Nice double standard here. Some of your polls need feedback, some don't, just depends on whether or not you constucted the poll in a decent manner, huh? If you leave out an obvious choice, you get pissed. FWIW, Coolidge rocked.
I liked Woodrow Wilson as well, although he was stubborn (worse then Bush even). I agreed with his internationalistic ethics, and his 14 points. Although they did play a major role in the means to the end (the actually treaty) they were always being contradicted by the Americans themselves (Wilson had to re-read the points to make sure he wasn't getting of tact). Wilson does have a bad reputation, but is it deserved? I think to a certain extent it is, he was the Bush of his time.
Eisenhower. He understood enough about war to know that it was to be avoided at almost any cost. He made it possible to negotiate a truce in Korea, and managed to avoid war on a dozen occasions where his hawkish advisors wanted it. He created the department of Health, Education and Welfare. He understood the need for strategic deterrence over raw military power and drew down the armed forces. He made some mistakes in his relations with Khrushchev, but managed to avoid armageddon at the height of the Cold War. He overcame his generational racism to approve of the first federal desegragation policies. He got Congress to pass the Federal Highway Act. He was a centrist Republican that I, a socialist/green, might actually have voted for. He didn't need to strut around a carrier flight deck in a pathetic attempt to show leadership, and he knew deep down what it cost when he sent young men to their deaths on Omaha Beach. In 1945 he said "Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in the blood of his followers and the sacrifices of his friends." I wish our leaders felt the same way.
Dwight D. Eisenhower Bringing to the Presidency his prestige as commanding general of the victorious forces in Europe during World War II, Dwight D. Eisenhower obtained a truce in Korea and worked incessantly during his two terms to ease the tensions of the Cold War. He pursued the moderate policies of "Modern Republicanism," pointing out as he left office, "America is today the strongest, most influential, and most productive nation in the world." Born in Texas in 1890, brought up in Abilene, Kansas, Eisenhower was the third of seven sons. He excelled in sports in high school, and received an appointment to West Point. Stationed in Texas as a second lieutenant, he met Mamie Geneva Doud, whom he married in 1916. In his early Army career, he excelled in staff assignments, serving under Generals John J. Pershing, Douglas MacArthur, and Walter Krueger. After Pearl Harbor, General George C. Marshall called him to Washington for a war plans assignment. He commanded the Allied Forces landing in North Africa in November 1942; on D-Day, 1944, he was Supreme Commander of the troops invading France. After the war, he became President of Columbia University, then took leave to assume supreme command over the new NATO forces being assembled in 1951. Republican emissaries to his headquarters near Paris persuaded him to run for President in 1952. "I like Ike" was an irresistible slogan; Eisenhower won a sweeping victory. Negotiating from military strength, he tried to reduce the strains of the Cold War. In 1953, the signing of a truce brought an armed peace along the border of South Korea. The death of Stalin the same year caused shifts in relations with Russia. New Russian leaders consented to a peace treaty neutralizing Austria. Meanwhile, both Russia and the United States had developed hydrogen bombs. With the threat of such destructive force hanging over the world, Eisenhower, with the leaders of the British, French, and Russian governments, met at Geneva in July 1955. The President proposed that the United States and Russia exchange blueprints of each other's military establishments and "provide within our countries facilities for aerial photography to the other country." The Russians greeted the proposal with silence, but were so cordial throughout the meetings that tensions relaxed. Suddenly, in September 1955, Eisenhower suffered a heart attack in Denver, Colorado. After seven weeks he left the hospital, and in February 1956 doctors reported his recovery. In November he was elected for his second term. In domestic policy the President pursued a middle course, continuing most of the New Deal and Fair Deal programs, emphasizing a balanced budget. As desegregation of schools began, he sent troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, to assure compliance with the orders of a Federal court; he also ordered the complete desegregation of the Armed Forces. "There must be no second class citizens in this country," he wrote. Eisenhower concentrated on maintaining world peace. He watched with pleasure the development of his "atoms for peace" program--the loan of American uranium to "have not" nations for peaceful purposes. Before he left office in January 1961, for his farm in Gettysburg, he urged the necessity of maintaining an adequate military strength, but cautioned that vast, long-continued military expenditures could breed potential dangers to our way of life. He concluded with a prayer for peace "in the goodness of time." Both themes remained timely and urgent when he died, after a long illness, on March 28, 1969. For more information about President Eisenhower, please visit The Eisenhower Center Dwight D. Eisenhower Library and Museum U.S. Presidents: United in Service Take a look at presidential biographies made by kids and videos about service from the President's Council on Service and Civic Participation. Thirty-Fourth President 1953-1961 Born: October 14, 1890 in Denison, Texas Died: March 28, 1969 in Washington D.C. Married to Mamie Geneva Doud Eisenhower
Well, despite your doubts, which is admittedly understandable, Americans did have the highest living standards in the West, and as the article notes, there was really no reason to rebel at that time, although maybe they were looking to the future, since they realized the great potential of the continent. You have to remember that the British were reeling after the Seven Year's War, which had almost emptied the treasury paying for it, while the American colonists had continued business as usual. It was the British merchant class, which had taken a real hit, that had pressured Parliament to tax the colonists, the equivalent taxes that British citizens were already paying. Americans really had it good in 1776. Anyway, this has become a threadjack, and it wasn't intended. To get back on track, Woodrow Wilson is over-rated IMO. A racist progressive, he emptied the federal government of blacks after positions had been opened to them under T. Roosevelt and Taft. He fought against women's suffrage for almost his entire two terms, only giving in finally under enormous public pressure, including his own two daughters, and because he didn't want to deal with it anymore with Versailles occupying his time. He screwed Pancho Villa, turning a one-time ally into an enemy for life, and he sent the Marines into Latin American countries over 20 different times. He wrongly assumed that the rest of the Entente leaders shared his world vision, and his stubbornness, and feud with Henry Cabot Lodge led to his refusal to bend somewhat concerning Article X in the League of Nations charter, which was part of the Paris treaty, meaning that the Senate refused to ratify the treaty, and thus not join the L of N, which had been one of his main goals going to Paris.
Lincoln was the greatest president we've ever had. I believe, had he not been assassinated, we would be living in a profoundly different world today. The Civil Rights movement would have happened seventy years ahead of schedule. He suspended Habeas Corpus to protect the White House, and also instituted the draft (after the Confederacy) toward the end of the Civil War. Wilson was a dick. He instituted the draft as well, but for a worthless cause--World War 1. Can you imagine being sent off to Europe to fight during that period against your will? The Western Front was a horrific place. I don't know how people did it. One of the guys who had been a hostage in Iran during that whole deal came to our school to talk a few years ago. And I quote--"Carter did the work but Reagan took the credit." It is a bit strange, how they were released the day Reagan was inaugurated. Reagan also funded a band of thugs called the Contras, against Congress' will. The fucker should have been impeached for that one, he's responsible for thousands of murders in Central America. I don't know enough about Clinton, actually. I heard someone say that he was the best republican president we ever had. Washington was Hamilton's pawn. Hamilton was the guy who really turned America into what it is today--a ruthless corporation. Jefferson was a total cocksucker--he saw Native Americans and Blacks as inferiors, and wanted to "civilize" them by forcing christianity upon them. I believe that several civilizing schools were constructed during his tenure, but they only pumped out a few hundred kids so we decided to screw it and keep murdering the Native Americans. I don't think any president's during the antebellum era can be voted best president because they were all advocates of slavery, something seen as immoral now and even back then by many, many people (even if they didn't think blacks were equal, they were still against slavery for various other reasons, the south gaining political power, the slaves stealing white jobs, that sort of thing). I watched a show on the Kennedy's yesterday. I think Bobby Kennedy would have made a pretty cool president if his dad hadn't angered Cthulhu. That's where the curse comes from, after all.
"Washington was Hamilton's pawn" LOL GW was nobody's pawn. He saw the Articles of Confederation as inept and chaired the convention that replaced them with the Constitution and a balanced federalist government. Jefferson was more of a Univeralist who did his own translation of the Bible.
Washington was definitely not Hamilton's pawn and there is nothing to suggest as much. He may have agreed with Hamilton on certain issues, such as the national bank, but it was only after asking both Hamilton and Jefferson to submit their arguments in the form of letters, and Hamilton presenting the better argument. If Washington seemed to favor Hamilton's ideas, it was because they agreed with his own ideas, not because he was Hamilton's pawn. Disagree again. Hamilton was a realist. Jefferson was an idealist. Hamilton looked at the British model and realized that if the US was to be completely independent of Europe economically, it would have to be more than a nation of farmers, as Jefferson wanted. And Hamilton believed that the wealthy elite needed to control the national banking system. Who better? But as they built the national economy up they would improve the standard of living for all. It wasn't Hamilton who ultimately abused the system. That's a bit strong, since it is doubtful Jefferson was even a Christian. It is more likely he was either Deist or Unitarian. And while it's true he never freed his own slaves, Jefferson only said outright that he thought blacks were 'probably' inferior. He always qualified his thoughts, basing his observations of blacks on his own estate, and noting that with several generations of mingling, with proper education, he might have a different opinion. And he later said, after reading a copy of Benjamin Banneker's almanac, that it seemed if blacks had talents equal to others. And he never insisted that Native Americans adopt Christianity, just that they adopt the customs of white civilization, particularly becoming farmers and give up the nomadic culture.
Jefferson had intended to emulate Washinton by freeing his slaves on his death but by the time he died Virginia law prohibited the freeing of slaves. Jefferson did send some of his slaves to Ohio so he could give them their freedom there.
Americans will never be satisfied with leadership, because they are hoping for a Messiah to do the driving and thinking for them. Just keep lettin the good times roll, and kill anybody who tries to stop us, or who even makes us nervous. Tell us God wants it, and we'll re-elect at least for a second, and likely as many terms as necessary until the Mausoleum in the Mall. By then, Manifest Destiny will be back, and yea, nuetrons shall lighten our path, and following forty days and forty nights behind Ezekiel's wheels, the Promised Lands will unfold before us for the taking, and flowing with milk and hiney. Verlily, verily, I say unto you: God blesses Us who blast Them and Blast First, for if thou dost blast last, thou hath nought but past. Or in modern parlance, IFF is for the squeemish, and c'mon lady?! We';re tryin to fight some Terror, over here! Gimme a fuckin break, aright? Look, we fry-em, and He sorts em out. Tommorrow, we wake up, and those poor sunsabitches don't. That's how it is.
I have to get back to you on this. I don't recall the exact particulars, but I believe the textbook to my AP U.S History class states somewhere that Washington's goodbye speech was essentially written by Hamilton. Yes, Jefferson was kind of a hippy. Not a very nice one, though. I don't think Hamilton was a realist. He's always seemed very vicious to me. I wish I had my textbook...it's all there. I'll have it on tuesday, it's back in my locker. I'm very sorry for my lack of evidence here, I always call other people out on it, I'm playing the part of the hypocrit. You may wind up being right, I just have to double check. Okay, if you like Washington so much, just remember: even though relations were strained, he ineptly started the Seven Years War by attacking a French fort that I believe would later become Detroit. Again, I don't remember the particulars, but even if a war was inevitable, he was still the one who started it. The Seven Years War also precipitated, in many ways, the American Revolution, by forcing Britain to tax America to pay off its debt, among other factors. Perhaps, had Washington been busy cutting down Cherry Trees this whole thing may never have happened and we'd be just like Canada. No, Aaron Burr took care of him before he could reap the fruits of the harvest, before trying to get the Northeast to secede from the Union. Burr was one wierd guy. Hamilton did put the men into power who would, in the future, abuse the system. Based on the information you've presented, I would disagree with Hamilton, and not leave the nation's fiscal matters up to the elite, because regardless of how much they build the country up they'll still steal as much of it for themselves as they can. Heh...forgot about that one... Regardless, it still seems like a draconian idea to me.
Pollux, You need a better textbook. The fort the French built was at the site of present day Pittsburgh.
I just got it mixed up. Like I said, I don't have the book with me, I'm going on something I learned four months ago. edit: if you'd care to recall my exact words-- Expressed there is my uncertainty at being correct. In spite of my mixing up the names, he still attacked the fort (unprovoked?).
Pollux V. It sounds like you might need to log off the computer and hit the books if you want to actually get the AP credit. Did you know Thomas Jefferson actually invented the concept of Tye-Dye and grew patchouli on the farms at Monticello. He is also given credit for insisting that the musicians he hired to entertain his guests at parties play long into the night, resulting in the first known "jam band". He was also known to totally bogart the conversation at times. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If your text actually taught you that Washington was Hamilton's pawn, you need to complain to your professor, or teacher, depending on what level you are, about your textbook. I've certainly seen plenty of inaccuracies in them. Washington's Farewell Address was not a speech, it was a letter published in a Boston newspaper. He never delievered it as an oral address. He originally asked Madison to write notes for a farewell speech, then he tinkered with the notes, then gave them to Hamilton to revise it into a letter. Hamilton showed it to John Jay, who gave his input, it was given back to Washington, who made the final revisions before submitting it. :bugeye: Being a revolutionary and building a country doesn't leave you much time to be nice. Hamilton was a bastard, born in the West Indies, moved to New York and married a wealthy lady, and was determined to have a place in the new order. He proved himself both loyal and capable under Washington in the war. He was an economic genious and realized the economic potential of the nation better than Jefferson. I don't know that he was vicious, but he was certainly ready to do what he believed necessary for the nation, which often times offended other people. Oh, I'm right. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It was Ft. Duquense, and as candy said, was located at present day Pittsburgh, and Washington neither 'ineptly' started the Seven Years War, nor was he commander of the force that attacked Ft. Duquense. That was the British commander, Gen. Edward Braddock. Washington's Virginia militia had been ordered to advance and block French activities in the area. After attacking and defeating a small force nearby, Washington's men built Ft. Necesssity, which the French would then attack with a larger force, forcing Washington to accept surrender terms. He would later offer his services to Braddock, who was then badly defeated by the French at Ft. Duquense, but by all accounts it was Washington who kept it from being a complete disaster. Who are you saying tried to get the Northeast to secede from the Union? Hamilton or Burr? And I'm not sure what you mean by reaping the fruits of the harvest. Are you suggesting Hamilton was creating some intricate financial scheme for his own profit? And you don't think the poor would have stolen as much as they could for themselves? But who should Hamilton have turned the fiscal matters of the nation over to if not those who knew how to handle those kind of numbers? I'm not trying to be smart, I'm just asking. I'm sure Native Americans would agree with you.
Fuhrer Roosevelt may have set the benchmark for an oppressive welfare state, and I am not exactly happy about him aligning America with Stalin; the second worst dictator who ever lived.
Churchill didn't underestimate him. But then, Churchill and Stalin were both seasoned statesmen; FDR wasn't.
