2016 Democratic Thread

[bmags]

Why exactly would she learn that in the northern suburbs of Chicago and Wesleyan?

 

From her time in Arkansas?

 

I don't know about you guys, but this is pretty close to what I learned.

 

Grant was a corrupt, ineffective president. Lincoln knew the country had to be magnanimous and Johnson continued Lincolns path (!) which is why he was so unpopular.

 

That is seriously what I learned in a suburban high school in Illinois. The honors US history classes learned differently.

 

But yeah, I specifically remember the teacher talking about the courage of the senator who voted not to impeach Johnson.

 

It wasn't until college that I started to read more about Grant/Johnson and that being flipped.

[StrangeSox]

I don't know about you guys, but this is pretty close to what I learned.

 

Grant was a corrupt, ineffective president. Lincoln knew the country had to be magnanimous and Johnson continued Lincolns path (!) which is why he was so unpopular.

 

That is seriously what I learned in a suburban high school in Illinois. The honors US history classes learned differently.

 

But yeah, I specifically remember the teacher talking about the courage of the senator who voted not to impeach Johnson.

 

It wasn't until college that I started to read more about Grant/Johnson and that being flipped.

 

Yeah, the Dunning school was pretty dominant among historians for about a century, and then that stuff takes a while to trickle down to elementary school textbooks. There's been a lot of push back against that sort of (bad) history by historians like McPherson (Battle Cry of Freedom, probably best book on the Civil War) and Eric Foner (tons of great civil war/reconstruction books). I honestly don't recall what I learned back in high school except one passage about carpetbaggers, but "it was about States Rights!" and "Reconstruction was just so terrible!" were the dominant history taught throughout the country for a long, long time.

 

IIRC Grant is still viewed as ineffective but not personally corrupt--his ineffectiveness let other corrupt people do what they wanted.

Edited January 27, 2016 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

I don't know about you guys, but this is pretty close to what I learned.

 

Grant was a corrupt, ineffective president. Lincoln knew the country had to be magnanimous and Johnson continued Lincolns path (!) which is why he was so unpopular.

 

That is seriously what I learned in a suburban high school in Illinois. The honors US history classes learned differently.

 

But yeah, I specifically remember the teacher talking about the courage of the senator who voted not to impeach Johnson.

 

It wasn't until college that I started to read more about Grant/Johnson and that being flipped.

 

Lincoln had his own issues. There is a school of thought that he could have gotten in some big trouble over the Sultana had he lived.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultana_%28steamboat%29

 

The episode of History Detectives, which aired on July 2, 2014, reviewed the known evidence and then focused on the question of why the steamboat was allowed to be crowded to several times its normal capacity before departure. The report blamed quartermaster Hatch, an individual with a long history of corruption and incompetence, who was able to keep his job due to political connections: he was the younger brother of Illinois politician Ozias M. Hatch, an advisor and close friend of President Lincoln. Throughout the war, Reuben Hatch had shown incompetence as a quartermaster and competence as a thief, bilking the government out of thousands of dollars. Although brought up on courts-martial charges, Hatch managed to get letters of recommendation from such noted authorities as President Abraham Lincoln, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and General of the Army Ulysses S. Grant. The letters reside in the National Archives in Washington DC. Hatch refused three separate subpoenas to appear before Captain's Speed's trial and give testimony before dying in 1871, having escaped justice due to his numerous highly placed patrons—including two presidents.[38]

[StrangeSox]

The political spoils system was pretty dominant up through the Gilded Age. It wasn't until around the turn of the 20th century that the large-scale civil service reforms were put in place.

 

Lincoln wouldn't have hanged every last one of the treasonous leaders of the Confederacy as should have been done, but I'm pretty confident that he would have pushed Reconstruction a lot harder than Johnson did.

[southsider2k5]

The political spoils system was pretty dominant up through the Gilded Age. It wasn't until around the turn of the 20th century that the large-scale civil service reforms were put in place.

 

Lincoln wouldn't have hanged every last one of the treasonous leaders of the Confederacy as should have been done, but I'm pretty confident that he would have pushed Reconstruction a lot harder than Johnson did.

 

But he would have had the entire south and every racist northerner gunning for him for four years.

[StrangeSox]

But he would have had the entire south and every racist northerner gunning for him for four years.

 

Sure, but the other option was what we ended up getting--Reconstruction starting strong and empowering black people both politically and economically before petering out and then about 80-90 years of white supremacist rule.

[bmags]

Just to be clear: no excuse to be 70 and not have updated your view.

[Balta1701]

Lincoln wouldn't have hanged every last one of the treasonous leaders of the Confederacy as should have been done, but I'm pretty confident that he would have pushed Reconstruction a lot harder than Johnson did.

The way it was taught to me was the exact opposite of this statement, that Lincoln was as far from radical reconstruction as possible, but I'll admit this is one I haven't followed.

[StrangeSox]

The way it was taught to me was the exact opposite of this statement, that Lincoln was as far from radical reconstruction as possible, but I'll admit this is one I haven't followed.

He wasn't a radical reconstructionist, but Johnson deliberately sabotaged it e.g. he opposed the 14th Amendment. It's a very low hurdle to clear.

[caulfield12]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-p...ign-is-sinking/

 

 

Greg, read and enjoy.

[greg775]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-p...ign-is-sinking/

 

 

Greg, read and enjoy.

Thank u caulfield for posting. I do appreciate it!

Now my statement:

Many of you think Greg is a clown or even worse, a moron, but you have to admit that article touched on some of the reasons I don't like Ms. Clinton. In other words, I am not the only one thinking these things. Folks, is it so hard for us, as a nation, to put the Clintons behind us? They have money; they'll be fine. Let's just have a Bernie Sanders/Cruz fight for the oval office and call it a day.

Edited January 28, 2016 by greg775

[caulfield12]

Thank u caulfield for posting. I do appreciate it!

Now my statement:

Many of you think Greg is a clown or even worse, a moron, but you have to admit that article touched on some of the reasons I don't like Ms. Clinton. In other words, I am not the only one thinking these things. Folks, is it so hard for us, as a nation, to put the Clintons behind us? They have money; they'll be fine. Let's just have a Bernie Sanders/Cruz fight for the oval office and call it a day.

 

If you want a modern day combination of Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson, Cruz is your guy.

You get the cocky smirk thrown in for free.

 

More than likely, if Hillary loses both Iowa and NH, you get Michael Bloomberg joining the race as an independent.

Edited January 28, 2016 by caulfield12

[cabiness42]

If you want a modern day combination of Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson, Cruz is your guy.

You get the cocky smirk thrown in for free.

 

More than likely, if Hillary loses both Iowa and NH, you get Michael Bloomberg joining the race as an independent.

 

He'd get my vote.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Cruz vs Trump vs Clinton vs Bloomburg

 

First person to 30% wins!

[NorthSideSox72]

Cruz vs Trump vs Clinton vs Bloomburg

 

First person to 30% wins!

In the general? That would be utterly fascinating. And, as long as Trump doesn't win, might be the right kick in the ass the system needs.

 

[StrangeSox]

Three or four candidates roughly splitting the votes means that nobody will reach 270, which means the House gets to elect the President. That sounds pretty awful to be honest.

[bmags]

Three or four candidates roughly splitting the votes means that nobody will reach 270, which means the House gets to elect the President. That sounds pretty awful to be honest.

 

This is true but also would be where we see the electoral college actually act as the electoral college where the electorates throw their votes.

[illinilaw08]

In the general? That would be utterly fascinating. And, as long as Trump doesn't win, might be the right kick in the ass the system needs.

 

Is it weird that I'm almost more scared of Cruz as POTUS than Trump?

[NorthSideSox72]

Is it weird that I'm almost more scared of Cruz as POTUS than Trump?

No I get it. And I honestly forgot about the true majority rule giving the vote to the House, which would be bad no matter who controls it (it would still be GOP in this case).

 

[StrangeSox]

This is true but also would be where we see the electoral college actually act as the electoral college where the electorates throw their votes.

I guess if it led to the abolition of the EC, that'd at least be something positive. Otherwise, it'd probably just mean the Republican Congress chooses the Republican candidate for President, just like the Republican SCOTUS chose the Republican candidate in 2000. Wouldn't exactly scream "beacon of representative democracy."

[CrimsonWeltall]

Three or four candidates roughly splitting the votes means that nobody will reach 270, which means the House gets to elect the President. That sounds pretty awful to be honest.

 

But the house hates both Cruz and Trump, so who would they go for?

[cabiness42]

Three or four candidates roughly splitting the votes means that nobody will reach 270, which means the House gets to elect the President. That sounds pretty awful to be honest.

 

I'm pretty sure Hillary gets to 270 in that situation. In most states, all you need to do is win the state to get all the electoral votes, and I think she wins enough.

 

I also don't think Bloomberg even gets in the race unless it looks likely that Bernie is the Dem nominee.

[NorthSideSox72]

But the house hates both Cruz and Trump, so who would they go for?

For those old enough, do you remember what the council chambers looked like at Chicago City Hall after Mayor Washington died? That's what the floor of Congress would look like. Chaos. C-SPAN would suddenly be must-see reality TV.

 

[bmags]

I guess if it led to the abolition of the EC, that'd at least be something positive. Otherwise, it'd probably just mean the Republican Congress chooses the Republican candidate for President, just like the Republican SCOTUS chose the Republican candidate in 2000. Wouldn't exactly scream "beacon of representative democracy."

 

Yes. I don't know why we are talking about this though, "brokered convention" and "leads way to a third party candidate" are the most overdone election tropes that come out and never happen.

[StrangeSox]

I'm pretty sure Hillary gets to 270 in that situation. In most states, all you need to do is win the state to get all the electoral votes, and I think she wins enough.

 

I also don't think Bloomberg even gets in the race unless it looks likely that Bernie is the Dem nominee.

That's true. Cruz and Trump might end up splitting EV's, but I can't imagine what states Bloomberg would pull enough votes from Hillary to cause her to lose.