Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If we are going to discount Carter for being in the naval academy, then I think it would only be fair to discount Fillmore who really was just an honorary commander of a home guard unit composed of men over the age of 45 in upstate NY.
Considering the draft riots in New York City in 1863, Filmore stood a better chance of being in a combat situation during the Rebellion than Carter did being at Anapolis during WWII. Filmore's home guard unit could have easily been called upon to quell civil unrest. The same goes for GWB’s national guard unit. As a pilot GWB would likely have been one of the first guardsmen sent to Vietnam if it had come to that.
Also on a side note, why don't people consider the National Guard the military? I hate when people say "so and so went into the National Guard to avoid service." That IS service. Members of the Guard and other reserves can and do get sent into combat. The ones I know would be pretty upset to hear that they were never actually in the military.
I had a classmate at Emory who was allowed to graduate early when his NG unit was called up for the 1st Gulf War.
Also on a side note, why don't people consider the National Guard the military? I hate when people say "so and so went into the National Guard to avoid service." That IS service. Members of the Guard and other reserves can and do get sent into combat. The ones I know would be pretty upset to hear that they were never actually in the military.
That hasn't always been true. Back in the 1960's, the chance of a guard or reserve unit going to Vietnam was virtually nil and everyone knew it. It was a common dodge for those not wanting to go to the war and the waiting list to get in was long, unless one had "influence."
That hasn't always been true. Back in the 1960's, the chance of a guard or reserve unit going to Vietnam was virtually nil and everyone knew it. It was a common dodge for those not wanting to go to the war and the waiting list to get in was long, unless one had "influence."
That's right; during Viet Nam the Guard was Canada for people with a clout, draft-dodging for the privileged.
Even so, you still need to tighten up your definition. If someone was an official member of the military, including the Guard and reserves, and including serving stateside, during war time, it all counts. They are officially war vets.
These guys did not have any say in where they would be stationed, or if they'd be sent into harm's way. Some got special favors, but there were no guarantees.
Policies have changed, and how reserve units are used has changed, but none of that was up to the individual soldier/sailor.
GW Bush got into the Guard because of privilege, but decisions could have been made to send his unit overseas. Even his family had no real control over that.
I'm sure when Reagan signed up, he didn't know they'd station him in LA to make military films. He signed up, period. He wanted to serve his country. The powers that be simply decided he's be best used in films. I'm no fan of Carter, but if he was indeed at Anapolis during WWII and the war ended as he was graduating, he had no control over that. He was still an active member of the US Navy during war time and therefore a war veteran.
Even so, you still need to tighten up your definition. If someone was an official member of the military, including the Guard and reserves, and including serving stateside, during war time, it all counts. They are officially war vets.
These guys did not have any say in where they would be stationed, or if they'd be sent into harm's way. Some got special favors, but there were no guarantees.
Policies have changed, and how reserve units are used has changed, but none of that was up to the individual soldier/sailor.
GW Bush got into the Guard because of privilege, but decisions could have been made to send his unit overseas. Even his family had no real control over that.
I'm sure when Reagan signed up, he didn't know they'd station him in LA to make military films. He signed up, period. He wanted to serve his country. The powers that be simply decided he's be best used in films. I'm no fan of Carter, but if he was indeed at Anapolis during WWII and the war ended as he was graduating, he had no control over that. He was still an active member of the US Navy during war time and therefore a war veteran.
I agree with your analysis. The only issue then is whether or not Fillmore serving AFTER his Presidency should be counted per the OP's question.
If we include everyone it is a tie between WW2 and the Civil War at 8 a piece. If we discount Fillmore for serving AFTER his term, then WW2 is the winner.
Let's not forget Dick Cheney and his 5 Vietnam War deferments. Ironically, we did have the opportunity to elect a Vietnam Veteran President in 2004 with John Kerry and John McCain in 2008.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
Our longest war was Vietnam (1959-1975), yet it has produced no Presidents. It has, however, given us two who actively and deliberately avoided duty there: Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. It also gave us one Vice President who served (Gore) and one who rode student deferments and service in the National Guard to avoid service. (Quayle)
Let's not forget Dick Cheney and his 5 Vietnam War deferments. Ironically, we did have the opportunity to elect a Vietnam Veteran President in 2004 with John Kerry and John McCain in 2008.
Ol' Dick told an interviewer he had "other priorities."
Well....do tell, Dick!
Though Vietnam was our longest war to date, the time for electing a President who served there is rapidly passing because Vietnam Veteran's are rapidly passing. For that matter, so is anyone who lived during that tumultuous era.
We may never elect a Vietnam Veteran as President and I wonder why. You would think with a war that long, someone who served there would enter politics and rise to the very top, but so far that has not happened. I don't even see any on the immediate horizon.
Perhaps the era of valuing the military service of our elected representatives has passed and perhaps that's an outgrowth of the Vietnam generation, a residual effect of the polarization, divisions and outright hatred which characterized those times.
By the end of that war, military Veteran's were not held in much regard by most people and, in fact, the public held those who avoided military duty in higher esteem than those who served. That was not true previously in our history when military service was a plus on a candidates record. Now, and since Vietnam, it's basically a non-issue and most people asign relatively little importance to it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
