You're viewing a single thread.
I'm starting to think we need more wartime generals and less businesspeople in politics.
Unfortunately, you get Pattons from the military just like you get Grants.
we'd also get shermans though.
Pretty sure Grant is widely considered to have been a lousy president.
He's easily my favorite president, but he chose hands down the worst and most corrupt cabinet members of all time.
What makes him your favorite then?
He was better for emancipation and reparations of freed slaves than Lincoln, he even had a history of employing them and treating them well during the war and before the great emancipation. His inaugural address alone was enough to earn points with me, but he was also responsible for changes of the Tenure of Office Act which allowed him to remove presidential cabinet members without the senate needing to vote on it, gave suffrage to people of all color via the 15th Ammendment (which almost certainly would have been vetoed by the previous Johnson who took the reigns after Lincoln was assassinated and before Grant was elected), and his administration defeated the KKK via state marshals and federal troops over his 2 terms as president.
To be clear, Grant was a radical of his time. He was fringe and far left from the norm of the time. He treated blacks as equals and as citizens when under the previous president Johnson there were massacres and riots against African American communities. To Grant, they were worth defending with the lives of servicemen like himself.
By comparison Lincoln was a moderate too afraid to give any promise of rights or eventual freedom to slaves because he wanted to avoid any and all conflict. It took two years after secession and war for Lincoln to emancipate slaves. I'm not saying Grant was perfect in every way, mind you, but if I had to pick a president whom I liked the most it would easily be Grant. (It's not a high bar).
And that's all you'll get out of me, go read a book you lazy fuck.
Lincoln was a moderate too afraid to give any promise of rights or eventual freedom to slaves because he wanted to avoid any and all conflict
To be fair in the context of the era, he had his fill of catastrophic conflict during his tenure, and the Thirteen Amendment was passed by the skin of Congress's teeth. The huge leap was his, the following strides were for somebody else to take.
Lincoln was also at one point on board with a plan to send them all back to Africa. I'm sticking to the "he was a moderate" take I had before.
fun fact, Liberia was actually an experiment at sending freed African American slaves back to Africa because people thought that freed slaved would have better prospects of liberty and prosperity in Africa than they did in the States.
Feels like I just read one!
Hi. I just asked a question. You invited a question with an open ended statement that he was "your favorite". You have no way of knowing what I know or what I have read. You have no idea of my name, my education, what car I drive, or what I like for breakfast.
I don't have the same knowledge about you.
So instead of making things personal when someone asks a perfectly normal question in a conversation maybe you should ask yourself "Am I the problem?".
I don't think he meant anything by it. Just a way of saying "I'm done writing on the internet" with a certain style
It's a crazy style. He also responded and doubled downed.
lol he really did
here in /c/politicalmemes, we all have a quirky way to close out our arguments,
That's all from me, I'm off to shit the bed fools.
You're quite correct on all points in my opinion, for what it's worth.
Edit: although to be fair, Lincoln had to navigate an extremely complex political situation. He could've done a lot worse than how it ended up.
He was better for emancipation and reparations of freed slaves than Lincoln
In fairness to Lincoln, he wasn't given much of an opportunity to govern post-war.
He's received a much more positive re-evaluation from historians in recent years.
I mean not saying he’s the worst, but wasn’t he famously corrupt? I have a hard time getting past that one.
His administration was very corrupt, which is a black mark that can't really be re-evaluated away. Grant himself is widely accepted to have been innocent - the man died nearly penniless, and was never a prodigious spender - but he was trusting and loyal to his friends. These are actually really BAD traits for a politician, in which trust and loyalty are a big "USE ME" sign painted on your back.
However, Grant's overwhelmingly negative reputation has a lot to do with the domination of Lost Causers in historical academia up until the 70s. He was positively radical on civil rights, crushed the First KKK, pursued a policy of negotiation and attempted coexistence rather than war with Native American tribes, set up reform within the civil service, was positively inclined towards women's suffrage, created the country's first national parks, supported public schooling, and elevated African-Americans and Jewish-Americans to high posts within the government despite the racism and religious prejudice rampant in the period.
Very very unfortunately, trust and loyalty are a “USE ME” sign painted on one’s back in many parts of the modern world .
He committed the unforgivable sin of actually trying to do Reconstruction, and no modern American historical revisionist can tolerate that shit.