"« Sic semper tyrannis ! »" Topic

Even with Lincoln's assassination in 1861 or earlier, Southerners would still have risen up en masse to defend themselves in the event of an invasion, because ultimately they could not accept that any army, whatever it might be, could invade their territory.

If you count West Virginia five slave states remained in the Union. Which was a sticky wicket when the EP was proclaimed. Even if it didn't apply to them.

Norfolk fell to the Union in I think May of 62. Except for the Maryland Campaign for a short time, Harper's Ferry remained in Union hands. I could be wrong on that.

hi EEE ya, you keep missing the actual start of the war, which was NOT a "Yankee invasion." If the Confederacy wished to avoid a war, a good first move would have been to not seize United States property and not fire on a United States garrison.

When you commit an act of war against what you insist is a foreign power, it's no good whining when they hit back.

+1 Robert P

As I noted elsewhere, when the first Southern states seceded that did not un-make the United States. That country still existed and it still owned those forts and arsenals the Southerners began seizing. Most of them were seized without violence so starting a war over them might not have happened. But firing on Fort Sumter was a different matter.

@Old Contemptible
Five slave states remained in the Union?

I learn new things every day on TMP.

But what did they have against the Confederacy?

@robert piepenbrink
Yes, that's true Piepenbrink, but the Yankees had troops ready to intervene before the brave Confederates seized American property and fired on a garrison that was also firing on them.

@ScottWashburn
But the brave Confederates never wanted to destroy the Yankee state and it made sense that they would try to seize the Yankee forts and arsenals that were rightfully theirs since they were on their soil.

Besides, as you wrote, most of them were conquered without violence, and it would have been particularly unfair to start a war over them, as well as over Fort Sumter, which, having been bombarded by the brave Confederates for 34 hours without interruption, seriously damaged, ravaged by fire and short of ammunition, surrendered while the Yankee squadron waited for – who knows what – at the entrance to the harbor.

Not a single man on either side had, by some miracle, been hit and the Yankees were allowed to leave after saluting their flag with a blank cannon shot.

But in a cruel irony, the cannon exploded, killing a Yankee gunner and making him the first dead of the first battle of the ACW.

Why do you keep saying brave Confederates? Why are they anymore brave than Union troops. Why does trying to sunder the United States and defend slavery make them brave? Do you advocate for slavery? Would you fight to defend slavery?

Also, Fort Sumter never fired on Southern troops until after they started to fire on Fort Sumter.

Further, Fort Sumter did not stand on their land. Fort Sumter was a federal fort on federal land. The US government still existed and did not recognize succession. Just because you claim to be a new country does not automatically make you one.

"@Contemptible
Five slave states remained in the Union?

I learn new things every day on TMP.

But what did they have against the Confederacy?"

Not only that, but several did not secede until AFTER Lincoln called for 75,000 troops AFTER the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter.
What makes you believe that being a slave state compelled it to join the Confederacy? Mss as my would have preferred to remain neutral, unlike those hotheads in South Carolina or Alabama.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and read an actual BOOK. You keep asking questions that are easily answered, and then you either refuse to read the replies or refuse to believe the answer.

I suggest that you read Shelby Foote's 3 volume history of the Civil War. He has an obvious pro/Southern bias but is fair. All of the questions you have been asking can be answered there.

"Yes, that's true Piepenbrink, but the Yankees had troops ready to intervene before the brave Confederates seized American property and fired on a garrison that was also firing on them.

You know, hi EEE ya, there's not a word of truth in that statement. The US regular army was barely sufficient to guard against Indians--which it was doing, off on the western frontier. Only after Sumter did Lincoln call for volunteers. Nor had the Sumter garrison fired a single round before the start of the Confederate bombardment. If Foote's three volumes are too much for you, read Bruce Catton's one, but please try to at least learn the sequence of events.

I'll second Grattan on "brave Confederates." Do you have some reason to believe my ancestors in Pennsylvania and Indiana were in some way deficient in bravery compared with Virginians or Alabamians?

A fascinating discussion I only come to late. This made me run to Wikipedia to look up Hamlin to see why he was not kept on the ticket and so was fated to NOT become president in 1865 in the normal course of events.

I am sorry we did not end up with a president named Hannibal, frankly!

At least the discussion here has not become TOO heated or partisan. I know so many Civil War debates (here and elsewhere) tend to spin out of control due to intense partisanship or poor communication skills. Alternate history just stirs the pot more.

Lincoln had a steep learning curve, but the fact that he was NOT trained in Napoleonic warfare as Jeff Davis was turned out to be a benefit. He is unquestionably one of our top three presidents, with GW and Reagan. Without his leadership, who knows how the CW would have gone.

But I agree with those who say the war would still have been fought, by an outraged north. Beyond that, hard to say. But it is likely our great national tragedy would have been even more tragic.

MY TOP THREE USA Presidents: GW (#1), AL(#16), & FDR(#32)!

I considered FDR. Huge impact, but in my opinion more negative than positive. Didn't end the depression, which got worse in 37-38. And his diplomacy in 1945 was disastrous.

Mahdi,

You would then be in agreement with historians that every ten years rank the presidents. Those are always the top three.

Doc, Reagan comes in at number ten.

Once you get past Washington and Lincoln who you put where may say more about you than it does about the president.

^ Bill N & Grattan: You are both Right on Target.

Well, I'm an historian too, and know as much about it as the rankers, so it is GW, AL, and RR. Who won our longest and most costly war and ultimately freed hundreds of millions of people. (Many of whom promptly put themselves back under servitude, but that's on them.)

"Once you get past Washington and Lincoln who you put where may say more about you than it does about the president."
Polls by "History professors" reflect their own politics. Nothing more.

Yes, John their years of schooling, research, study means absolutely nothing. Glad we don't feel the same ways about Doctors and lawyers. I have never been on a site of people of say they love history that has such utter contempt for people who have dedicated their live to the study of history.

Lol. Both of you are right. Yes, a pro in any field operates at a higher level than the best amateurs. But personal values absolutely matter.

I used to work for an MD who sometimes gave expert testimony in MAl practice suits. My job was to show the relative levels of expertise. Our state does not expect that a rural physician who sees a particular type of case once a week can be held to the same standard as a med school prof or a big city doc who sees such cases many times a day. So even the experts come in different levels.

Doc ranked Reagan very highly. It is quite obvious to anyone that docmcb is a rather conservative professor.

Someone from an "elite" institution like California Berkeley or Penn is unlikely to rank him in his top 20. Ditto a professor from an "historic Black College" like Howard.
Rank LBJ. What are your politics? Does Vietnam matter? Do you think he was the best president for Civil Rights, and does that outweigh Vietnam? I was a Vietnam era college student, and sweated bullets until I got my extremely favorable Draft Lottery number.
Rank JFK. In my opinion, he accomplished little, and kicked the can down the road on Vietnam. That is an atypical view for a Boomer.
On the other hand, I think Nixon was a great president. Where would "highly respected college history professors" rank any of these? Are they Boomers too? Do they belong to the Heritage Foundation? A racism watchdog Group?

It's nonsense to think that personal politics does not enter into how they teach or fill out surveys. Note that I am strictly following the TMP Modern Politics rule. I shall leave it to yourself to decide where "highly educated professional historians" would rate presidents of the last 20, or even 40 years without falling back on their own partisan political views. Some I disagree with, some I consider bumbling fools, and several terrify me. Are college professors entitled to their political opinions? Of course they are.

Luckily, political views do not enter into the professional views of physicists or biochemists. (He said with a mocking smile on his face.)

I hear, way too often, the phrase "I did my research!"
What that inevitably means is that someone Googled a topic, and then went to a site that they knew in advance they would agree with. (Note that I am using "they" in a grammatical sense, rather than in a preferred pronouns sense. Take that as you will for my own politics. And age.)
When the topic of vaccines comes up, I do not trust anyone whose "research" includes Aaron Rodgers, a washed up quarterback, Joe Rogan, a UFC expert and professional blowhard.

Grattan, humanities professors professors continually gripe that they aren't treated with the same respect given chemists and engineers, but the hard scientists--except portions of physics--and the engineers are subject to independent verification. If they tell people a bridge capacity is 50 tons, or the power plant will produce X man kilowatt-hours, you can check these. If a lit professor tells me The Old Man and the Sea is the World's Greatest Novel and a History professor tells me FDR was the greatest American President, how exactly to I obtain independent verification? Or even objectively establish the criteria for greatness? The MDs and lawyers at least have won/lost records, and I could tell you some stories about members of both groups. History and English professors don't even have that.

A number of people have "dedicated their lives to the study of history" but I've known a fair number of tenured History professors. The two groups overlap, but they are not the same group.

Funny. I had an almost identical exchange with a Lit/Philosophy PhD some years ago. Out of curiosity, Grattan, how do you feel about Objective Literary Merit? Would you put the same trust in a survey of Lit professors telling you what the Greatest American Novel was that you'd place in, say, the Table of Elements? If not, why not?

Speaking of The Great American Novel, didn't it used to be Huckleberry Finn? 🙄
Not anymore. You know why.

Ranking presidents is mostly just a fun political conversation, IMO. They are often products of their times and events. A few seemed to skate along with relatively little to do, others faced immense disruptions and challenges. Their abilities may evolve with momentous events. Some evoke mixed feelings based on controversial times. Some receive historical makeovers wherein faults are de-emphasized for political handiness. All of them had faults. And some rose above the fray to lead and inspire. But ranking them based on how they handled things may assume they all faced the same tests, and this is not the case.

Ranked presidents: FDR, Eisenhower and Reagan are top three to me. Early 1800s presidents just sent their problems west. A generalization but something to think about. While Lincoln was a war president, if you focus on policies without a bias, he had a number of slips with the military, Supreme Court and others.

I'd agree that ranking presidents is a political conversation, totorella, but I'm not sure where "fun" comes into it.

Lives dedicated to the study of history. I knew a young black staff officer the 101st who could run rings around me on the Napoleonic wars. It was an education just listening to him talk about Count Rapp and the siege of Danzig. Of course he was combat arms--no association with the Army History program.

Knew a man who could recite from memory what happened to each division of XI and XII Corps following Gettysburg. Pretty sharp on Roman social history too. He was Intel working at DIA.

Knew a man who flew from South Bend to Vienna on his own dime to consult archives and get early Marlburian uniforms right. He had difficulty getting the archivist to take away the Ospreys and get him the good stuff because he was a lathe operator without academic credentials.

But of course these people, not having tenured academic positions can't be said to have "dedicated their lives to the study of history." They were, after all, amateurs.

Pay attention to word roots. An amateur is someone who loves something. A professor is just someone who says something openly.

Mind you, I knew and liked some excellent History professors. But I wouldn't accept a position in a History department by itself even as proof they were much interested in the subject.

As of 01 September 2024, this THREAD is OFF TOPIC!!!

The most successful President is said (by some) to have been Polk. He came into office with one goal, and that was to go to war with Mexico and steal its useful territory. He succeeded in one term, and then didn't run for a second.
Where is he ranked in the lists?

It's not OFF TOPIC.
It's hijacked. There's a difference. One can go back to the original plan any time one wants. But it also seems that that dead horse has been pretty well beaten to a pulp.

Agree with the OFM on Nixon and JFK.

LBJ was effective compared to JFK, but trying to fight two wars at this same time predictably resulted in losing both of them.

And I can state with certainty thst you do not really know a book or a subject until you have taught it.

I spent two years reading for my comps, which I passed in December 1973. Then in spring of 1974 I taught a lecture course, the first semester of US survey. (UVa requires that both semesters be offered each semester, so you do not have to do them in the normal fall.spring sequence. If you do them fall/spring, you get a big shot professor as lecturer. Out of sequence you get a grad student like McBride.)

So i had to prepare and deliver lectures on US, 1492 to 1877. This was AFTER passing a three hour oral exam on US History, with reading lists of hundreds of books. And I was constantly appalled and astounded at what I had not know for comps, but now had to get straight for the lectures. The basic narrative, yes, and also all the predictable questions.

So if you REALLY want to know something, commit to teaching it.

I agree Robert,perhaps "enjoyable" is a better word. History beats most other forms of entertainment for me.

Doc, maybe becoming a teacher gives you the tools to know a subject. The classroom itself may be less than enlightening at times, depending on the students. Or the teacher.

I had a great history prof in college, well known for theatrical lectures, dramatic, funny, always bounding around the stage. A lasting impression. It was the passion.

Just waiting for hi EEE ya to come back, Mahdi.

History is great entertainment. Ranking people by whatever standard one chooses, not so much.

Agreed that teaching can force you to learn a subject. Briefings for a senior can work that way too.

Hi EEE had his account locked. Click on his alias.

I think it was Barbara Tuchman who wrote that Wilson learned politics trying to navigate the politics of the Princeton faculty.
Wilson is a perfect example of how the political orientation of historians rank him.
So called "progressives" love him. I don't know why, and won't make excuses for them.
I, however am rather Conservative, but not the bouncing off the wall Conservative.
I despise Wilson, mostly because he always thought he was the smartest person in the room. Spoiler alert. He wasn't.
He desperately wanted to enter the Great War but couldn't say so before the 1916 election. So he lied that "he kept us out of the War". It's not like the Hun didn't give him every reason to join in afterwards. With "subtle" British manipulation.
Why did he want to hop in? So he could impose HIS vision on the "Peace". And he was played for a fool by the French and the British. 14 Points? Yeah sure. His stroke should have been the reason for a 25th amendment, but alas…

Oh, did I mention he was a terrible racist, and re-segregated the Civil Service?

Anyway… Progressive historians love him, and rank him in the Top 10. 🤷 I'm clueless As to why.
I loathe him and would rank him in the bottom 10. Maybe much lower.

To return to the top of my post here, his rankings are entirely political.

I'm not going to go ranking Presidents, and especially not on TMP. I can get politics anywhere, but miniatures, wargaming and military history are less common.

But let me toss out a general statement. A list of most consequential Presidents would be a lot less prone to partisan divide than "greatness" and a lot of the problems the US has had to solve over the years are the consequences of solutions to previous problems. If anyone wants me to expound on that, PM me. But otherwise, I'm going back to miniatures and military history.

My top three are Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. FDR was the greatest President of the 20th Century. FDR was the only three-term President. He saw us through the Great Depression and World War II. I will happily debate the point if you want to start another thread on this topic. But let's not hijack this current thread.

OC, yes, and the Constitution was immediately amended to make sure it never happened again. Which is a better rating than any historian's.

Given the recession of 1937-38, without WWII FDR would have been a two term failure. And of course it was military spending and production that ended the depression.

I grant FDRs impact was huge. It is just that so much of that impact was negative.

Doc +1

It seems to me that those who rank Presidents usually are most impressed by those who did something special, changed things. That in itself is a political point of view. Libertarians probably like Calvin Coolidge best.

^ Ay Dios Mio!!!

Coolidge was excellent! His speech in 1926 on the Declaration's 150th is amazing.

"OC, yes, and the Constitution was immediately amended to make sure it never happened again. Which is a better rating than any historian's."

Are you sure it wasn't just a hissy fit by the Republicans? 🙄🤔
FDR was actually elected 4 times. The People didn't seem have let the Recession affect his electability. He died early in his 4th term, deliberately keeping Truman in the dark.
Given that he was reelected in 1940, AFTER the Recession of 1937-38…

I'm willing to bet a beer that, absent the 22nd amendment, Obama would still be President. Not a political endorsement by any means, but he did and still does have the popularity.
Now, I will duck and cover. 😄

That's right 4 times. I miss-spoke. It must be the medication I am taking for a rather stubborn episode of the flu.

Calvin who?

I must say that this thread harkens back to the Golden Age of TMP hijacking.
"On your departure from Jose Martí Airport, please stop by the duty free shop for some fine cigars and rum."

John, perhaps you have not reviewed the Ultra Modern Warfare Board since your return. Never mind cigars, send lawyers, guns, and money….

Hi-Yee-ha asked if I would post this on his threads. I said I would post it on his most accessed. I self censored the last few words, but I think you get his meaning.

"Hi-Yee-ha has a fait sécession de TMP ! Merde ! MDR !😄

I am a Breton by birth like all my ancestors and that therefore I never give in and that I ##!!#%*""

I've been aware of Ultramodern fro quite some time.
Even if "gone" one can still read it.
Nope. There be Dragons!
Like most of the Internet 🙄 I am right and they are wrong. Or vice versa. Nothing is ever resolved, except the need to be outraged.

This has been one of the most interesting diversions I've read on TMP in a long time. While I don't agree with some of the opinions presented, I appreciate the manner in which they have been delivered. It's been more civilized than I'm used to from the past few years.