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 11-25-2015, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Billings, MT
9,842 posts, read 8,778,067 times
Reputation: 13933

Advertisements

I am reminded of the folks who named a new cafeteria in Colorado after Alfred Packer.
THEN, they found out that ol' Al had been convicted of murder...

and cannibalism!

they changed the name.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-25-2015, 01:02 PM
 
7,326 posts, read 4,341,603 times
Reputation: 9088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven View Post
I am reminded of the folks who named a new cafeteria in Colorado after Alfred Packer.
THEN, they found out that ol' Al had been convicted of murder...

and cannibalism!

they changed the name.
The Alfred Packer Grill was in the UC Boulder student union back in the 70's or are we talking about another place?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2015, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,844,460 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
I will say it again, he was a product of his times.

Do you think if he was alive today he would still think like that???
Possibly. There are any number of people, including well educated individuals and some people who run for political office, who hold similar views about blacks. Check out some of the comments in some of the threads on the Politics forum.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2015, 04:22 PM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,844,460 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
Jackson has been falling of his pedestal for more than a decade as greater attention has been focused on his economic short-sight, his shameless cronyism, the vulgarity of his sycophants, and his betrayal of the Native tribes. Perhaps now it's Wilson's turn.
What happens is that as the years go by, both historians and the general public come to value different things than their predecessors, so how they look at history changes. What's happening in here and now makes historians look at past events through different lenses than previous generations of historians. That's the biggest reason why interpretations of the exact same historical facts change over time. The second big reason is that new sources become available.

In the case of Jackson, people living today are concerned about the economy, about government being sold to the highest bidders, and about the treatment of women and minorities, and on those issues, Jackson is not an admirable figure. If you judge him primarily on those, then you don't want to see his face on our currency. If you judge him on the traditional criteria that he was the "champion of the common man" and of democracy and the father of political parties, then you think he's great.

I think Wilson is in for a revision of his reputation, too. On a balance sheet, Wilson has more positive check marks than he does negative ones. However, the relative importance people give to those issues will likely determine how they view him.

IMO, the only two POTUS who have survived with their reputations in tact are Washington and Lincoln, although neither is accorded the almost unanimous approval they received immediately after their presidencies. All the others have turned out to have feet of clay like ordinary people.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2015, 05:30 PM
 
13,604 posts, read 6,507,807 times
Reputation: 25629
Why do we judge people of a different time period in history using the morals and standards of today? Those people didn't live in our time and had different standards and beliefs that were quite acceptable and not out of the norm. Nearly all of the founding fathers had slaves including the first 12 presidents, and most people in or around 1900 were extremely prejudice by today's standards and not only in the south. So what is the point?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2015, 05:33 PM
 
55,459 posts, read 49,454,642 times
Reputation: 17194
I don't care if he was a product of his time. I care about what he did to people. I think of it from the perspective of what I would deal with if I was living in his administration. As a Black man, I am happy to live in this era, and not during the Wilson administration.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2015, 05:38 PM
 
13,604 posts, read 6,507,807 times
Reputation: 25629
What he did to people was because he was a product of his time, so the two things are inseparable. You can demonize everyone in history going back from yesterday to 2000 years ago and it won't make a bit of difference to anyone living today.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2015, 10:04 AM
 
7,326 posts, read 4,341,603 times
Reputation: 9088
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
Why do we judge people of a different time period in history using the morals and standards of today?
I suppose that depends on one's take on the moral standards of a certain period. Throughout American history there have been remarkable leaders whose moral standards would be fit very neatly in with those held today. So, I suppose a question might be do we hold these people who held the most common standards or the those who held ones of a higher order?

Quote:
Nearly all of the founding fathers had slaves including the first 12 presidents,
Actually two of the first 12 presidents didn't own slaves, John Adams and John Quincy Adams. So the question again do we judge certain aspects of their lives by what was popular or by the standard of those like the Adams?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2015, 10:25 AM
 
13,604 posts, read 6,507,807 times
Reputation: 25629
You're correct about the Adam's not owning slaves. I give them lots of credit for this since they obviously could very easily have but they are the only two of the first twelve. Ironically, Grant did own slaves but not while in office. You certainly don't hear much about that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2015, 10:46 AM
 
7,326 posts, read 4,341,603 times
Reputation: 9088
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
You're correct about the Adam's not owning slaves. I give them lots of credit for this since they obviously could very easily have but they are the only two of the first twelve. Ironically, Grant did own slaves but not while in office. You certainly don't hear much about that.
I don't know about that. It always seems to come up on threads about "northern hypocrisy." Anyway, issue of Grant's slave ownership isn't as simple as folks wish it to be. The only known slave that Grant actually "owned" was William Jones, how Grant came to acquire Mr. Jones is not known except for the fact that at the time Grant was working at his father-in-laws White Haven estate. What we do know is that Grant freed Mr. Jones in March of 1859. The claim that Grant owned slaves up until the passage of the 13th Amendment is categorically false. The slaves in question were "owned" by his wife. I placed quotations around owned because there is evidence that the sale from father to daughter was a sham sale to hide her fathers assets from creditors.

In May of 1862 grant sent the following letter to his wife.
Your father sent Emma [Julia’s sister] a bill of sale for the negroes he gave her. To avoid a possibility of any of them being sold he ought to do the same with all the balance. I would not give anything for you to have any of them as it is not probable we will ever live in a slave state again but would not like to see them sold under the hammer.
https://pastexplore.wordpress.com/20...the-civil-war/

So to bring this all back on topic.

Grant slave owner or not was the most aggressive advocate and enforcer of Civil Rights, and considering his era, and including Lyndon Johnson. Grant presided over the ratification of the 15th Amendment guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of race; signed Enforcement Acts to protect black voting rights; and signed the Civil Rights Act in 1875 that prohibited several forms of racial segregation. Forty years before the inauguration of Woodrow Wilson.

So we may be wrong to judge Wilson by 21st century standards when 19th century standards would do just as well.

Last edited by TheWiseWino; 11-26-2015 at 11:06 AM..
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:36 PM.

© 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