Capitalism's Savior (Everything You Believe About FDR Is False)

Wall Street Journal ^ | Wednesday, October 29, 2003 | CONRAD BLACK

[presidio9]

John, I am not going to go back and forth with you on your unfortunate Gangs of New York obsession. We both know what you posted. Spin it any way you wish. I care not. And don't bother thinking the best of me. I am afraid I can not reciprocate. Anyone who does not realize that freeing the slaves was the most important thing an American president ever did will never have see an ounce of respect from me.

[x]

Ironically, it may be more difficult to achieve greatness in the absense of great peril, but I do think it is possible. For example, I do not believe that the situation when Reagan came into power was dire. It was nighttime in America, not midnight. And I do consider Reagan to have been 'great'.

You're right that the country had been in greater crises than it was in the late Carter years. But much of Reagan's stature has to do with ending the Cold War and recession and bringing confidence back to America, so in a sense, crisis was important to his Presidency as well. By bringing the Cold War to a close Reagan became a President whose claims to greatness or something close to it had to be recognized by Americans of virtually all political positions. Without that, his status probably wouldn't have been as high.

My point was that the leader who's competent and efficient but doesn't overcome dangers and obstacles isn't likely to be thought great. Jefferson decreased the pretentions and debts of government. He may even have decreased its size and expenses. But if he's considered "great" it has a lot to do with the Louisiana Purchase -- not a crisis for the country, but an enormous, once in a century opportunity. So perhaps great opportunities, as well as great crises, make us recognize great Presidents.

I don't disagree with you so much. It would be nice if competent Presidents who didn't do harm but inspired the citizenry to accomplish great things on their own, or simply got out of the way of the nation's energies were given their due. But a prejudice toward crisis and activism is built into the idea of "Presidential greatness" as it's come down to us. Maybe Reagan will help change that, though.

[JohnGalt]

It was your obsession, that is the whole point.

I mentioned it in passing and I saw you post to another person that it was the basis of my opinion. I desired to determine for myself whether you were a straight shooter or not and it is certainly up to you to manage your own reputation.

How many lives would 'freeing in the slaves' in the 1860s be worth? 1 billion? 1.5 million?

You appeal to an abstraction "free the slaves" and give credit to Lincoln who did pursued this policy point with violence rather than statesmanship. Besides junking the republican form of government and the observed right to secede, he advocated a policy of war on his country's civilians, this is why I find him to be the worst President.

To pull the Jesse Jackson card and insinuate I am a racist is lame, but at least I am comforted standing opposite your blatant liberalism.

[presidio9]

Note to racist: Opposition to racism is apolitcal.

[x]

Most Americans in 1860 didn't want to abolish slavery. Only a small minority of White Americans wanted to accept Blacks as equals. Aside from that small idealistic group of egalitarian abolitionists, those who sought an end to slavery did tend to have ideas about resettling freed slaves outside the US. Thomas Jefferson, to the degree that he contemplated emancipation and wasn't a supporter of slavery, believed in recolonization.

So it was naturally that many of those who opposed slavery saw resettlement as an "answer." What counts is that Lincoln didn't go through with the plan. Nor did he ever recommend deporting anyone by force or against their will.

The Emancipation Proclamation applied only to those territories in rebellion, because the federal government had no authority to abolish slavery under ordinary conditions. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution did abolish slavery. Lincoln strongly promoted this amendment and it was passed as a tribute to him.

Maybe one man can't or shouldn't be made into the "Great Emancipator." Maybe it was the achievement of a generation or more, and of thousands of people. But I don't think we should begrudge Lincoln the recognition of the role he played in bringing emancipation about.

[presidio9]

Maybe one man can't or shouldn't be made into the "Great Emancipator." Maybe it was the achievement of a generation or more, and of thousands of people. But I don't think we should begrudge Lincoln the recognition of the role he played in bringing emancipation about.

Very well said.

[GladesGuru]

Horse exhaust, Dear Sir!

While Lincoln didn't force anyone to leave for Africa, he didn't mind acting as the "Great Dictator" during the Civil War, and jailed those he wanted, from newsies to business leaders, to the Maryland officialdom.

And while acting as de facto Dictator, he managed to bring in the era of the Nanny State. We and Brazil, are the two nations which fought over "slavery". Everywhere else, the slave owners were bought out. 'Twas a far cheaper method.

The reality is that the Civil War was economic in causation.

[x]

In times of crisis, governments always crack down. Jefferson Davis wasn't less dictatorial than Lincoln. Some would say he was more of a tyrant.

Let's say the federal government had agreed to let the Southern states go in 1860. Governments, whether federal, state or confederate would still have had to take steps to check those who wanted to take over states or parts of states and drag them out of or into this or that union or confederation against the will of other inhabitants. All that's an unavoidable part of the atmosphere the rebels created.

You left out Haiti, though, the site of a bloody slave uprising or revolution. If slavery was abolished peacefully elsewhere it's because A) there were few slaves and slaveowners or B) the real center of power was where there were few slaves (Europe).

It was easier to abolish slavery in the Northern states or many South American countries because there were so few slaves and so few slaveholders. In the Caribbean Islands where there were many slaves and slaveowners ran things, peaceful emancipation was only possible because faraway European governments ran things. American slaveowners weren't going to give up their slaves, even if they were compensated. They made that quite clear.

[Restorer]

I believe what you are calling the "invasion of VA" was the defensive emplacement of artillery south of DC. Since, from Lincoln's point of view, VA had not left and could not leave the Union, this was not an invasion in any logical sense of the term. Calling it an invasion implies the legitimacy of secession. Lincoln fought the war throughout under Constitutional powers to suppress insurrection within the country, not the war powers applicable to foreign conflicts.

Of course Lincoln out-maneuvered southern pols and got them to fire the first shot. What's your point? War was almost inevitable at some point. Having the South be the aggressors was of incalculable value to the Union throughout the war.

[swheats]

Sorry I'm so late in responding.

No I can't believe it. There's always a price to pay in setting things right. Thank God for those willing to shed their blood to end slavery.

It's unfortunate those who believe abortion is wrong refuse to do their civic duty in voting baby killers out of office. Can we really do anything other than staying vigilant by keeping the ballot box effective?

A side issue, surely the purpose of this article is to show that the economy is really not showing true improvements. Surely the Bush administration has to be manipulating the numbers. /sarcasm

[Eva]

Some Newsweek writer has a new book on FDR coming out this week.

[JohnGalt]

This thread is about 'who was the worst President'.

If maneuvering your country into a war is your mark of a good President, God Bless you, but I disagree. You can argue the defense attorney's case all you want, but I am not putting Lincoln on trial anymore so that I put Reagan on trial. Faced with difficult circumstances that few could have overcome, one engaged in total war, the other road a horse on his ranch.

I prefer the subtly and limit of blood shed and the faith in the rightness of his cause, to the rationalization of a war made on civilians and countrymen.

[Restorer]

I believe we will have to agree to disagree. You seem to believe that the preservation of the United States against a massive attempt to destroy it was not worth the pain and suffering of a major war.

I disagree.

You also seem to believe that Lincoln was given a choice between preserving the Union without a war and with a war. This is untrue.

He was given a choice between allowing the Union to be destroyed and fighting to preserve it. He chose to fight.

All Americans should be proud that he did.

Since you're so opposed to war, I'm curious about your opinions of the Founders, who chose war against Britain over what were comparatively minor irritants when compared to the great issues of 1861.

[JohnGalt]

After 1865, the United States has existed in name only. The unique character of our republican form of government was lost to the Robespierre dream of the omnipotent state. Lincoln, being neither a Christian or a follower of the forefathers, chose to fight to protect a state.

Only worshippers of the DC-tax regime should rightly applaud his administration.

The forefathers were well aware of the British policy of first disarming and then starving an entire people. In the early 18th century, the policy was used on the Scottish and a few decades later, on the Irish- still a century before the potato famine.

The Minutemen of New England trained and drilled for a year prior to the British plan to cease the guns at Concord. And just to reiterate, in the mind of the New Englanders, the loss of the guns preceded the loss of everything. They were more than justified in conservative libertarian thought and more importantly in the context of Christian patriot thought, to make a defense.

I see you have bought the statist line "comparatively minor irritants" just as you bought the statists Lincoln myth, but we already knew that.