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.
I loved most of those excerpts with some quibbles. See Posts 57 and 58. I have trouble putting a crooked hypocrite such as Agnew or populists such as Wallace (latter-day Trumps) on the same par as Gerald Ford, George Patton or Ronald Reagan. On July 9, 2016 I am giving Torah Study on the story of Korach. He was a nephew of Moses and Aaron who played to populist sentiment. Fittingly the ground collapsed, taking him and his followers into Sheol.
I was not trying to elevate Agnew to the level of Reagan or Patton in achievement, but I do admire his speaking ability/delivery. Can you imagine GW Bush trying to deliver that nattering nabobs speech by William Safire? What kind of butchery would that be? Agnew was smooth, he had speaking engagements booked up for 6 months, right before the bribe taking allegations came out in summer of '73, soon it was all over for him. He got what he deserved and there was nothing Nixon could have done to save him.
Wallace was also a good speaker, I hope y'all took the opportunity to check out some of offerings from youtube (after selections) on those videos, such as the 60 minutes Mike Wallace 1968 interview, and the Larry King interview with George Wallace, Mike Wallace, and Jessie Jackson. I hope you saw the 1974 interview where he was shaking hands with black people and getting a 30% pull from the black vote. Wallace was an evolving politician, he had strong regional appeal, and some pull on the national level as well. I'm glad Nixon won in 1968, but really, if peace at home and abroad (Vietnam) was the most important thing for voters in 1968, I think Wallace was best able to deliver on that promise. He vowed to have us out of Vietnam within 30 days, and surely would have done more than anyone to stop the rioting and crime in the streets, with strong law enforcement. Nixon copied Wallace's law and order theme in the campaign and made it his own, had Wallace not ran in '68, the race between Nixon and Humphrey would not even be close, Nixon would have won in a landslide.
I posted his segregation forever speech because it was the one he was most famous for. He was the counterpoint for MLK at the time, and Wallace represented millions of Americans. From a historical perspective, I think Wallace should be remembered and not swept under the carpet. He had to say those things to get elected, he was actually a liberal by Alabama standards in the 1950's. Wallace not being elected in 1963 would be a much greater loss to Alabama, than had he not made that speech and lost. He became every bit as influential in that region of the country in the 1960's, as Ted Kennedy was to the northeast in the 70's.
MLK was an immoral man and I do not like him, he was a cheater and abuser of women, his civil rights work was commendable, but he does not deserve a national holiday in his name, but if they made a holiday called "civil rights day" to replace MLK day, I would be OK with that. I agree with most of the civil rights legislation that was passed under LBJ, with exception of Fair Housing Bill of 1968. I feel that was a premature move that should not have been done until later under Clinton in the 90's. Black neighborhoods need successful black people, and they all moved away. The housing bill of '68 needed to focus on halting the corrupt lending practices in black neighborhoods, zoning for new black neighborhoods to be built, that would be similar to other white suburbs, concerning the quality of housing (privately owned, no projects). I also feel the LBJ housing bill was very intrusive to white people, that it caused them financial loss and made neighborhoods unstable. It made white people move much more often than they otherwise would have wanted too, to avoid the negative things that I will not get into here. Sometimes, people would like to remain in the same home, and same neighborhoods they grew up in, for life. That is almost impossible now unless you are very wealthy, or enjoy rural living.
I also take issue with the Johnson legislation concerning private clubs, in which a private club has to accept new members/quotas based on race, that the other members of the club would not be able to control membership to the club. This should not have been done by law, in time, it would have happened naturally, as at some point the club might suffer public ridicule for not being more "open".
I was not trying to elevate Agnew to the level of Reagan or Patton in achievement, but I do admire his speaking ability/delivery. Can you imagine GW Bush trying to deliver that nattering nabobs speech by William Safire? What kind of butchery would that be? Agnew was smooth, he had speaking engagements booked up for 6 months, right before the bribe taking allegations came out in summer of '73, soon it was all over for him. He got what he deserved and there was nothing Nixon could have done to save him.
Wallace was also a good speaker, I hope y'all took the opportunity to check out some of offerings from youtube (after selections) on those videos, such as the 60 minutes Mike Wallace 1968 interview, and the Larry King interview with George Wallace, Mike Wallace, and Jessie Jackson. I hope you saw the 1974 interview where he was shaking hands with black people and getting a 30% pull from the black vote. Wallace was an evolving politician, he had strong regional appeal, and some pull on the national level as well. I'm glad Nixon won in 1968, but really, if peace at home and abroad (Vietnam) was the most important thing for voters in 1968, I think Wallace was best able to deliver on that promise. He vowed to have us out of Vietnam within 30 days, and surely would have done more than anyone to stop the rioting and crime in the streets, with strong law enforcement. Nixon copied Wallace's law and order theme in the campaign and made it his own, had Wallace not ran in '68, the race between Nixon and Humphrey would not even be close, Nixon would have won in a landslide.
I posted his segregation forever speech because it was the one he was most famous for. He was the counterpoint for MLK at the time, and Wallace represented millions of Americans. From a historical perspective, I think Wallace should be remembered and not swept under the carpet. He had to say those things to get elected, he was actually a liberal by Alabama standards in the 1950's. Wallace not being elected in 1963 would be a much greater loss to Alabama, than had he not made that speech and lost. He became every bit as influential in that region of the country in the 1960's, as Ted Kennedy was to the northeast in the 70's.
MLK was an immoral man and I do not like him, he was a cheater and abuser of women, his civil rights work was commendable, but he does not deserve a national holiday in his name, but if they made a holiday called "civil rights day" to replace MLK day, I would be OK with that. I agree with most of the civil rights legislation that was passed under LBJ, with exception of Fair Housing Bill of 1968. I feel that was a premature move that should not have been done until later under Clinton in the 90's. Black neighborhoods need successful black people, and they all moved away. The housing bill of '68 needed to focus on halting the corrupt lending practices in black neighborhoods, zoning for new black neighborhoods to be built, that would be similar to other white suburbs, concerning the quality of housing (privately owned, no projects). I also feel the LBJ housing bill was very intrusive to white people, that it caused them financial loss and made neighborhoods unstable. It made white people move much more often than they otherwise would have wanted too, to avoid the negative things that I will not get into here. Sometimes, people would like to remain in the same home, and same neighborhoods they grew up in, for life. That is almost impossible now unless you are very wealthy, or enjoy rural living.
We are getting off topic here, but your comments about George Wallace deserve a rebuttal. There is a saying that goes: "Violence from above engenders violence from below".
The concept is that those who occupy leadership positions in society can cause or motivate people in the lower stratum of society to behave violently and illegally. All of us should take a little trip to Selma, Alabama in 1965. What was going on in Alabama at this time is the huge majority of black citizens were being prevented from voting by laws and customs that were in place. When blacks tried to register to vote, they were often asked to do things like recite the entire U.S. Constitution by memory. When they could not do so, their application to vote was denied. George Wallace and other people who ran Alabama understood completely what was going on and did what they could to see that things remained the same.
Eventually, MLK organized a huge march in Selma to protest the denial of voting rights to African American people. This protest was met with unspeakable acts of violence by the authorities and private groups like the KKK. Jimmy Lee Jackson was an unarmed man who was brutally shot and killed by police while he was inside a private business. Reverend Reeb was a man who had come to Selma from the north to support the civil rights march. Private individuals attacked him outside a restaurant in Selma one evening and beat the man to death. Viola Liuozzo was another person who had come from the north to support the march. She was murdered by a car load of Ku Klux Klansmen who drove alongside her car and riddled it with bullets. Than, there were all the marchers whom the police beat with clubs, soaked with fire hoses, and rode down with horses because they dared protest for the right to vote.
Wallace never set foot in Selma to the best of my knowledge. Yet, he played a key part in what happened there. He did two things that were essentially unforgiveable:
1. He failed to exercise leadership and tell other officials in Alabama that whether they liked it or not they had to accept the fact that minorities were entitled to human rights like every other group and they needed to obey the law.
2. Wallace went a step further. By making statements like "segregation forever", Wallace played a role in causing others to act violently against civil rights protesters.
I do recognize that as he got older, Wallace changed. Perhaps, it was the civil rights laws. Perhaps, it was being shot and paralyzed. He did behave differently in the last part of his life. Its not enough though to undo the harm that he did. Alabama needed real leadership back in the 1960's and it didn't get it from Wallace.
Whatever MLK did was a private matter between himself and the adult women he was involved in. Honestly, to even bring this up in this context is disgraceful. Whether you mean to or not, you suggest a sort of "moral equivalence" between King and those who violently opposed his march in Selma. No such moral equivalence exists. King was an imperfect man attempting to lead a movement for social justice. Wallace and his cronies fought to keep an entire race of people disenfranchised and from enjoying equal rights under the law.
George Wallace had a talent for speaking as most demagogues do. It does not change the fact that he will occupy a low and a mean place in history. He did it to himself.
MarkG, my rebuttal to your rebuttal. Wallace had to give the impression that he was fighting the policies being forced upon the south by Washington DC. Had he not done that, they would have voted him out and replaced him, perhaps with someone more rigid. Wallace bridged the gap between the old south and the new south, he provided leadership thru it all, and when he changed his positions, many southern whites also changed positions and accepted the new way of doing things. It takes time, but given the prevailing attitudes of the time, it's no small wonder that sometimes he was not in complete control of the situation. Wallace said in his Larry King interview, concerning Selma, that he did not order the violence done to demonstrators, that his orders were disobeyed and the violence was done without his approval, and that he was angry about it. If you watch the 1965 Meet the Press video from the governor's office, he explains very well that demonstrations were being suppressed by even more violent means in many other northern cities. I think he made a good point in that argument, one that seems to have been lost.
Also I would like to add, Wallace paved the way for new liberal governors in other southern states to rise to power, such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Wallace bridged the gap, he had the clout and respect from the people of the south to get things done, while still preserving as much of the old as could be tolerated. He sure looked a lot better than Lester Maddox (Georgia governor 1968) that rode his bicycle backwards on national TV and closed his chicken restaurant because of integration.
The problem I have with MLK, he was reverend of the church. The things he did to those women in his hotel room make Bill Clinton look good. He beat some of them very badly and even if they were prostitutes, that does not matter, he was a reverend. I do not like Jimmy Swaggart either, for the same reasoning. A minister of the church should never get away with that crap and carry on like business as usual. They should be shunned and disgraced, when they get caught doing things like that, and lose influence. He also cheated on his college thesis, copied his I have a dream speech from some other civil rights leader, and led us to believe it was his own words. I don't like him and you can't make me like him, na na na na, na na na.
I was not trying to elevate Agnew to the level of Reagan or Patton in achievement, but I do admire his speaking ability/delivery. Can you imagine GW Bush trying to deliver that nattering nabobs speech by William Safire? What kind of butchery would that be? Agnew was smooth, he had speaking engagements booked up for 6 months, right before the bribe taking allegations came out in summer of '73, soon it was all over for him. He got what he deserved and there was nothing Nixon could have done to save him.
I am going to rep the post if I can, even though I am not 100% in agreement. I willanalyze further before responding.
Plust I'm tired from a hard tw sets of singles in the Floridian-level heat in New York today.
This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
I became interested in history as a kid because of our next door neighbor. She was the widow of a Missouri senator from the 1930s and 1940s. Her house was filled with memorbilia from her husband's political career. I vividly remember the photo she showed me one day of her husband with Churchill and Harry Truman. It was probabably taken 1946 when Churchill came to Missouri to deliver the Iron Curtain Speech.
For us, the English, Winston Churchill for sure. This man, and his speeches galvanized the population in the darkest days of the war.
This first speech was after the bitter withdrawal at Dunkirk in 1940, and it seemed the next step of the Germans, after defeating France, would be an invasion of Britain.........
I think JFK had some of the best speeches. Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. Sadly enough it seems to have fallen on deaf ears these days.
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.
