|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jul 29, 2021 13:29:21 GMT
1. John Marston is right about Napoleon and Alexander I, and wrong about Pitt, who can be considered to be a statesman (although not a general) above Napoleon's caliber. 2. Alexander Hamilton played no significant Military role in the battle of Yorktown, and was all around a despotic-minded federal government supporting idiot who had no idea how economics work. |
|
|
|
Post by Emilio Mola on Jul 29, 2021 13:35:29 GMT
1. John Marston is right about Napoleon and Alexander I, and wrong about Pitt, who can be considered to be a statesman (although not a general) above Napoleon's caliber. 2. Alexander Hamilton played no significant Military role in the battle of Yorktown, and was all around a despotic-minded federal government supporting idiot who had no idea how economics work. Alexander Hamilton is hated all over erstwhile Confederacy and states having sympathies for it because they think it was supposedly fighting for states' rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jul 29, 2021 13:59:37 GMT
1. John Marston is right about Napoleon and Alexander I, and wrong about Pitt, who can be considered to be a statesman (although not a general) above Napoleon's caliber. 2. Alexander Hamilton played no significant Military role in the battle of Yorktown, and was all around a despotic-minded federal government supporting idiot who had no idea how economics work. Alexander Hamilton is hated all over erstwhile Confederacy and states having sympathies for it because they think it was supposedly fighting for states' rights. Pardon? His policies, in restricting trade, made many things much more expensive. |
|
|
|
Post by Emilio Mola on Jul 29, 2021 14:02:33 GMT
Alexander Hamilton is hated all over erstwhile Confederacy and states having sympathies for it because they think it was supposedly fighting for states' rights. Pardon? His policies, in restricting trade, made many things much more expensive. Restricting trade? No, he did not |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jul 29, 2021 14:03:43 GMT
Pardon? His policies, in restricting trade, made many things much more expensive. Restricting trade? No, he did not I remember him as creating a national bank and introducing tariffs. |
|
|
|
Post by Emilio Mola on Jul 29, 2021 14:05:50 GMT
Restricting trade? No, he did not I remember him as creating a national bank and introducing tariffs. So that government could have a source of income, since directly taxing people was not an option. He was second the greatest American ever to live just after Jesus Christ. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jul 29, 2021 14:10:31 GMT
I remember him as creating a national bank and introducing tariffs. So that government could have a source of income, since directly taxing people was not an option. Why did the federal government need money? (joke about inefficiency). And in any case, it did raise prices for the vast majority of Americans. |
|
|
|
Post by Emilio Mola on Jul 29, 2021 14:13:50 GMT
So that government could have a source of income, since directly taxing people was not an option. Why did the federal government need money? (joke about inefficiency). And in any case, it did raise prices for the vast majority of Americans. To prevent United States from falling apart and it would have been an invitation to British to invade and hang your god Jefferson. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jul 29, 2021 14:19:32 GMT
Why did the federal government need money? (joke about inefficiency). And in any case, it did raise prices for the vast majority of Americans. To prevent United States from falling apart and it would have been an invitation to British to invade and hang your god Jefferson. 1. The states funded the government entirely under the Articles of Confederation. 2. I despise Jefferson. He was both a politician as well as a huge proponent of Governmental power, and was a Constitutionalist. |
|
|
|
Post by Emilio Mola on Jul 29, 2021 14:21:57 GMT
To prevent United States from falling apart and it would have been an invitation to British to invade and hang your god Jefferson. 1. The states funded the government entirely under the Articles of Confederation. 2. I despise Jefferson. He was both a politician as well as a huge proponent of Governmental power, and was a Constitutionalist. 1. They were supposed to fund, but they barely funded. 2. Jefferson was a southerner and anti-federalist. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jul 29, 2021 14:25:13 GMT
1. The states funded the government entirely under the Articles of Confederation. 2. I despise Jefferson. He was both a politician as well as a huge proponent of Governmental power, and was a Constitutionalist. 1. They were supposed to fund, but they barely funded. 2. Jefferson was a southerner and anti-federalist. 1. There's a reason for that. 2. I understand the first, but the second is new to me. I thought he started as an Anti-Federalist, but turned and converted the Anti-Federalists from the inside. |
|
|
|
Post by Emilio Mola on Jul 29, 2021 14:31:25 GMT
1. They were supposed to fund, but they barely funded. 2. Jefferson was a southerner and anti-federalist. 1. There's a reason for that. 2. I understand the first, but the second is new to me. I thought he started as an Anti-Federalist, but turned and converted the Anti-Federalists from the inside. 1. Other than Virginia (partially because they have more slaves), everyone else's economic situation very bad, it was impossible for them to fund the government, and tarrifs were the most reasonable thing in that situation. 2. Conspiracy theory |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 14:36:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Emilio Mola on Jul 29, 2021 14:55:09 GMT
Then who was more good or less evil between them. There is no good or evil in warfare, only people. Considering the ideology of the sides, I am a strong supporter of decentralized government and the right to secession, but I (obviously) do not condone forced Slavery. If you can quit from slavery, I would say it is morally questionable, but not wrong. I think the North under Lincoln meant well, but they had no right to invade the South. If you bring up Ft. Sumter, I can testify that it was a state held base in which the Union troops were given plenty of Warnings to leave. I believe slavery would have fizzled out within time, and it (arguably) was not worth 1.5 million casualties and 620,000 deaths, many of those African American. TBH, the North didn't do much better on the Slavery question, not trying to free slaves, and trying to send free blacks to Africa. However, I applaud the Union troops who gave their lives for a united Union, although I think they are entirely mistaken. Fort Sumter was a federal property. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jul 29, 2021 15:39:56 GMT
There is no good or evil in warfare, only people. Considering the ideology of the sides, I am a strong supporter of decentralized government and the right to secession, but I (obviously) do not condone forced Slavery. If you can quit from slavery, I would say it is morally questionable, but not wrong. I think the North under Lincoln meant well, but they had no right to invade the South. If you bring up Ft. Sumter, I can testify that it was a state held base in which the Union troops were given plenty of Warnings to leave. I believe slavery would have fizzled out within time, and it (arguably) was not worth 1.5 million casualties and 620,000 deaths, many of those African American. TBH, the North didn't do much better on the Slavery question, not trying to free slaves, and trying to send free blacks to Africa. However, I applaud the Union troops who gave their lives for a united Union, although I think they are entirely mistaken. Fort Sumter was a federal property. But it was state-held.  |
|
