Beards & Umpires

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Okay terms, the country got raped while he sat on his butt drunk for eight years. Not one of America's finest moments.

Think George W. Bush

Interesting read of the history. Grant, at the time of his death, was well-beloved by [OK, most of] the country, including not a few ex-Confederates; which believed him to have been a decent President notwithstanding the corruption of many of his assosciates in and out of his administration.

Color me skeptical that GWB has, or ever will have, even a substantial moiety of his own party who thinks as well of him.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Lincoln was a racist. He just didn't believe in slavery. Anyway the Civil War was about states rights. Slavery became an issue afterwards.

This is not correct.

Lincoln wanted to keep slavery from spreading. He didn't have any qualms about slavery, so he did "believe" in it. He was willing to do whatever he needed to keep the Union together.

If you don't think the Civil War was about slavery, you didn't pay attention when they covered everything from about 1815 on during history class.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by zm1283

This is not correct.

Lincoln wanted to keep slavery from spreading. He didn't have any qualms about slavery, so he did "believe" in it. He was willing to do whatever he needed to keep the Union together.

If you don't think the Civil War was about slavery, you didn't pay attention when they covered everything from about 1815 on during history class.

Well where was it going to spread to? We only had so many states. Slavery was a constant source of consternation among the northern and southern states. It wasn't the reason the first shot was fired to start the Civil War.

Yes I took plenty of history in school, and didn't sleep through it. That's why I know what I'm talking about, and you don't.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

This is not correct.

Lincoln wanted to keep slavery from spreading. He didn't have any qualms about slavery, so he did "believe" in it. He was willing to do whatever he needed to keep the Union together.

If you don't think the Civil War was about slavery, you didn't pay attention when they covered everything from about 1815 on during history class.

Yes but there were writings of his that made it clear he did not find Blacks as equals. Which at the end of the day is what racism is when you believe that they are not your equal as a white person.

But honestly who cares, this has nothing to do with the original post.

Peace

[asdf]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But honestly who cares, this has nothing to do with the original post.

Best post in the whole thread

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by zm1283

This is not correct.

Lincoln wanted to keep slavery from spreading. He didn't have any qualms about slavery, so he did "believe" in it. He was willing to do whatever he needed to keep the Union together.

If you don't think the Civil War was about slavery, you didn't pay attention when they covered everything from about 1815 on during history class.

So why the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 two years after the start of the war?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by cbfoulds

Interesting read of the history. Grant, at the time of his death, was well-beloved by [OK, most of] the country, including not a few ex-Confederates; which believed him to have been a decent President notwithstanding the corruption of many of his assosciates in and out of his administration.

Color me skeptical that GWB has, or ever will have, even a substantial moiety of his own party who thinks as well of him.

Different times, you'll be hard pressed to find a modern day (served within memory for a substantial portion of voters) president who gets a favorable review from a majority of voters. Reagan and Clinton may be the only ones who get even the majority of their own party. Before Reagan, you have to go back to Kennedy.

Not saying that's the only reason, but it's not insignificant either.

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Different times, you'll be hard pressed to find a modern day (served within memory for a substantial portion of voters) president who gets a favorable review from a majority of voters. Reagan and Clinton may be the only ones who get even the majority of their own party. Before Reagan, you have to go back to Kennedy.

Not saying that's the only reason, but it's not insignificant either.

No argument from me on the lack of general esteem for "modern" presidents.

I'd surmise that differences in character, rather than merely the "times", were mostly responsible; and MY GWB reference was merely in response to the analogy suggested/ made by Mr. Tyler, not intended [by me] to cut GWB out from the herd including either the current occupant, nor any of the living [or even deceased-but-within-living-memory] precedents.