The internet is a funny place.
I joined Twitter ages ago. ...Well ages in terms of IST (Internet Standard Time) at least. I had done absolutely nothing with it until a few weeks ago.
I began following some profiles. Two Chester Arthur profiles to be exact. Neither had updated too often or all too recently, but the matter was of principle really. I had chosen to be @chet21fan after all.
It was about this time I realized just how many profiles there are for presidents. With people who either know a bit about them, or at least attempt to be somewhat in character.
With this newfound knowledge, I followed a James Garfield and a Millard Fillmore. More recently, I found an amazing profile: @Mr_Lincoln where someone obsesses over Abe and posts regular updates about the significance of that day in Lincoln's life, how Justin Bieber sucks and people should obsess over a dead president instead, and occasionally some modern political jabbing. Seriously, if you have an account, you should be following him.
I have a funny story about an encounter with Chester Arthur I had a few days ago. He tweeted about how he overheard a conversation where some youths were discussing the gayest president and how his name came up.
Let me take this moment to point out that Chester Arthur was not at all gay. In fact, I suspect he was straighter than half of you reading this. Ellen was a pretty lady. And Chet got it on with her at least enough to have three kids.
I replied to him with the magic of Twitter to tell him to just shout "JAMES BUCHANAN WAS GAY FOR PIERCE'S VICE PRESIDENT," and how it works every time. Historically, it's not technically proven, but just look into it a little. It's basically fact.
I squealed like a teenage girl who had just caught Elvis' scarf... thingy... when Chester Arthur retweeted that and said that he had tried but it didn't work.
So yeah, it was a pretty disappointing conversation.
Showing posts with label Abraham Lincoln. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abraham Lincoln. Show all posts
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Time is of the Essence
Abraham Lincoln is, in my opinion, the greatest president we've ever had. However, I've never been shy to say that John Wilkes Booth is responsible for him being so great. Lincoln's handling of the Civil War was well done and he managed to save the Union.
However, Andrew Johnson is generally considered an extremely poor president. He generally attempted to follow Abraham Lincoln's general Reconstruction plan.
Had Lincoln not been killed, his Reconstruction would have made him seem less of a great president. Yes, unlike Johnson, he would have likely had more influence over Congress to get things passed, but his plan would still be generally disliked and often fought by the men of Congress.
On the other end of the spectrum, James Buchanan is the worst president of all time. However, had he been president in place of Theodore Roosevelt, he would have been great. Had he been president in place of James Polk, he would have done fine. Had he been president in place of Woodrow Wilson, things would turn out okay.
James Buchanan's great work in international affairs is often forgotten while considering his horrid handling of the sectional conflict arising between North and South with imminent consequence clear. But if we take the Civil War out of the picture and place Buchanan in a time of more expansionism or need for allies, Buchanan would prove adept at international relations and perform admirably.
And so as a president is examined in terms of history, it is often interesting to see some of the what ifs. Maybe you place them at a different point in time. Maybe you change an event slightly, creating an alternate history, but not so vast that the Alien Space Bats have to create the timeline. The results are often not what you'd expect from examining them solely in our exact timeline.
However, Andrew Johnson is generally considered an extremely poor president. He generally attempted to follow Abraham Lincoln's general Reconstruction plan.
Had Lincoln not been killed, his Reconstruction would have made him seem less of a great president. Yes, unlike Johnson, he would have likely had more influence over Congress to get things passed, but his plan would still be generally disliked and often fought by the men of Congress.
On the other end of the spectrum, James Buchanan is the worst president of all time. However, had he been president in place of Theodore Roosevelt, he would have been great. Had he been president in place of James Polk, he would have done fine. Had he been president in place of Woodrow Wilson, things would turn out okay.
James Buchanan's great work in international affairs is often forgotten while considering his horrid handling of the sectional conflict arising between North and South with imminent consequence clear. But if we take the Civil War out of the picture and place Buchanan in a time of more expansionism or need for allies, Buchanan would prove adept at international relations and perform admirably.
And so as a president is examined in terms of history, it is often interesting to see some of the what ifs. Maybe you place them at a different point in time. Maybe you change an event slightly, creating an alternate history, but not so vast that the Alien Space Bats have to create the timeline. The results are often not what you'd expect from examining them solely in our exact timeline.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Top 10: Reasons I haven't updated Presidential Ranking
10. Let's be honest, it wasn't interesting to read every week slight changes to a list.
9. How much ranting was involved?
8. I got lazy.
7. I couldn't stand to drop Chester Arthur further down!
6. Okay, we get it, Abraham Lincoln is number one!
5. It was a lot of research involved...
4. It's more fun to read other peoples' lists and see how I disagree.
3. I'm not really that great of a historian.
2. Feedback was minimal, and without help it's a tough undertaking.
1. Hell, other stuff is way more fun to blog about.
9. How much ranting was involved?
8. I got lazy.
7. I couldn't stand to drop Chester Arthur further down!
6. Okay, we get it, Abraham Lincoln is number one!
5. It was a lot of research involved...
4. It's more fun to read other peoples' lists and see how I disagree.
3. I'm not really that great of a historian.
2. Feedback was minimal, and without help it's a tough undertaking.
1. Hell, other stuff is way more fun to blog about.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Presidents' Day
...is quite possibly the most worthless holiday we have in the United States.
It sprung from celebrations of Lincoln's Birthday (on February 12) and Washington's Birthday (on February 22) and so now Presidents' Day is celebrated on a Monday in February, I suppose the third Monday, and we all get a three-day weekend instead of two days off.
But this is not my problem with the upcoming holiday. My problem is people don't celebrate the presidents. Not once have I heard of someone preaching about the greatness of Abraham Lincoln on this holiday. Nor have I seen someone wearing a George Washington t-shirt.
If we're getting this day off, why aren't people celebrating even these greatest presidents?
But in addition, people further shun the lesser presidents. Maybe they'll think of Washington and Lincoln, maybe even the Roosevelts. But what about the Millard Fillmores and the William McKinleys and the Benjamin Harrisons of our land? Isn't it their holiday too?
But people don't celebrate any of this. So why should this holiday still exist?
That being said, on Monday I'm wearing a Chester Arthur t-shirt and posting multiple blogs about some of the presidents who get no love.
It sprung from celebrations of Lincoln's Birthday (on February 12) and Washington's Birthday (on February 22) and so now Presidents' Day is celebrated on a Monday in February, I suppose the third Monday, and we all get a three-day weekend instead of two days off.
But this is not my problem with the upcoming holiday. My problem is people don't celebrate the presidents. Not once have I heard of someone preaching about the greatness of Abraham Lincoln on this holiday. Nor have I seen someone wearing a George Washington t-shirt.
If we're getting this day off, why aren't people celebrating even these greatest presidents?
But in addition, people further shun the lesser presidents. Maybe they'll think of Washington and Lincoln, maybe even the Roosevelts. But what about the Millard Fillmores and the William McKinleys and the Benjamin Harrisons of our land? Isn't it their holiday too?
But people don't celebrate any of this. So why should this holiday still exist?
That being said, on Monday I'm wearing a Chester Arthur t-shirt and posting multiple blogs about some of the presidents who get no love.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Strong or Weak?
George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt have what in common?
They are all strong presidents who followed generally weaker presidents.
Washington followed the Articles of Confederation, which had a president, but of Congress, not an executive. His term built the presidency. Lincoln followed James Buchanan who basically did nothing about seceding states, because he didn't think he had the right. At the same time, he didn't think they had the right to secede. Lincoln then saved the Union. Roosevelt followed Hoover, who is blamed for the Great Depression and failed to do much to make it better.
Roosevelt had great popularity because he wasn't Hoover. Washington was successful because the Constitution was fresh and he could interpret it however he wished. Lincoln was successful because most of his opposition seceded from the nation, and he forced himself into emergency powers.
When I consider these cases, I find it difficult not to draw a parallel to Barack Obama. George Bush isn't exactly a weak president, as he did get a lot done, but he was probably a poor one, like Buchanan and Hoover.
Unlike these cases however, Obama does not yet seem to be very successful. Perhaps he just needs his full term and maybe a second to prove his worth.
But what if Congress stays deadlocked?
Could Barack not follow these three examples and instead shift federal politics to be more like those of the Gilded Age?
The Gilded Age is notable for Congress' domination of politics. That, in turn, echoed of the presidents from Taylor to Buchanan. Is it perhaps time for the executive branch to become weaker again?
There's one major problem with weak presidents now that was not apparent last time. When the Gilded Age ended, expansionism began. The United States became firmly, and stays today, involved in the politics of the world. If the single man (or maybe woman) leading the executive branch is not strong, then the country will become weaker on the international field.
That singular leader is needed to be the representative of the United States. And he cannot be a pushover that the world takes advantage of, he needs to be strong but fair.
Thus, we must hope that Obama does follow the scheme of Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. Because a Congress overtaking the president again could be bad for America.
They are all strong presidents who followed generally weaker presidents.
Washington followed the Articles of Confederation, which had a president, but of Congress, not an executive. His term built the presidency. Lincoln followed James Buchanan who basically did nothing about seceding states, because he didn't think he had the right. At the same time, he didn't think they had the right to secede. Lincoln then saved the Union. Roosevelt followed Hoover, who is blamed for the Great Depression and failed to do much to make it better.
Roosevelt had great popularity because he wasn't Hoover. Washington was successful because the Constitution was fresh and he could interpret it however he wished. Lincoln was successful because most of his opposition seceded from the nation, and he forced himself into emergency powers.
When I consider these cases, I find it difficult not to draw a parallel to Barack Obama. George Bush isn't exactly a weak president, as he did get a lot done, but he was probably a poor one, like Buchanan and Hoover.
Unlike these cases however, Obama does not yet seem to be very successful. Perhaps he just needs his full term and maybe a second to prove his worth.
But what if Congress stays deadlocked?
Could Barack not follow these three examples and instead shift federal politics to be more like those of the Gilded Age?
The Gilded Age is notable for Congress' domination of politics. That, in turn, echoed of the presidents from Taylor to Buchanan. Is it perhaps time for the executive branch to become weaker again?
There's one major problem with weak presidents now that was not apparent last time. When the Gilded Age ended, expansionism began. The United States became firmly, and stays today, involved in the politics of the world. If the single man (or maybe woman) leading the executive branch is not strong, then the country will become weaker on the international field.
That singular leader is needed to be the representative of the United States. And he cannot be a pushover that the world takes advantage of, he needs to be strong but fair.
Thus, we must hope that Obama does follow the scheme of Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. Because a Congress overtaking the president again could be bad for America.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Abraham Lincoln and James Buchanan
I'm sorry if anyone is disappointed by the lack of Presidential Super Tournament in this post, but I had the most interesting conversation with a friend today about pre-Civil War presidents.
I mentioned that I liked Millard Fillmore for his dedication to preserving the Union, even if he wasn't wholly successful. (Of course, Fillmore is another blog.) My friend then said he didn't understand why wanting to preserve the Union was necessarily a good thing in a president. This point really struck me.
Think about it. Preserving the Union at all costs is an infringement on states' rights. States' rights vs. federal rights has been the main issue of American government from the founding, and we decide in modern times that states' rights in this case is the wrong side, and thus preserving the Union is a positive point on American presidents. Thus we say James Buchanan is a poor president (worst, according to my... sadly unupdated... list), because he did nothing to preserve the Union, and we say Abraham Lincoln is a good president (best, according to my list, because he went to war to save the Union).
As these thoughts rushed through my mind, I replied, "So if the United States lost the Civil War, we'd remember Abraham Lincoln as our worst president and James Buchanan as the best!"
Chew on that one for a while.
I mentioned that I liked Millard Fillmore for his dedication to preserving the Union, even if he wasn't wholly successful. (Of course, Fillmore is another blog.) My friend then said he didn't understand why wanting to preserve the Union was necessarily a good thing in a president. This point really struck me.
Think about it. Preserving the Union at all costs is an infringement on states' rights. States' rights vs. federal rights has been the main issue of American government from the founding, and we decide in modern times that states' rights in this case is the wrong side, and thus preserving the Union is a positive point on American presidents. Thus we say James Buchanan is a poor president (worst, according to my... sadly unupdated... list), because he did nothing to preserve the Union, and we say Abraham Lincoln is a good president (best, according to my list, because he went to war to save the Union).
As these thoughts rushed through my mind, I replied, "So if the United States lost the Civil War, we'd remember Abraham Lincoln as our worst president and James Buchanan as the best!"
Chew on that one for a while.
Friday, November 27, 2009
The Gettysburg Address
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth
on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and
dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing
whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so
dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-
field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of
that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave
their lives that this nation might live. It is altogether
fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate…we cannot
consecrate…we cannot hallow…this ground. The brave men,
living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it
far above our poor power to add or detract. The world
will little note nor long remember what we say here, but
it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the
living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished
work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly
advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the
great task remaining before us…that from these honored
dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which
they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here
highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain;
that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of
freedom; and that government of the people, by the people,
for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Abraham Lincoln is quite possibly the foil to William Henry Harrison. While Harrison felt a long speech could show his strength, Abraham Lincoln just had a knack for relatively short speeches. He has the shortest inaugural address of any president, and of course his famous Gettysburg Address. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it is also the heart of lasting strength. Lincoln's speech at Gettysburg, a time fourscore and seven years after the founding of the nation endures in memory and has as much meaning eleven score and thirteen years after the founding of the nation.
But, while I greatly respect Lincoln for this, I did not make this blog for him.
Oliver Jensen rewrote the Gettysburg Address as Dwight David Eisenhower would have given it:
"I haven’t checked these figures but 87 years ago, I think it was, a number of individuals organized a governmental set-up here in this country, I believe it covered certain Eastern areas, with this idea they were following up based on a sort of national independence arrangement and the program that every individual is just as good as every other individual. Well, now, of course, we are dealing with this big difference of opinion, civil disturbance you might say, although I don’t like to appear to take sides or name any individuals, and the point is naturally to check up, by actual experience in the field, to see whether any governmental set-up with a basis like the one I was mentioning has any validity and find out whether that dedication by those early individuals will pay off in lasting values and things of that kind. . . . But if you look at the over-all picture of this, we can’t pay any tribute – we can’t sanctify this area, you might say – we can’t hallow according to whatever individual creeds or faiths or sort of religious outlooks are involved like I said about this particular area. It was those individuals themselves, including the enlisted men, very brave individuals, who have given the religious character to the area. The way I see it, the rest of the world will not remember any statements issued here but it will never forget how these men put their shoulders to the wheel and carried this idea down the fairway. Now frankly, our job, the living individuals’ job here is to pick up the burden and sink the putt they made these big efforts here for. It is our job to get on with the assignment – and from these deceased fine individuals to take extra inspiration, you could call it, for the same theories about the set-up for which they made such a big contribution. We have to make up our minds right here and now, as I see it, that they didn’t put out all that blood, perspiration and – well – that they didn’t just make a dry run here, and that all of us here, under God, that is, the God of our choice, shall beef up this idea about freedom and liberty and those kind of arrangements, and that government of all individuals, by all individuals and for the individuals, shall not pass out of the world-picture."
Yeah, not quite as powerful.
on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and
dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing
whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so
dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-
field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of
that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave
their lives that this nation might live. It is altogether
fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate…we cannot
consecrate…we cannot hallow…this ground. The brave men,
living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it
far above our poor power to add or detract. The world
will little note nor long remember what we say here, but
it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the
living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished
work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly
advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the
great task remaining before us…that from these honored
dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which
they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here
highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain;
that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of
freedom; and that government of the people, by the people,
for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Abraham Lincoln is quite possibly the foil to William Henry Harrison. While Harrison felt a long speech could show his strength, Abraham Lincoln just had a knack for relatively short speeches. He has the shortest inaugural address of any president, and of course his famous Gettysburg Address. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it is also the heart of lasting strength. Lincoln's speech at Gettysburg, a time fourscore and seven years after the founding of the nation endures in memory and has as much meaning eleven score and thirteen years after the founding of the nation.
But, while I greatly respect Lincoln for this, I did not make this blog for him.
Oliver Jensen rewrote the Gettysburg Address as Dwight David Eisenhower would have given it:
"I haven’t checked these figures but 87 years ago, I think it was, a number of individuals organized a governmental set-up here in this country, I believe it covered certain Eastern areas, with this idea they were following up based on a sort of national independence arrangement and the program that every individual is just as good as every other individual. Well, now, of course, we are dealing with this big difference of opinion, civil disturbance you might say, although I don’t like to appear to take sides or name any individuals, and the point is naturally to check up, by actual experience in the field, to see whether any governmental set-up with a basis like the one I was mentioning has any validity and find out whether that dedication by those early individuals will pay off in lasting values and things of that kind. . . . But if you look at the over-all picture of this, we can’t pay any tribute – we can’t sanctify this area, you might say – we can’t hallow according to whatever individual creeds or faiths or sort of religious outlooks are involved like I said about this particular area. It was those individuals themselves, including the enlisted men, very brave individuals, who have given the religious character to the area. The way I see it, the rest of the world will not remember any statements issued here but it will never forget how these men put their shoulders to the wheel and carried this idea down the fairway. Now frankly, our job, the living individuals’ job here is to pick up the burden and sink the putt they made these big efforts here for. It is our job to get on with the assignment – and from these deceased fine individuals to take extra inspiration, you could call it, for the same theories about the set-up for which they made such a big contribution. We have to make up our minds right here and now, as I see it, that they didn’t put out all that blood, perspiration and – well – that they didn’t just make a dry run here, and that all of us here, under God, that is, the God of our choice, shall beef up this idea about freedom and liberty and those kind of arrangements, and that government of all individuals, by all individuals and for the individuals, shall not pass out of the world-picture."
Yeah, not quite as powerful.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Don't Lynch Me
What do Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding, and Barack Obama have in common?
Correct, they were all presidents, but that should be pretty evident, looking at the title of the entire blog. In addition, according to J.A. Rogers, they are all of African descent.
In his book from the 1960s, The Five Negro Presidents, Rogers gives information on the first four men, as well as Hannibal Hamlin (15th Vice President) and Alexander Hamilton, suggesting that they all have Africans in their geneology.
Honestly, I haven't read the 19 page book, nor do I plan on purchasing it to do so. The jury is split as to the validity of the claims made about these men. Some believe it to be factual, some believe it to be less so.
Now, what does this mean for Barack? Does he have to take this book off the market, remove it from memories, and censor all information sources Rogers used?
First, no he doesn't because how many people are actually going to hear about this? Not many. And how many would believe it anyway? Even less.
Second, this doesn't change the fact that Barack is visibly black. None of the other men appeared to be black, though it is said some had a dark complexion. Regardless, a dark complexion is still white.
Lastly, what does it matter if Barack isn't the first black president or even if he was just a white guy? Would his policies change? Would he suddenly not be considered Messiah by some and Satan by others? Of course not!
I really just like to justify Andrew Jackson's badassness as a possible side effect of being black.
Correct, they were all presidents, but that should be pretty evident, looking at the title of the entire blog. In addition, according to J.A. Rogers, they are all of African descent.
In his book from the 1960s, The Five Negro Presidents, Rogers gives information on the first four men, as well as Hannibal Hamlin (15th Vice President) and Alexander Hamilton, suggesting that they all have Africans in their geneology.
Honestly, I haven't read the 19 page book, nor do I plan on purchasing it to do so. The jury is split as to the validity of the claims made about these men. Some believe it to be factual, some believe it to be less so.
Now, what does this mean for Barack? Does he have to take this book off the market, remove it from memories, and censor all information sources Rogers used?
First, no he doesn't because how many people are actually going to hear about this? Not many. And how many would believe it anyway? Even less.
Second, this doesn't change the fact that Barack is visibly black. None of the other men appeared to be black, though it is said some had a dark complexion. Regardless, a dark complexion is still white.
Lastly, what does it matter if Barack isn't the first black president or even if he was just a white guy? Would his policies change? Would he suddenly not be considered Messiah by some and Satan by others? Of course not!
I really just like to justify Andrew Jackson's badassness as a possible side effect of being black.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)