Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
SuperJerk

New Bush Press Secretary is former Fox News Host

Recommended Posts

The reason I don't like Jefferson is that he nearly bankrupted the country by trying to make the US not trade with any other countries. This sent the US into a depression.

 

He also got our seven navy ships destroyed by a bunch of African Pirates. The pirates would not have destroyed the ships if we would have sailed the alternate route in the Medditerain and paid the charge that every other country did. He said that since we were American we did have to pay the tax. What does that even mean? Plus all but one of our ships were captured and all but one destroyed. The one ship they didn't destroy was destroyed by Americans because we didn;t want them to have the ship.

 

The Lewis & Clark expedition. This wasn't the big deal we have been taught in school. The areas were already explored by Canadian David Thompson who had mapped almost all of the areas. Lewis & Clark already had maps of the area, and who did they have maps of? David Thompson.

 

The last reason for disliking Jefferson is because of his role in the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson never wanted to purchase the land. He was basically forced to purchase it because his staff forced his hand. In fact when he signed the contract to purchase the land under his name he put in parenthesis with trepidation.

 

I know I spelled trepidation wrong, but those are my reasons for disliking Jefferson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Jefferson purely because he was the only one of the pure, angry revolutionary types that got to the highest office. His predecessors and successors also had roles in the revolution, but they were so much more tempered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Felonies!
See, I cannot believe people are still putting Nixon or Carter ahead of Jackson.

 

Really.

Wasn't Nixon one of the best presidents w/r/t conservation? Also, the Nixon-Kissinger duo was brilliant when it came to foreign policy. Just based on that, I can't say he's the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nixon went to China to get leverage against the Soviets so they'd sign the SALT treaty and pressure North Vietnam into a cease-fire.

 

This was, of course, after he'd bombed the hell out of Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Y2jerk, does all the information you have come from high school history textbooks?

None of it does. It would have been kind of hard for me to earn a bachelor's degree in the subject if that was the case. The difference between me and you, apparently, is that you just read one historian and accept everything at face value. I go by what facts the consensus of historians says is true about a topic, and draw my conclusions based on that. I'm not going to let a single opposing viewpoint totally rewrite everything that's already been established by every other historian who has ever studied the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah...the good old "I'm a professional and I know what I"m talking about" card. I thought only Stephen Joseph did that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't listen to historians. I'll read stuff they've written, as well as watching documentaries and stuff, but I always come to my own conclusion that always differs at least a little bit. Same with the news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If historian agree on what the facts of a situation are, you SHOULD listen to them. If every historian came out and said, say for example, 6 million Jews died in a secret Nazi plot (as crazy a that sounds), you'd be stupid not to listen to them.

 

Ah...the good old "I'm a professional and I know what I"m talking about" card. I thought only Stephen Joseph did that.

It just might be the case that the book he refers to will become the consensus of historical opinion some day. Until that happens, and until I see some other professional historians soften they're opinion of Harding and verify what this book has said, I'm not willing to throw my old beleifs out of a window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If every historian said the reason Truman bombed Hiroshima was because he was racist, I'd disagree because the facts simply don't support that conclusion. But we'd still agree on the fact that Truman did order Hiroshima bombed. The problem I have with the Harding book is that it introduces new facts into the scenario that, as far as I know, I haven't all been verified by other historians. In addition, I also know how many of his policies WERE harmful to America, which have yet to be properly addressed or counter-argued.

 

History is a peer-regulated field. There will be differences in opinion about why people did what they did, or what the impact of certain events were, but historians are pretty good about policing themselves for factual accuracy. Take, for example, Michelle Malkin's book about the Japanese internment during World War II. Historians tore that book apart because she only included facts that supported her conclusion, and did not research the topic particularly well. But, some people swear the book is valid history and she was invited to talk about her book on multiple TV shows because she was "debunking" a "historical myth". And some people think her book is historically accurate because it is a newer book written by someone claiming to be an expert. That's the kind of thinking I'm trying to avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y2j, can I assume that you thought Barry Goldwater was a racist and would have blown up the world had he been elected in 1964?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If every historian said the reason Truman bombed Hiroshima was because he was racist, I'd disagree because the facts simply don't support that conclusion. But we'd still agree on the fact that Truman did order Hiroshima bombed. The problem I have with the Harding book is that it introduces new facts into the scenario that, as far as I know, I haven't all been verified by other historians. In addition, I also know how many of his policies WERE harmful to America, which have yet to be properly addressed or counter-argued.

 

History is a peer-regulated field. There will be differences in opinion about why people did what they did, or what the impact of certain events were, but historians are pretty good about policing themselves for factual accuracy. Take, for example, Michelle Malkin's book about the Japanese internment during World War II. Historians tore that book apart because she only included facts that supported her conclusion, and did not research the topic particularly well. But, some people swear the book is valid history and she was invited to talk about her book on multiple TV shows because she was "debunking" a "historical myth". And some people think her book is historically accurate because it is a newer book written by someone claiming to be an expert. That's the kind of thinking I'm trying to avoid.

 

 

Aww man, this thread has been disgraced by the mention of Michelle Malkin's name, but I do get your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Y2j, can I assume that you thought Barry Goldwater was a racist and would have blown up the world had he been elected in 1964?

The consensus of opinion among historians is that Goldwater's liberatarian values kept him from supporting civil rights legislation because he beleived the federal government had no right to "legislate morality" and was exceding its jurisdiction by trying to pass such laws. It had nothing to do with how he personally felt about African-Americans, although it should be pointed out that he once commented that African-Americans should stop complaining so much because they didn't have it as bad as Native Americans did. He did imply on several occasions that he would have supported using nuclear weapons, however I believed he backed off of this stand later in his career. These statements could have easily been tactical, though, intended to strengthen his bargaining power with the Soviet Union in the event he was elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were, I'd be citing sources.

 

And given my job, I can assure you that high school texts don't go into that level of analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Felonies!

I CHALLENGE YOUR SO-CALLED CONVENTIONAL WISDOM

 

I CHALLENGE IT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN

 

I THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot to mention that Goldwater wanted to explode little girls...and his '64 acceptance speech proved he was a total Nazi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High School texbooks never went into great detail. On this discussion I am agreeing alot more with Y2Jerk then Snuffbox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
High School texbooks never went into great detail. On this discussion I am agreeing alot more with Y2Jerk then Snuffbox.

 

I concur with your sentiment. I don't really understand what snuffbox's problem is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High school history textbooks have an obligation to get as much information of a large time frame condensced into one book. That would be problem number 1 - It is already going to leave out important information since there simply wont be room. History textbooks also tend to have a very revisionist viewpoint on everything from the Revolution to Native Americans to Slavery to the 20th century. This is where the Warren Harding problem occurs as its really easy to say he was the worst president ever because some members of his cabinet were terrible (though that is not usually held against LBJ, etc in their biographical snippets), he had a shortened term, and he was president in the time between World Wars. It is apparently not as bad for James Buchanon to have actually led us to Civil War, but Harding can get blame for WW2 and the Depression (even though there were 3 presidents to come before the War, and Harding was president at a time of prosperity.) Basically, it is the same as blaming Bill Clinton for 9-11 and the GWB recession, since he was the guy in charge beforehand. Plus, like Harding, Clinton was a womanizer...and Toni Morrisson said he was the first Black President!

 

I seriously suggest reading as many good biographies and histories of as many people and events as possible. Look up primary source documents whenever possible. Develop reasoned opinions of your own.

 

Otherwise, you start blaming Harding for the Depression & WW2 and thinking things like 'Joe McCarthy was the worst American to ever live'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy, and I dont have to leave the state...Ed Gein & Jeff Dahmer. I didnt say he wasnt the worst American polititian ever.

 

I would say that LBJ (as President) and Strom Thurmond were worse polititians than Senator Joe. Nixon was just as bad with the red-hunting (Alger Hiss was correct, but 'Pink Lady' Gahagan was embarassing). McCarthy made some good points and 'meant well' but his personality was his downfall as it led to his severe drinking problem (which in turn led to his public outbursts) that quickly killed him. He was fairly popular amongst his colleagues, including friendships with the Kennedy brothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×