U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-03-2013, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,661 posts, read 77,753,399 times
Reputation: 36299

Advertisements

Unless you subscribe to the "single drop" doctrine, Barack Obama has a right to call himself the 44th White President of the United States.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-03-2013, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
317 posts, read 790,840 times
Reputation: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
Pushkin was part black, his great-grandfather was black.

Regarding phenotype, he did not stand out anymore than the numerous other ethnicities that were part of the Russian Empire.
Yeah, Pushkin was only 1/8 black in a country which never had the 1-drop rule. So calling him "black" is quite a stretch.

Interestingly, nobody knows exactly where his great-grandfather came from. Traditionally it was held to be Ethiopia, but some scholar recently claimed he was from the Lake Chad area (a completely different part of Africa).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2013, 05:49 AM
 
Location: Lower east side of Toronto
10,570 posts, read 11,373,870 times
Reputation: 9352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker View Post
Why is this something to celebrate?
Firstly it shows you that a man with some black genetics was as intelligent and as capable of being a President - a man just as capable as any white man in the land...He did not have the sympathetic race card to play like Obama- He was elected on ability - and not on color...no one knew he was black. The reason to celebrate would be in the fact that this man got to the top on character and ability - not on emotional liberalism and some seeking of equality. Put it this way - IF Obama in his present physical form and with what he has in his brain - If he were white- He would still be back in Chicago being a second rate lawyer.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2013, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,851,880 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg Bach View Post
Firstly it shows you that a man with some black genetics was as intelligent and as capable of being a President - a man just as capable as any white man in the land...He did not have the sympathetic race card to play like Obama- He was elected on ability - and not on color...no one knew he was black. The reason to celebrate would be in the fact that this man got to the top on character and ability - not on emotional liberalism and some seeking of equality. Put it this way - IF Obama in his present physical form and with what he has in his brain - If he were white- He would still be back in Chicago being a second rate lawyer.
Warren G Harding??? Seriously? I believe he is rated among the top three worst POTUS ever by whatever group of American historians you care to name. He might have been the first POTUS to resign if he hadn't keeled over.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2013, 02:26 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
17,737 posts, read 10,447,240 times
Reputation: 24704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
Warren G Harding??? Seriously? I believe he is rated among the top three worst POTUS ever by whatever group of American historians you care to name. He might have been the first POTUS to resign if he hadn't keeled over.
Don't know about resignation, or what a group of historians might be, but there are those who believe that Harding's policies and those of his successor, Coolidge, set the nation up for the roaring 20's.
He was highly popular until after his death and at that point he became fair game for almost everything, so his resignation was not on the horizon while he was still alive.

Consider this:
Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third, and unemployment dropped almost to zero - it was 2.4% when he died.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2013, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,851,880 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
Don't know about resignation, or what a group of historians might be, but there are those who believe that Harding's policies and those of his successor, Coolidge, set the nation up for the roaring 20's.
He was highly popular until after his death and at that point he became fair game for almost everything, so his resignation was not on the horizon while he was still alive.

Consider this:
Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third, and unemployment dropped almost to zero - it was 2.4% when he died.
One could also argue that the fiscal policies of the Roaring Twenties contributed to the stock market crash of 1929 and the onslaught of the Great Depression. Since Harding was elected as the US was coming out of a post war depression, he can hardly be given a great deal of credit for the fall in unemployment. Moreover, his administration and Coolidge's ignored the on-going depression that plagued the agricultural sector all through the 1920s. Real wages remained stagnant and actually began to decline toward the end of the decade. Furthermore, much of the "expansion" of the economy in the 1920s resulted from the growth of the consumer industry and the expansion of consumer credit. Finally, rampant speculation in real estate, especially in Florida, and in the stock market, much of it also financed on credit, set the stage for economic disaster.

Harding's Secretary of the Interior, Albert B. Fall, went to prison because of his role in the Teapot Dome scandal that erupted in 1922. If Fall went to prison, it might very well be that Harding might have been pressured into resigning since this wasn't the only scandal during his 2 years in office. At the very least, he probably wouldn't have been renominated.

There have been a number of surveys of American Presidents by various groups of historians over the last 65 years. (Linky)
Harding's composite score comes out to be last on almost all of them.

ps: I would have posted table but it doesn't come out correctly, so check out in the article.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2013, 10:59 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
17,737 posts, read 10,447,240 times
Reputation: 24704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
One could also argue that the fiscal policies of the Roaring Twenties contributed to the stock market crash of 1929 and the onslaught of the Great Depression. Since Harding was elected as the US was coming out of a post war depression, he can hardly be given a great deal of credit for the fall in unemployment. Moreover, his administration and Coolidge's ignored the on-going depression that plagued the agricultural sector all through the 1920s. Real wages remained stagnant and actually began to decline toward the end of the decade. Furthermore, much of the "expansion" of the economy in the 1920s resulted from the growth of the consumer industry and the expansion of consumer credit. Finally, rampant speculation in real estate, especially in Florida, and in the stock market, much of it also financed on credit, set the stage for economic disaster.

Harding's Secretary of the Interior, Albert B. Fall, went to prison because of his role in the Teapot Dome scandal that erupted in 1922. If Fall went to prison, it might very well be that Harding might have been pressured into resigning since this wasn't the only scandal during his 2 years in office. At the very least, he probably wouldn't have been renominated.

There have been a number of surveys of American Presidents by various groups of historians over the last 65 years. (Inky)
Harding's composite score comes out to be last on almost all of them.

ps: I would have posted table but it doesn't come out correctly, so check out in the article.
Linky didn't work. No matter.

Your post is pretty typical of what we read of Harding. It's hard to find much good, and that history is chiseled in granite, it seems.
But it really doesn't make much sense.

Harding isn't given credit for the rise in employment because the U.S. was coming out of a depression? Doesn't make any sense to me. Obviously, he led the financial recovery.

The agriculture sector remained weak. So?

Real wages didn't rise.....During the 20s there was no inflation at all. Zero. Wages didn't rise, that's true. Neither did costs.

Expansion of consumer credit? What? Mortgages weren't even invented until the 1930's. There was no such thing as a credit card. There was no expansion of consumer credit.

There are so many opinions as to the cause of the Great Depression, that no matter what you or I say, the other could find a ready counter-argument.

One thing is certain; Harding sure picked some Lulus when he picked a cabinet.

Your comments are typical, though. As far as I know all this is just more media spin and picking of favorites. Every good student "knows" that Harding was one of the worst, if not THE worst President ever. I even heard the narrator in that old series, "Centennial" say so. But he didn't say why.

P.S. I got the link to work.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2013, 11:09 PM
 
Location: Southwest Washington State
27,316 posts, read 17,677,345 times
Reputation: 42135
He was one of the worst presidents because his administration was corrupt, and because he had an affair. Having affair in that time would set him up for blackmail. And he, like Grant, trusted his friends too much, and they helped themselves to whatever they could get.

His campaign was staged start to finish. He stayed on his front porch in Ohio (?) and let his handlers do his campaign. He didn't have a first rate mind. He should never have been elected president.

I can't imagine that any group of people would want to claim this guy. But he certainly was not Black. He was a privileged white male of his time.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2013, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,851,880 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
Linky didn't work. No matter.

Your post is pretty typical of what we read of Harding. It's hard to find much good, and that history is chiseled in granite, it seems.
But it really doesn't make much sense.

Harding isn't given credit for the rise in employment because the U.S. was coming out of a depression? Doesn't make any sense to me. Obviously, he led the financial recovery.

The agriculture sector remained weak. So?

Real wages didn't rise.....During the 20s there was no inflation at all. Zero. Wages didn't rise, that's true. Neither did costs.

Expansion of consumer credit? What? Mortgages weren't even invented until the 1930's. There was no such thing as a credit card. There was no expansion of consumer credit.

There are so many opinions as to the cause of the Great Depression, that no matter what you or I say, the other could find a ready counter-argument.

One thing is certain; Harding sure picked some Lulus when he picked a cabinet.

Your comments are typical, though. As far as I know all this is just more media spin and picking of favorites. Every good student "knows" that Harding was one of the worst, if not THE worst President ever. I even heard the narrator in that old series, "Centennial" say so. But he didn't say why.

P.S. I got the link to work.
"Historians" are professionals who have advanced degrees in history and make their livings teaching and/or writing history. They are not journalists or tv/radio news personalities.

Since the polls ranking the POTUS began in 1948, and Harding was ranked last or close to last on every single one, it seems that the consensus over three generations of knowledgeable professionals in the field is that he was a lousy president.

Sometimes, history is what it is no matter how much we want to resurrect the reputation of some individual for personal reasons. The consensus is that Harding, Fillmore, and Buchanan were all lousy POTUS, and that Washington, Lincoln, and FDR were great ones. Deal with it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2013, 08:40 AM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
17,737 posts, read 10,447,240 times
Reputation: 24704
Quote:
Originally Posted by silibran View Post
He was one of the worst presidents because his administration was corrupt, and because he had an affair. Having affair in that time would set him up for blackmail. And he, like Grant, trusted his friends too much, and they helped themselves to whatever they could get.
His administration was the pits, that's true.
The affair (s) weren't known about until 1927. No. Affairs in 1920 did not set you up for blackmail. They were as common then as they were in Kennedy's time. What you are doing is forecasting a history that never happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silibran View Post
His campaign was staged start to finish. He stayed on his front porch in Ohio (?) and let his handlers do his campaign.....................
He won. Buy a huge margin, too. Why do you care where he stayed? Not meeting your standards, placed on him 100 years after the fact, is not a shortcoming.

Harding has become the answer to the trivia question, "Who is the worst President of all time?" And it is not going away.
If you asked a room full of students, "What did Nero do while Rome burned?", they would all answer, "He fiddled". And that answer is wrong, but it's not going away. (Nero was out of town and the fiddle would not be invented for over 1000 years!).

Harding did the things in 1920 and 21 that we urge the government to do today. He cut corporate taxes, individual taxes, and led a rapid recovery from an inherited depression. Taxes were cut and revenue to the government increased. Look it up.
Inflation was non existent. Look it up.
He began to understand that high tariffs, while popular and of short term benefit, actually were counter productive and was taking steps to reduce them when he died. Look it up.
He advocated for civil rights, and was one of the first Presidents who can be said to be racially neutral. Look that up, too.
Advocated for fairness in agriculture and food processing, and introduced bills to level the playing field. Check that out.
He limited immigration.

Now, how many of the above items do we urge Presidents of today to act on?
My point is, maybe the knee jerk answer that we all give about Harding is wrong. We are guided by control freaks in the form of media and educators who insist they they have all the information, and the rest of us must 'learn' from them. So we talk about where he sat while he ran the election and who he must have slept with, and neither subject is worthy of anyone interested in public policy.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top