Too American.

Very little to like about Wilson. One story I found interesting. The 1916 election was too close to call. California was still counting votes the next day and the winner of California would win the election. Since that state had gone mostly Republican at that time and World War 1 was raging in Europe Wilson made a patriotic gesture. He told his Vice President and Secretary of State that if they lost the election he wanted them to resign immediately. He would then appoint the President elect as Secretary of State and then resign the Presidency. By order of succession at that time that would make the President elect the President immediately instead of waiting til March when they were sworn in then. Wilson won California and the election so it never happened but it was a great gesture.

It should have been dealt with in the inception of the nation, but the resources needed to fund the war were mostly coming from the southern colonies at the time.

your points are not in opposition to mine. Regardless, the federal government passed tariffs which were advantageous to manufacturing (north) and onerous to plantations exporting goods (south). I wish more americans had the balls to stand up to washington on passing laws and regulations which wipe out small business.

I'm not sure I understand your point. "South" is simply used as a geographical/political determination at the time of the civil war. There is no stereotyping going on in this discussion.

Very interesting. What a hack, though. His fascination with the socialist movement in Great Britain set us on the path to what could be the ruin of what was once a great nation.

Thank you, OA. That means a lot coming from you. I do my best, and ask they do the same.

And it's a doozie!

Another point on Wilson. Some historians believe he had multiple strokes during his presidency. He insisted on negotiating the Treaty of Versailles himself at the end of World War 1. He was so interested in getting The League of Nations started that many mistakes were made and some think he had one of his strokes during the treaty talks. Those failures set in motion the causes of World War 2.

The more I see of what is going on in public education, the more I value my own resources. I would seriously consider home schooling if I had children to educate. If my district wasn't too bad, I would still supplement their education as you have. Someone must expose our youth to the complete unvarnished truth if they are to learn from the mistakes of history! Good Job!

Yes! A hangover like after the last election... :)

If US History or US Government classes were still taught honestly, as in non-revisionist, more people would know these things.
It is an unfortunate fact that they have NOT been taught that way for quite some time. I graduated from HS before PC-ism took hold, and find myself astounded by the ignorance of those even just 10 years my junior. I find that I teach this at home because my kids are not learning it in school.
NMA

And will remind one of the fact the following day. ;-p

Swill...

Hello Mimi,
Some additional perspectives on Wilson:
Woodrow Wilson:
Wilson was a progressive who thought himself a Prime Minister, ran against involvement in the war then brought us into WWI, Supported Jim Crow, re-segregated the armed forces and the post office, supported eugenics, created the Federal Reserve, supported and instituted the 16th amendment (Federal income tax), spied on Americans and stifled free speech, was critical of the founding principles and showed complete disdain for the Constitution as a limiting document and worked to circumvent it and enlarge the powers of Big Brother according to his progressive agenda..

http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/11/whats-...

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewS...

http://progressingamerica.blogspot.com/2...

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...

Respectfully,
O.A.

Up late. Drinking. Texas!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoPQqPJ7f...

This is quite a thread. At first, long ago, I was startled to see some of my fellow Objectivists articulately and vehemently making the case for the cause of the Confederate States. And, at times, I found their particular arguments difficult to address. Strangely, I don't recall the specifics, but the pattern was to argue: sure, slavery is dead wrong in principle, but set that aside because in the historical context the whole Union had similar contradictions. And, having set that aside, look at the assertion of central power by Lincoln, the brushing aside of what had been equal partners in the U.S. Constitution...and so on. You know, Ayn Rand had a way saying, on certain occasions, when the arguments seemed ensnared in the parsing of terms and the stretching of principles, "Look at reality! The reality is obvious."

Well, that can be cited conveniently by EITHER side in a tortured debate, of course. But I look at the U.S. Civil War and nothing seems more telling than Margaret Mitchell's title, "Gone with the wind." If you are an Objectivist, you view the United States as the purest, brightest expression of the philosophy of the Enlightenment--in effect, the high tide mark reached by the philosophy of thinkers like John Locke (who DIED three quarters of a century before the Declaration of Independence). And that Declaration, and the U.S. Constitution that followed, were both hard-fought and daring, for theie time. Awful compromises were made with principle, but they were compromises that recognized reality. The Colonial states had no chance in the revolt against England without the states of the South. And the wealthiest, most influential leaders of those states had their wealth in slaves and the land worked by slaves.

But the winds of history... They swept away the French aristocracy and put France through the long agony that may follow when truly radical ideas flail in search of their meaning. And they enabled 13 colonies in the wilderness somehow, in the name of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," to defeat the greatest industrial and naval power on the face of the Earth. And the Declaration and the Constitution set forth ideas then madly theoretical, supported by the belief in reason wherever it may lead.

With that wind blowing so strongly through the Western world, was chattel slavery--the form of slavery that considers another person property, with complete rights of use and disposal, and that person's children and grandchildren property--going to survive those gales?

For geographic reasons, and reasons of economic development, chattel slavery existed longer in the United States than anywhere in the Western world. HOW slavery ended, as the thread makes clear, was to some extent a matter of circumstances. There were proposals to buy the slaves and compensate slave owners. The South could have been permitted to secede and drag along its "peculiar institution" for some decades more. Always the possible "better ways" are on the part of the Union. But the educated, hard-headed, and politically astute leaders of the South could have led their states into a firm pledge to phase out slavery--first in the newly formed states of the West. That they did not puts on their hands much of the blood their incredibly brave, indomitable, and patriot countrymen--mostly not slave owners--shed for the South.

But these are details. Slavery was not going to stand before the powerful, purifying, and exhilarating winds of the philosophy of the rights of man. Its end, which took the most painful possible form, was a matter partly of chance.

What is magnificent in American history is that the fighting spirit of Robert E. Lee and his generals and his troops--after the impossible bitterness of defeat--endured and served America through all its terrible wars. If we look at the roster of great generals with "fighting heart" who led their country to victory after impossible victory, we see Douglas MacArthur, Texas, Dwight Eisenhower, Texas, Omar Bradley, MIssouri--the list is long and heroic.

Their own cause gone with the winds of history, they readily offered up their lives and their honor to the United States--the union preserved and committed to principles that never can die.

If, today, the battle we wage is for the dearest cause of all--not the liberation of foreign lands, but defense of our own rights, the defense against the serfdom seeking its grip in our own land--then surely we cannot win without the great fighting heart of the South that has seen us through so many perils.