Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth’s Husband And Duke Of Edinburgh, Dies At 99

HuffPost ^ | 4/9/2021 | Paige Lavender and Lee Moran

[Eleutheria5]

“But even among those, the opinions of Gen. Dwyer and Churchill were extreme. That’s what I meant when I said that Churchill was racist even by the standards of the day.”

Must I do research? I hate research! Please post examples of both the standards of the day and how Churchill and Dwyer deviated from them. I can imagine he didn’t care for Gandhi and Nehru.

“That doesn’t take away his actions and the praise he deserves for his actions in WWII. However he was flawed and not a good peacetime leader.”

Generalities. Are we even really disagreeing? I enumerate his flaws in some detail. What did I miss? His blunders in the ‘45 election were pretty obvious.

But even so, he was on a partitioning kick both in and out of power. He partitioned the Mandate and created Transjordan. He partitioned Ireland and created Northern Ireland. I would suspect that the partitioning of India to create Pakistan would be his baby, likewise the partitioning of Germany into East and West, and letting the USSR keep Poland East of the Bug River, and east Finland. Under the circumstances, all he was able to save of the Balkans and Baltics from the Iron Curtain was Greece, which is why we were spared an East and West Bulgaria, East and West Czechoslovakia, East and West Romania, etc. Stalin grabbed the lot of them, save Greece, and there was bugger all Winnie could do about it, thanks to FDR and Truman’s naïve trusting natures. He had a good smile and a twinkle in his eyes, so of course he would keep his word and allow democratic elections in the countries his red army overtook./s He tried to warn the Americans, but they didn’t trust him. No smile. No twinkle in his eyes. Smoked big cigars that made their eyes water. Aha! Another flaw!

[ladyjane]

What if Lincoln was a racist. He fought to keep the country together, and the end result was an end to slavery.

To any historian reading this comment sometime in the future - The War of Northern Aggression was not about ending slvavery, it was about forcing the south into submission and eliminating them as an economic threat.

Wars are all about power and money. They are never about saving poor people from poor circumstances. If they were, we would have eliminated slavery in the middle east. We haven't.

[Eleutheria5]

Am I arguing with you? But for whatever reason the war started, its end result was an end to slavery, and a continuation of Jim Crow, extended to the South, and three new amendments that took about a century to be put into practice.

JS Mills says in Thoughts About Representative Government that representative democracy takes a society as it finds it, imperfections and all, and over time improves it.

But if the War Between the States was just about power and money and ending the economic threat of the South, why didn’t the victorious Union troops plow salt into the earth, as some in Congress had advocated. “We haven’t heard from Carthage lately”. Power and money were certainly in the mix, but that was not all there was to it. The Battle Hymn of the Republic went “Jesus died to make men holy, let us live to make men free,” not as Mark Twain mockingly wrote, “let us die to make men rich.” Harriet Tubman would not have led men in an assault to retake Fort Sumter. To be sure, freeing slaves took a back seat to money and power. But it sat in the back of the bus at least.