Reason TV: Worst political decade ever
posted at 12:55 pm on December 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Hey, I’ll grant Nick Gillespie of Reason TV that this decade should have been mailed back to the sender. It started with a terrorist attack the US largely ignored (USS Cole), and ended with one that didn’t succeed but could have been easily avoided (NW253). The Naughts, as I think of them, started with a recession and ended with a much worse recession. We came in with Bill Clinton and we’ll go out with Barack Obama. But is this truly the worst decade? Nick makes a very entertaining case for it:
I’ll offer a few options for worst decade. The 1970s had an impeachment, the sacking of an American embassy, and stagflation that an interim President attempted to fight with … lapel buttons. The 1960s had a series of assassinations and social unrest. We fought a world war in the 1940s, and won it only to be confronted with a Cold War that would last more than four decades. The 1930s brought economic ruin and introduced massive expansions of federal government and authority that still haunt us. And don’t even get me started about the 1860s, which almost tore the country apart.
What would you rate as America’s worst political decade?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
None of the above. Excluding the 1910′s from the poll, which includes the worst year (1913) politically, is just wrong. 1910′s are teh starting point when our system of government started to drastically turn away from the founding principles.
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 12:58 PM
70′s
cmsinaz on December 29, 2009 at 1:00 PM
The 60′s spawned the 70′s, the 00′s. The 00′s will create a wave of conservative activism in the 10′s. We’ll start by heaping liberal politicians on the ash bin of history.
csdeven on December 29, 2009 at 1:02 PM
I don’t know, I’d have to go with the 1860′s; Civil War and 600,000 dead really can’t be beat for awfulness.
Where is Proud Rino to help me with this, she reputedly being a poli-sci major and therefore expert on everything political.
Bishop on December 29, 2009 at 1:02 PM
1860s, hands down.
At least we have not took up arms against each other yet.
Joe Caps on December 29, 2009 at 1:02 PM
I’ll go with the 1860s. Yes, as a result of the Civil War slavery was ended in this country & the 14th Amendment was passed — which eventually was found to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states. But still, 600,000 dead Americans is not good. Which is why I’d put the 1940s second. Yes, WWII did bring Americans together in common cause and we ended it in better shape than gong into it. But 400,000 dead Americans is not good.
rbj on December 29, 2009 at 1:05 PM
The 1860′s while truly bad for the people in the country, it did not lay ground for the possible destruction of the country. The long term affects of the 1910′s are felt daily, not so for the 1860′s.
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Still another year to go. Too many gummint school rejects in the media.
noblejones on December 29, 2009 at 1:06 PM
I had to go with the ’60s, since this was when the American media, academia, the bureaucracy/government, and science began their hell march to the extreme left toward the Temple of Lies, a dark journey that still they are on.
TXUS on December 29, 2009 at 1:06 PM
I voted for the 1960s. For me, that decade spawned the cultural putrefaction that infects, and eventually overwhelms, its nation.
RushBaby on December 29, 2009 at 1:07 PM
I’d say the naughts are the worst decade since the 1860s. Both have the nation on the brink of utter destruction. That trumps W.I.N. buttons anyday.
highhopes on December 29, 2009 at 1:07 PM
The 1930s seems to be a really bad decade. Bush was a pretty good president. Of course he’s no Reagan.
Obama first year seems like a decade.
cubachi on December 29, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Eh, the 1850s were a heck of a lot worse than the 1860s. The Civil War was terrible, but it resulted in the ending of slavery, the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, and a necessary increase in power of the President. I’ve always heard that, after the Civil War, people started to refer to the United States as a single entity instead of a plural one (e.g. “The United States is” as opposed to “The United States are”). I guess it’s a subjective thing but I think that’s a good thing. Seward bought Alaska in the 1860s too, right?
The 1850s – Taylor dies in office, Pierce and Buchanan, our two worst presidents. The Dred Scott decision. Endless appeasement of slaveowners, the Fugitive Slave Act, Harper’s Ferry Raid (good fishing up there, btw – highly recommended), the Panic of 1857, the Border War in Kansas, the Mormon Rebellion, etc.
The 1940s were a great decade – A terrible war, but we won it with relatively little damage to the United States and defeated what was arguably the greatest evil the world has ever known, and we became a prosperous nation and the undeniable leader of the free world.
Anyway I voted for the 1960s because I hate hippies.
Proud Rino on December 29, 2009 at 1:08 PM
It’s hard to beat a major depression and the huge expansion of government that occurred in the 30′s under FDR. Still, if you go back far enough, yes, the 1860′s were the worst.
NNtrancer on December 29, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Can we vote for the 2010s preemptively?
Joe Caps on December 29, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Not to mention the 1930′s rise of German and Italian fascism that led to WWII.
NNtrancer on December 29, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Choosing between 1860′s and 1960′s was difficult. I chose 1960s, because while the country was nearly destroyed by the events of the 1860′s, we persevered through it and then began to heal and thrive.
We’re still feeling the effects from the 1960′s, and sadly, many of the changes of that decade will be with us forever.
Intrepid on December 29, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Has to be the Naughts because we are repeating the same mistakes of the ’30s.
tetriskid on December 29, 2009 at 1:11 PM
wait…are we talking about the direction politics took or the political climate/environment?
if the former, i would say tie between 30/60s.
if the latter, i would say 1860s.
Joe Caps on December 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM
You should expand this a bit for people like me who are uninformed about that era (or misinformed as Rino would say).
Bishop on December 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM
I voted for the 1930s. Not only did protectionism and government intervention turn a recession into the Great Depression, causing untold worldwide misery, but our isolationism allowed dictators worldwide to rise in power and start WWI – causing even more worldwide misery.
We were so politically weak in the 1930s that even if we’d recognized the growing threat – we didn’t – and wanted to do something about it – we didn’t – we were completely unable to do so.
OscarSchneegans on December 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM
The key thing in this video is “worst political decade”. The War bettween the States was a culmination of bad political moves. WWII was quite a successful poltical decade (we won and came out as a super power).
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Yeah, but th Civil War didn’t start because of bad political decisions made in the 1860s – it started with bad political decisions made in the Constitution itself, and was compounded by repeated bad political decisions made throughout the decades – the worst of those decisions tended to be grouped in the 1850s, btw. Anyway, fun topic.
Proud Rino on December 29, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Thanks for the info, and the chuckle.
CBP on December 29, 2009 at 1:17 PM
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 1:05 PM
The South continues to be dumped on to this very day for things that get overlooked in NYC, Boston, and Los Angeles. And certain Southern states (hello, South Carolina!) give the middle finger in a Pavlovian response.
Yes, we have quite a few lingering effects from the 1860s.
BradSchwartze on December 29, 2009 at 1:17 PM
The Progressive era took hold in this country. Three bad amendments were added:
- 16th: Income tax.
- 17th: Popular elections for senators.
- 18th: Abolish liquor (at least the people at the time did this the lawful way, unlike the ban on drugs today)
This decade set the stage for the creation of powerful federal government with the means to take our property “lawfully”. Because of the 16th amendment and progrssive ideology, our country faces bankruptcy.
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 1:19 PM
It’s hard for even Bush/Obama to top King Lincoln’s regime.
The Dean on December 29, 2009 at 1:19 PM
It is an interesting topic. I take the position that the founders had to make this compromise to get a new constitution. Many of the founders knew slavery was wrong, thus a slight compromise with the ban on importing slaves. The only way war was coing to be averted was a technological breakthrough that made human labor more expensive than automation (some say the reverse happened, the Cotton Gin made cotton too profitable to give up).
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Pro-slavery and pro-Nazi. What a combo and what a guy. Excuse me while I hurl.
Lance Murdock on December 29, 2009 at 1:24 PM
That’s exactly what happened. Southern states wouldn’t have signed on if they didn’t get their concessions.
The senate was a compromise for the smaller states, too.
lorien1973 on December 29, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Hippies do suck, but the 70′s showed that we could have a truly poor president and survive, which allowed us to (over my strenuous objection) elect the stoolie-in-chief we are stuck with just now. And, we still have hippies, so really the 60′s are still going on and on and on….
tcn on December 29, 2009 at 1:26 PM
The money line..
“Anytime Dennis Cucinnich is the voice of reason, you know your really screwed!”
Yup, that about sums it up.
Archimedes on December 29, 2009 at 1:27 PM
You’re absolutely right on all counts. My response is that a moral failing made for political necessity is still a moral failing, you know? The fact that “it all worked out in the end” doesn’t excuse the subjugation of black Americans for decades. Those first mistakes weren’t nearly as bad as the mistakes made in the 1850s though.
Proud Rino on December 29, 2009 at 1:27 PM
I can’t pick one, I have to admire our resilience. I hope there is enough of our hereditary in our young people(or us for that matter) to continue the quest for freedom.
Cindy Munford on December 29, 2009 at 1:27 PM
I would have thought you would have voted for the 1940s, considering Hitler died during that decade.
PimFortuynsGhost on December 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM
The Dean on December 29, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Reason #9843 why We Can Never Condemn Paleo-Libertarians Enough.
BradSchwartze on December 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM
If Lincoln pivoted and let the Confederation be, would the USA and CSA lived peacefully together? Probably not. There was valuable unclaimed land still to be had. Battles would probably have erupted between the USA and CSA over this land. This easily could have turned into a war that even more foreign powers would have intervened.
It is unfortunate that Lincoln did not get to serve his second term as a non-wartime President. I guess that our country would have benefited from it and Lincoln would be viewed less as “King” by people you take that view.
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM
WIN
Proud Rino on December 29, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Agreed. That was the begining of the “progressive” movement in this country, and the start of the rise of fascism/socialism in Europe that led to WWII, to the Soviet Union, and to the current state of govenments today. 100 years worth of misery started then, and all the bad decades since then have their roots in the 1910′s.
iurockhead on December 29, 2009 at 1:33 PM
csdeven on December 29, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Of the choices given, I went with the 1960′s. A few political assassinations, the “Bloody Sunday” Selma march, Watts riots, Weathermen bombings….yeah, those were the days….
cthulhu on December 29, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Ok, screwed that up….
Absolutely the proper historical perspective! Most of the changes made during the 60’s were bad. Civil rights were a good result, but the social engineering was a philosophy borne of wickedness.
csdeven on December 29, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Agreed. I left this part out since it is other countries, but we did feel the impact of these events. If the movement in the 1910′s was in the spirit of the 1770′s/1780′s, many wars in the 20th century would have been avoided.
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 1:40 PM
1860s. Can’t beat the Civil War.
For those who say it was a force for unification- yeah, but that took awhile. “Reconstruction” ring a bell?
Civil War, assassination of Lincoln, his successor (Andrew Johnson) is impeached (actually 2 attempts) and the decade wound down with a popular but alcoholic General Grant moving into the White House.
Pretty dark days.
cs89 on December 29, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Let’s not forget that the 1910s was when the Titanic sank, which was the first step in an inexorable march to the movie Titanic and the song “My Heart Will Go On.”
Proud Rino on December 29, 2009 at 1:41 PM
…but those roots can be traced to the 1910′s.
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Worst decade for politics is one thing, but worst one for hair and clothes?
70′s. Hands down.
Intrepid on December 29, 2009 at 1:41 PM
The 1990s spawned eyebrow rings, neck tattoos, and women wearing flannel shirts instead of very little. 70s are way better.
Proud Rino on December 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM
1860s, hands down.
At least we have not took up arms against each other yet.
Joe Caps on December 29, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Uhmmm, I think it prudent to point out that the operative word in that statement is yet!
And call me pessimistic but I think all this conjecture is a bit pre-mature. The collossal debt we are taking on, the damage to credibility in alliances(Poland, Czechland, Honduras, Columbia, not to mention Britian), and the loss of our individual liberties which have yet to be fully realized. When these chikens come home to roost and the consequences of these actions are fully felt, the twenty-teens will be the the worst decade.
It may also signify the demise of the last super-power standing, and with it the end of world order. When Rome collapsed in much the same fashion, humanity was treated to the brutality of The Dark Ages. When there is no-one available to play global cop, anarchy descends. The Euro-fops have depended on the US to provide fire-power, the Russians have their hands full protecting whats left with a rapidly diminishing population, and the Chinese are decades away from being able to fulfill that roll. Not that I’d count on their benevolence in judicating when they are.
I’m afraid as bad as it has been these last 10 years, we ain’t seen nothing yet.
Archimedes on December 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Technically, we didn’t have a presidential impeachment in the 70′s since Nixon resigned before the full House voted to impeach him. Unlike Clinton who pushed it all the way to a Senate trial, Nixon resigned once the Judiciary Committee of the House voted to refer articles of impeachment to the full House.
My worst decade goes from 1992 to 2002 because much of the present trouble brewed up on Bill Clinton’s watch and boiled over in 2001. Of course the Carter presidency set much of it up.
Jill1066 on December 29, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Yes, but the fruits showed in the 1960′s and became part of our culture. The political climate during that decade made it palatable to a sizable part of our society.
Intrepid on December 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM
People in that decade lost all fashion sense for self and home. The 70′s will be the one and only decade where homes decorated with orange, yellow and brown were the norm. This color scheme will never come back in style.
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM
For me, it’s a very tough choice between the 1960′s and the “naughts”. I’m picking the latter simply because I have the misfortune to live in it.
Dark-Star on December 29, 2009 at 1:48 PM
BINGO!!
they hated natural fibers in the 70s…everyone smelled like sweat and polyester…a truly awful decade…
right4life on December 29, 2009 at 1:51 PM
The Progressive era took hold in this country. Three bad amendments were added:
- 16th: Income tax.
- 17th: Popular elections for senators.
- 18th: Abolish liquor (at least the people at the time did this the lawful way, unlike the ban on drugs today)
This decade set the stage for the creation of powerful federal government with the means to take our property “lawfully”. Because of the 16th amendment and progrssive ideology, our country faces bankruptcy.
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 1:19 PM
You forgot the creation of the Federal Reserve also, which introduced Govt meddling into the economy.
Archimedes on December 29, 2009 at 1:52 PM
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM
The next time you’re in Denver, please make sure to avoid Village Inns. They’ve combined those colors with a weird teal-colored pattern on literally everything in the place.
Too bad. Was a decent place to get breakfast at any time of the day.
BradSchwartze on December 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Lincoln’s views were actually very pro-slavery, and he actually helped tried to ratify a pro-slavery amendment just to hold the Union together, which was his only goal. One of his other goals was go deport blacks back to Africa (see Tom DiLorenzo among others). Anti-slavery and anti-Lincoln isn’t a contradiction.
The Dean on December 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM
History fail.
Proud Rino on December 29, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Absolutely. And isn’t is amazing how much this period is glossed over in history classes? There is so much focus on the results – the 1930′s – but no attention on the cause.
Since Ed overlooked the 1910′s which did you pick as your runner-up?
batterup on December 29, 2009 at 2:07 PM
The Dean on December 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Before you beclown yourself any further, please be an adult and come to the realization that Lincoln’s troops squashing the South resulted in a definitely more perfect Union. And the fact that the majority of troops are from the South (along with the bases) reinforces that perfect Union.
BradSchwartze on December 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Hah. I have eaten at one of those places in the Denver area on road trips (from IL) to the ski resorts. Since those road trips were in the late 70′s and early 80′s, it fit in with the times. Must have no budget to redecorate.
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 2:10 PM
How can it be worse than the loss of over 600,000 men in 4 years, brother killing brother, father slaying son, unknown civilian casualties which certainly could bring the total well over 1 million souls extinguished, followed by thievery and oppression of the defeated Confederates, starvation of the defeated and hatred from the Victors for those who took up arms against their country, but in defense of their state? A decade known for Death, Disease, and Poverty. Including the death of the South’s only hope of recovery (Abraham Lincoln’s benevolence), and the impeachment of his successor, politics was executed at the point of a musket for the first 5 years, and under the whip for the second five years.
Those of you who grew up north of the Mason Dixon line cannot know how vividly the stories are still told of Reconstruction (which lasted till 1976) and the hardships suffered by the second class citizens of the South until its end, and how deeply felt was the “War of Northern Agrression” (my Great Aunt’s term, lol) by those who survived it in the South.
While I am sure there has always been suffering and disease among us, of the decades listed in the post, only the 1860s can be found to be as bad for the US, politically, as any other. We lost our greatest statesmen in that war. And the flower of America. It took longer to recover from it than it took to recover from the Great Depression and World War II.
Of course, opinions are like assh*les, everybody’s got their own. They just all stink.
Subsunk
Subsunk on December 29, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Yup! Good addition. Don’t feel like searching for the article right now, but I saw something that presented inflation before the Fed’s creation and afterwards. Being that inflation was one of its core responsibilities (at least it was\is after FDR moved us off of gold), it is a miserable failure. Inflation was miniscule from the period of “Jackass” Jackson to 1912. Afterwards it has been huge…something like 500% to 1000% increase.
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 2:13 PM
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 2:10 PM
No, those Village Inns were just redecorated in the last 2 years! It’s as though they anticipated this generation’s Carter.
BradSchwartze on December 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Excuse me. ……..Lasted till 1876.
Subsunk
Subsunk on December 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM
I would have to go with the 1860′s. I go between the 1930′s and 1860′s. I went with the 1860′s since it to, like the 1910′s, was the root of many ills that plagued our country for 100 years. The poor political decisions of Andrew Johnson and others set the stage for conflicts that came to a head in the 1960′a. I think there would have been less corruption during reconstruction with LIncoln at the helm and, thus, less il-feelings in the Southern states.
JWB really f*cked things up!
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM
You forgot the creation of the Federal Reserve also, which introduced Govt meddling into the economy.
Archimedes on December 29, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Yup! Good addition. Don’t feel like searching for the article right now, but I saw something that presented inflation before the Fed’s creation and afterwards. Being that inflation was one of its core responsibilities (at least it was\is after FDR moved us off of gold), it is a miserable failure. Inflation was miniscule from the period of “Jackass” Jackson to 1912. Afterwards it has been huge…something like 500% to 1000% increase.
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 2:13 PM
I’ve read something in a similiar vein, but I’d be interested in reading what you are citing as well.
Which brings up another point, is there a mechanism where we can exchange info with other commenters w/out exposing our email addy’s to all the trolls? There are quite a few well informed individuals here that it would be nice to be able to exchange data & intel with through some kind of channel.
Any thoughts?
Archimedes on December 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Reason is acting like the unreasonable left who spent 2006, 2007 and 2008 calling first the GOP COngress and then Bush with the…..”Worst Ever” label.
stupid
jp on December 29, 2009 at 2:26 PM
I’d have to agree with Archimedes. The 1860s very nearly (but not quite) led to the demise of the United States. I’m pretty sure that the politics, corruption, and deficit spending of the past decade will seal the deal.
UltimateBob on December 29, 2009 at 2:27 PM
You know what is more idiotic than the Federal Reserve? Abolishing the Federal Reserve and giving the numbnuts in Congress full Monterary Policy powers.
They’ve done such a bang up job manipulating Monetary Policy via Fannie/Freddia, CRA, etc…lets give them full blown control! Barney Frank and Pelosi replace Bernanke, brilliant!
jp on December 29, 2009 at 2:28 PM
DiLorenzo is a dishonest crackpot whose been debunked multiple times
jp on December 29, 2009 at 2:30 PM
I found it! From the great Dr. Walter E. Williams.
Key passage:
While Dr. Williams does not provide references to back up his numbers, I have heard enough of this guy on Rush and read his articles weekly to trust the guy.
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 2:30 PM
No, everyone’s stinks…. except mine. ;-)
UltimateBob on December 29, 2009 at 2:31 PM
And Hilter was really pro-Jewish, it’s just that he didn’t want them in Germany.
/BIG S
Dean, isn’t there a Stormfront meeting you need to attend?
Lance Murdock on December 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM
It looks like you can’t address the myriad of Lincoln facts.
Btw, look to Lysander Spooner for the anti-Lincoln plus anti-slavery view of the 1860s.
The Dean on December 29, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I have thought about it, but cannot figure it out. I refrain since my family owns a small business and do not want my political views, not that I am the least bit ashamed of them (rather quite the opposite), associated with my family’s business.
The only idea I have would be for HA to provide the ability to add commentators as friends. This would provide means for one to voluntary expose information to invited commentators.
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Wow! I don’t exhale CO2!
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 2:37 PM
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Thanks for the link! Saved it for perusal a little later.
Archimedes on December 29, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Start your own blog and ban the trolls?
Al in St. Lou on December 29, 2009 at 2:44 PM
The only idea I have would be for HA to provide the ability to add commentators as friends. This would provide means for one to voluntary expose information to invited commentators.
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I am not terribly tech-savvy so I’m not sure how much of a pain in the A$$ for Ed & Allah that might be to accomplish. But that would be a fantastic feature to add if posssible. I write for a couple of sites (PAPundit’s Int’l & occassionally American Thinker) and the ability to trade info with some of the peeps here would be great. It’d also be helpful in collaborations in political efforts we might wish to enjoin in.
I for one will send them a queery if this is a possibility, it might garner more attention from them if others did as well.
Archimedes on December 29, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Link or cite?
Al in St. Lou on December 29, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Archimedes on December 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Start your own blog and ban the trolls?
Al in St. Lou on December 29, 2009 at 2:44 PM
I’m doing so already. But it(thechickenlittlereport)is being linked to a customized by customer news bulletin where they get a daily feed to all the relevent stories to that which they have expressed an interest in, via their email. As stated above I already write for sites that I’d like to cross-link with and capitalize on my relationships with to promote the launch of it.
As I also stated above, my tech skills are woefully south of adequate, I have a biz to run, which has hindered a speedy development-to-implentation ratio. It’s a work in progress though.
Speaking of, when I do launch, informed peeps like WashJeff and others would be welcome additions to contribute if they so desired….just a thought.
Archimedes on December 29, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Bloom County reference, Ed?
mikeyboss on December 29, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Not really. It would be difficult to think of a more flush time than January 2000; we were on top of the tech bubble, nearing the top of the stock bubble, and still had years left on the housing bubble. The recession started later in the year.
Your mistake is sort of the reverse of what Clinton said on a talk a show about the tech crash “of 2001.” You might like to bump those events a few months back, and Clinton would love to bump them a few months forward, but they happened when they happened.
calbear on December 29, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Went with the naughts,because after all the other bad decades we really should be smarter now.
DDT on December 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Nice ad hominem you got there.
Lincoln’s #1 goal was to preserve the union. While he was against the idea of slavery, he really had no intention of abolishing it where it already hadn’t been abolished in the first place. He had the right idea – to let the individual states handle that themselves. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t even end slavery outright, it stated that where slavery was already abolished, it would never be reinstituted.
Unfortunately, for all his benevolence, the South had already tied its economy too tightly to “King Cotton” and plantations that could only be made profitable with slaves paid nothing but minimal bed and board. Thus, when abolitionist sentiment became too strong, they reacted out of pure survival instinct to something that threatened to cut the legs out from under them.
Dark-Star on December 29, 2009 at 3:22 PM
The 1960s spawned the anti-American Boomer Left, who are now our (*cough*) elder statesmen – Dodd, Reid, Frank, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Baucus, Boxer, Napolitano, Ayres, et al.
sulla on December 29, 2009 at 3:30 PM
I had to go with this decade politically being the worst, thanks(?) to the rampant incivility all around. We’ve witnessed since the 60s the radicalization of the Left, when Progressivism had some meaning and a truly lofty goal in the Civil Rights movement.
Since then, the Left has progressively (no pun intended) devolved into a movement that hurls epithets more than it offers solutions to genuine problems. Its solutions, too, lean toward limiting freedom instead of expanding it. The words of JFK about supporting any friend in the cause of expanding freedom are lost on them.
A people cannot be taxed into prosperity. A nation cannot survive long if a big part of its population is more concerned about the feelings of an armed enemy than it is about the safety of fellow citizens.
The most foul insults I ever heard have come mostly from the Left, and most often in this decade. Look at the term ‘teaba**ers’ for instance–one that shouldn’t be used in front of children but is often used by news anchors.
Every American decade has had its problems, but never in the five I’m alive have I heard enmity like I heard the past one. Never before would a movie about the assassination of a sitting president be hailed, if one were dared to be made at all. And so on, and so on.
Liam on December 29, 2009 at 3:52 PM
I had to go with this decade politically being the worst, thanks(?) to the rampant incivility all around. We’ve witnessed since the 60s the radicalization of the Left, when Progressivism had some meaning and a truly lofty goal in the Civil Rights movement.
Since then, the Left has progressively (no pun intended) devolved into a movement that hurls epithets more than it offers solutions to genuine problems. Its solutions, too, lean toward limiting freedom instead of expanding it. The words of JFK about supporting any friend in the cause of expanding freedom are lost on them.
A people cannot be taxed into prosperity. A nation cannot survive long if a big part of its population is more concerned about the feelings of an armed enemy than it is about the safety of fellow citizens.
The most foul insults I ever heard have come mostly from the Left, and most often in this decade. Look at the term ‘teabaggers’ for instance–one that shouldn’t be used in front of children but is often used by news anchors.
Every American decade has had its problems, but never in the five I’m alive have I heard enmity like I heard the past one. Never before would a movie about the murder of a sitting president be hailed, if one were dared to be made at all. And so on, and so on.
Liam on December 29, 2009 at 3:53 PM
The 1860s of course. We still haven’t recovered (and probably never will recover) from that debacle which marked the end of state sovereignty and the first hardscale attempts by the Federal government to circumvent the constitution.
docdave on December 29, 2009 at 3:56 PM
I don’t know about it being the end in itself, but I’ll certainly admit to it being the beginning of the end.
Dark-Star on December 29, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Well you can’t reason with “The Dean.” He likes throwing outrageous remarks just to see if anyone will react. Even if you refute all of his claims he’ll come back with some random argument against you. It is like arguing with a five year old. It just goes in circles. So it’s not worth my time or any one for that matter to argue with him.
Lance Murdock on December 29, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Subsunk, as a son of the South, and in my 50s, I would agree. My father’s grandfather was a waterboy and a messenger when Jackson Ms was under siege, when the North was shooting boys 11 years old for doing what the adults told them to do. We forget that the first month at the end of the war, the nation sat on the brink total dissolution, when the United States could have literally ceased to exist. I pray that that those days never come again, but I fear they way guys like Matthews paint groups as the “Confederate Party” as if that’s a dirty word. We’re one nation, and we should act like it.
Btw Ed, great, great post. This one’s the best, where debate happens and flamers stay home.
itsspideyman on December 29, 2009 at 4:04 PM
One jesture that I would have loved the USA to do to the CSA after the war’s end is to adopt the CSA’s constitution sans slavery provisions. It would have been a great jesture to the Southern states, and the country as a whole would have benefited from the improvements made to the constitution.
We may not have all this commerce clause crap going on if we had the CSA’s constitution.
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Right after the Civil War the 10th Amendment went right out the window
John the Libertarian on December 29, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Wait a minute, you’re the one throwing insults like a 5 year old. I listed a few facts about Lincoln, and you replied by calling me pro-slavery and accusing of attending Stormfront meetings. You can’t refute the slavery amendment or wanting to deport African Americans because they are in the record. That’s why lincoln cultists resort back to insults that we dare question Dear Leader Abe.
The Dean on December 29, 2009 at 4:44 PM
I find it unfair to judge Lincoln’s actions relative to the constitution given that all of his actions were during wartime. Lincoln, unfortuantely, never got the chance to be a peacetime President.
WashJeff on December 29, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »