doing so. And also to those who served but were able to come home. They should get that highest honor over any single person. Because it's those people who made this country what it is today.


----------



## ragboy (Jun 10, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> The History Channel had a good be on him and the man was amazing. The Lightling Rod, saved thousand of lifes AND allowed building over three stories to become common!




And it was 'open-source' from the beginning, IIRC.


----------



## ragboy (Jun 10, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i still say my grandfather.
> 
> he came here as a cook on a ship during ww i
> 
> ...




Great American! These are the types that should be on the list. The ones that did the working and fighting and dying. Not those that took the credit for it. 

I would vote my grandfather, as well, if he were on there...  He left home at the age of 12 to work for his family (admittedly, he only went from Gordon, TX to Ft. Worth, but it's a long way for a 12 year old). Worked heavy construction and hopped a train back and forth. Joined the CCCC camps and built every highway, lake, and state park in North, East and South Texas. *Then* worked 30 years at a factory, and retired a semi-wealthy man. Of course, I'd have to have my grandmother on there, as well, but they come as a pair...


----------



## David Howery (Jun 11, 2005)

ok, this site is about the last board I would expect to have a running multi-page arguement over the causes of the ACW.  I've seen quite a few of them over at alternatehistory.com, but here?  a site dedicated towards fantasy and sci fi in all it's aspects?  Sheesh...


----------



## David Howery (Jun 11, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> the War of Northern Aggression as it was taught in school



by the side that lost....


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 11, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> ok, this site is about the last board I would expect to have a running multi-page arguement over the causes of the ACW.  I've seen quite a few of them over at alternatehistory.com, but here?  a site dedicated towards fantasy and sci fi in all it's aspects?  Sheesh...




An epic struggle is an epic struggle.  To be honest once you think about it the surprise should be minimal.  The fantasy novels often have parallels to the ACW plus the ACW is often draws people from all walks of life…  It’s just a very compelling subject for many and its history that is still relevant to today’s world.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 11, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> ok, this site is about the last board I would expect to have a running multi-page arguement over the causes of the ACW.  I've seen quite a few of them over at alternatehistory.com, but here?  a site dedicated towards fantasy and sci fi in all it's aspects?  Sheesh...



Well, the funny thing about roleplaying games is that they can cross just about any lines of history or fantasy.  

A d20 Modern/Past game set in the Civil War could be quite the campaign, with lots of battles for the tactically minded player, a battle of good and evil (from one perspective it's slavery vs. freedom), strange events you'd from an RPG (the Battle of the Crater), big historic names (big name NPC's for the setting), and a setting that most players are fairly familiar with.  Deadlands was an RPG working on an alternate history based on the idea that magical events disrupted the outcome of the Civil War.  People spend a lot of time and money reenacting the war, and that's a relative of roleplaying games (cousins that don't meet often, but cousins still).


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 11, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> An epic struggle is an epic struggle.  To be honest once you think about it the surprise should be minimal.  The fantasy novels often have parallels to the ACW plus the ACW is often draws people from all walks of life…  It’s just a very compelling subject for many and its history that is still relevant to today’s world.




This is so true and it is sort of happening in the game I play in which is set in Kalamar. Right now my character is a moral dilema. She is loyal to her country and she swore an oath to her King. Who is also family. But more and more things are making her come to the realization that her King is evil and she may have to choose to go against him which means going against warriors who are her friends and family.

I have often compared her plight to what the west point trained leaders had to face when they had to choose what side to fight on in the civil war.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 11, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Probably makes me glad, from some people's POV, is that I'm not a true "southerner". Sure I live here, my family's here but I wasn't BORN here...
> 
> Slavery has been around probably nearly as long as mankind has been here... The Romans were probably one of the bigger, if not the biggest, bunch of slaveholders in history. They enslaved anyone who was 1) not a Roman Citizen or 2) one of the conquered "barbaric" tribes they encountered. It wasn't racial to them. Just conquerer vs. conquered. Because most of their slaves were of the same race as they, with a smattering of Moors (and other Africans) thrown in for "good measure". But the majority were white like they were. Serfs had a bit more freedom than a slave did. They had a piece of their lord's lands that they worked and gave a portion of their crops as payment to the lord for the land they were granted the use of.
> 
> ...




I dson't think it was pride at that point. I think it was desperation that kept them fighting. Some vain hope that they might be able to turn it around and actually win.

Of course they did not view themselves as bigots or what they were doing as evil. They felt that the black man was not equal and there was debates that they did not have souls and were closer to animals than men. And they considered the indians nothing more than savages who did not have the same rights as they did as god fearing folk.


----------



## David Howery (Jun 11, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> An epic struggle is an epic struggle.  To be honest once you think about it the surprise should be minimal.  The fantasy novels often have parallels to the ACW plus the ACW is often draws people from all walks of life…  It’s just a very compelling subject for many and its history that is still relevant to today’s world.



I agree.  It's just that you don't see many multi-page historical discussions on this site.  Now, if you were talking about an RPG based on the ACW, I'd understand it... 
Actually, this argument has been pretty tame so far.  On AH.com, there have been some nasty ones that have gotten people kicked.  When you get a bunch of history buffs together, you inevitably get a few who think the world would be a better place if the south had won the war.  And then there's the whole slavery thing... the ACW can get people's blood boiling like few other subjects...


----------



## TanisFrey (Jun 11, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> This really depends on what side you were on. The British felt that the colonies were represented by Parliament because Parliament represented everyone.
> 
> The point I was making is that the colonies formed there own country because they felt that England did not represent them. They felt Parliament did not have their best intrests when making laws and passing taxes.
> 
> The south felt the same way. They felt that the federal goverment would soon be controlled by a majority who did not have their best iintrests in mind when passing laws. So they did what their grandfathers did.



The colonies could not vote for any member of Parliament.  We were a colony, no seats for us.  Even Scotland and Irland had some Parliament seats but they were Eurpen nations conkered by England.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Sucession was an illegal act to begin with, which makes their declaration that the forts were their sovereign land entirely spurious. Of course, even if the mere act of succession wasn't illegal, their seizure of Federal property was.



Just voting for sucession was not illegal act, seizure of Federal property was.  Now If the them had sent reprensives to the congress and tried to withdrawl peacefully.  BTW Texas was the only state to have sucession leagly bacause they entered the Union via a treaty that stated that they could leave later.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Except that Lincoln wasn't going to send him troops. He considered it to be too provocative an act.



said about Fort Sumter

The Union was sending in Supplies, not troops.



			
				Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> It's theorized that the "reconstruction period" the South went through would've been alot easier had Lincoln not been assassinated by Booth. He was more willing to work with the South to reintegrated them back into the union. And definitely alot more compassionate than his successor, Andrew Johnson, was. And he was willing, yes WILLING (a shocking prospect at the time) to allow blacks the right to VOTE. It's ideas like this that, had they come to fruition, might have staved off the need for the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s as the blacks would've had these same rights long before they had to fight for them, instead of having to wait 100 years and they still have problems with equality even now.



Altho President Andrew Johnson had been selected by President Lincoln to be Vice President to help path a peace after the war (he was a southner from Maryland) he had no real power.  Andrew Johnson tried to veto the worst of the reconstruction messures he was over rided EACH AND EVERY TIME.  The Radical were in full control of both of Congress and defato control of the exective branches of US goverement. 



			
				diaglo said:
			
		

> in the last decade or so, didn't maine threaten to secede from the Union?
> 
> edit: or was that vermont?



Qubeck provence voted to to sucessed from Canada mid '90.  It was narrowely defeted.  I beleve if they had voted and left Canada peacefully the rest of Federal Canaden Goverment had a fair chance of collopsing and the provence asking to become states within 10 years of the vote.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 11, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> When you get a bunch of history buffs together, you inevitably get a few who think the world would be a better place if the south had won the war.




I cannot really fathom that...  Not that I think the south was evil but because a divided United States, not to mention a United States without a strong central government, could not have been the backbone of the trails and tribulations of the 20th century…


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 11, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> England's goverment worked a little differently than ours. In their eyes Parliament was the people.




"In their eyes" doesn't work though. Because members of parliament (at least for the Commons) stood for particular districts. The American colonies (and all the other colonies) had no districts, and no members representing them. The analogy you are trying to make is a popular one, but one that is fatally flawed and carries no weight when subjected to any kind of analysis.



> _It was no smokescreen if new states joined the union and they were anti slavery then they would have the majority vote needed to abolish slavery. And the south who would be effected by this would have been powerless to do anything about it. _





Only if they could have changed the Constitution, which requires ratification by 3/4 of the States. And they were _far_ from that stage. Besides, if they had not thrown a hissy fit over Lincoln's election, the South probably could have evolved a political compromise that would have abolished slavery later, and compensated those who owned them, or something like that.



> _This issue between federal and state rights had been brewing since the time of the first congress. There are two sides to an issue. And I can understand how they felt what right did other states have to push their beliefs onto the south because they were the majority espically on an issue that would not have an economic impact on the states forcing the issue._





The only issue that this was "brewing over" of any consequence was slavery. Trying to frame the debate as a states' rights debate does a disservice to the concept of states' rights. In any event, the nature of a federal republican (small "r") political system is that, in some case, via the political process, the majority can determine how the country should be run. The South was willing to partake of the benefits of such a system (participating in elections, sending representatives to the Federal government, and so on), but unwilling to accept the other elements.

The South, for all that it is romanticized, was basically a big baby having a temper tantrum because it got outvoted.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 11, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> It's kind of hard to have a say in the selection of monarch as that's hereditary and not elected like our presidents are.




Which, in my opinion, makes revolt perfectly acceptable. All Kings (and all who claim to be King) should abdicate immediately, or be killed. In any event, having no voice for the chief executive applies equally to having no voice in the selection of the Prime Minister as to the King.



> _Legally, it's hard to say which is more wrong.... The American Revolution to make ourselves our very own sovereign nation or the southern states seceding from the Union because they didn't agree with certain things._





The Southern secession is "more wrong", those who have no say in their government have every right to complain and to seek an alternative. Those who participate in the process, and are simply outvoted, don't.


----------



## Orius (Jun 12, 2005)

Lincoln.  The historical record speaks for itself.  

I'm surprised to see that Jefferson is rated the highest so far, but I'd probably rank him second or third myself.

I wouldn't have included very recent people on this list (ie, Bush, Clinton, Bill Gates), as their historical impact has yet to be seen IMO.

Also, where's Theodore Roosevelt?


----------



## David Howery (Jun 12, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> I cannot really fathom that...  Not that I think the south was evil but because a divided United States, not to mention a United States without a strong central government, could not have been the backbone of the trails and tribulations of the 20th century…



I find it surprising too.  Some of the people who think like that are southerners who still pine for the glories of Dixie.  Oddly enough, quite a few of the non-Americans on AH.com think it would have been just great if the US had broken up in the ACW too, mainly because they hate Bush...


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 13, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Was it?  Seems to be it would be the sovereign land of the Union.  It’s how embassy works, its how it’s done on warships, and the US currently has a number of forts, military bases that are sovereign US soil...
> 
> So I don't see any reason behind your way of thinking.



CSA asked the soldiers to leave; that is, the CSA did not agree to allow the US fort to remain.

By the way, part of the reason for the Second War of American Independence was that Great Britain had not abandoned several forts in Americna territory, as required by the Treaty of Paris.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 13, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> However, the North, under Lincoln's direction, took the ciritical step of emancipation, even though many did not want him to do so. Which is really what makes him the greatest american.



Lincoln did not free a single slave in the United States.  Lincoln's goal was "to preserve the Union."


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 13, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> On that list of twenty-five, for me, only Thomas Jefferson comes close to being in a league with Ben Franklin.



Washington dwarfs them all.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 13, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Their homeland wasn't invaded until _after_ the Confederates had signed up in droves. They supported secession (via their elected state legislatures) based solely on the _possibility_ that Lincoln would abolish slavery based upon the fact that he was a Republican, and had once been a member of the Free Soil movement. In point of fact, until the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln ignored several extremely provocative moves made by Southerners, even to the point that he didn't call for volunteers until after the Fort was attacked.



You really need to go back to Calhoun to understand the deeper reasons for secession.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 13, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> CSA asked the soldiers to leave; that is, the CSA did not agree to allow the US fort to remain.




I don't even remember what this was in regards too...    but its okay we're just going around in circles in this and no one is changing anyone’s opinion so I think I'm done here.  (Plus my on vacation in a matter of hours now and won't be around the PC for any length of time for 11 days or so.)


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 13, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The legislature voted not to seceed.



The legislature of Maryland was arrested by Lincoln.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 13, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> There's not even a basis for that sort of comparison.
> 
> The States had agreed to the government of the United States via the U.S. Constitution, and were represented in Congress, allowed to vote for President and so on. They consented to the sovereignty of the United States by participating in the 1860 elections.
> 
> By contrast, the colonists were not represented in Parliament, had no say in the selection of their nation's chief executive, and could not fairly be said to have consented to their government at all.



When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another . . .


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 13, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I think this leads to some very unpleasant instruction in the American political system. It's only been comparatively recently that the federal government, in any really meaningful sense, has become a body that serves the public in general rather than powerful elites.



At the beginning of the republic, there were no powerful elites (not in the way you mean) . . .


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 13, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The only issue that this was "brewing over" of any consequence was slavery. Trying to frame the debate as a states' rights debate does a disservice to the concept of states' rights. In any event, the nature of a federal republican (small "r") political system is that, in some case, via the political process, the majority can determine how the country should be run. The South was willing to partake of the benefits of such a system (participating in elections, sending representatives to the Federal government, and so on), but unwilling to accept the other elements.
> 
> The South, for all that it is romanticized, was basically a big baby having a temper tantrum because it got outvoted.



Does the term "concurrent majority" mean anything to you?


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 13, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> I don't even remember what this was in regards too...    but its okay we're just going around in circles in this and no one is changing anyone’s opinion so I think I'm done here.




As with alot of debates, it seems....   



> (Plus my on vacation in a matter of hours now and won't be around the PC for any length of time for 11 days or so.)




WOWZA!! That's a long vacation!!!   I hope you enjoy it and have fun!!!


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 13, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Does the term "concurrent majority" mean anything to you?




Yes, it does. And in the context of the start of the Civil War, it is meaningless. Because the Southern states would have (had they not seceeded), kept all of the rights guaranteed to it under the Constitution, which is the instrument of protection for such minorities.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 13, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> You really need to go back to Calhoun to understand the deeper reasons for secession.




Calhoun was full of crap. Plain and simple. His argument was merely a justificiation for preserving slavery clothed in pretty language.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 13, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> The legislature of Maryland was arrested by Lincoln.




Not before they voted to stay in the Union. You can argue about whether Lincoln should have arrested Southern sympathizers or not, but the fact remains that the State song was in response to a perfectly normal act of the Union - transiting troops _though_ Balitmore to Washington D.C. No "occupation" occured until well afterwards, and was at the invitation of the loyal members of the Maryland government.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 13, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> CSA asked the soldiers to leave; that is, the CSA did not agree to allow the US fort to remain.




Given that secession was an illegal act to begin with, they didn't have much of a case. Given that the fort in question was Federal property, taking it by force is, in itself, a criminal act, whether the CSA wanted to fort to remain or not.



> By the way, part of the reason for the Second War of American Independence was that Great Britain had not abandoned several forts in Americna territory, as required by the Treaty of Paris.




Yes, forts that had been ceded by the U.K. via treaty. Did the CSA have a right by treaty to claim Federal property? I thought not.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 13, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another . . .




Yes, that is a great sentiment. However, the circumstances surrounding the separation of the American colonies from the United Kingdom were so different from the circumstances surrounding the South's attempted secession from the Union, that that language simply does not apply. At the most basic level, the colonies were denied a voice in their own government, which the South had a full voice in theirs (in point of fact, the South had long had a completely _disproportionately large_ voice in their government).

The root cause of the Civil War was that the South had a temper tantrum when they got outvoted and feared (without much basis) that their odious practice of holding slaves would be taken from them. You can dress it up in pretty language, but that's the true core of the matter.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 13, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Lincoln did not free a single slave in the United States.  Lincoln's goal was "to preserve the Union."




And yet he put forward the Empancipation Proclamation. Granted, it only applied to slaves held in States that were in rebellion at the time it was issued, but once you let that genie out of the bottle, it's not going back in.

Given that Lincoln freed every slave in the majority of slave holding states, and was assassinated by a bitter-ender before he could push peacetime legislation to finish the job, asserting that he "didn't free a single slave in the United States" is pretty silly.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 13, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Given that secession was an illegal act to begin with, they didn't have much of a case.



The states voted to join the United States.  They also voted to leave the United States.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 13, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes, it does. And in the context of the start of the Civil War, it is meaningless. Because the Southern states would have (had they not seceeded), kept all of the rights guaranteed to it under the Constitution, which is the instrument of protection for such minorities.



So, did the states secede, or not?  And these rights you speak of, do they include the right to vote against amendments to the Constitution?


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 13, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Calhoun was full of crap. Plain and simple. His argument was merely a justificiation for preserving slavery clothed in pretty language.



Have you read the Disquisition on Government or the Discourse on Government?

Is taxing one section of the country for the betterment of another a just use of the Constitution?


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 13, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And yet he put forward the Empancipation Proclamation. Granted, it only applied to slaves held in States that were in rebellion at the time it was issued, but once you let that genie out of the bottle, it's not going back in.



Those states were not in the United States; he had no jurisdiction.  There were no states in "rebellion."  


> Given that Lincoln freed every slave in the majority of slave holding states, and was assassinated by a bitter-ender before he could push peacetime legislation to finish the job, asserting that he "didn't free a single slave in the United States" is pretty silly.



And where in the Constitution is the president given authority to make a class of property illegal?


----------



## billd91 (Jun 13, 2005)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> At the beginning of the republic, there were no powerful elites (not in the way you mean) . . .




This is very much untrue. There were massively concentrated land elites of the day, including George Washington. Contrast him and most of the other men at the Continental Congress or in the early days of the federal government with the underclass of laborers and servants who had no land at all and tell me the early republic had no powerful elites. 
The War of Independence is often looked at as a tax revolt against a distant government, driven and led by the wealthy who wanted control of their own economy and foreign trade. 

So, were there powerful elites? Oh, very much so. One major difference between early American elites and their British counterparts is the way the Americans set up a fundamental law in documentary form, with structured methods of adjusting it, that encapsulated the promise of progressive freedom even if it didn't deliver to everyone when it was adopted.


----------



## Esteban (Jun 13, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Right, the poor farmer with no slaves can really spare the time to run for elected office...




Or he could have fought to preserve the Union and end slavery. A large number of southern volunteers fought for the Union. Enough that each Confederate state was represented in the UNION Army with a regiment of volunteers. Also, their were whole counties in the South that rejected the idea of secession and were hostile to representatives of the Confederate government.

Point being that there were at least a few Southerners who believed that either:

1. The Union was worth preserving.
2. Slavery was an evil that needed to be abolished.

Either way, this seems call into question the idea that a typical Southerner was just defending their property and homeland from hostile aggressors. Some in the South saw secession for what it was - an attempt to promote and defend a way of life that was based on the outmoded and morally indefensible institution of slavery.

-Esteban


----------



## TanisFrey (Jun 13, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> "In their eyes" doesn't work though. Because members of parliament (at least for the Commons) stood for particular districts. The American colonies (and all the other colonies) had no districts, and no members representing them. The analogy you are trying to make is a popular one, but one that is fatally flawed and carries no weight when subjected to any kind of analysis.
> 
> Only if they could have changed the Constitution, which requires ratification by 3/4 of the States. And they were _far_ from that stage. Besides, if they had not thrown a hissy fit over Lincoln's election, the South probably could have evolved a political compromise that would have abolished slavery later, and compensated those who owned them, or something like that.
> 
> ...



Unfortently some sudo goverment agencies like the Bank of America (under charter from the federal govement to be the federal reserve bank of the time) vastly favored giving loans to the north for railroads, cannals, and factories over the south.  Over 2/3 of loans and $ went north.  The south did want to put up a railroad system like the north but got only a few token lines instead.


			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Lincoln did not free a single slave in the United States.  Lincoln's goal was "to preserve the Union."



Licoln can be quoted at the beginging of his term of office the to preserver the Union he would not free a single slave.  He would free them if he could but preserving the Union was the 1# issue.


----------



## MonsterMash (Jun 14, 2005)

TanisFrey said:
			
		

> The colonies could not vote for any member of Parliament.  We were a colony, no seats for us.  Even Scotland and Irland had some Parliament seats but they were European nations conquered by England.



Incorrect about Scotland - England and Scotland joined together voluntarily under James I/VI in 1603 with this finally settled under the Act of Union in 1707. Wales and Ireland were conquered and particularly the Irish do have a right to deprecate the behaviour of English rulers (especially Oliver Cromwell )

I'll stay out of any ACW discussion though it is a period of history that I'm interested in as it does seem to inflame passions over there in the States. 

With the American Revolution I do remember the slogan of 'No taxation without representation' and wonder what effect adding parliamentary constituencies for the thirteen colonies to Westminster would have had? At least some of the support would have been diluted, but a system more akin to the present Commonwealth with local taxation and rule.


----------



## TanisFrey (Jun 14, 2005)

MonsterMash said:
			
		

> Incorrect about Scotland - England and Scotland joined together voluntarily under James I/VI in 1603 with this finally settled under the Act of Union in 1707. Wales and Ireland were conquered and particularly the Irish do have a right to deprecate the behaviour of English rulers (especially Oliver Cromwell )
> 
> I'll stay out of any ACW discussion though it is a period of history that I'm interested in as it does seem to inflame passions over there in the States.
> 
> With the American Revolution I do remember the slogan of 'No taxation without representation' and wonder what effect adding parliamentary constituencies for the thirteen colonies to Westminster would have had? At least some of the support would have been diluted, but a system more akin to the present Commonwealth with local taxation and rule.



Thank you for the links.  British hisorty is barely covered in the US classrooms, only were if directly relates to US history.

King Gorge did send an emisary to the Contanoly Congress to conceide the coloniey demands from before the war.  Congress said that it was too late after so much bloodshed.  I beleive that this was around Yorktown when France joined the War.


----------



## Orius (Jun 14, 2005)

MonsterMash said:
			
		

> With the American Revolution I do remember the slogan of 'No taxation without representation' and wonder what effect adding parliamentary constituencies for the thirteen colonies to Westminster would have had? At least some of the support would have been diluted, but a system more akin to the present Commonwealth with local taxation and rule.




It might not have even needed to go that far.  George III tried to reassert authority over the colonies after they had been to some extent self-governing for over a century.  When colonial leaders balked, he didn't try to smooth things over, rather he saw the colonial leaders as mere commoners who had an obligation to submit to the authority of the crown.  So he cracked down, and the more he cracked down, the more angry colonial leaders got.  If he chose to use the proverbial carrot rather than the stick, the American Revoluion would likely never had happened.


----------



## Mark (Jun 20, 2005)

Well, they've narrowed down the final 25 to the final five.  Alphabetcally, 

Benjamin Franklin
Martin Luther King Jr.
Abraham Lincoln
Ronald Reagan
George Washington

The voting booth has been reset and people can now re-vote from among the final five.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/greatestamerican/top100/top100.html

http://tv.channel.aol.com/greatestamerican


----------



## diaglo (Jun 20, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> Well, they've narrowed down the final 25 to the final five.  Alphabetcally,
> 
> Benjamin Franklin
> Martin Luther King Jr.
> ...




wow.. ronald reagan made it.

diaglo "my wife's friend was assassinated by reagan's goons" Ooi


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 20, 2005)

Wow. One of those things SO not like the others. Werid, to me, how perception works.


----------



## dogoftheunderworld (Jun 21, 2005)

My vote didn't change... Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"Darkness can not drive out darkness, only light can"


The Peacemaker is dead, long live the Peacemakers!


Brian
<><


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 21, 2005)

A lot of good people on that list, hard to choose one.  I've always admired those who struggled against oppression to make the American dream come true for all Americans, so people like Lincoln and civil rights activits are on top in my eyes.  They are not flawless people, no one is, but to me they are the ulimate symbols of courage, conviction, equality and liberty -- virtues and rights that I hold most dear.  My vote ultimately went to MLK as a symbol of the movement, though it easily could have gone to others, including one man not on the list, Frederick Douglass.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 21, 2005)

dogoftheunderworld said:
			
		

> "Darkness can not drive out darkness, only light can."




What a beautiful, fitting quote.  Much needed in times of fear.  Here's hoping our light will shine.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 21, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> What a beautiful, fitting quote.  Much needed in times of fear.  Here's hoping our light will shine.





now you've got me singing We Shall Overcome over and over in my head.


----------



## Dakkareth (Jun 21, 2005)

If he was an American, I'd vote for Einstein.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 22, 2005)

My vote remains unchanged. I'm in it for the Benjamins.

The Auld Grump... _Ronald Reagan?!!!_...


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 22, 2005)

All 5 are good choices, but Washington remains my choice.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 22, 2005)

Washington, the indispensable man.


----------



## Sammael (Jun 22, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> My vote remains unchanged. I'm in it for the Benjamins.
> 
> The Auld Grump... _Ronald Reagan?!!!_...



Agreed on both counts. I simply cannot comprehend what the Americans see in Reagan.


----------



## Mark (Jun 27, 2005)

Here's the final five, votes tallied, and the winner is...


5. Benjamin Franklin


4. George Washington


3. Martin Luther King Jr.


2. Abraham Lincoln


- and the Greatest American -


1. Ronald Reagan


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 27, 2005)

Now, I was born in 1981, so I was alive during Reagan's presidency, and not at all during the lives of anyone else on the list, but I'd have rated any of them above Reagan.

Did they give a reason why Reagan deserves to be up there?  I mean, sure, end of the Cold War and all. That is impressive, and we can rightly say that Reagan was more likely involved in saving the world than the others were. Whether he actually did save the world is debatable. Kennedy actually was involved in a much more tense near-apocalyptic conflict with the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Kennedy also got Americans to go to the moon. How can a martyred hero like Kennedy lose out to Reagan?

But what did Reagan do that represents the American ideal?

Washington - A symbol and leader of the nation, and he made a good sign of handing over power after two terms to show that America would have an elected leader, not a king.  He fought for American freedom.

Franklin - An inventor, very educated and witty, and was involved in establishing America as an actual nation, not just a rebellion. He coined a lot of phrases used today, things that are distinctly American. Personality-wise, I think he's the one I would have gotten along best with. He was fond of telling people when they were idiots.

Lincoln - A little controversial. He kept the nation together because he valued the nation over the rights of the states, which at the time got him compared to a tyrant. In a way, he set a new standard for America. He also is a symbol for the freeing of the slaves.

MLK - Martin Luther King, Jr. is like a modern founding father, combining all the traits of those early great Americans - keen intellect, a belief in the fundamental equality of human beings, incredible oratory skills, fearlessness - with a new devotion to non-violence that sadly . . . well, EN World is not a place for politics.  MLK got my vote.  

Imagine if Thomas Jefferson had managed to get a few thousand Americans to sail over to England and convince the British to give them their freedom, without violence.  The sheer scope of what Martin Luther King, Jr. accomplished, and the amazing amount of decency he demonstrated in doing so without violence, is what made me vote for him.

Perhaps he's the greatest person who is an American. Perhaps it's just that he doesn't reflect the modern American ideal as much anymore.


----------



## Welverin (Jun 27, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> But what did Reagan do that represents the American ideal?




Well he, uh, lived more recently than the rest?

Taking the list as a whole into consideration Reagan coming in first only makes sense.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 27, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> Here's the final five, votes tallied, and the winner is...
> 
> - and the Greatest American -
> 
> 1. Ronald Reagan




goes to show you that Americia does not know its own history, nor what whats a person great.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 27, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> goes to show you that Americia does not know its own history, nor what whats a person great.



just goes to show you why we still have the Electoral College. the uneducated masses shouldn't vote for President.
nor in polls like this.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Jun 27, 2005)

I disagree with the Reagan naysayers. Not that he was my top choice but he deserves his honors as much as any on that list. He inspired a generation of Americans, me included, to believe in America much as JFK did for the generation of my parents. And inspiration is a powerful thing.

Sure he had flaws, much like JFK, but it isn't the flaws that we remember it is the things he did right. If we are to measure based on flawed characteristics then many of these "great" Americans would fail to make the list, including all of the top five with the exception of MLK.

PS - this is ENworld and while we are each entitled to our opinion it goes against the grain to tear down a figure that others hold in high regard. Talk about the poll and the effect popularism has on all of these polls but leave the ideology at the "submit" button.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 27, 2005)

Eosin the Red said:
			
		

> I disagree with the Reagan naysayers. Not that he was my top choice but he deserves his honors as much as any on that list. He inspired a generation of Americans, me included, to believe in America much as JFK did for the generation of my parents. And inspiration is a powerful thing.
> 
> Sure he had flaws, much like JFK, but it isn't the flaws that we remember it is the things he did right. If we are to measure based on flawed characteristics then many of these "great" Americans would fail to make the list, including all of the top five with the exception of MLK.
> 
> PS - this is ENworld and while we are each entitled to our opinion it goes against the grain to tear down a figure that others hold in high regard. Talk about the poll and the effect popularism has on all of these polls but leave the ideology at the "submit" button.




Well put.  After the post-Watergate disillusionment of the 1970s, Ronald Reagan restored many people's faith in America as well as the office of president.  True, his presidency wasn't perfect, but he touched many lives and left a lasting impression on America and the world on a whole.  I wouldn't have picked him as the #1 choice (as I mentioned earlier, my pick is George Washington), but I feel that he definately deserves a spot on the list.


----------



## sniffles (Jun 27, 2005)

I'm sorry, but if Ronald Reagan is the greatest American, then shoot me now.  :\


----------



## Mark (Jun 27, 2005)

I think it is hard to put the events and persons of most recent history, specifically in our own lifetime, into the bigger picture.  I also think there are a number of people who made the 100 Greatest Americans list that have no business even being in the running.  However, I think almost any President of the USA should have made the list before some of those who did, i.e. Dr. Phil.  It's not easy to get elected to the highest post in the land, some say the world, and you really have to screw it up majorly to not to be considered great by many standards, IMO.  Once you make the top 100, it's just a matter of turning out the vote and winning the popularity contest.  That said, I had Franklin from the start to the finish.


----------



## der_kluge (Jun 27, 2005)

I can't believe Reagan won out over someone like Abraham Lincoln or George Washington. He was a freaking actor who just happened to be president when communism collapsed. Basically, IMO, he contributed very little to the state of the world. And he ran up huge deficits that spiraled our economy into the ground.

Lincoln freed the slaves. Washington set the tone for the office, and shaped this country into what it is today. A true visionary.  Reagan's not even in the same zip code.

Whoever it was that said "paraphrasing" the biggest argument against democracy is to spend 5 minutes with the average American voter was right."  They got this one dead wrong.


----------



## MaxKaladin (Jun 27, 2005)

Eosin the Red said:
			
		

> I disagree with the Reagan naysayers. Not that he was my top choice but he deserves his honors as much as any on that list. He inspired a generation of Americans, me included, to believe in America much as JFK did for the generation of my parents. And inspiration is a powerful thing.



I think that's the key.  I was 10 when he was elected, but I can remember how inspiring he could be.  People have to remember that at the time he was elected, Iran was holding Americans hostage and we seemed incapable of doing anything about it.  Our rescue mission turned into a disaster.  The Russians were invading Afghanistan.  The economy was in the basement and starting to dig.  Inflation was out of control.  For people older than I was, there was the shadow of Watergate and Vietnam.  There was also the gas crisis a few years in the past.  Things seemed pretty bleak right then.  Reagan talked about restoring pride in our nation and turning things around -- and later helped do it.  A lot of people remember him very fondly for that.  It's not about the deficits or any of the other political things that went on during his administration.  It's about inspiration that a lot of people felt very personally and that's why I think he was selected.  

Now, I voted for Franklin but I can certainly understand why someone would pick Reagan.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 27, 2005)

I've written, and deleted, three rants I was about to post about Reagan being voted "Greatest American", but I scrapped them as just too political for this site.

Suffice it to say, I strongly disagree.  He not only wasn't the "Greatest American", he doesn't even deserve to be called "Great".  He skyrocketed the deficit, gutted government support for mental healthcare, had economic policies which essentially took from the poor to give to the rich, and was most likely mentally incompetent in the last years of his administration.  He was a old B-Movie cowboy actor who played his folksy patriotic charm into a political career, and did nothing notable except be the person who was on watch when the USSR collapsed due to it's own economic incompetence.  In gaming terms, the most notable thing about him was that he had a very high charisma score.

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Franklin Roosevelt, all would have been more fitting choices.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 27, 2005)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> I can't believe Reagan won out over someone like Abraham Lincoln or George Washington. He was a freaking actor who just happened to be president when communism collapsed. Basically, IMO, he contributed very little to the state of the world. And he ran up huge deficits that spiraled our economy into the ground.



You may be understating his impact a little bit.  Granted, the average American OVERstates said impact tremendously, but he probably deserves some of the credit for shortening the Cold War.  It was sort of predestined to end the way it did, IMO, just later.



			
				MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> Now, I voted for Franklin but I can certainly understand why someone would pick Reagan.



Out of typical human (and even more typically American) shortsightedness and egocentrism.  Reagan, after all, happened during the lifetime of the people voting, and anything that happened in my lifetime is obviously more important than anything that happened before I got here, right?


----------



## Orius (Jun 27, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> But what did Reagan do that represents the American ideal?




I'll agree that's it's because he lived more recently than the rest, that his recent death probably has placed him a bit higher in everyone's collective subconscious and far too many people have a very poor grasp of history in this country.  It's a result of a lousy education system; there's far too much emphasis on passing standardized tests, and history education is very highly politicized.  Even worse, many parents don't really value history either, and that rubs off on their kids.

I'd say Reagan belongs on the list, but I still say Lincoln belongs at the top.  Others would be great Americans like Jefferson, Franklin, Washinton, both Roosevelts, MLK, and Woodrow Wilson, just to name a few (and some of those didn't even make the original list, while we had people who are famous, but pretty much irrelevant).


----------



## Felix (Jun 27, 2005)

I'm quite happy with the returns of the poll, except I would have numbers 4 and 5 in the 2 and 3 places. I'm also happy that those of you who have posted absurdities about President Reagan are unhappy; perhaps it's schadenfreude, but I have little sympathy for libelous individuals.

[I would enumerate the libels and absurdities, but there is a no-politics rule here. Feel free to email.]


----------



## MaxKaladin (Jun 27, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> Out of typical human (and even more typically American) shortsightedness and egocentrism.  Reagan, after all, happened during the lifetime of the people voting, and anything that happened in my lifetime is obviously more important than anything that appened before I got here, right?



Not exactly.  I think it's more about the strength of emotion.  Living through events can create strong emotions that those who come afterward simply do not feel.  I think a lot of people voted for Reagan because they _felt _ strongly that he was the greatest American in a way that had little or nothing to do with a factual comparison of his accomplishments with those of the other candidates.  He was an inspirational figure for many Americans and I think people voted for him on that basis.  

Yes, he lived during the lifetime of many of the voters and that boosted his popularity, but I think it was as much or more because the people who voted for him experienced the times firsthand and developed strong emotions because of it than it was some sort of egocentrism.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 28, 2005)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> I can't believe Reagan won out over someone like Abraham Lincoln or George Washington. He was a freaking actor who just happened to be president when communism collapsed.




There are many in Eastern Europe and former Soviet bloc countries who would disagree with you.  In those locations, Reagan is remembered as the American president who stared down Moscow and won.  Even the Russians themselves can aknowledge the role Reagan played in bringing down the Soviet Union.  To quote Gennady Gerasimov, top spokesman of the Soviet Foreign Ministry in the 1980s, "Reagan bolstered the U.S. military might to ruin the Soviet economy, and he achieved his goal." 

One lesser-known facet of Reagan's anti-Soviet strategy took place early in his first term (1982 or so);  Reagan decided that he wanted to take a big chunk out of the Soviet income.  William Casey (Director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time) suggested that the best way to do that would be to reduce the price of oil.  So Reagan went to the Saudis.

Reagan struck a deal with the king of Saudi Arabia:  The U.S. would sell AWACS to the Saudis and agree to defend the borders of Saudi Arabia against invasion, and in exchange the Saudis would defy OPEC limits and greatly increase their own oil production.  Reagan browbeat congress into authorizing the sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia, and not long after that the Saudis started pumping more oil (at the time, not very many people noticed that the increased oil production came right after the sales of AWACS).  What happened next should come as no surprise to anybody familiar with the concept of supply and demand: the price of oil fell sharply.

Because the Soviets depended heavily on petrolium exports as their primary source of income, the falling price of oil tore a very big chunk out of their pocketbooks.  When Reagan began his defense build-up, the Soviets tried to keep up using money that they didn't have.  In the end, it destroyed what was left of their economy.

I'm not giving sole credit to Reagan for ending the Cold War, but I am saying the played a major role in the fall of the Soviet Empire.  Acting like he played no role at all smacks of flaming partisanship.

(An interesting footnote to this little story is that Operation Desert Storm was largely a fulfillment of Reagan's promise to defend Saudi Arabia against invasion.  So the next time you see somebody whining that Desert Storm was all about oil, you can tell them that they are right, but not for the reasons they think they are.)


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 28, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> - and the Greatest American -1. Ronald Reagan




My dismay and disgust knows no bounds.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 28, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I'm not giving sole credit to Reagan for ending the Cold War, but I am saying the played a major role in the fall of the Soviet Empire.  Acting like he played no role at all smacks of flaming partisanship.





you don't give Eisenhower enough credit. Reagan was only following Ike's plan.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 28, 2005)

MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> Not exactly.  I think it's more about the strength of emotion.  Living through events can create strong emotions that those who come afterward simply do not feel.  I think a lot of people voted for Reagan because they _felt _ strongly that he was the greatest American in a way that had little or nothing to do with a factual comparison of his accomplishments with those of the other candidates.  He was an inspirational figure for many Americans and I think people voted for him on that basis.
> 
> Yes, he lived during the lifetime of many of the voters and that boosted his popularity, but I think it was as much or more because the people who voted for him experienced the times firsthand and developed strong emotions because of it than it was some sort of egocentrism.



That's part of what I meant.  Even if it's not for selfish reasons, it's still self-centered to let your personal emotional investment in someone drive a decision-making process like this one.  I meant egocentric in a sort of clinical sense, without the selfishness connotation that it has acquired.  After all, we call young children who are cognitively incapable of taking another's viewpoint egocentric without meaning that they are necessarily selfish.  That's just part of being human, really, and we all do it to one extent or another.


----------



## Belen (Jun 28, 2005)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> I can't believe Reagan won out over someone like Abraham Lincoln or George Washington. He was a freaking actor who just happened to be president when communism collapsed.




I can believe it.  If you believe that this is the case, then you've already subscribed to a partisan rewrite of history.  Others have already mentioned a few things in this thread that show exactly how Reagan took a hammer and nail to the USSR's coffin.  You can "believe" whatever you wish, but that does not make it fact.

My personal choice was Thomas Jefferson, although I think that Alexander Hamilton should also have ranked high in the list.


----------



## Mark (Jun 28, 2005)

Again, I say, "Dr. Phil?!?!"


----------



## reveal (Jun 28, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> That's part of what I meant.  Even if it's not for selfish reasons, it's still self-centered to let your personal emotional investment in someone drive a decision-making process like this one.  I meant egocentric in a sort of clinical sense, without the selfishness connotation that it has acquired.  After all, we call young children who are cognitively incapable of taking another's viewpoint egocentric without meaning that they are necessarily selfish.  That's just part of being human, really, and we all do it to one extent or another.




What's the famous quote? "History is written by the winners." History has always been, and will always be, written by those who use their personal bias' to influence their words.


----------



## reveal (Jun 28, 2005)

Mark said:
			
		

> Again, I say, "Dr. Phil?!?!"




I haven't seen the show. Knowing that Dr. Phil is on the list makes me glad I didn't.  :\


----------



## Eridanis (Jun 28, 2005)

Closing thread per thread starter's request; the show has aired. Please feel free to start other non-political/non-religious threads on the subject, though.


----------

