Post Civil War World

[eleanorigby]

I was channel surfing tonight and the Ken Burns Civil War series was on my local PBS. I watched episode 8 (ends with Appamatox), but didn't want to hear about Lincoln being assassinated, so I came in here to spend some time with you lot. Here is my question, which since I have no clue how to do a poll, could get interesting in an odd way quickly. I actually have 2 questions, but what the hell.

First question:

Who do you think was the best President ever? I tried to put in some modern ones, but I don't want to have too many options. Feel free to write one in.

I think Lincoln was. I realize it's an impossible choice, given that times of history demand different talents etc. But for me, he leads the pack by a substantial margin.


Second question:

How different would Reconstruction have been if Lincoln had not been cruelly and stupidly assassinated by an alcoholic racist moron? (sorry, but I really admire Lincoln in many ways and his death was such a waste of talent and ability). Lincoln was charitable and compassionate in victory--the antithesis of Reconstruction and carpetbaggery. It's not a period I have studied up on, but I am interested in thoughts you all might have.

[eleanorigby]

Fine. Don't take my poll or answer my questions, just read my thread.

I hate you all--you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

[WednesdayAddams]

There's no Kennedy option. (joking-FDR all the way)

[Harry]

It probably won't be a popular choice, but I think history hasn't given Johnson enough credit. He's going to get blamed for Vietnam, but that was started by Eisenhower and really ramped up by Nixon. Johnson's Great Society brought most of the Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity programs to fruition.

By the same token, history gives Reagan entirely too much credit, but that's a different thread.

Presidents get too much credit in good times, and too much blame in the bad ones.

[rayh]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

Second question:

How different would Reconstruction have been if Lincoln had not been cruelly and stupidly assassinated by an alcoholic racist moron? (sorry, but I really admire Lincoln in many ways and his death was such a waste of talent and ability). Lincoln was charitable and compassionate in victory--the antithesis of Reconstruction and carpetbaggery. It's not a period I have studied up on, but I am interested in thoughts you all might have.

Try The Sothern Victory series of books, where the South wins the civil war.

[Tamerlane]

I'm not sure about best, so I just went with most important and I'd argue that Washington tops that list.

[Darmund]

Washington was a great war hero, but I don't think he really did much as president apart from sort of being the symbolic glue that held the republic together in the critical early years. Nobody else could have done it. Without Washington, the United States wouldn't have lasted. But he hated being president.

Lincoln is a great choice, of course, but I have to agree with Wenz: FDR.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

Fine. Don't take my poll or answer my questions, just read my thread.

I hate you all--you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

I like your opinions and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[AuntiePam]

I've watched that series two or three times, and my daughter has the DVD set. It's awesome. I cry every time that letter is read, the one from Sullivan Belew (sp?).

No clue about your Reconstruction question. My understanding is that things were pretty good for several years and then went to hell, but I don't know why. Racism, I suppose, and the shitty condition the South was in. When people are down, they're gonna look for someone to blame. Blame the Negroes!

There should have been a massive effort to rebuild -- a Marshall Plan for the South.

I voted for FDR. The New Deal -- impressive.

Here's a question: Could the Civil War have been prevented? Could slavery have ended any other way?

[Darmund]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

No clue about your Reconstruction question. My understanding is that things were pretty good for several years and then went to hell, but I don't know why.

Well, one reason is that Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's vice president (a compromise choice to appease southerners), became president after Lincoln's assassination. And then proceeded to kiss white southern ass.

[Harry]

I feel the Civil War became inevitable when The Articles of Confederation didn't work, and the last of the Great Virginia Landowners died. Politically, Andrew Jackson started things down hill.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by rayh

Try The Sothern Victory series of books, where the South wins the civil war.

Thanks, but a world where the South won does not appeal to me. If Lincoln had not died, I feel sure that post war events would not have unfolded the way they did. They may have broadly, but perhaps not in execution? I will have to read up on it a bit (in my copious free time). What is staying with me from episode 8 is how Lincoln (and Grant) both said that there should be no gloating, but that we should welcome the Confederates back as Americans. And that is what we should have done. Maybe that was even attempted, but again, the devil is in the details and in how the message is delivered. Hmmm.


I really shouldn't have put "best" in the poll. Folks who know me will realize I put Reagan in there as a sop to the deluded hardcore Reps and as a joke. Reagan didn't do much good while in office, IMO.

It's funny how the echoes of long past events stay with us as a nation. We still have faint sounds from the Revolutionary War, lingering reverberations from the Civil War and of course the New Deal and the Great Society are still very much with us (and thank goodness)-no matter how the conservatives attempt to wrest this nation back into the pre-industrial age (hell the stone age). I probably should have gone with most important, but again, different eras in history demand different talents.

[Uthrecht]

I'm finding it tough to say exactly how the Reconstruction period would have gone if Lincoln had been around for the remainder of his term. I think part of the problem was that a lot of the Republicans, while being part of the abolitionist party, weren't all that more enlightened about race than the Democrats. What was really needed was education for freed blacks, and that wasn't really the focus of the post-Civil War effort.

Congress was more interested (in my opinion) in punishing the South and shifting things around broadly, than in solving the problem of integrating a slave population in and getting the workforce, society and economy ready for a post-slavery environment. I'm not sure that Lincoln would have fared better than Johnson in controlling Congress.

Darmond mentioned that Johnson kissed Southern ass. I'd agree that he backed off the talk of hanging Confederate leaders, but I also think it was a decent idea (in net effect if it wasn't his plan) to get Southerners in control of the South as much as possible, while also forcing them to accept the place of freed slaves in society. But I think he also was trying to get them back on their own feet, with their own respected leaders. Yes, that would mean you'd have ex-slaveowners back in positions of power, but let's face it - you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone qualified to be running a government who also hated slavery, and was a native Southerner. I could easily see Lincoln taking a similar tactic, and with a similar result: Congress refusing to seat them.

[eleanorigby]

But I can't help but think that Lincoln would have focused on the rebuilding of the South, and put a damper on the punishing aspect of things. I think that would have made a great deal of difference--also, Lincoln had massive referent power in the North--he could have used it to the entire country's advantage in the Recon era. Just a thought.

[mswas]

I don't really approve of Lincoln. The man was a bit of a tyrant and a despot. He had them shell New York so they could force Irish immigrants to go down south and kill their new countrymen who they'd never met, in a political struggle they knew nothing about. That doesn't sit right with me. To my mind that makes him the worst President ever. Getting rid of slavery was a good thing, but at what a cost.

George Washington on the other hand, if it were not for him setting the precedent of abdicating the Presidency, he may well have ruled as King and it would've been just another Monarchy. If you read what he said, he predicted pretty much every problem we would ever face.

In answer to your second question. I think he would've been a complete tyrant. I think the United States would have been a military dictatorship, and he would have taken brutal retribution upon his enemies. We'd probably be banana republic style now.

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by mswas

Getting rid of slavery was a good thing, but at what a cost.

What's your bargain basement, cost effective solution for getting rid of Slavery?

Originally Posted by mswas

In answer to your second question. I think he would've been a complete tyrant. I think the United States would have been a military dictatorship, and he would have taken brutal retribution upon his enemies. We'd probably be banana republic style now.

Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Yeah, that sounds like someone out for 'Brutal Retribution'.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Chacoguy

What's your bargain basement, cost effective solution for getting rid of Slavery?

I don't have one, but the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery, it was fought over secession. Abolition was merely a means to an end. It crushed the South economically so that they could never revolt again.

Yeah, that sounds like someone out for 'Brutal Retribution'.

He bombed his own people in New York. People who didn't want to fight and had no grievances against their Southern countrymen. He forced them to fight at the point of a bayonet. In a state where slavery was already illegal.

We are currently bombing the fuck out of another country because the leader bombed his own people.

But perhaps you are right. Maybe he would have lived by that, 'malice toward none', idealism. It's pretty words and all, but when you set out under a system where you are undermining the economy of the defeated states, and probably installing leaders from the other states. It's kind of hard to actually believe that those pretty words mean anything in a practical sense. Everyone had malice toward one another after the civil war.

[Uthrecht]

Well, the Civil War was fought because states seceded, but they seceded because of slavery.

As to Lincoln, Rigby, he might well have tried to push for rebuilding of the South, but again I feel that he would have run against a brick wall with the bulk of the Republican Congress. I think that a majority of the politicians there wanted to punish the South (and in some cases bleed it), and would not have been receptive to something like that.

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by mswas

He bombed his own people in New York.

50,000 people rioted; one of the first things they did was to burn down an orphanage full of black children while the kids were still inside. What other possible response was there? Should he have tried to simply reason with them?

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Chacoguy

50,000 people rioted; one of the first things they did was to burn down an orphanage full of black children while the kids were still inside. What other possible response was there? Should he have tried to simply reason with them?

They rioted because they didn't want to go fight in a war against their own countrymen.

And people in New York rioted all the time back then. They didn't always shell them.

It's unfortunate that they burned down that orphanage. But perhaps we should discuss the morality of the draft in the first place.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by mswas

But perhaps you are right. Maybe he would have lived by that, 'malice toward none', idealism. It's pretty words and all, but when you set out under a system where you are undermining the economy of the defeated states, and probably installing leaders from the other states. It's kind of hard to actually believe that those pretty words mean anything in a practical sense. Everyone had malice toward one another after the civil war.

I don't think blanket statements like "everyone had malice toward one another after the Civil War" are helpful (or true). I have to say I am somewhat taken aback by your opinion on Lincoln. Tyrant and despot? He had fierce enemies in politics, who he placed in his cabinet and they became admirers (as far I recall). He tried like hell to get bitter factions to work together, with some success.

It's Wikipedia, but this is a concise summary of his term(s) in office:

Lincoln

No malice from Grant. None from Lincoln. None from Sherman*. If their actions are anything to go by: Grant stopped his Union troops from cheering as Lee left Appamatox. Sherman had his men stand at attention and salute the Army of Northern Virginia at the formal surrender. Lincoln said that we (the north) must accept and embrace the southerners as Americans.

IMO, the Congresscritters and those wonderful upstanding, righteous, moral folk known as entrepreneurs saw a chance to profit mightily and did so. The South was bitter after the war and rightly so in many respects. Not only had their way of life been destroyed, their livelihood had as well, even their very homes and cities were rubble.


*I'm pretty sure it was Sherman.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

I don't think blanket statements like "everyone had malice toward one another after the Civil War" are helpful (or true). I have to say I am somewhat taken aback by your opinion on Lincoln. Tyrant and despot? He had fierce enemies in politics, who he placed in his cabinet and they became admirers (as far I recall). He tried like hell to get bitter factions to work together, with some success.

It was hyperbole. There was a lot of animousity on all sides, enough to go around. It still exists to some degree.

You have a valid point regarding the team of rivals stuff.

It's Wikipedia, but this is a concise summary of his term(s) in office:

Lincoln

No malice from Grant. None from Lincoln. None from Sherman*. If their actions are anything to go by: Grant stopped his Union troops from cheering as Lee left Appamatox. Sherman had his men stand at attention and salute the Army of Northern Virginia at the formal surrender. Lincoln said that we (the north) must accept and embrace the southerners as Americans.

General's tend to have a different way of looking at those things than most people. They thought they were honorable enemies and deserved respect for fighting the good fight. That's cool, but as you note, Grant had to stop his troops from cheering as Lee left Appamatox. So Grant held no malice, but a lot of his troops clearly did.

IMO, the Congresscritters and those wonderful upstanding, righteous, moral folk known as entrepreneurs saw a chance to profit mightily and did so. The South was bitter after the war and rightly so in many respects. Not only had their way of life been destroyed, their livelihood had as well, even their very homes and cities were rubble.

Yes, they did. Do you think it would've been different had Lincoln remained?

Also, I'd like to point out that the draft is a form of slavery. You are enslaving a person at gunpoint and forcing them to go be a murderer against their will, in many cases, they will die in that state with their liberty completely removed. The draft is evil, and it's one of the most un-American things I can think of. Wasn't the Civil War the first draft?

[eleanorigby]

Query: how is one to know you are speaking hyperbole?

I think you're missing my point. Yes, the Union troops wanted to cheer (and probably did), but my point is that the leaders were not gloating--leaders starting from Lincoln on down. I think that if Lincoln had lived Reconstruction would have not been so malevolent. Then again, as Uthy has pointed out, there were factions at work in Congress that Lincoln may not have been able to control.


I dunno 'bout the CW being the first draft, but young men have been press-ganged for centuries. For all I know, they still are in the 3rd world and in dictatorships. Forcing men to fight for their country is just one of those things--not saying I agree with it, but it's an established approach for sure.

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by mswas

Grant had to stop his troops from cheering as Lee left Appamatox. So Grant held no malice, but a lot of his troops clearly did.

No, they were wishing to celebrate the fact that the war was over.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

Query: how is one to know you are speaking hyperbole?

Well generally, I just kind of assumed when I said, "Everyone", you knew that I didn't mean literally every single person. I meant it in the, "Everyone watches that show.", or, "How do you not know who Lady Gaga is? Everyone knows!" Sometimes hyperbole seems obvious. I guess it wasn't obvious to everyone.

I think you're missing my point. Yes, the Union troops wanted to cheer (and probably did), but my point is that the leaders were not gloating--leaders starting from Lincoln on down. I think that if Lincoln had lived Reconstruction would have not been so malevolent. Then again, as Uthy has pointed out, there were factions at work in Congress that Lincoln may not have been able to control.

Right. There was plenty of malice to go around. That's my point.

I dunno 'bout the CW being the first draft, but young men have been press-ganged for centuries. For all I know, they still are in the 3rd world and in dictatorships. Forcing men to fight for their country is just one of those things--not saying I agree with it, but it's an established approach for sure.

According to Wikipedia it's the first national draft.

You do realize that America was built on this notion of exceptionalism. That we are supposed to be a beacon of freedom. Comparing it to galley slaves doesn't really make the point very well.

Conscription was an established approach, and so was taxing colonies without affording them representation, so was having a hereditary monarch.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Chacoguy

No, they were wishing to celebrate the fact that the war was over.

Fair point.

So are you of the opinion that Grant's troops held no malice?

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by mswas

So are you of the opinion that Grant's troops held no malice?

I can't speak for Grant's Troops; other than to suggest that they really wanted to get back to their womenfolk.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Chacoguy

I can't speak for Grant's Troops; other than to suggest that they really wanted to get back to their womenfolk.

No doubt

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by Chacoguy

50,000 people rioted; one of the first things they did was to burn down an orphanage full of black children while the kids were still inside. What other possible response was there? Should he have tried to simply reason with them?

Very interesting. I didn't know about the draft riots. I looked it up on Wikipedia, and they state that the children were able to escape with the aid of police. I also was unaware of the Commutation Fee for avoiding the draft.

ETA: It's a good example of the racism that went on in the North, though.

[eleanorigby]

Eh, I'm only lukewarm on that whole beacon of freedom stuff. Talk about your pretty words that are in practicality useless....


Then again, maybe we would have been better off with no Lincoln, ever. Maybe we'd have the Confederacy and the USA: the whole blue state/red state thing. The blue states (USA) would be wealthy, educated and globally focused. The Confederacy (which would have abolished slavery eventually since it is not a viable profit-making structure) would perhaps gone the way of South Africa. The USA would have problems, not with illegal Mexican immigrants, but with African American ones.

I'm hugely generalizing here, but I doubt I'm far off. The South has many many wonderful things: a sense of heritage and family, a love of land (well, not so much--depends on who you talk to), a distinct culture and a dignity. What it lacks is an industrial base, commerce and impatience.

(I'm ignoring contemporaneous progress and referring to the South of my childhood: Spanish moss, hot long afternoons under an oak tree, cicadas chirping, old black men ambling aimlessly by, iced sweet tea with home made macaroons or an RC and a Moon pie; gloves and "opaques" with your patent leather shoes for church, an old dog laying in the middle of the street....)

[Anacanapuna]

::'Puna skips past most of the posts directly to the reply section::
I've been a casual scholar of the Civil War most of my adult life, and the common thread among serious historians is that Lincoln would have poured massive amounts of aid into helping the South rebuild after the war. Apparently he was of the mind that because the devastation of the South had been necessary in order to destroy the Confederates' will to fight, it would be necessary to rebuild that economy much the way the Allies rebuilt Germany and France after WWII. According to Shelby Foote (not exactly a scholar, but in many ways the common man's authority on the war while he was alive) they planned to invite foreign investment to expand the Northern industrial base into the South to balance the almost-entirely agrarian economy there. There was no plan yet on how to provide the massive manpower required to cultivate King Cotton, but different types of land re-distribution plans had been floated once or twice during the war. The problem with them was that, for all his liberalism, Lincoln had little stomach for taking land away from planters to give to former slaves.

One of the worst after-effects of Lincoln's assassination was here in the West. Lincoln had thought, after the Civil War, of persuading Congress to shore up its treaties with the American Indians and stop the constant and steady pressure on the tribes in the West. He was mindful of Stephen Long's assessment of the West as the Great American Desert (which wasn't necessarily true, but had some validity) and to use remnants of the U.S. Army, not to subdue and eradicate the Indians, but to keep open vast reaches of the West to Indian use. Unfortunately, almost no one else shared this thought and the rush to carpetbag the South became a rush to carpetbag the West and the horrors of the succeeding 40 years commenced upon the natives.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Anacanapuna

::'Puna skips past most of the posts directly to the reply section::
I've been a casual scholar of the Civil War most of my adult life, and the common thread among serious historians is that Lincoln would have poured massive amounts of aid into helping the South rebuild after the war. Apparently he was of the mind that because the devastation of the South had been necessary in order to destroy the Confederates' will to fight, it would be necessary to rebuild that economy much the way the Allies rebuilt Germany and France after WWII. According to Shelby Foote (not exactly a scholar, but in many ways the common man's authority on the war while he was alive) they planned to invite foreign investment to expand the Northern industrial base into the South to balance the almost-entirely agrarian economy there. There was no plan yet on how to provide the massive manpower required to cultivate King Cotton, but different types of land re-distribution plans had been floated once or twice during the war. The problem with them was that, for all his liberalism, Lincoln had little stomach for taking land away from planters to give to former slaves.

Sounds like most of that money would've gone to carpet-bagging industrialists then. Leaving a lot of the ownership of the South in the hands of foreign financiers.

Remember, it's not so much about rebuilding is it is about who owns the post-war order.

One of the worst after-effects of Lincoln's assassination was here in the West. Lincoln had thought, after the Civil War, of persuading Congress to shore up its treaties with the American Indians and stop the constant and steady pressure on the tribes in the West. He was mindful of Stephen Long's assessment of the West as the Great American Desert (which wasn't necessarily true, but had some validity) and to use remnants of the U.S. Army, not to subdue and eradicate the Indians, but to keep open vast reaches of the West to Indian use. Unfortunately, almost no one else shared this thought and the rush to carpetbag the South became a rush to carpetbag the West and the horrors of the succeeding 40 years commenced upon the natives.

That's sad.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

Eh, I'm only lukewarm on that whole beacon of freedom stuff. Talk about your pretty words that are in practicality useless....


Then again, maybe we would have been better off with no Lincoln, ever. Maybe we'd have the Confederacy and the USA: the whole blue state/red state thing. The blue states (USA) would be wealthy, educated and globally focused. The Confederacy (which would have abolished slavery eventually since it is not a viable profit-making structure) would perhaps gone the way of South Africa. The USA would have problems, not with illegal Mexican immigrants, but with African American ones.

I'm hugely generalizing here, but I doubt I'm far off. The South has many many wonderful things: a sense of heritage and family, a love of land (well, not so much--depends on who you talk to), a distinct culture and a dignity. What it lacks is an industrial base, commerce and impatience.

(I'm ignoring contemporaneous progress and referring to the South of my childhood: Spanish moss, hot long afternoons under an oak tree, cicadas chirping, old black men ambling aimlessly by, iced sweet tea with home made macaroons or an RC and a Moon pie; gloves and "opaques" with your patent leather shoes for church, an old dog laying in the middle of the street....)

I think you might be right, but I think that there is something deeply wrong, deep down in my gut, with forcing people to kill their own countrymen.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by mswas

I think you might be right, but I think that there is something deeply wrong, deep down in my gut, with forcing people to kill their own countrymen.

But we as a society, as humans, allow this all the time. Police are allowed to murder--we just don't call it murder No cop is "forced" to kill a suspect--they make that choice to pull the trigger*. The justice system is allowed to sanction murder, but we call it execution. You can kill someone yourself, but as long as it's "self-defense", you'll probably get away with it. As long as there have been people, there has been war and killing.

Approved violence, even mandated violence and killing of "your own countrymen" is not new or unique to America or Lincoln. I'm not saying that it's commonality makes it right, but so much depends upon the definition of "right". It was wrong of the southern planters to enslave Africans. Wrong of the African tribes to capture other Africans and deal with the whites to make the slave trade. Wrong of the whites to go seeking stolen labor and lives. Wrong for them to consider Africans inferior in the first place. And so it goes--a backwards bread crumb trail to where? Some say Cain and Abel. Others point to ancient civilizations that also had slaves. Might has almost always meant right and part of might is being able to force others to do your will.



*to take this to an extreme, one could argue that nobody is forced to shoot, even in self-defense. A choice is made: fight, kill, or die. There is always a choice. I'm not saying that killing the bad guy (or the person threatening to kill you) is a wrong choice; I'm saying it is a choice.



Thanks, Apuna! I thought as much, but didn't know for sure.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

But we as a society, as humans, allow this all the time. Police are allowed to murder--we just don't call it murder No cop is "forced" to kill a suspect--they make that choice to pull the trigger*. The justice system is allowed to sanction murder, but we call it execution. You can kill someone yourself, but as long as it's "self-defense", you'll probably get away with it. As long as there have been people, there has been war and killing.

No one is forced to become a cop.

Approved violence, even mandated violence and killing of "your own countrymen" is not new or unique to America or Lincoln. I'm not saying that it's commonality makes it right, but so much depends upon the definition of "right". It was wrong of the southern planters to enslave Africans. Wrong of the African tribes to capture other Africans and deal with the whites to make the slave trade. Wrong of the whites to go seeking stolen labor and lives. Wrong for them to consider Africans inferior in the first place. And so it goes--a backwards bread crumb trail to where? Some say Cain and Abel. Others point to ancient civilizations that also had slaves. Might has almost always meant right and part of might is being able to force others to do your will.

No one is saying it's unique to America or Lincoln. The problem here is that it's not unique that we DON'T do those things. America is supposed to be freer than other countries, period...full stop.

Slavery is wrong, whether it's conscription or chattel slavery. Slavery is wrong...period.

*to take this to an extreme, one could argue that nobody is forced to shoot, even in self-defense. A choice is made: fight, kill, or die. There is always a choice. I'm not saying that killing the bad guy (or the person threatening to kill you) is a wrong choice; I'm saying it is a choice.

I don't think it's fair to compare self-defense with being enslaved to go kill for the country's elites.

Obviously Lincoln thought it was worth it to kill somewhere between half a million and a million Americans to keep the south from seceding. Obviously you agree. I am not so sure.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by mswas

No one is saying it's unique to America or Lincoln. The problem here is that it's not unique that we DON'T do those things. America is supposed to be freer than other countries, period...full stop.

America is supposed to be freer than other countries? How so? "We" wanted to be free from remote rule (despite the fact that our responsibilities to the British Crown were not all that onerous). The people who fomented the Revolutionary War wanted America to be free from England, sure. But they did not intend for all people to be free to do whatever, whichever, whenever. Hell, only landed gentlemen could vote!

Our doings in the world are no better than they should be, and sometimes a great deal worse. I'd like to think that all those WW2 movies I saw on the Late Show were right about America and its policies here and abroad: that we're the good guys, the fair, just and true, that we don't rape, torture, double deal etc, but we do. We do. That fact doesn't make me happy; it makes me sick to my stomach. But I stopped believing in Beaver Cleaver, apple pie America a long time ago. YMMV.

Slavery is wrong, whether it's conscription or chattel slavery. Slavery is wrong...period.

Ok. The USA does not have a draft at the moment and likely won't. So what we have is a subterfuge of the draft-where underprivileged poor and minority men and women, sometimes having no real options, join the ranks. We don't press-gang, but to say it's voluntary to a backwater kid in a town where the mill/factory has closed, there are no jobs, no future except maybe one of crime, is not to say that our best and brightest are signing on the dotted line, either. (not really trying to diss the military, but it is true that the Armed Services is seen as a more viable choice for those with extremely limited ones. I do realize that they do not take just anyone.)

I don't think it's fair to compare self-defense with being enslaved to go kill for the country's elites.

Elites? That sounds rather Marxist. It's not a fair comparison, but I was talking about the choice of killing. Even a soldier has a choice to pull the trigger. Yes, huge consequences face him if he chooses to not do his job--killing the enemy--but it is still a choice. IOW, you may be drafted but that does not mean you have to kill. That was my point. Again, we are talking about slightly different things.

Obviously Lincoln thought it was worth it to kill somewhere between half a million and a million Americans to keep the south from seceding. Obviously you agree. I am not so sure.

And the Founding Fathers deemed it worthy to raise arms against their own countrymen, the Redcoats. I am not at all sure it was "worth" it. I don't know how to begin to measure such a thing. Slavery has left a taint on this country that still survives to this day and will for probably another century or more. It spawned a subculture and mindset that still thrives in the ghettos of Detroit, Chicago, NY and other places. You can trace "the hood" and gang-bangers straight back to Jim Crow and beyond to the Antebellum South. Which is not to say the North is not also culpable in this entrenched and pervasive racism: many in the North wanted the slaves freed, but for them to stay away. New immigrants pouring into the northern cities brought with them their own ingrained prejudices. All of that is still with us and will be for a long time to come.

Lincoln put the Union above all else, most likely because no one could imagine the alternative. America was a very young country--if divided, it may well have been invaded and conquered by the Brits or France or any other empire building nation at that time. Or we may have become like so many other unfriendly neighboring countries and snipe at one another verbally, politically and occasionally violently. There was no American Empire at that point: State's Rights had the country fraying at the seams. Without Lincoln and those terrible losses, the Allies might not have won WW1 or WW2 because America as we know it would not have existed.



Question: was it wrong to have a draft in the world wars? Why is it ok to go kill other people based on their nationalities but not your own people? They didn't have anything to do with the policy making or the decision to go to war by the "Elites". Killing is killing-why does the policy attached to it matter?


Only slightly nutty hypothetical: If Arizona decided to declare war of any kind on Mexico and armed it's people against the "hordes" of illegals, would it be wrong of Obama or the "Elites" to call out the National Guard from other states (or request those governors to do so)? How is it different?

[mswas]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

America is supposed to be freer than other countries? How so? "We" wanted to be free from remote rule (despite the fact that our responsibilities to the British Crown were not all that onerous). The people who fomented the Revolutionary War wanted America to be free from England, sure. But they did not intend for all people to be free to do whatever, whichever, whenever. Hell, only landed gentlemen could vote!

Not to 'do whatever'. But there's a difference between 'doing whatever' and being forced to do something.

If you are conscripted you are not free. Not free AT ALL, not even a little. You are NOT FREE. So being conscripted removes all freedom completely and totally for the period of service.

Our doings in the world are no better than they should be, and sometimes a great deal worse. I'd like to think that all those WW2 movies I saw on the Late Show were right about America and its policies here and abroad: that we're the good guys, the fair, just and true, that we don't rape, torture, double deal etc, but we do. We do. That fact doesn't make me happy; it makes me sick to my stomach. But I stopped believing in Beaver Cleaver, apple pie America a long time ago. YMMV.

Precisely why we shouldn't be drafting people for foreign misadventures.

Ok. The USA does not have a draft at the moment and likely won't. So what we have is a subterfuge of the draft-where underprivileged poor and minority men and women, sometimes having no real options, join the ranks. We don't press-gang, but to say it's voluntary to a backwater kid in a town where the mill/factory has closed, there are no jobs, no future except maybe one of crime, is not to say that our best and brightest are signing on the dotted line, either. (not really trying to diss the military, but it is true that the Armed Services is seen as a more viable choice for those with extremely limited ones. I do realize that they do not take just anyone.)

I doubt we'll ever see a draft ever again. The requirements of a professional military don't work with a draft. There is also a huge difference between joining the military to get more career prospects and joining it because the government says, "Do it or go to prison."

Elites? That sounds rather Marxist. It's not a fair comparison, but I was talking about the choice of killing. Even a soldier has a choice to pull the trigger. Yes, huge consequences face him if he chooses to not do his job--killing the enemy--but it is still a choice. IOW, you may be drafted but that does not mean you have to kill. That was my point. Again, we are talking about slightly different things.

Getting compared to a communist is so tedious. The fact of the matter is the draft has been used not for the defense of the nation but to express in foreign policy the opinions of a few leaders. Vietnam, and Korea were completely unecessary, and it's unconscionable that there was a draft for those wars. We had to keep the world safe for cheap labor. That's what the Cold-War was about, we couldn't let countries fall to Communism because if they did, then that would affect trade. That's what capitalism is about, that's what war for capitalism is about. The Cold-War created a situation where war for money was made to be glorious and moral. And we drafted kids for it.

And the Founding Fathers deemed it worthy to raise arms against their own countrymen, the Redcoats. I am not at all sure it was "worth" it. I don't know how to begin to measure such a thing. Slavery has left a taint on this country that still survives to this day and will for probably another century or more. It spawned a subculture and mindset that still thrives in the ghettos of Detroit, Chicago, NY and other places. You can trace "the hood" and gang-bangers straight back to Jim Crow and beyond to the Antebellum South. Which is not to say the North is not also culpable in this entrenched and pervasive racism: many in the North wanted the slaves freed, but for them to stay away. New immigrants pouring into the northern cities brought with them their own ingrained prejudices. All of that is still with us and will be for a long time to come.

There wasn't a draft in the Revolutionary war. And yes, slavery was evil and awful, no doubt about it.

Lincoln put the Union above all else, most likely because no one could imagine the alternative. America was a very young country--if divided, it may well have been invaded and conquered by the Brits or France or any other empire building nation at that time. Or we may have become like so many other unfriendly neighboring countries and snipe at one another verbally, politically and occasionally violently. There was no American Empire at that point: State's Rights had the country fraying at the seams. Without Lincoln and those terrible losses, the Allies might not have won WW1 or WW2 because America as we know it would not have existed.

Obviously the people of the South could imagine an alternative or they wouldn't have pursued it.

There WAS an American Empire by that point. You live in it now. The continental 48 are the American Empire, and it's to this day one of the largest contigous empire's in history. Manifest Destiny was the Imperial mandate to colonize from coast to coast. The Empire is these 50 united states. James K. Polk was the most imperialist President we've had up until George W. Bush.

Question: was it wrong to have a draft in the world wars? Why is it ok to go kill other people based on their nationalities but not your own people? They didn't have anything to do with the policy making or the decision to go to war by the "Elites". Killing is killing-why does the policy attached to it matter?

I'm not cool with the draft in general. World War II is one of the only times where I think it is even remotely warranted. Japan attacked us, and Germany was agitating to get Mexico to declare war on us.

Only slightly nutty hypothetical: If Arizona decided to declare war of any kind on Mexico and armed it's people against the "hordes" of illegals, would it be wrong of Obama or the "Elites" to call out the National Guard from other states (or request those governors to do so)? How is it different?

Is there a draft?

[WednesdayAddams]

Mod Note: Okay. We have a new thread on the morality of conscripted military service here. Let's drift back to the topic of why my president can beat up your president. [/note]

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Mod Note: Okay. We have a new thread on the morality of conscripted military service here. Let's drift back to the topic of why my president can beat up your president. [/note]

Would it be a thread drift to mention the terrible burden placed on Truman to drop the Bomb(s) on Japan?

[mswas]

I would also like to point out that George Washington was the only man from the revolution who COULD have been President at the time. The nastiness between Jefferson and Adams in the 1800 election demonstrates how small those two men were in comparison to Washington. And had it not been Washington, the country probably would have fallen apart in the first decade.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

Would it be a thread drift to mention the terrible burden placed on Truman to drop the Bomb(s) on Japan?

Not at all, but I would point out that Truman's presidency had more wrong with it than simply what was done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not the least of which was the whole 'loyalty check' fiasco.

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Let's drift back to the topic of why my president can beat up your president.

I have $10 says Theodore Roosevelt can take on all comers. Possibly two at a time.

Originally Posted by mswas

I would also like to point out that George Washington was the only man from the revolution who COULD have been President at the time.

Washington boggles me sometimes. He managed to pull off some impressive military planning, but was less impressive in some other Revolutionary battles and managed to totally hork things up at Fort Necessity (admittedly he was at a disadvantage on numbers and still young). He did well generally in business to my understanding, but kept misinvesting in western expansion land projects. Which of course, makes him human.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

I would point out that Truman's presidency had more wrong with it than simply what was done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not the least of which was the whole 'loyalty check' fiasco.

True. I didn't take into consideration the rise of McCarthyism during the Truman Administration. EO 9835 predates The Patriot Act, giving unprecedented power over citizens' privacy.

But I find it hard to argue that was more devastating than introducing the most catastrophic weapon to mankind to the rest of the world.

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

True. I didn't take into consideration the rise of McCarthyism during the Truman Administration.

Well, didn't Truman set all that up himself by painting how horrible and gobally destructive communism was? If I recall, he talked all that up so that he could push Congress into giving him the money to send support to Greece.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by Uthrecht

Well, didn't Truman set all that up himself by painting how horrible and gobally destructive communism was? If I recall, he talked all that up so that he could push Congress into giving him the money to send support to Greece.

I really didn't want to detract from the OP's topic.

I've moved it here if anyone's interested.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by mswas

Not to 'do whatever'. But there's a difference between 'doing whatever' and being forced to do something.

If you are conscripted you are not free. Not free AT ALL, not even a little. You are NOT FREE. So being conscripted removes all freedom completely and totally for the period of service.

Not free to make the choice between killing others or dying yourself? That choice is always open. I'm not saying it's a viable one; I'm not here to defend a military draft--although I think it has its place.If AZ went even more batshit insane and started killing illegals or if there was some other uprising here, I would fully expect and hope that either the police forces or the NG or someone would take steps, killing if necessary, to stop them. If that involved "forcing" our young people into mandatory military service, so be it. I think a mandatory bout of service would change a lot of policies fairly quickly: sans draft, we are all distanced from these wars (except of course for those in the military and their loved ones). IMO that's not good for any nation's character, but that's another thread.

Getting compared to a communist is so tedious. The fact of the matter is the draft has been used not for the defense of the nation but to express in foreign policy the opinions of a few leaders. Vietnam, and Korea were completely unecessary, and it's unconscionable that there was a draft for those wars. We had to keep the world safe for cheap labor. That's what the Cold-War was about, we couldn't let countries fall to Communism because if they did, then that would affect trade. That's what capitalism is about, that's what war for capitalism is about. The Cold-War created a situation where war for money was made to be glorious and moral. And we drafted kids for it.

I am not calling you a communist. I said your use of the word elites sounded rather Marxist. Korea and Vietnam were not some Elite Person's private wars: IMO the entire country went batshit insane out of fear of Stalin and communism.

There wasn't a draft in the Revolutionary war.

The hell there wasn't. Conscription in colonial times It may not be the same system as the Vietnam lottery numbers etc, but there was conscription.

Obviously the people of the South could imagine an alternative or they wouldn't have pursued it.

This makes me chuckle: the South had no more practical vision of a working, thriving South than I do of a modeling career. They were diehard Romantics, ensnared and charmed by a vision of nobility and grandeur that had little to do with reality. They fought "to preserve their way of life" despite the fact that the vast majority of them were small sharehold farmers with 1-2 slaves at most. Much came into play to start the Civil War, but it can be said that the image that the South had of itself was grandiose, unreal and unsustainable. They went to war based on an ideology of sorts, not out of some established vision of what their future "country" would look like. In personal terms, they whapped the North across the face with a glove and challenged them to a duel. They lost.

There WAS an American Empire by that point. You live in it now. The continental 48 are the American Empire, and it's to this day one of the largest contigous empire's in history. Manifest Destiny was the Imperial mandate to colonize from coast to coast. The Empire is these 50 united states. James K. Polk was the most imperialist President we've had up until George W. Bush.

No, there was not an empire--not yet. America was seen as a rough, uncultured country, lacking infrastructure, still earning its acting chops on the world stage. And that characterization is true. It wasn't until the Panama Canal that America was seen as a major player in world political theater. Britain was THE empire and owned most of the world--the Civil War was just about the height of the Victorian age when the sun never set on the British Empire. Manifest Destiny was used as a way to settle the west and rid America of its indigenous peoples.

[Anacanapuna]

Originally Posted by mswas

Sounds like most of that money would've gone to carpet-bagging industrialists then. Leaving a lot of the ownership of the South in the hands of foreign financiers.

Remember, it's not so much about rebuilding is it is about who owns the post-war order.

Investment doesn't equal perpetual ownership. The South had no funds with which to rebuild so any rebuilding investment would have to have come from outside. Most investors want to earn their money back with interest. Instead, there was no investment, as such, just the wholesale theft of what was left of the economy.

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by Anacanapuna

Investment doesn't equal perpetual ownership. The South had no funds with which to rebuild so any rebuilding investment would have to have come from outside. Most investors want to earn their money back with interest. Instead, there was no investment, as such, just the wholesale theft of what was left of the economy.

An interesting point about rebuilding. By the 1910s to 1920s, the South had started to have textile mills being built, in some cases by Northern companies or investors. That, coupled with labor strikes in the North helped crash the New England textile industry.

Just food for thought as to why the North didn't necessarily want to help rebuild the South.

[Anacanapuna]

Yep, I'm afraid that, had Booth failed, President Lincoln would have had a generally disappointing second term. But I still think there would have been some federal oversight of Reconstruction. Doubtful that foreign investors would have put much into the South -- they certainly didn't lift a finger to help during the war, no reason to think they'd come in afterward.

[What Exit?]

Seriously, where is Theodore Roosevelt. He was the best President we've had. I liked Reagan, I voted for Reagan, but he does not belong on this list. Johnson is far worse. I would barely rate him a good President.