Who you admire most, and loathe, from your nation's history.

[MaximiIian]

No Henry Clay?

As the Great Compromiser, he held off Civil War in the US for well over 30 years, and helped to write the Compromise of 1850. He was from Lexington, if I remember correctly.

Oh, yeah. Thanks. I knew I forgetting someone important.
Plus, I was tired last night.

[Playfishpaste]

Well, I believe he was, and many other people do as well. I'd wager that more people like Lincoln than hate him.

Obviously, I'd wager in 100 years there will be more people who believe Bush was a courageous and inspiring leader. Can you tell me why you believe he is valiant?

No, I don't really think he freed the slaves because he "felt bad" for them. He freed them for many reasons, first and foremost as a military measure to cripple the South's labor force. Does this mean he hated blacks and couldn't care less about them? No. He never wavered in his hatred of the institution of slavery.

And I don't know where you got the idea that Lincoln ever owned slaves. I can assure you he did not.

He certainly didn't hate blacks, this doesn't mean he was exactly acting on moral intrests here, other reasons for freeing them would mean more oppurtunity for capitol, and more potential self-manifested income rather than money made off slave trade. This of course improved the county's general welfare, but it wasn't exactly moral, as many political decisions aren't. Regardless at least it was a step forward to real civil rights for blacks of the time, which, economically, by today's standards, were still slaves even after the emancipation.

I'm certain he did, but we can differ in opinion because neither of us have evidence to present (and if you think you do, I advise you to take into account the fact that the only valid evidence that can be presented here is video footage of Lincoln's entire life, or all of his reciepts, not third-party documents or periodicals, this isn't history we're talking about, it's politics). Wether he did or he didn't doesn't change what his actual motives were.

[ajm317]

Why do you think Lincoln owned slaves, because you have a beef with him?

There's no mention of Lincoln ever having owned slaves, if there had been you can believe some abolitionist in the North would have yelled about it during the war.

Only a small percentage of Americans actually owned slaves, why would Lincoln be among them? He spent most of his life in Illinois, that's not even a slave state!

[Playfishpaste]

EVERY state was a slave state...that's why the war got started...

I certainly do not have beef with Lincoln, the man laid the foundation for the thirteenth ammendment and helped win the war. The reasons I loathe him are formal, it's simply because he wasn't a man of high morals at all, and was rather much like any modern political figure in his actions.

[ajm317]

EVERY state was a slave state...that's why the war got started...

I certainly do not have beef with Lincoln, the man laid the foundation for the thirteenth ammendment and helped win the war. The reasons I loathe him are formal, it's simply because he wasn't a man of high morals at all, and was rather much like any modern political figure in his actions.

You might have to clarify what you mean by slave state.

It was not legal to buy slaves in Illinois for example.

[Farnan]

Admire:

Washington - The heart of the revolution, the American Cinnius
Nathaniel Greene - The brain of the revolution
Robert E. Lee - A man of honor
Audie Murphy - He wasn't good enough to be a Marine...
Edison - The man never gave up
Chief Rain-in-Face - My most famous ancestor
General Patton - That was a general
General MacArthur - The American Caesar that chose the right path
General Patreaus - Looking good so far
And others as I think of them...

Loathe:
Custer
Forrest
Charles Lee - a traitor
Serial Killers and anyone who intentionally harms innocents.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Obviously, I'd wager in 100 years there will be more people who believe Bush was a courageous and inspiring leader. Can you tell me why you believe he is valiant?

I think you'd lose that wager. We'll see in 100 years. Bush has been known for a lack of accepting reality, incompetent and corrupt political appointments, and a war of choice that has been a monument to how NOT to conduct a war.

And sure, I can tell you why he's valiant. Because he had strong convictions and he followed them. But he didn't follow them by trampling all over others. He was a consummate politician, he knew how to get disparate groups of people to work together. He had a Herculean will. He was overly fair, almost, to those who he disgreed with, and tried to do everything in his power to reach a compromise, but in many cases none could be reached, and when he came to this conclusion, he hardened his stance quickly and irrevocably, as with secession and later emancipation. And of course, in the end, he restored the Union and freed the slaves, and created the foundation for the nation we have today. Do you think America would be where we are today if we still functioned as perpetually quarrelsome semi-independent states?

He certainly didn't hate blacks, this doesn't mean he was exactly acting on moral intrests here, other reasons for freeing them would mean more oppurtunity for capitol, and more potential self-manifested income rather than money made off slave trade. This of course improved the county's general welfare, but it wasn't exactly moral, as many political decisions aren't. Regardless at least it was a step forward to real civil rights for blacks of the time, which, economically, by today's standards, were still slaves even after the emancipation.

Well, the Republican Party was the party of free labor. Slavery is in contradiction to free labor. Some people were opposed to slavery on purely economic principles, whereas some others (primarily abolitionists) were opposed to it for moral, religious, or social reasons. Lincoln was a little of both. He hated slavery for the clear violation of human rights that it was, but he also opposed it on economic principles, being a supporter of free labor.

I'm certain he did, but we can differ in opinion because neither of us have evidence to present (and if you think you do, I advise you to take into account the fact that the only valid evidence that can be presented here is video footage of Lincoln's entire life, or all of his reciepts, not third-party documents or periodicals, this isn't history we're talking about, it's politics). Wether he did or he didn't doesn't change what his actual motives were.

Nice. Make a completely outrageous claim, and then tell me I can't use anything to prove it wrong. Seeing as video sources of Lincoln's entire life is nonexistant, and getting all of his receipts would be a gruelling and lengthy process (but possible, they are all available at the Lincoln Library in Illinois), you leave me little option to refute you.

And can I ask, how do you separate history from politics? If we're discussing political history, why are historical sources not applicable?

What I can do to refute you is explain that there is no evidence of any kind in existence today that proves that Lincoln DID have slaves, and every indication that he did not. The family he married into did own slaves, but Lincoln was never the legal owner of another person at any time in his life. The process of buying a person was not easy, there was a lot of paperwork involved. If Lincoln had ever owned a slave, paperwork would exist to testify to that. Furthermore, Lincoln was never a wealthy man. He would not have had the means to buy a slave until well into his political career, a career which he based upon his opposition to the institution of slavery. Had he owned a slave, he wouldn't have been elected town councilman, let alone Senator or President. Had he owned slaves, he would never have been made the Republican Party's nominee in 1860. Do I need to keep going?

The burden of proof is upon you, sir, not me. You are the one making a claim contrary to all the documents, evidence, and common sense that we possess. And remember, Lincoln was scrutinized as almost no other president ever was, if he had owned slaves, someone would have exposed it to the nation.

[VoodooTengo]

Admire:
Thomas Jefferson- Because he lobbied for the bill of rights to be included in the constitution which i feel is by far the most important part.
FDR- for his relief programs during the depression and his leadership in WWII (clever ideas like rationing sugar so everyone felt involved in the war effort)
MLK- For advancing social justice and not compromising his morals for the advancement of his own cause (opposition to vietnam)
The founding fathers in general
Bill Clinton- Balancing the budget was good for America and i think he was an all around good leader, also think him getting head in the white house was blown out of proportion he was not the first president to have an affair from either party
Stephen Colbert- Need i say more

Don't Loathe But Dislike-
George Bush- Invading Iraq, destruction of Habeus Corpus, and in my opinion a way to heavyhanded response to 9/11 and invading Iraq which was a huge mistake and anyone who knows **** about the middle east could have told you they had nothing to do with 9/11. Generally i dislike him because i percieve him to feel that he is above the law, and that what he says is law, NSA wiretapping and stuff really bothers me, i hate the PATRIOT act, thats done more to damage America and Americans than any amount of terror attacks can.

Lincoln- Somewhere in between like and hate, he was a strong leader and what we needed at the time, but he had the potential to become a dictator and his suspension of Habeus Corpus, seemed unnecessary. Dispite the fact that i dont really like him i am glad he was president for the war though, but in the long run i think his assassination may have been a benefit for America.

Another popular one for disliking which i agree with is Custer he was an arrogant prick.

After the founding of our country i think the federalists were bad people and i dislike them in general

[tiber_septim]

just to clear up the fact about lincoln owning slaves he did.....he owned a large plantation

i most admire Gen.Nathan Bedford Forest of the confederate army in the civil war

he was the only man in american history to rise form the rank of private second class to gen.

and he didnt go to a military academy

he was also the leader and founder of the klu klux klan(just throwing that out their,and dont judge by that becuase if you know anything about the klan then you know in the civil war they werent what they are made out to be)




loathed:BILL CLINTON(becuase he is pro-gay and i h8 him)

well benjamin franklin wasnt a "semi-politician" he spent most of his life negotiating with france,spain,england,germany and all of the italian states he lived in each place for a few years and then was re-signed to another

hes life long act was a diplomat

[aja5191]

EVERY state was a slave state...that's why the war got started...

Come on, now, let's be at least SEMI-historical here. The war may have started because of the differences between the slave states and the free states, but it was also about expansion. The South felt that they were being jipped, and were not gaining any territory any more to the south, to which they could spread slavery, and make it profitable. They had made some effort to control Cuba, but the Spanish said that they would rather have it sink into the ocean than let the US buy it from them.

The South was horribly misguided when it decided to secede, however. They might not have had a majority in the Senate, but they didn't NEED a majority to hold onto control. They just needed more than one third of the seats that the North had, which they did. This meant that if the South showed solidarity, then they could block all legislation to ban slavery, or whatnot.

Sorry to bring this so far off track, but I couldn't let this one pass.

[KaerMorhen]

fine thread but should be more precised. There are people I admire/loathe from different reasons such as their artworks(literature, paintings, music), military achievements, political activity or science development.
But let's try:
Those I admire

King Bolesław Chrobry 992-1025for 'forging' Poland into Kingdom in 1025 and many achievements that followed by.


King Stefan Bathory 1576-1586for making Commonwealth strongest ever.


King Jan III Sobieski 1676-1696the last great of our kings both military and political ways, he saved Habsburgs from Ottomans in 1683 in battle of Vienna


latter on I'll post rest of my admire/loathe list.

[wilpuri]

Johann Laidoner and Konstantin Päts are my most admired ones. In one point in history atleast, what they did 1939-1940 isnt that admireable.
The person i loathe still lives and is active today, Edgar Savisaar.

Why is Päts worthy of admiration? This is not a challenge, just a question as I'm not that familiar with Estonian politics and had the understanding that Pats basically assumed semi-dictatorial powers in order to stop the Conservative, Anti-Communist, some would say even proto-fascist Vapsid (sp) from assuming power? Although I can see why people would be opposed to such a take-over, I still haven't come across admiration for Päts - which again might just as well be more due to my lack of competence in this field than anything else.

I do know, that he did play with the idea of some sort of state-union between Estonia and Finland during his time in imprisonment.

If I were Estonian, I'd probably mention Lennart Meri as well.

[ajm317]

just to clear up the fact about lincoln owning slaves he did.....he owned a large plantation

No he didn't.

Weeee! Making claims without backing them up is fun.

[Nihil]

If you want to debate current affairs, take it to the mudpit. If you want to threaten other posters, you can leave.

Off-topic posts removed, with apologies to the innocent.

[Playfishpaste]

I think you'd lose that wager. We'll see in 100 years. Bush has been known for a lack of accepting reality, incompetent and corrupt political appointments, and a war of choice that has been a monument to how NOT to conduct a war.

We will indeed see, though I find it remarkable how much of the American public seem to have forgotten about Nixon and Reagan's scandals and screw-ups, I can only imagine what even fifty years will do to the public opinion on these men.

And sure, I can tell you why he's valiant. Because he had strong convictions and he followed them. But he didn't follow them by trampling all over others. He was a consummate politician, he knew how to get disparate groups of people to work together. He had a Herculean will. He was overly fair, almost, to those who he disgreed with, and tried to do everything in his power to reach a compromise, but in many cases none could be reached, and when he came to this conclusion, he hardened his stance quickly and irrevocably, as with secession and later emancipation. And of course, in the end, he restored the Union and freed the slaves, and created the foundation for the nation we have today. Do you think America would be where we are today if we still functioned as perpetually quarrelsome semi-independent states?

No I don't, which is why I pointed out that he actually did do good for the welfare of the country. What I was talking about were the moral aspects of it. All of these traits you've pointed out are things that I believe make up a great leader, which I believe lincoln was, I do not believe this makes him in any way valiant, but you have a right to see it that way.

Well, the Republican Party was the party of free labor. Slavery is in contradiction to free labor. Some people were opposed to slavery on purely economic principles, whereas some others (primarily abolitionists) were opposed to it for moral, religious, or social reasons. Lincoln was a little of both. He hated slavery for the clear violation of human rights that it was, but he also opposed it on economic principles, being a supporter of free labor.

Indeed a supporter of free labor, for reasons I believe are much less noble then I think you believe. You think he hated slavery for the violation of human rights, I do not, there is no way of proving either.

Nice. Make a completely outrageous claim, and then tell me I can't use anything to prove it wrong. Seeing as video sources of Lincoln's entire life is nonexistant, and getting all of his receipts would be a gruelling and lengthy process (but possible, they are all available at the Lincoln Library in Illinois), you leave me little option to refute you.

obviously, I stated those bits of evidence as the only possible things you could use to point out the hopelessness of this debate, as those are indeed in actuality the only valid bits of evidence you can present to the issue, and clearly they are near impossible to attain. I thought you would have jumped out with first hand documents and press releases and such, so I felt it necessary to use the comment first off to represent the uselessness of such things here.

And can I ask, how do you separate history from politics? If we're discussing political history, why are historical sources not applicable?

Very simply, see, in history any written record of an ancient or significantly dated time is accepted as valid, presentable evidence (say, the rossetta stone, a very old bible etc.). In politics this is not true at all, as politics is drowned in the pool of rhetoric and propoganda that is spilt throughout it's history. I'd consider any political history pre-french revolution or less conservatively pre-protestant reformation as actual political history and anything afterwards to require the hard evidence that politics demands. This is why I usually only like to discuss military and scientific history post-1600's.

What I can do to refute you is explain that there is no evidence of any kind in existence today that proves that Lincoln DID have slaves, and every indication that he did not. The family he married into did own slaves, but Lincoln was never the legal owner of another person at any time in his life. The process of buying a person was not easy, there was a lot of paperwork involved. If Lincoln had ever owned a slave, paperwork would exist to testify to that. Furthermore, Lincoln was never a wealthy man. He would not have had the means to buy a slave until well into his political career, a career which he based upon his opposition to the institution of slavery. Had he owned a slave, he wouldn't have been elected town councilman, let alone Senator or President. Had he owned slaves, he would never have been made the Republican Party's nominee in 1860. Do I need to keep going?

Do I need to refamiliarize you with the words "propoganda", "mis-information", and "cover-up"? Do you think if it were released publically
that FDR had helped fund the nazi party's death camps it would have looked very good? Obviously not, this could be justified by paperwork, but paperwork is quite easy to get rid of as you'll find when you study 20th century history. Now you do bring up a valid point, as I have no paperwork to support these claims, as there isn't any paperwork to present, this is an unbacked assumption, but as I said before, I am quite certain based on what I already know about the man.

The burden of proof is upon you, sir, not me. You are the one making a claim contrary to all the documents, evidence, and common sense that we possess. And remember, Lincoln was scrutinized as almost no other president ever was, if he had owned slaves, someone would have exposed it to the nation.

There is no burden of anything upon me, as I believe I was originally asked something along the lines of "why do you loathe lincoln?" I answered, but was asked to be more specific, I was. The main point of my statement was that lincoln did not care for slaves, and had no remorse what so ever for the people he had freed, and only had the intention to make the country wealthier by introducing them into a now corrupt system. It was quite vague and I apologize for that. I was taken aback that a person on a historical board would be so critical of a loathing for a political figure, but regardless it is your opinion to have. The slave ownership, again, was stated by me as a fact, because I believe it to be, though as I have no (hard) evidence to present and niether do you, I will consider it an opinion, as I do your statement that he did not.

As to Illinois not bieng a slave state, I will repeat that ALL the states of the united states of america were indeed slave states, I am talking about the period long BEFORE the civil war, and the country was still quite young and relied on slave trade and labor for it's growth.

Come on, now, let's be at least SEMI-historical here. The war may have started because of the differences between the slave states and the free states, but it was also about expansion. The South felt that they were being jipped, and were not gaining any territory any more to the south, to which they could spread slavery, and make it profitable. They had made some effort to control Cuba, but the Spanish said that they would rather have it sink into the ocean than let the US buy it from them.

The South was horribly misguided when it decided to secede, however. They might not have had a majority in the Senate, but they didn't NEED a majority to hold onto control. They just needed more than one third of the seats that the North had, which they did. This meant that if the South showed solidarity, then they could block all legislation to ban slavery, or whatnot.

Sorry to bring this so far off track, but I couldn't let this one pass.

So the war didn't get started on moral reasons, but instead cause the south wanted to get bigger and the north couldn't have this cause they liked they're cool civil war era-republican thinking. Thank you for giving me more reason to not only dislike lincoln, but the union he was fighting on the side of as well.

[ajm317]

Again man, it was not legal to buy slaves in Illinois, or Ohio, or Indiana, or California...

The list goes on.

Furthermore it was NEVER legal to buy slaves in these states.

[Lavastein]

admire:

Mercedes Morgan: for not giving up and being strong

George Patton: awsome general

Theodore Roosevelt: great imperialist, trust buster, leader

Augustus: who other than he?

Micheal Savage: great political analyst, patriot

Constantine IX: slain in battle gloriously. No man can say he did not fall for his empire he should be wept over



dislike:

Bill Clinton: pfffft sided with the muslims in killing serbians, let osama get away

Hilary CLinton: what a dumb woman

Paris Hilton: slutty

Jimmy carter: you...... gave back the panama canal, you fudged up the rescue of us troops.

ANY COMMUNISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!

i have more people but it would take forever

[Playfishpaste]

Obviously it wasn't in california, considering it became a state in 1850! Right on the edge of the war with the confederates.

Every state that EXISTED in america before the confederacy's creation and the civil war WAS a slave state, it was colonial era for crap's sake...

Would you like to explain to me how you believe we suddenly rebounded from a protectorate democracy into a hearty capitalist state without free labor at the time?

[therussian]

Lincoln- Somewhere in between like and hate, he was a strong leader and what we needed at the time, but he had the potential to become a dictator and his suspension of Habeus Corpus, seemed unnecessary. Dispite the fact that i dont really like him i am glad he was president for the war though, but in the long run i think his assassination may have been a benefit for America.

I can tell you that it sure as hell wasn't beneficial for the South. Many believe (and with just cause) that Reconstruction under Lincoln would have been much less painful for the Southerners, had he not been assassinated by that idiot.

[MadMushroomMan15]

Admire of our Nation:

- King Leopold II, he made us rich by colonising Congo. Lot's of Rubber too.



- King Albert I, heroic king, he fought near his soldiers. Said: "Belgium is a nation, not a road!"

King Leopold II was responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Africans. It became so bad that those who couldn't reach their work quota were executed and then had their hands chopped off and presented to the 'managers' as proof. The hands became currency. If some Africans knew they weren't going to finish their quota in time, they'd go out and murder some other people and take their hands in order to spare their lives. This is actually when some of the first investigative journalism occurred when some British guy noticed that when goods were shipped from Africa by Leopold's men to Britain, all that the Brits sent in return to the colonies in Africa were weapons and ammunition. The situation in Congo was supposed to be under control, so why would they need weapons? Turns out they were killing the Africans. Now, I'm not going to get into a debate about the evils of Imperialism and how everyone did it, but King Leopold II sticks out among all of them as one of the worst Imperialist Kings. No offense or anything, but I had to let that out.