this

I don't know, I still see few scenarios in which Bush gets viewed favorably. If we win in Iraq/Afghanistan it won't be anytime soon, so it won't be under Bush. I can't see people looking back after a different President is in office and wins the war who says..."We won...now let's give credit to the guy who started this and not the current guy who is sitting in." I don't think historians will look favorably at wiretapping and other violations of liberty. Obviously the current economic crisis happening under his watch isn't helping (not saying any of it is really his fault). It is a long time until the Iraqwar ends successfully if ever, and I don't foresee the credit going back to GWB especially when a lot of people don't feel it was a necessary war in the first place.

The guy has like the lowest favorable ratings in the history of polling it...he will never be looked at as a good president, only in some scenarios not a horrible president.

IMO...

we are not in an economic crisis.... for reference, see Carter

But that wasn't my point at all. Lincoln and FDR were by far the two worst presidents, because of the circumstances they found themselves in and the actions they took. "Violating the Constitution" is the least of their crimes. I was exaggerating when I said Bush was as bad as FDR and Lincoln; Bush isn't really in the same ballpark as those guys.

Reagan should have been hanged for selling arms to the Iranians.

The South could have been peacefully allowed to secede, ldo. Wouldn't have been the end of the world. I frankly don't see how someone can side with the colonists in 1776 and with the Union in 1861 but the winner write the history books I guess.

(->Lincoln thread)

At the same time that the colonists were throwing off British imperialism, they were also engaging in a good amount of internal colonialism versus the Native Americans.

Your point?

BTW a lot of early colonial settlers BOUGHT their land from the Indians; once the feds conquered the South they turned to slaughtering them wholesale in the West. In between the approach was in between.

That someone can easily side with the Colonists and later the Union.

I don't see the relevance of what you said to that proposition, could you explain?

Like what consistent principles can be used to support the right of the colonists to secede but not of the Southern States?

In the process of throwing off the British, before and after as well, the colonists were in effect using a process of internal colonialism to assert their dominance over another group which had challenged their own. The civil war can easily be viewed through the same lens. Namely that the Southerners were attempting to challenge the metropole and thus had to be put down in order to ensure continued dominance by the 'North' over the continent. That would be the complex answer. The easy answer to your original question would be in order to keep America together.

Exactly, but the roles were reversed.

Weren't they doing the same thing the colonists were doing?

I don't follow. The stated goal of the Revolution was to take colonies under British rule (in which condition they were already "together") and make them "free and independent States", i.e. 13 sovereign political entities. Of course later those States voluntarily formed a Union...

"Who remembers which president got us out of Vietnam. Not many (Nixon for those who do not)."

Yup, only a few million deaths later with the same deal he was offered when he came into office, the same deal he criminally undermined just before he got into office.

And the North did the same thing the colonists did the Indians. The colonists had no trouble suppressing the challenge to their dominance that came from the Indians just like the North had no trouble either.

And the goal was also to make sure that the colonists were the only ones with real power on the continent. In the process of removing the British, they also took aim at the Indians. North's actions can be viewed in the same way; to make sure only they had power over the continent instead of sharing it with the Confederates.

Reminds me, I heard the surrender of Japan we eventually accepted was on the same terms as one we rejected before bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. True?

Seems like it could be way off given how the japanese were supposed to be so dug-in.

Pretty much.

Do you have a source handy, I want to read up on it so I'll know for sure next time.

I had to google a bit since I was going on memory earlier, but I remembered John Denson discussing it this talk.

A print article covering a lot of the same stuff.

Thanks!

Once we get done with the Civil War thread, we are definitely going to need to have a WW2/FDR thread. I have a feeling that due to its being more recent, we're gonna have a lot more boiling blood.

I don't know much about FDR apart from his Wiki entry and his high ranking amongst scholars, but the fact that he had more than 2 terms as President is something that has always really bothered me about him.

Also, this John Denson guy doesn't have a wiki article - is he widely accepted as a kook? Do you have any other sources other than this guy?

nitty point---
many, including myself, think the FDR unconstitutional actions come from before WW2

No idea how widely Denson is accepted. Maybe this article from the Journal of Historical Review is acceptable? I know the contention that Japan offered to surrender under the terms eventually accepted prior to dropping the a-bombs is not that controversial. A book on the subject if you're that interested.

History will judge GWB as ordinary at best.

He did not do anything outstanding.

He attacked the terrorists in Afghanistan after they struck first.

And if Iraq turns out to be a success in the distant future, it will not be GWB who earns the credit (and he shouldn't).

He might be remembered as a horrible president if the worst case scenario hits - he did some damage to liberty and civil rights, and if somewhere in the future this gets worse, people will remember him as the guy who started the downfall.

But most likely? GWB the Ordinary.

We is. It's interesting just comparing the tone of voice when the average non-American talks about something American now to how it was during the Clinton era.

Yeah, this audio alone definitely warrants its own thread. I'm about halfway through, and pretty much agree (and I've been wikipedia fact checking him) with his ideas. Yet, it seems to be commonly accepted that WW2 was "the last war worth fighting".

I always thought it was just Germany who invaded Poland, not Germany+Russia. Should have def just let them fight it out, and aided whoever was losing, until there was nothing left of them.

It's a horrible tragedy that innocents in Poland were going to die as a result of Germany/Russia fighting, but everyone else getting involved only lead to more tragedies and deaths.

LOL, I'm shocked this guy has Rothbard references.