Author Topic: American History  (Read 129381 times)

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9915
    • View Profile
media and DEms
« Reply #250 on: July 16, 2018, 07:23:13 AM »
have done good job pumping of Baraq;

https://pjmedia.com/trending/poll-millennials-really-love-obama/

But of course if you haven't lived long enough to see previous presidents what else would one expect?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48827
    • View Profile
George Washington: The First American
« Reply #251 on: July 26, 2018, 09:46:19 PM »
Haven't had a chance to watch this yet, but my mom (who is seriously sharp btw) recommends it highly:

https://www.amazon.com/First-American-Newt-Gingrich/dp/B07DLT38FS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1532028736&sr=8-1&keywords=the+first+american



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9915
    • View Profile
The Capital as back drop of a hanging
« Reply #253 on: August 04, 2018, 12:49:57 PM »
The Old Capital Prison:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wirz#/media/File:Execution_of_Henry_Wirz.jpg

Henry Wirz, one of only two Civil War soldiers tried for war crimes:

https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Wirz_trial.html

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48827
    • View Profile
The Candid Story of the Alamo
« Reply #254 on: September 08, 2018, 08:13:34 PM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9915
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48827
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11735
    • View Profile
American History: The Day the Evil Empire Retreated - Grenada, Reagan, WSJ
« Reply #258 on: October 25, 2018, 08:57:12 AM »
Don't we know someone who was there, a rescued medical student?

The Cold War began to end 35 years ago when Ronald Reagan ordered the liberation of Grenada.
By Otto Reich
Oct. 25, 2018 WSJ
The Cold War began to end on Oct. 25, 1983—something no one could have imagined only years before. The international situation was bleak when Ronald Reagan assumed office in 1981. The Soviets enjoyed a military, propaganda and nuclear strategic advantage. They controlled Eastern Europe and had invaded Afghanistan, while funding Marxist “wars of national liberation” across four continents. Moscow directed a global network of propagandists to persuade witting or naive Westerners into supporting anti-American disarmament campaigns.

The West had been immobilized by the Brezhnev Doctrine, declared after the bloody Soviet suppression of an anticommunist uprising in Czechoslovakia in 1968. It said that once a country became Marxist-Leninist, the process became irreversible. The Soviet army would enforce it.

“Vietnam syndrome” also weighed down the West. This was the notion that since America’s military involvement in Southeast Asia had not succeeded, the U.S. should no longer influence events around the world through the use of military force. It enabled America’s enemies to mount bold challenges to U.S. influence in the Caribbean Basin, a strategic “third border.”

In the Caribbean island nation of Grenada, the Soviets and their catspaw in the Western Hemisphere, Fidel Castro’s Cuba, were building a militarized socialist society. They also were constructing a massive airfield for military purposes, while stating publicly it was for commerce and tourism. They planned to expand communist ideology and totalitarianism to other islands in the Eastern Caribbean as they simultaneously undermined governments throughout the Americas.

Then Oct. 25, 1983, happened. President Reagan—declining to consult major allies, confronting fierce criticism from Congress and the media, facing opposition from some in his administration, and with little more than a weekend’s planning—ordered U.S. military forces to join law-enforcement units from neighboring English-speaking island nations and invade Grenada. Only six years later, in 1989, the Soviet empire began to disintegrate, finally disappearing in 1991. This liberated hundreds of millions of people in two dozen nations from oppression. The U.S.S.R. did not end because of the invasion of Grenada alone, but the shock of Reagan’s decisive action to the Soviet political, military and ideological organism was pivotal.

Grenada’s crisis started in 1979. Maurice Bishop, a young revolutionary with an affinity for Castro, overthrew the elected government and suspended the constitution. While Bishop imposed a radical socialist regime on the island, Cuba began building a massive airfield out of all proportion to the island’s needs. This drew America’s attention.

Soon a national-security concern became an emergency. On Oct. 19, 1983, Bishop’s even more radically Marxist deputy, Bernard Coard, seized power, executing Bishop and some cabinet officials. The British governor-general alerted the outside world to the imminent outbreak of civil war. Caught in the middle were some 800 American students attending medical school on the island.

Meanwhile, neighboring governments, led by the indomitable Dominica Prime Minister Mary Eugenia Charles, appealed for U.S. intervention to forestall the spreading bloodshed. Reagan responded: “What kind of country would we be if we refused to help small but steadfast democratic countries in our neighborhood to defend themselves against the threat of this kind of tyranny and lawlessness?”

Operation Urgent Fury commenced on Oct. 25. Despite minimal planning, the invasion succeeded after four days of heavy fighting. Nineteen American servicemen were killed and 115 wounded; the medical students were evacuated. With constitutional authority on the island restored, U.S. troops began withdrawing Nov. 2, only eight days after they landed.

Reagan’s critics condemned his use of military force without congressional consent and said the students had never been in danger. But news reports showing the rescued students profusely thanking U.S. paratroopers and Marines undermined these claims. Upon returning to U.S. soil, some students descended the aircraft steps, knelt, and kissed American ground.

The U.S. also achieved a stunning intelligence haul, seizing thousands of documents detailing how to construct a communist police state. U.S. forces discovered arms caches capable of equipping a 10,000-man force—some in crates labeled “Cuban Economic Office, Grenada.” Among those captured and eventually deported were nearly 800 Cubans, 49 Soviets, 10 East Germans, three Bulgarians, 15 North Koreans and 17 Libyans. Quite a throng of “tourists and merchants.”

Vietnam syndrome and the Brezhnev Doctrine perished in Grenada, replaced with a renewed American spirit that robustly confronted the Soviet Union and its proxies around the world. The liberation of Grenada—the first time American military force was used to roll back a communist government—transfigured the posture of the U.S. following the “malaise” of the Carter years. It demonstrated Reagan’s resolve to reclaim the U.S. role as the world’s premier defender of freedom.

Yet many Americans fail to appreciate that there was nothing inevitable about the collapse of Berlin Wall or the demise of international communism. It required leadership, courage and vision by a president determined to restore America’s legitimate influence. Oct. 25 is celebrated as Grenada’s Thanksgiving Day. Americans also can give thanks, for that day the Evil Empire began to retreat.

Mr. Reich has served as an assistant secretary of state, U.S. ambassador to Venezuela and special envoy for Western Hemisphere affairs.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9915
    • View Profile
choosing unknown soldiers
« Reply #259 on: October 28, 2018, 09:26:53 AM »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9915
    • View Profile
war of '12
« Reply #261 on: November 17, 2018, 10:22:38 AM »
some good points
over before it began and continued after the end

one minor correction Adams was not President in '09 it was Madison.

Remember Dolly
the first feminist in the WH



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11735
    • View Profile
American History, 30 years ago: Reagan's Farewell Address to the Nation
« Reply #264 on: January 12, 2019, 02:25:44 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKVsq2daR8Q

This is worth your time (IMHO) as a reminder of those times and the lessons learned, and something to share with young people who missed that time.  The same principles apply today.

President Reagan touches on a lot of important points.  At one point he said that freedom means freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of enterprise. 

Does any school, college, newspaper or family teach that third one anymore?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48827
    • View Profile
Robert Smalls
« Reply #265 on: February 19, 2019, 10:03:49 AM »


Jason Rains
February 4 at 12:28 PM

In honor of Black History Month, I'm about to blow your mind by telling you about the most badass historical figure you never learned about in school. If you have heard of him, then you probably already know who I'm about to say. If you haven't, you're not going to believe that nobody ever told you about this guy. I'm talking about Robert Smalls.

Robert Smalls was born into slavery on a South Carolina plantation. As a youth, he was permitted to go to Charleston and work, though he was forced to send most of his wages back to his master. He began taking jobs at the docks in Charleston Harbor, and later on some of the ships that came and went from the port. By the time the Civil War came around, Smalls had become an experienced seaman, so he was assigned to steer a Confederate Navy vessel called the Planter, based out of Charleston. The crew consisted of a few white officers and a number of slaves.

Smalls went to great lengths to show the Confederates that he was trustworthy and content; they never knew that he was hatching an elaborate plan to escape from slavery and deal a blow to the Confederacy, and that he had secretly recruited most of the enslaved crew in his plot. Then one night, when the Planter had docked in Charleston with a shipment of heavy guns aboard, Smalls put his plan into action. When the officers went ashore for the evening and left the ship in the care of the enslaved crew, Smalls led them in hijacking the vessel. They made one stop at another set of docks to pick up the families of Smalls and other crew members, who waited in hiding after having been notified of the scheme in advance.

They weren't in the clear yet, though, because they still had to sail past a number of Confederate checkpoints on their way to freedom. But Smalls had a plan for that, too: he had been watching the captain and learning the hand signals he used at the checkpoints. Donning the captain's uniform and trademark straw hat, he guided the Planter past five Confederate harbor forts by impersonating the captain and displaying the correct signals. By the time anyone realized the Planter had gone missing, it was too far gone to catch. He had his crew replace the Confederate flags aboard the ship with white ones, and they were intercepted by a Union vessel who saw the white flags just before they were about to fire. The Union sailors were perplexed by the sight of an all-black crew, until Robert Smalls came forward and shouted, "Good morning, sir! I've brought you some of the old United States guns, sir!" He then asked the Union sailors to give him a United States flag to raise on the Planter.

Robert Smalls' story would be amazing if it ended there, but it doesn't. After receiving a large sum of prize money for his delivery, he entered service in the Union Navy as a pilot on several vessels, including the repurposed Planter. In this role, he removed mines that he had helped lay as a slave, and participated in a number of sea battles. During one battle, the fighting grew so intense that the captain of the Planter hid in the interior of the ship and ordered the crew to surrender. Fearing that the black crewmen would be enslaved or killed if captured, Smalls refused to surrender; instead, he took command of the ship and navigated the Planter through the Confederate onslaught to safety. Because of his bravery, Smalls was promoted to captain himself, becoming one of the highest ranking and highest paid black officers in the Civil War.

Smalls leveraged his resulting fame into social activism, throwing his support into an initiative to educate former slaves, and becoming literate himself (in most Confederate states, it was illegal to teach a black person to read). While riding a streetcar in Philadelphia, he was ordered to give up his seat to a white passenger; Smalls left the car, rather than suffer the indignity of being forced to ride on the overflow platform. When word got out that a decorated hero of the Civil War had been humiliated thusly, it prompted a backlash that led to the integration of public transportation in Pennsylvania.

But Robert Smalls STILL wasn't finished. He entered politics, serving in the South Carolina legislature before becoming one of the first black people elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1874. And he remained active in public life into the 20th century; in 1913, he prevented the lynching of two black men accused of murder in his town by warning the mayor that the local black population would burn the city to the ground if the mob was not stopped.

And the plantation where Smalls had grown up a slave? He purchased it after the war, and lived there until his death in 1915. The monument at his grave is inscribed with this quote: "My race needs no special defense, for the past history of them in this country proves them to be the equal of any people anywhere. All they need is an equal chance in the battle of life."

And that is the story of the great American hero Robert Smalls, known by too few people today. I hope this post inspires some folks to learn more about his impressive life.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48827
    • View Profile
Eugene Bullard
« Reply #266 on: February 19, 2019, 02:40:16 PM »

Do you know who this is a photo of? Chances are you don’t, but don’t feel bad because probably not one American in one million does, and that is a National tragedy. His name is Eugene Jacques Bullard, and he is the first African-American fighter pilot in history. But he is also much more then that: He’s also a national hero, and his story is so incredible that I bet if you wrote a movie script based on it Hollywood would reject it as being too far-fetched.

Bullard was an expat living in France, and when World War 1 broke out he joined the French Infantry. He was seriously wounded, and France awarded him the Croix de Guerre and Medaille Militaire. In 1916 he joined the French air service and he first trained as a gunner but later he trained as a pilot. When American pilots volunteered to help France and formed the famous Lafayette Escadrille, he asked to join but by the time he became a qualified pilot they were no longer accepting new recruits, so he joined the Lafayette Flying Corps instead. He served with French flying units and he completed 20 combat missions.

When the United States finally joined the war, Bullard was the only member of the Escadrille or the French Flying Corps who was NOT invited to join the US Air Service. The reason? At that time the Air Service only accepted white men.

Now here is the part that almost sounds like a sequel to ‘Casablanca’: After WWI Bullard became a jazz musician in Paris and he eventually owned a nightclub called ‘L’Escadrille’. When the Germans invaded France and conquered it in WW2, his Club, and Bullard, became hugely popular with German officers, but what they DIDN’T know was that Bullard, who spoke fluent German, was actually working for the Free French as a spy. He eventually joined a French infantry unit, but he was badly wounded and had to leave the service.

By the end of the war, Bullard had become a national hero in France, but he later moved back to the U.S. where he was of course completely unknown. Practically no one in the United States was aware of it when, in 1959, the French government named him a national Chevalier, or Knight.

In 1960, the President of France, Charles DeGaulle, paid a state visit to the United States and when he arrived he said that one of the first things he wanted to do was to meet Bullard. That sent the White House staff scrambling because most of them, of course, had never even heard of him. They finally located him in New York City, and DeGaulle traveled there to meet him personally. At the time, Eugene Bullard was working as … An elevator operator.

Not long after Eugene Bullard met with the President of France, he passed away, and today very, very few Americans, and especially African-Americans, even know who he is. But, now YOU do, don’t you? And I hope you’ll be able to find opportunities to tell other people about this great American hero that probably only 1 American in 1 Million has ever heard of.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11735
    • View Profile
American History, Presidential Morality Before Trump, VDH
« Reply #267 on: March 11, 2019, 09:48:27 AM »
https://nypost.com/2019/03/09/democratic-presidents-behaved-a-lot-worse-than-trump-in-the-white-house/
Democratic presidents behaved a lot worse than Trump in the White House
By Victor Davis Hanson March 9, 2019
Democratic presidents behaved a lot worse than Trump in the White House
It's more likely history will judge President Trump for accomplishments in office than for character flaws.

Trump wanted Hall of Presidents figure to say Americans invented skyscrapers
How history will judge Trump and other commentary
History suggests Trump can fire Mueller without paying a price
Oral sex, masturbation and other lurid details of President Harding's dirty letters
Progressives claim President Trump marks a new low in American political and presidential history, personifying a singularly odious message.

But if we examine the present pantheon of progressive icons, and strip away their reliance on liberal-media protection and transfer them instead into the present age of tabloid promiscuity and cyber omnipresence, would we now have a very different view of their presidencies?

The progressive Woodrow Wilson administration likely would never have completed its two elected terms had it operated on media protocols common just a half-century later.

For nearly a year during the failing health and death of First Lady Ellen Axson Wilson, the president fell into a state of debilitating depression, carefully hidden from the press. Much later, during the last 17 months of Wilson’s presidency, he was more or less unable to fulfill his duties due to a series of strokes that left him partially paralyzed and visually impaired. Those realities were carefully hidden from the public by the efforts of his second wife, Edith Bolling Wilson, and physician Dr. Cary Grayson.

In the present case, we know that Trump is neither comatose nor is Melania running the country.

The country never learned the full extent of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s paralysis. Much less did it know of FDR’s past and ongoing affairs — the mechanics of which were sometimes carried out in the White House and with the skillful aid of his own daughter Anna. By fall 1944, Roosevelt, seeking a fourth term, was suffering from a series of life-threatening conditions. Worrying that the public would not vote yet again for a terminally ill president, sympathetic journalists and military physicians covered up Roosevelt’s illnesses — on the theory that FDR would survive long enough to get elected to a fourth term and ensure a continued Democratic administration.

Clearly, in our age of the internet and social media and an inquisitorial media, Ivanka Trump could not have been helping her father conduct a stealth affair in the White House while conspiring to hide his likely terminal illness from the public.

John F. Kennedy, by contemporary standards, was a serial sexual harasser, if not a likely assaulter. While physically in the White House he carried on sexual trysts with subordinates and others without security clearances, mostly with the full knowledge of the complacent White House press corps. One former JFK intern, Mimi Alford, later wrote a memoir describing losing her virginity at 19 years of age to the president in the White House presidential bed. On his direction and in his audience, she was leveraged into performing oral intercourse in the White House swimming pool on his aide David Powers, who routinely set up the president’s extramarital trysts.

For all his alleged goatishness, Trump is currently not orchestrating group sexual encounters in the White House basement.

Lyndon Johnson was not just a serial adulterer and often corrupt, but displayed a level of crudity that would now be seen as clinical, from conducting business while defecating on the toilet to exposing his genitals to staff — apparently as some sort of Freudian proof of his own, and by extension, his nation’s, manhood. In a debate answer to a sneer from Sen. Marco Rubio, Trump seems to have referenced obliquely his private parts (“I guarantee you there’s no problem”) but never to our knowledge has he displayed them to staffers.

There is no reason to review the escapades of an impeached Bill Clinton. Despite the efforts of a sympathetic media, many of his transgressions were in part aired to the public. They ran the full gamut of a classical sexist and misogynist, from likely sexually assaulting chance acquaintances to attempting to defame and ruin the reputations of women deemed liable to disclose past liaisons.

What differentiates Trump’s womanizing from that of prior presidents, like Clinton’s, is that his escapades were prior to, not during, his presidential service.

A study published by the liberal Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy found that coverage of the Trump presidency in its first hundred days was 80 percent negative, as evidenced in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, in addition to CNN, CBS, Fox News and CNBC parent NBC, as well as European news outlets the Financial Times, BBC and ARD in Germany. The same researchers found that coverage of Trump was about twice as negative as had been true of reporting on Barack Obama.

How did the media and progressive critics reconcile a supposedly historically unhinged and dangerous president with a largely successful agenda that by mid-2018 was polling positive? And how exactly had such a flawed character as Trump made impressive Cabinet appointments and restored economic vibrancy at home and deterrence abroad?

Stranger still, Trump earned vitriol often for voicing positions shared by past progressive presidents and presidential candidates: skepticism over NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreements, slapping tariffs on Chinese companies for dumping, congratulating Vladimir Putin and General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt for “election” victories and Xi Jinping on his “extraordinary elevation,” or issuing expansive executive orders as Obama had. Finally, the anti-Trump progressives and Democrats, especially those in the media, did not fully appreciate that the more they voiced loudly their antipathy to Trump, and did so in escalating fashion, the more Trump was able to manipulate them as proof of how unhinged and excitable the alternative to himself was.

The small number of Never Trump conservatives who equally despised Trump, also felt his crudity was unlike any other president’s. But unlike progressives, they faced an additional dilemma: The presidential messenger was often successfully enacting an agenda that they not only had in the past supported, but also at least privately admitted was empowered by Trump himself. Nonetheless, their complaint was that Republicans stood for character. And Trump lacked it.

But, on matters of character, did Trump’s tawdry trysts with women, often a decade before his presidency, mean that he lacked character and thus stained the conservative cause, in a way that the often promiscuous Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton had not rendered their own liberal accomplishments null and void? When reports surfaced that George H.W. Bush, in his 80s and 90s, had serially groped a few women and embarrassed them with nasty jokes, did conservatives recalibrate his administration’s record?

Past presidents were less under the media microscope, so the truth was largely hidden about the declining health of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the furious temper of Harry S. Truman, the womanizing of John F. Kennedy and the misconduct of Bill Clinton.
Dwight D. Eisenhower was a successful president in the manner that he had been an effective supreme allied commander. Yet under current Trump-era workplace protocols, Ike would likely never have been nominated, given his poorly hidden relationship with his divorced chauffeur Kay Summersby and his implausible outright denials of the affair while he held the title of supreme commander of Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe.

Our current media and political climate would have judged the careful Eisenhower reckless, or indeed callously immoral, in his downtime with the loquacious Summersby while battle raged just miles away from his headquarters.

Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were both emblematic of flyover-state, rock-solid values. They stayed married. They did not cash in while in their offices. They largely told the truth. Their administrations were mostly free of scandal. Their speech was rarely ad hominem. America certainly benefitted from their personal probity. They were, in other words, role models and ethical public servants.

But both Ford and Carter proved largely ineffective presidents. In terms of economic stagnation between 1974 and 1981, millions of lives were perhaps worse off for their tenures. Few can point to any lasting substantial achievements, apart from airline deregulation and the Arab-Israeli Camp David Accords in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War. Ford’s sad “Whip Inflation Now” button campaign and Carter’s serial disasters (stagflation, the appeasement of Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran, the rudderless foreign policy) are not arguments that good character does not matter, only that it is not necessarily always a guarantee of good governance.

In some sense, Donald Trump was replaying the role of the unpopular tenure of loudmouth Democrat Harry Truman, the president from 1945 to 1953.

“Give ’em Hell” Harry came into office following the death of Franklin Roosevelt. He miraculously won the 1948 election against all expert opinion and polls.

Truman left office in January 1953 widely hated. Indeed, his final approval ratings (32 percent) were the lowest of any departing president except for those of Richard Nixon.

The outsider Truman had always been immersed in scandal, owing to his deep ties to the corrupt Kansas City political machine.

When the novice Vice President Truman took office after Roosevelt’s death in April 1945, he knew little about the grand strategy of World War II — and nothing about the ongoing atomic-bomb project.

For the next seven-plus years, Truman shocked — and successfully led — the country.

Over the objections of many in his Cabinet, Truman ignored critics and ordered the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan to end the war. Against the advice of most of the State Department, he recognized the new state of Israel.

He offended Roosevelt holdovers by breaking with wartime ally the Soviet Union and chartering the foundations of Cold War communist containment. Many in the Pentagon opposed his racial integration of the armed forces. National-security advisors counseled against sending troops to save South Korea.

Liberals opposed fellow Democrat Truman’s creation of the Central Intelligence Agency. Truman was widely loathed for firing controversial five-star general and American hero Douglas MacArthur.

There were often widespread calls in the press for Truman to resign. Impeachment was often mentioned. Truman, in short, did things other presidents had not dared to do.

Truman occasionally swore. He had nightly drinks. He played poker with cronies. And he shocked aides and the public with his vulgarity and crass attacks on political enemies.

Truman cheaply compared 1948 presidential opponent Thomas Dewey to Hitler and attacked him as a supposed pawn of bigots and war profiteers.

Truman hyperbolically claimed a Republican victory in 1948 would threaten America’s very liberty.

In the pre-Twitter age, Truman could never keep his mouth shut: “My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there’s hardly any difference.”

When a reviewer for The Washington Post trashed Truman’s daughter’s concert performance, Truman threatened him with physical violence.

“It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful,” Truman wrote in a letter to critic Paul Hume.

“Someday I hope to meet you. When that happens, you’ll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes and perhaps a supporter below!”

Such outbursts were Trumpian to the core.

It took a half-century for historians to concede that the mercurial and often adolescent Truman had solid accomplishments, especially in foreign affairs — in part because Truman conveyed a sense that he did not much care for staying in Washington, a city in which he was not invested, did not like and would quickly leave at the end of his tenure.

Even Truman’s crassness eventually was appreciated as integral to his image of a “plain speaking” and “the Buck Stops Here” decisive leader.

Had Truman access to Twitter, he could have self-destructed in a flurry of ad-hominem electronic outbursts. Yet Truman proved largely successful because of what he did, and in spite of what he said.

Donald J. Trump’s presidency is too brief to yet be judged absolutely. His personal foibles are too embedded within current political and media hatred to be assessed dispassionately.

Too many assessments too quickly have been made about Trump, without much historical context and usually with too much passion.

Neither is it yet clear that Trump is a bad man or a good president, or vice versa, or neither or both.

But if the past is sometimes a guide to the present, Trump in theory certainly could become a more effective president than would have been his likely more circumspect Republican primary rivals, while perhaps demonstrating that he is far more uncouth.

The paradox again raises the question: When any one man can change the lives of 330 million, what exactly is presidential morality after all — private and personal sins, or the transgressions that affect millions of lives for the worse?

Adapted excerpt from “The Case for Trump” by Victor Davis Hanson. Copyright © 2019.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48827
    • View Profile
GPF: Code Girls
« Reply #268 on: March 12, 2019, 12:44:27 PM »
Code Girls: The Untold Story of the American Women Code Breakers of World War II
By Liza Mundy

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States officially entered World War II. Men were shipped overseas, to Europe and the Pacific, in unimaginable numbers. The magnitude of the war movement demanded and the government, military and intelligence communities needed workers, fast. With no men to spare, women had to fill the gap. They came from the Seven Sisters and later from other women’s colleges to fill the gap. They left their jobs as school teachers. They had little if any idea what jobs they were taking. But they packed their bags and headed to the nation’s capital.

Unlike their British cousins, who were building out the vast but secretive infrastructure at Bletchley Park, the U.S. armed services were woefully unprepared for the mammoth task of intercepting, decoding and translating their enemies’ communications. In fact, following World War I, much of the U.S. cryptographic efforts had been outsourced to a few quirky individuals with a passion for codes and codebreaking. World War II quickly changed that. The U.S. Coast Guard, Navy and Army hastily set up codebreaking (and codemaking) shops to track Japanese and German military strategy. By the end of the war, they would be able to do so in near-real time. But at the outset, they faced the problem of staffing. So, they recruited women – those who had shown mathematical aptitude a penchant for foreign languages, durable nerves and unshakeable determination.

“Code Girls” by Liza Mundy follows the experiences of women who worked at Virginia’s Arlington Hall and Northwest Washington’s Naval Annex during the war. They were brilliant – some almost savant-like in their abilities to crack enemy codes. Throughout the book, senior military officers were constantly breathing down their necks, reminding them of how drastic the consequences would be if they did not work fast enough. When they succeeded (the best-known example of their success is, of course, the Battle of Midway), they received no recognition. Adding to the pressure, the women had fathers, brothers, fiances, and husbands serving overseas. Sometimes, a codebreaker would receive a message confirming that her loved one’s ship had been sunk or unit had been ambushed. They were rarely afforded leave, even to attend funerals, and regularly faced mistreatment and misogyny from male peers.

Despite the pressures, the women loved the work. Many had left unfulfilling jobs to serve in the war effort, or were given the opportunity at careers they never thought possible. The women who came to Washington came from New York high society, rural Mississippi, and everywhere in between. They forged lifelong friendships across class and background. Yet some were still excluded. Black women were not allowed to serve as codebreakers. Jewish and German women were often turned down; the military was afraid their ethnic roots might negatively influence their work. Across their stories, however, what is evident is their overwhelming patriotism, their commitment to service and their intelligence.

It’s striking that any one of the “Code Girls” – and there are scores of them – would have warranted a memoir or biography of her own. And yet, as the war ended, they were discharged from their military posts or asked to resign and move on from their civilian roles. (There were some notable exceptions, such as Ann Caracristi, who went on to become the first female deputy director of the National Security Agency.) The secrecy of their work was so ingrained that they almost never discussed it with their spouses or children. Later in life, when some started dropping hints, their children sometimes did not believe them. It is a relief that Mundy was able to collect and tell some of their stories before the generation is entirely lost – and it is a shame we may lose many more stories from this cadre of exceptional women who helped America win the war.

Emma Pennisi, editor


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11735
    • View Profile
Re: What do Killebrew, Howard, Fielder , McGuire have in common?
« Reply #270 on: March 31, 2019, 11:40:34 AM »
besides they are big:

https://www.detroitathletic.com/blog/2012/01/04/cecil-fielder-was-only-tiger-to-clear-tiger-stadiums-left-field-roof/

Thank you ccp. 94 feet high over double deck outfield seating, Maris and Mantle never hit it over.  Over the decades, only Killebrew had done it until Frank Howard matched it in 1968.

Harmon Killebrew was a real sports hero in my time.  I used to go out to Met Stadium as a kid, chart the seat locations in left field where he landed his home runs in batting practice and catch a souvenir every time before the game started. I suppose he could see the kids holding up their glove for targets.  He grew up an Idaho kid, built his strength through isometrics and off season farm work before all of today's training techniques (pre-steroids).  He was a giant (at 5'11", 213 lbs.) and is still tied for second with Hank Aaron for most seasons with 40+ home runs. 

The scout that signed him after seeing him in one pickup game later said: "He hit line drives that put the opposition in jeopardy. And I don't mean infielders, I mean outfielders.”  http://www.500hrc.com/600-hrc-articles/fit-to-hit.html

"Higher Consciousness Through Harder Contact" ©    )



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9915
    • View Profile
earliest photos of people smiling
« Reply #273 on: May 06, 2019, 08:29:01 PM »
https://www.vintag.es/2016/09/the-earliest-known-photographs-of.html

I wonder when the phrase say "cheese" was born.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9915
    • View Profile
The probable women who modelled the 1916 quarter
« Reply #274 on: May 25, 2019, 09:00:56 AM »
https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Doscher

that year she was near topless
next year a shield was added to cover up her breast



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11735
    • View Profile
Re: Blacks and the Dem Party
« Reply #276 on: May 28, 2019, 05:34:16 AM »
.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/exit-left/476190/?fbclid=IwAR0YyUnELGCWHX4eyq53of6uThgG6mX8Zg07jlVAgIRDcu7v0ZH1yeNk_vU

1964 was a breakthrough in terms of what the Left and media could get away with accusing of the rght. 

Since then Democrats have succeeded in identifying as the party of welfare and black leaders have steered black voters into identifying as the recipient class of welfare.

No matter if you are successful and self sufficient, if you are black and don't support the forever expansion of the welfare state, you are anti-black to them.

I see this false logic beginning to unravel in 2019

Blexit -. Back exit
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-is-blexit-candace-owens-explains-plan-to-lead-black-exit-from-democratic-party-impact-2020

#walkaway
https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/walkaway-movement-isaiah-washington/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48827
    • View Profile
George Friedman on D-Day and Stalin
« Reply #277 on: June 05, 2019, 07:10:24 PM »
By George Friedman


D-Day and Stalin


Nearly 75 years after it was fought, D-Day remains one of the most vividly recalled battles in history. It was also one of the most decisive. There are those who will argue that the Allies would have won World War II regardless of the outcome of the Battle of Normandy. Indeed, similar arguments are made for most decisive battles. Two years ago, I wrote about the Battle of Midway, on the 75th anniversary of that campaign, and argued that a defeat there would have been disastrous to the global balance. But some readers rejected this, saying that, even if the U.S. had been defeated, it would have deployed ships into the Pacific and recovered. That might well be true, but as I will try to show, the invasion of France’s Calvados coast was a turning point in the war. Had it failed, the Allies likely would not have been able to recover.

Far From Over

The pivot was the Soviet Union. By the time the D-Day invasion was launched, the Soviet Union had been fighting the Germans for three years. Germany had conquered most of the Soviet heartland and its treatment of the occupied areas was barbaric. For the first five months of the war, it seemed likely that the Soviets would lose. Only an extraordinary effort by the Red Army, aided by supplies from the United States, allowed them to stabilize the front and return to the offensive. But when D-Day was launched, the Soviets were still over 1,000 miles from Berlin. For them, the war was far from over.


 

(click to enlarge)


For the British and Americans, the continued Soviet participation in the war was essential. The Soviets had tied down the bulk of the German army for years and bled it dry. Without the Soviets’ involvement in the war, an Allied invasion of France would have been impossible as Germany could have massed overwhelming force and shifted troops to Italy, blocking access from there.

But the Soviets believed that the Allies had deliberately delayed an invasion of France to allow the Germans and Soviets to weaken each other so that American and British forces could come ashore with minimal opposition and fight their way into Germany, and perhaps beyond. The Soviets had repeatedly asked for a second front in 1942 and 1943. The Allies responded with a Mediterranean campaign, first in North Africa and then in Italy. From the Soviets’ perspective, this was merely a gesture – they were fighting for their lives in Stalingrad, and the Mediterranean operations were not large enough to force the Germans to redeploy troops away from their eastern flank. And so, the basic correlation of forces between Germany and the Soviets remained as it was.

The Americans and British said they simply weren’t ready for an invasion. Stalin didn’t dispute that but argued that even a failed invasion would have forced Hitler to re-evaluate the vulnerability of his troops in the west and shift some forces there. A reduction of German forces and redirection of logistical support would have increased the likelihood of a Soviet victory and reduced the damage to Soviet forces. Stalin was left with the impression that the Western Allies wanted the Germans to do maximum damage to the Red Army and that the Americans and British were unwilling to carry out a doomed spoiling attack because they were unwilling, for political reasons, to absorb a fraction of the casualties the Soviets were absorbing.

The two sides didn’t trust each other. The British and Americans were appalled at the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939, while the Soviets were angered by the Americans’ willingness to enter the war only after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s declaration of war on the United States. The U.S. built up its forces slowly and deliberately, minimizing exposure to minor battles in the Pacific and major thrusts at nothing important. Stalin believed that Roosevelt wanted a weak Soviet Union to emerge and that, after the Soviets destroyed the Wehrmacht, the U.S. would seize Europe and the British Empire. He once said that Churchill was the kind of man who would pick your pocket for a kopeck but Roosevelt was the kind of man who would steal only big coins. From Stalin’s view, Churchill was governing a declining power while Roosevelt, brilliant and utterly ruthless, was in charge of the future hegemon of the world.

A Hard Pill to Swallow

There is ample evidence that Soviet and German representatives had met in Stockholm for serious talks. Hitler saw Stalin’s opening as a sign of weakness. Understanding the tension between the Soviets and the Americans and British, he didn’t believe in 1943 that they could mount an invasion. Since Stalin himself had doubts, Hitler drove a hard bargain, demanding that Germany retain the land it had already won, particularly Ukraine. The talks broke down, though contacts seem to have continued.

Had the Allies not invaded Normandy in 1944, it is reasonable to assume that Stalin, whose troops were still fighting far inside their own country, would have accepted the deal with Hitler, since he likely could not continue fighting without a western front or at the very least could not regain the territory on his own. Churchill, it should be noted, was never enthusiastic about the invasion, either because he feared the resulting losses would be the end of the British army or because he wouldn’t have minded if the German-Soviet war continued so the Allies could intervene at the last minute, while nibbling at Greece. Either way, Roosevelt rejected Churchill’s view, sensing that the Soviets would make peace without an Allied invasion.

Thus, the invasion was launched in June before the campaign season was lost. Had the Americans and British not seized the opportunity to invade at that time, or had the campaign failed, they would have had to wait until the following spring to mount an invasion. And by then, the Soviets may well have been forced to make peace, giving the Germans a far denser defense along the French coast that would almost certainly have made an invasion impossible. Alternatively, the Allies could have tried to attack Germany through Italy or the Balkans – through the Alps. But with the Soviets out of the war, the Germans would have gained a massive advantage. A German-Soviet truce would have been hard for the Soviets to swallow, but if D-Day had failed and if the Allies couldn’t mount another operation for another year, Stalin may not have had any other choice. He couldn’t win the war on his own.

The Americans would have had the atomic bomb within a year, and I don’t doubt they would have used it while the war raged. But if there was peace in the east, and little fighting in the west, would the U.S. really nuke Berlin or Munich and then try to occupy Germany? I don’t believe it would, but I could be wrong.

D-Day was the decisive battle of World War II not only because it unleashed the full strength of the Anglo-American forces but because it forced Hitler to fight on two fronts, easing the Soviets’ positions sufficiently for a confident advance. Had the invasion not taken place or had it failed, Stalin would likely have made peace with Hitler. Germany would have grown stronger, unless the U.S. and Britain wanted to wage war alone, which I don’t think they did. In the end, Hitler was right when he said Germany’s fate would be decided in France – on the Calvados coast in Normandy, to be exact.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9915
    • View Profile
Jon Meachan
« Reply #278 on: July 16, 2019, 02:49:35 PM »
G H Bush biographer seems to think Trump is more racist than all previous Prezes then Andy Johnson
including Andy Jackson who he wrote biography on and Woodrow Wilson and all the others who were supposedly racist slaveholders several while in office.

So far I have not heard anything about Trump owning slaves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Meacham

but Meachum gets lots of airtime on all the lib channels:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/22/jon-meacham-presidential-historian-newest-shill-to/


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48827
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9915
    • View Profile
Mind your business /don't tread on me
« Reply #281 on: August 15, 2019, 05:06:52 AM »
CD post was the most thorough explanation of these terms.. Here is a 1776 continental dollar with "mind your own business " on it.

Easy to mistake the meaning to be meant to address government interference but it is more to suggest people to be industrious and mind their "businesses "

As a coin collector as a kid I used to see colonial era coins with these motifs on them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Currency_dollar_coin

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17185
    • View Profile
Re: Mind your business /don't tread on me
« Reply #282 on: August 15, 2019, 07:14:03 PM »
CD post was the most thorough explanation of these terms.. Here is a 1776 continental dollar with "mind your own business " on it.

Easy to mistake the meaning to be meant to address government interference but it is more to suggest people to be industrious and mind their "businesses "

As a coin collector as a kid I used to see colonial era coins with these motifs on them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Currency_dollar_coin

Did the ones circulated in NY/NJ say "Mind your own f'ing business"?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9915
    • View Profile
Re: American History
« Reply #283 on: August 18, 2019, 07:40:14 AM »
" .Did the ones circulated in NY/NJ say "Mind your own f'ing business"?

well not written like that on the NJ or NY colonial coins
but they probably did speak like that....

the southerners probably spoke
"Ya'll mind yer own business"

Indians probably just gave the settlers the middle finger
and slaves I won't say as i would get into trouble.




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11735
    • View Profile
American History, Ben Shapiro, Beto, NYT
« Reply #284 on: September 18, 2019, 09:19:31 AM »
I noticed recently that Ben Shapiro is making an impact on young voters.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/09/18/the_alternative_history_of_the_united_states_141281.html
The Alternative History of the United States
.By Ben Shapiro  September 18, 2019
The Alternative History of the United States

Last week, Democrats held their first true presidential debate. With the field winnowed down to 10 candidates -- three of them actual contenders for the nomination -- only one moment truly stood out. That moment came not from Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders but from a candidate desperate for attention: Beto O'Rourke.

O'Rourke ran in 2018 for a Senate seat in Texas and lost in shockingly narrow fashion to incumbent Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. But his persona at the time was more Biden than Bernie: He ran as a unifying quasi-moderate, an Obama-esque figure determined to bring Americans together. In the early going of the presidential race, Beto was figured to be a prime contender: An April poll showed him in a solid third place. But he's faded dramatically; now the once-media darling is polling below 3 percent.

So O'Rourke has refashioned himself into a woke warrior. He's declared that he wants to forcibly remove guns from law-abiding Americans ("Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15"), that President Trump is a "white supremacist" posing a "mortal threat to people of color" and that the time has come for race reparations. Most dramatically, O'Rourke has refashioned his vision of American history. In this debate, he laid out his retelling of the American story, saying: "Racism in America is endemic. It is foundational. We can mark the creation of this country not at the Fourth of July, 1776, but Aug. 20, 1619, when the first kidnapped African was brought to this country against his will and in bondage, and as a slave built the greatness and the success and the wealth that neither he nor his descendants would ever be able to fully participate in and enjoy."

This version of history is cribbed from "The 1619 Project" by The New York Times, a retelling of American history as a story rooted in white supremacy -- not colored by or affected by white supremacy but rooted in it. Capitalism, criminal justice, lack of universal health care, traffic patterns, Donald Trump's election -- all of it, according to "The 1619 Project," is fundamentally based on America's legacy of slavery and racial discrimination.

That perspective on American history, in turn, is merely warmed over Howard Zinn. Zinn, the Marxist author of "A People's History of the United States," sought to recast America's story as a story of hideous ugliness covered with the hypocritical facade of goodness. Never mind that "A People's History" is, in fact, rotten history -- factually inaccurate, wildly disjoined from a more comprehensive examination of time and place, near plagiarized from the work of better leftist historians. Zinn's history has now infused the teaching of American history in high schools and colleges across the country.

But that historical retelling is at odds with the better, truer story of America: the story of a nation founded on eternally good and true principles, principles only fully realized for many Americans at the cost of blood and sweat and death. Ex-slave Frederick Douglass's take on American history remains the most honest, as well as the most visionary. While acknowledging that to the American slave, Independence Day represents "more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim," Douglass recognized that the Constitution is a "glorious liberty document," the Declaration of Independence a charter of "saving principles."

American history is our common history. O'Rourke's pathetic rewriting of American history is designed not to unify us as a nation but to divide us -- to call us away from the unifying principles that lie at the foundation of America, in favor of divisive principles of tribal partisanship. We must recognize the evils of American history -- that is part of our common story. In fact, our quest to rid ourselves of those evils is our common story. But if we wish to survive as a nation, we must also recognize that the story of America lies in the constant purification of our actions to align with our founding principles, not oppose them.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48827
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48827
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48827
    • View Profile
America's First President, John Hanson
« Reply #291 on: November 08, 2019, 08:40:56 AM »
The John Hanson Story
John Hanson, First President in Congress Assembled
John Hanson
When we think of the President of the United States, many people do not realize that we are actually referring to presidents elected under the U.S. Constitution. Everybody knows that the first president in that sense was George Washington. But in fact the Articles of Confederation, the predecessor to the Constitution, also called for a president- albeit one with greatly diminished powers. Eight men were appointed to serve one year terms as president under the Articles of Confederation. In November 1781, John Hanson became the first President of the United States in Congress Assembled, under the Articles of Confederation.

Many people have argued that John Hanson, and not George Washington, was the first President of the United States, but this is not quite true. Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States had no executive branch. The President of Congress was a ceremonial position within the Confederation Congress. Although the office required Hanson to deal with correspondence and sign official documents, it wasn't the sort of work that any President of the United States under the Constitution would have done.

Hanson didn't really enjoy his job either, and found the work tedious and wished to resign. Unfortunately, the Articles of Confederation hadn't accounted for how succession worked and his departure would have left Congress without a President. So, because he loved his country, and out of a sense of duty, he remained in office.

Statue of John Hanson
Statue of John Hanson in the United States Capitol Building
While there, he served from November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782, he was able to remove all foreign troops from American lands, as well as their flags. He also introduced the Treasury Department, the first Secretary of War, and the first Foreign Affairs Department. He led the flight to guarantee the statehood of the Western Territories beyond the Appalachian Mountains that had been controlled by some of the original thirteen colonies.

What's probably most interesting is that Hanson is also responsible for establishing Thanksgiving Day as the fourth Thursday in November.

It was no easy task to be the first person in this position as President of Congress. So it's incredible that Hanson was able to accomplish as much as he did. Plus, instead of the four year term that current Presidents serve, Presidents under the Articles of Confederation served only one year. So, accomplishing anything during this short time was a great feat.

Hanson played an important role in the development of United States Constitutional History, one often not stated, but true nonetheless. Often, Hanson is regarded as the "forgotten first President." In Seymour Weyss Smith's biography of him, John Hanson, Our First President, he says that the American Revolution had two primary leaders: George Washington in the military sphere, and John Hanson in politics. Although one position was ceremonial, and the other was more official, there are statues of both men in the United States Capitol in Washington D.C.

Hanson died on November 15, 1783 at the age of 62.

"Thus was ended the career of one of America's greatest statesmen. While hitherto practically unknown to our people, and this is true as to nearly all the generations that have lived since his day, his great handiwork, the nation which he helped to establish, remains as a fitting tribute to his memory. It is doubtful if there has ever lived on this side of the Atlantic, a nobler character or shrewder statesman. One would search in vain to find a more powerful personage, or a more aggressive leader, in the annals of American history. and it is extremely doubtful if there has ever lived in an age since the advent of civilization, a man with a keener grasp of, or a deeper insight into, such democratic ideals as are essential to the promotion of personal liberty and the extension of human happiness. ... He was firm in his opinion that the people of America were capable of ruling themselves without the aid of a king."

-JACOB A. NELSON, "JOHN HANSON AND THE INSEPARABLE UNION," PUBLISHED IN 193





Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48827
    • View Profile
The 1619 Calumny
« Reply #296 on: December 09, 2019, 11:35:31 AM »