|
QuoProQuid posted:
That is a pro-tier neckbeard
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Thank you for voting. In a landslide, His Elective Majesty Abraham Lincoln has won re-election. There is no doubt that Lincoln will serve a long, healthy, and fulfilling life. Surely, the next few years will see many outstanding changes, including the peaceful reintegration of the South, the enfranchising of freed slaves, and the prosecution of former Confederate leaders. lmao what a depressing loving couple of lines  GRANT! *telegraph receiver smash*
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
andrew johnson, inventor of the GOP southern strategy
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
What's bad about Grant, this seems open and shut to me
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:What's bad about Grant, this seems open and shut to me He won't start another Civil War and reinvade the South to finish the job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:What's bad about Grant, this seems open and shut to me His administration was rife with corruption, although I think there was no real evidence tying him directly to it, his crime was more hiring the guys that engaged in it not profiting from it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:What's bad about Grant, this seems open and shut to me Grant is a great man of strong character who cares deeply about the country and is determined to both heal the nation's wounds and help to better the lot of African Americans in the South. Unfortunately, the people he put into his cabinet are... not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Ulysses S. Grant posted:The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department [of the Tennessee] within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order. Ulysses S. Grant posted:Sir, More like Ulysses S. Hitler. Vote for Seymour! fantastic in plastic has issued a correction as of 18:48 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:More like Ulysses S. Hitler. Vote for Seymour! Adolf Grant did nothing wrong 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Grant is a great man of strong character who cares deeply about the country and is determined to both heal the nation's wounds and help to better the lot of African Americans in the South. I only know a little about the man, but this seems to be the view of historians. He was a very good man in a lot of ways, but not the best president, kinda like Taft. (Taft after being president went on to sit on (not literally!!) the supreme court and is apparently very well regarded there. )
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
taft was also one of the only colonial governors in america's history, in the philippines. he was against annexation but after the fact saw it as a fait accompli and sought to bring good governance to the colony. i think he rolled back some of the worst aspects of military rule and was more or less appreciated by the locals, although he wasn't exactly race-neutral i think he's well regarded as a jurist but he was always one of the conservatives on the court so the thread zeitgeist would probably not be down with him in that role either if, as always, i rc
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Also am I crazy or is Abraham Goddamn Lincoln, the best president in American history bookended with two of the biggest clods ever to serve in the office? Also, did Johnson the First actually have a nervous breakdown during the impeachment proceedings? The story of him trying to befriend the White House mice is like a scene from the madness of King George III.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
I miss third parties  Grant
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Also am I crazy or is Abraham Goddamn Lincoln, the best president in American history bookended with two of the biggest clods ever to serve in the office? that point, combined with the general unillustriousness of the gilded age presidents, makes me wonder - how far before and after lincoln do you have to go to get to a well-regarded president? which sent me here, to wikipedia's table of scholarly rankings of the presidents, colored helpfully by quartile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Scholar_survey_results to get from lincoln to a president considered in the top half of all presidents by the aggregate of the listed surveys, you have to go back to 1849 (polk) or forward to 1885 (cleveland). basically, lincoln was the only above-average president in a 36-year period. 1865 (lincoln) to 1897 (mckinley), containing cleveland, was 32 years, while 1837 (jackson) to 1861 (lincoln), containing polk, was 24 years. the longest not involving lincoln seems to go from 1909 (roosevelt) to 1933 (roosevelt), containing wilson - 34 years. focusing on top-quartile presidents makes lincoln's era look even worse. from 1849 (polk) to 1901 (roosevelt), 52 years, lincoln was the only top-25% president. lincoln bookends an 1837 (jackson) to 1861 period containing polk (24 years) and an 1865 to 1913 (wilson) period containing roosevelt (48 years). 1809 (jefferson) to 1845 (polk) containing jackson is a 46-year period of futility, as well. interestingly, the longest period in american history containing only one top-25% president, by the aggregate, is still ongoing - from 1961 (eisenhower) through the present day (55 years and counting), containing jfk, who finished off a 30-year stretch of top-quartile presidents, the only contiguous stretch of such presidents at all in the aggregate! so - from 1809 (jefferson) to 1933 (fdr), 124 years of our history, only jackson, polk, lincoln, teddy, and wilson are considered top-25% presidents. cutting the threshold to 50%, madison, monroe, and q adams fill out the jefferson-jackson era, but from jackson to fdr only cleveland and mckinley are added to the four top-quartile presidents mentioned above even though you have to expect things to change as time goes on it's interesting how relatively constant the quartiles are across the different analyses. apparently being president during the era the usa became the largest economic and military power in the world gets you ranked pretty highly (1933-1961, 28 years), and aside from bush (lol) everybody since carter falls in the 50-75% level, while everybody from 1789 (washington) through 1837 (jackson) - the first 48 years - is considered above average. it reminds me of the historical observation that the ottomans lucked into like seven straight super-competent rulers, or the five good emperors of the pax romana, but i think in a monarchical/imperial system the cause-effect relationship is more strongly one-way than in our system where weak/strong institutions are likely to create weak/strong presidents the education of henry adams, which is an interesting book i've mentioned before itt i think, is set in adams' lifetime which was basically the lincoln-mckinley period - his perspective, which was informed by years working in dc, was therefore one in which the president was a hapless figurehead and the spoils system ruled the day edit: i keep finding errors in this, i'm sure there are more but gently caress it. buttfuck it oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 21:19 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
I voted for the guy who only kinda hates black people
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Why is Blair running with Seymour? They seem like they have totally different ideologies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Another interesting thing about Grant is that he was an anti-semite! ...at one point. He did a very anti-semitic thing early on in the war when his job was just to monitor the cotton trade between the North and the South. He later recanted and genuinely did the best he could to make up for it. He was actually very well regarded by Jewish communities towards the end of his life. Seymour seems like as much of a confederate you can get without crossing the Mason-Dixon line, and as for his running mate...it's interesting how the abolitionists all lose steam and break apart after the emancipation. It goes to show that being anti-slavery is a very different thing from being pro-equality or anti-racism. And of course, without there being anything to cause the same level of political disruption as the decisions whether to admit another slave state into the union, the rights of blacks will fade into the background and level out without much progress being made for around about a century.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Corek posted:Why is Blair running with Seymour? They seem like they have totally different ideologies. Both are unionists who think the Republicans have gone too far. Neither think blacks should be considered equal citizens and are worried that the Republicans are using them to establish a political hegemony over the rest of the country. They might use different language (Blair claims that Lincoln never wanted the extended Reconstruction that the Radical Republicans are pursuing while Seymour thinks the whole exercise destructive) but their goals are the same: the full reintegration of the former Confederacy and its leaders. On paper, Blair is a good get for the Democrats. As a former Free Soiler, his presence on the ticket should indicate that the Republicans have overstepped their mandate. In reality, he has a bad tendency to alienate people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Also, Andrew Johnson has been elected Vice-President. Hopefully, he will enjoy four years of being politically irrelevant!  If only Abe had run with Fremont instead, if only ... edit: VVV Yeah, I know.
Vavrek has issued a correction as of 01:23 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
decent chance the democrats would've won in 1864 if he did that, though, in which case things would've been a little more complicated
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
People poo poo on Grant a lot but he was probably the last president until...FDR? who gave even half a poo poo about black people (even if he was just doing it for votes).
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
I am proud to support Grant as candidate for President. I thoroughly hope he can extend his efforts at fighting slavery to the Caribbean by taking up the government of Santo Domingo's request to be annexed by the United States. I am sure Johnson ignored this request because the outlet for ex-slave migration it would provide will force the southern planter class to have to curb their use of violence against African Americans or lose their cheaper labor. No doubt this treaty, obviously beneficial to both the United States and Santo Domingo, will be signed post-haste.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:People poo poo on Grant a lot but he was probably the last president until...FDR? who gave even half a poo poo about black people (even if he was just doing it for votes). I really think he just looks so bad because he follows Abraham "motherfucking" Lincoln and especially in the context of his time he was a pretty solid dude.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Grant wasn't corrupt himself and cracked down hard on corruption in his administration when it was found (except for the one time he perjuried himself at his secretary's trial whoops). he just picked really lovely people as friends and after his death, lost cause-ism set out to wreck his reputation
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
As I understand, there was also a wave of southern revisionist historians who were really bitter about reconstruction and poo poo all over Grant. They also love exaggerating the evils of Sherman. Not exactly sure why he's on the 50, but I prefer him to Reagan, who some people have tried to replace him with. His biggest draw is that he was the one who won the war, and the electorate loves their war heroes, but at least he actually has a platform. This election seems like a morally simple black and white thing now, but at least there's a choice between real options as opposed to sops who were elected in the run up to Lincoln on the basis of being indecisive jellyfish. Racism in the wake of slavery may be bad in its own right, but it didn't absolutely destroy national politics like slavery did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:In his speeches, Blair has painted vivid pictures of a future where the country is ruled by “a semi-barbarous race of blacks who are worshipers of fetishes and polygamists” who want to “subject white women to their unbridled lust.” He hopes to deport the freed slaves and use their labor to build American colonies in Africa, as there is no place for them in American society. I'm pretty sure this guy was running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Vavrek posted:
Funnily enough, there's a good chance that the 14th Amendment wouldn't have happened without Johnson. Without his stubborn resistance to Reconstruction, it's doubtful that the Radical Republicans would have resorted to a Constitutional amendment to get around Johnson's obstinacy-nor is it likely that they would have had the overwhelming legislative majorities needed to pass it through both Congress and the states without the hated figure of Johnson driving voters to the polls. It's impossible to say what would have happened had Lincoln lived or if he'd accepted another candidate as Vice President, but suffice it to say there's a good chance that the history of the past 150 years would be vastly different-and not necessarily for the better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
From  Different president, but it works. Badger of Basra posted:People poo poo on Grant a lot but he was probably the last president until...FDR? who gave even half a poo poo about black people (even if he was just doing it for votes). Garfield. But considering how short his term was I'm not sure he counts.Random Presidential thought: I visited Ford's Theater for the first time last summer and it was a really surreal experience being somewhere we've all read about thousands of times. If -in popular memory- Lincoln's a saint then Ford's Theater is the hallowed ground where he was martyred. In terms of Americana I think it might be fair to say that that sturdy little building is an American Golgotha. Nckdictator has issued a correction as of 05:17 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
here's what grant had to say about santo domingo in his memoirs, which i really enjoyed reading although they are very detailed on the military side of things for those who might not like that: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4367/4367-h/4367-h.htm quote:It is possible that the question of a conflict between races may come up in the future, as did that between freedom and slavery before. The condition of the colored man within our borders may become a source of anxiety, to say the least. But he was brought to our shores by compulsion, and he now should be considered as having as good a right to remain here as any other class of our citizens. It was looking to a settlement of this question that led me to urge the annexation of Santo Domingo during the time I was President of the United States.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
I thought that racist depiction of a brown person looked familiar, and sure enough, it looks like that's by the same artist as this famous political cartoon.  Using "gently caress the South" as a justification for imperialism. A true conundrum for D&D.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Pakled posted:I thought that racist depiction of a brown person looked familiar, and sure enough, it looks like that's by the same artist as this famous political cartoon. I just noticed the vaguely not-racist deception of a Inuit holding the "Alaska" textbook, and the very racist Native-American depiction in the back. It's the cartoon that keeps on giving in racism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I really think he just looks so bad because he follows Abraham "motherfucking" Lincoln and especially in the context of his time he was a pretty solid dude. It’s amazing how little time it took for Lincoln to go from “eh, we’re considering voting for the rebel party in the middle of a civil war” to “undisputed top three presidents of all time”. Of the surveys included in Wikipedia’s table, FDR is the other president with that honor. There were five months between the election and the assassination—seven if you consider the election a foregone conclusion after the victory in Atlanta. Platystemon has issued a correction as of 12:58 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
Pakled posted:I thought that racist depiction of a brown person looked familiar, and sure enough, it looks like that's by the same artist as this famous political cartoon. It's a horrifically racist cartoon, but holy moley there are some choice expressions on display there. Some of these would be great as avs imho The black servant in the background seems gleeful at the colonies being admonished:  Cuba is getting super sick of America-teacher's bullshit:  And the Philippines simply cannot believe this poo poo: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It’s amazing how little time it took for Lincoln to go from “eh, we’re considering voting for the rebel party in the middle of a civil war” to “undisputed top three presidents of all time”. Of the surveys included in Wikipedia’s table, FDR is the other president with that honor. There were five months between the election and the assassination—seven if you consider the election a foregone conclusion after the victory in Atlanta. I admit I personally think Lincoln's legacy was overblown and without a civil war and an assassination he might have been seen as a milquetoast president, though of course that brings up a lot of questions about whether a man is defined by the actions he takes or the time and place he was in. I legit think FDR is the best president we have had though and will vote for him for 5, no, 6! terms
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I admit I personally think Lincoln's legacy was overblown and without a civil war and an assassination he might have been seen as a milquetoast president, though of course that brings up a lot of questions about whether a man is defined by the actions he takes or the time and place he was in. Is this historical hipsterism? Sure, Lincoln was great Some of us know this guy named Polk, you wouldn't have heard of him 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Lincoln set out to save the Union, and he loving did it. In that way, he and JKP are similar. Both had unqualified success with their policy goals. The difference is that the things Lincoln was doing were actually good things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:that point, combined with the general unillustriousness of the gilded age presidents, makes me wonder - how far before and after lincoln do you have to go to get to a well-regarded president? Other than Grant, Chester A. Arthur is legitimately the most underrated president.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
You could maybe argue that Lincoln wasn't an especially good president, just one who served during extraordinary circumstances, but it's hard to say whether others would've handled it better or worse. By all accounts, he never planned on freeing all the slaves all at once (well, in two parts) until the South forced his hand, but he still did it. Technically, he caused the bloodiest war in American history, which should be a point against him, but he only did it by taking the absolutely most inoffensive mildly abolitionist stance possible, so you can't really blame him, only his predecessors for letting the problem get so bad. At the end of the day, he was president during one of the pivotal moments of American History, and that's what matters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:Other than Grant, Chester A. Arthur is legitimately the most underrated president. He definitely had the chops for the job
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
Lincoln wasn’t even in office when the South started shooting. If the election of Abraham Lincoln is what sparked the war, and not any action undertaken by the man himself, it’s really the voters who started it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 16:57
|
|