This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@CedricH
I don't think war with France would have been a good idea.
All presidents prior to Lincoln presided over a nation that allowed slavery. Should we put them in that category, too?
Grant was president during the wars with Native Tribes on the Plains. Should we put him in that category, too?
Coolidge? Adequate? 😂
What about "pushing an isolationist policy after WWI," not to even mention the military cutbacks that would harm us going into the Second World War?
Jefferson handled the Louisiana purchase ineptly. Any President could’ve annexed Louisiana at that point in time.
I don't think war with France would have been a good idea.
I‘d submit that Presidents who have signed laws like the Alien and Sedition Acts, forced the native tribes of the Southeast to embark on their trail of tears at gunpoint, appeased the South during the sectional crisis, abandoned the goals of the Reconstruction process, destabilized the world economy in the 1930s, pushed an isolationist policy after WWI and fought an extremely divisive Vietnam war without a victory strategy, were at least as harmful as Trump.
All presidents prior to Lincoln presided over a nation that allowed slavery. Should we put them in that category, too?
Grant was president during the wars with Native Tribes on the Plains. Should we put him in that category, too?
Coolidge? Adequate? 😂
What about "pushing an isolationist policy after WWI," not to even mention the military cutbacks that would harm us going into the Second World War?
CedricH · 22-25, M
@beckyromero
The threat of war is sometimes enough to force a surrender. That’s how the 1994 intervention in Haiti played out. And that’s how Spain surrendered East Florida in 1819. All it took was Jackson‘s military expedition.
Engaging in armed struggles with the natives is not in itself disqualifying but the trail of tears was particularly problematic in the way it was conceived and conducted. Nearby reservations I can accept, the forced mass deportation of several tribes from the Eastern seaboard all the way to Oklahoma, however, was simply cruel and can‘t be justified as a war related accident or spontaneous tragedy.
As for Coolidge, I‘m simply torn between an adequate foreign policy in the Hemisphere, a mixed foreign economic policy, a fruitful domestic economic agenda (minus the tariffs) and the unilateral demilitarization of the US, combined with the non-interventionism in Europe and Asia.
The threat of war is sometimes enough to force a surrender. That’s how the 1994 intervention in Haiti played out. And that’s how Spain surrendered East Florida in 1819. All it took was Jackson‘s military expedition.
All presidents prior to Lincoln presided over a nation that allowed slavery.
No, but their enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act and the level of their accommodation of the South are certainly factors to consider. Engaging in armed struggles with the natives is not in itself disqualifying but the trail of tears was particularly problematic in the way it was conceived and conducted. Nearby reservations I can accept, the forced mass deportation of several tribes from the Eastern seaboard all the way to Oklahoma, however, was simply cruel and can‘t be justified as a war related accident or spontaneous tragedy.
As for Coolidge, I‘m simply torn between an adequate foreign policy in the Hemisphere, a mixed foreign economic policy, a fruitful domestic economic agenda (minus the tariffs) and the unilateral demilitarization of the US, combined with the non-interventionism in Europe and Asia.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@CedricH
Back to back wars with the two most powerful nations in the world at the time would not have been wise.
There were plenty of massacres of Native American tribes on the Great Plains. I think you are trying to make a distinction without a difference.
So, Harding, Coolidge & Hoover. You're giving Silent Cal the break?
The threat of war is sometimes enough to force a surrender.
Back to back wars with the two most powerful nations in the world at the time would not have been wise.
There were plenty of massacres of Native American tribes on the Great Plains. I think you are trying to make a distinction without a difference.
So, Harding, Coolidge & Hoover. You're giving Silent Cal the break?
CedricH · 22-25, M
@beckyromero
Back to back wars with the two most powerful nations in the world at the time would not have been wise.
Sure. I‘m with you. My point is that Jefferson‘s negotiation was not particularly spectacular, Louisiana was a low hanging fruit, ripe for the picking and I‘d venture a guess that John Adams would‘ve done the same had he been re-elected. There were plenty of massacres of Native American tribes on the Great Plains. I think you are trying to make a distinction without a difference.
Well, I do think there are important distinctions to be made. Context does matter. I do believe Andrew Jackson‘s native policy was more pernicious than Grant‘s. So, Harding, Coolidge & Hoover. You're giving Silent Cal the break
Like I said. I‘m ambivalent.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@CedricH
And what about the scandals in the Grant administration? Even if Grant, personally, was honest?
And what about the scandals in the Grant administration? Even if Grant, personally, was honest?
CedricH · 22-25, M
@beckyromero The scandals are why he‘s not among the essentials.