Bottom line, Grant picked bad advisers, and reconstruction was ripe for scandals with the amount of land changing hands from public to private lands in the form of grants, the spoils system, and the continuing emergence of the railroad. That being said he faced down the KKK and the Red Shirts enforced voting rights and did many beneficial things for African Americans and was beloved by that population for years to come. Was he perfect? No. But to portray him as simply a lush is the result of historians that want to whitewash southern history and therefore portray reconstruction as some evil plot.

Grant's Indian policy was a whole lot more benevolent than most Presidents. Appointed Ely Parker, stopped the Indian wars, tried to prevent encroachment on Indian lands, provided humanitarian aid, etc.

Grant also dismantled the KKK.

Ful- What are you trying to say? That article is talking about a period before Grant became president.

Reconstruction for the Indians was justified by punishing from their ''support'' of the confederacy (indeed the treaties themselves actually say this). What is clear to me is that, in view of the history of the previous 50 odd years, the Indians had every reason to oppose the federal government. Indeed the reconstruction treaties pushed even more Indians into a smaller and smaller areas. A further key driver of the post-civil war treatment of the Indians was the releasing of land for the building of the trans-continental railroad.

Grant's ''benevolence'' towards the Indians should be viewed in the context of him believing in the ''civilising'' of the tribes. This was to be achieved through Quaker and Episcopalian good offices.

http://mdenney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=attorneys&action=print&thread=913

Of course it is quite understandable that the Indians didn't quite view this mission in the same light,

The Indian tribes weren't united on which side to support (in fact most supported the Union). The slaveowning tribes supported the Confederacy. If you judge the "previous 50 years" as the excuse for supporting the Slaver Empire, then you have to look at the fact that violent Indian removal took place in the South (especially in Texas), by those very same "gentlemen" were now the "allies" of the five civilized tribes.

"Reconstruction for the Indians was justified by punishing from their ''support'' of the confederacy (indeed the treaties themselves actually say this). What is clear to me is that, in view of the history of the previous 50 odd years, the Indians had every reason to oppose the federal government. Indeed the reconstruction treaties pushed even more Indians into a smaller and smaller areas. A further key driver of the post-civil war treatment of the Indians was the releasing of land for the building of the trans-continental railroad."

Too bad everything you have mentioned occurred in the Johnson Administration, what are you going on about?

Yes well civilising and providing aid is a whole lot better than exterminating.

Question: Do you think a Confederate victory would have been good for African-Americans? Do you think the enforcement of Reconstruction was bad for African-Americans?

I honestly think the anti-imnperialism, anti-Polk sentiment is being a bit too high up on your horse there...

Again--

If we're going to call Polk reprehensible for fighting an imperialist war in an imperialist age, should we blast Washington and Jefferson off Rushmore for their slave holding?

For that matter, should we scorn the likes of Alexander, Caesar, and every single last empire builder ever?

Seems to me we're going to have to give up quite a bit of land--like, all of it--here in the West if we allow that...

As for it being a "war for slavery," I also think that's short-sighted.

Did those in favor of the war want Texas as a slave state?
Yes.
Was slave/free part of the American political scene at this time?
Yes.
How many American wars have been fought for political reasons?
...All of them...
Did we get a slave AND a free state out of it?
Yes.
Was the tension already there for Polk thanks to the Founders not settling the matter?
Yes.

Hindsight's a bitch.

It also gives an illusory high ground.

Polk was just a product of his time doing what Presidents and Western leaders did then--build empires and, in the US, expand slave and free territory to gain political favor.

Unless you're prepared to give California and Texas BACK...I think you can cut Polk a bit of slack for doing what he did given when he did it and the fact that, again, he didn't committ an atrocity such as the Trail of Tears or, to strike back at one of my heroes for his one big, horrible mistake, the Japanese-American Internment Camps during WWII.

SOMEHOW we're able to look past the Camps, most of us, and say, "It was wrong...but it was a different time, and the majority of what FDR did was good."

I'd argue the same goes for Polk.



As for Carter being underrated...

Meh.

I've never really ranked him or seen him ranked as one of the Bottom 10 worst Presidents...he's usually somewhere in the middle, higher or lower in the middle, maybe but still generally in a very "meh" sort of company...

I don't hold anything really against him, and I think he was good for the four years he was chosen...as far as his performance, I think he might have had good intentions and ideas, and even carried out one or two of them, but I see him as being an unspectacular leader, whereas his work as a humanitarian HAS been spectacular, so I think that's where his true calling and credit should lie.

"Question: Do you think a Confederate victory would have been good for African-Americans? Do you think the enforcement of Reconstruction was bad for African-Americans?"

No and no, Putin...

But I'm sorry--

FDR, Reagan, JFK, MLK...

PLENTY of leaders more worthy of being on the $50 than Grant, who was a good people person and general, but a poor president.

FDR also deliberately made Social Security not apply to quite a few blacks in order to get it past the "Southern Veto." So it's not like he's spotless in his civil rights stuff either.

Right, winning Texas for slavery and stealing a huge portion of Mexico is all-good, because you live in California. Atrocities are only bad if you don't benefit from them. You complain about hindsight but you're using it to absolve Polk of any responsibility You use hindsight to say that civil war was inevitable so Polk should not be blamed for intensifying the sectional problems and causing domestic turmoil. You absolve Polk for expanding slave territory because a compromise was reached in 1850 after Polk had left office which admitted California as a free state, for Polk wanted to extend the Missouri line to the pacific coast.

Polk should not be given credit for "getting Texas" because Texas was already independent from Mexico and wanted to be annexed to the US. It could have been annexed when the Texans gave up their slavery and with Mexican consent. Polk used an unstable situation in Mexico to engage in a naked land grab for slavery. You use hindsight to say that only through ruthless conquest could the US get California. But why would that necessarily be true?

You judge leaders by what the alternatives were and what the context was. There were lots of prominent voices opposed to aggression vs Mexico, including the very Andrew Jackson you continue to complain about. Not to mention Lincoln, Adams and Clay.

That question was for Fulham.

And Reagan more worthy than Grant? Give me a break. As Santa said, Grant died a beloved man, with his massive tomb in NYC a monument to that fact.

Regarding Santa's revisionist views on the presidency of Grant I have some sympathy. He has obviously received the blame for some of the excesses of his age for which he was not directly culpable. And yet that Babcock guy, whose neck he saved, seems a very nasty character and the stitch up over the presidential and congressional salaries stank to high heaven.

Regarding the Indian treatment by the federal government and the slave holding interests that arch federalist Jackson (nullification) became a states rights man over the ETHNIC CLEANSING of the native peoples (support for Georgia). I think that this is probably six of one and half a dozen of the other. It must be remembered however that the succession of broken treaties were signed with the federal government. To the Indians they must have seemed as though that government and its representatives were the enemy in chief.

On Santa's point about Grant's relatively benevolent attitude to the Indians let's also remember the date of the great Soux War (Battle of the Little Big Horn) was 1876 and that Grant's presidency dated from 1869-1876. I think that the campaign was principally the result of mineral discoveries in the land seeded to the Indians by The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Fort_Laramie_%281868%2). I wonder what the President Grant had to say about this. In my view Grant may have talked the talk, but the bottom line must be that he actually achieved very little on this specific issue.

1869-1876 should obviously be 1869-1877.

I'm glad you speak the numerous Indian tribes that supported the Union.

Are you going to bother to answer my question? Or just engage in your usual attacks against anyone and everyone who did anything for blacks in the 1800s?

from Putin ''The Indian tribes weren't united on which side to support (in fact most supported the Union).'' This statement of fact requires a citation.

The irony of the post-war reconstuctionist treaties which punished them for their support of the confederacy should not be missed by any reader.

Hard to say Santa's views are 'revisionist' when Grant was lauded by people like TR as one of the three greatest Presidents. The revisionists were the southern historians who spent 50+ years attacking Grant with vicious smears and slanders, like they've done with virtually everybody from that era.

''Or just engage in your usual attacks against anyone and everyone who did anything for blacks in the 1800s?''

Putin why the ad hominum over and over again? Does it really achieve anything?

I'll say it again, Putin...

Unles you're prepared to give up all the land your evil, imperialistic leaders in the past stole from indigineous tribes...

Get off your high horse about Polk and imperialism.

You've benefited just as much as I have, the only difference is you're an apologist, whereas, frankly, I won't insult the past by being an apologist...

I highly doubt those dead Mexican and American soldiers in the war REALLY care if I apologize for not being ashamed of living on conquered land or not...

On Santa's point about Grant's relatively benevolent attitude to the Indians let's also remember the date of the great Soux War (Battle of the Little Big Horn) was 1876 and that Grant's presidency dated from 1869-1876. I think that the campaign was principally the result of mineral discoveries in the land seeded to the Indians by The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Fort_Laramie_%281868%2). I wonder what the President Grant had to say about this. In my view Grant may have talked the talk, but the bottom line must be that he actually achieved very little on this specific issue."

1. This is not a revisionist view, it is understood by historians.

2. I never said anything about Grant and Native Americans, I dont know enough to seriously argue though I am pretty sure he was much better than other presidents of the era in that aspect

3. Grant, like many other administrators preciding over westward expansion, tried to stem the tide of settlers spilling into Native American Lands often with forced evictions. Like every other administrator that attempted that, however, it failed because of the sympathetic support those settlers were able to demand in public discourse. So eventually Grant was forced to protect settlers on Indian land in the Black Hills. You can call it a land grab if you want, it didn't play out that way though

2.

Santa by revisionist I meant the following:

''the critical re-examination of presumed historical facts and existing historiography''

The widely held narrative that the Grant presidency was defined by his corruption was what I understood that you were challenging, perhaps I had this wrong?

http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Delaware_Warriors_Union.pdf

The Indian Home Guards were made up of loyal Seminoles, Creeks, and Cherokees (after the latter deserted the rebels). In addition numerous other tribes such as the Kickapoo, Osage, Shawnee, Seneca, but particularly the Delaware, made up the Indian Home Guard units. The Apache fought the rebels in Arizona as well.

yes, but that view has been largely overthrown since the 70's, current historians normally do not characterize the Grant administration as a drunk president presiding over corrupt advisers as they did in the early 20th century, much like the Radical Republicans arn't portrayed as a group of hell bent tyrants

"Putin why the ad hominum over and over again? Does it really achieve anything?"

Why can't you bother to answer a simple question? It's not ad hominem to point out your habit of attacking anti-slavery forces and sympathizing with the Confederates.

"Get off your high horse about Polk and imperialism."

That's all you have? You've ignored numerous points and simply repeat that I'm on my "high horse" about imperialism. No, I'm pointing out that Polk's Mexican war was by no means a universally popular one, and that many people spoke out against it, and that there were alternatives to the course he took, and that his decisions did much to unravel the Union. But all of that is ignored simply because Polk got California. It didn't matter if there were other ways it could have been acquired, all that matters is that he took it.

"I highly doubt those dead Mexican and American soldiers in the war REALLY care if I apologize for not being ashamed of living on conquered land or not..."

No but the Chicano people and people of Mexico sure do.

Putin another of your excellent citations, thank you so much. May I use this to support my argument about the treatment of the ''civilised'' tribes and extend it to the Delaware?

''By the end of the war, Interior Department officials were, as the Indians had long expected, advocating removal of the Delawares from Kansas. In two treaties, signed in 1866 and 1867, tribal leaders agreed to sell their lands in Kansas and move to the Cherokee Nation, purchasing Cherokee citizenship rights. Kansas and Washington politicians, traders, and railroad officials profited greatly from the deal. John C.Frémont, friend of the Delawares and now a railroad magnate, was one of the profiteers.''

More to the point I did not ask for a citation to support the fact that some Indians fought for the Union, but rather your statement that the majority did. This is what I asked you to support and this is what you have so far markedly failed to do.

I knew you were going to harp on anything bad said about the Union in that article. It must blow your mind that I don't provide you endless propaganda like you do all the time whenever you "cite" anything. I haven't markedly failed to do anything. Only five tribes fought for the Confederacy in any capacity. I named more tribes than that which supported the Union. You, as usual, can't be bothered to answer a question I've asked you multiple times. Why is that?

You never answer anything. You play these silly little games and endlessly whine about "ad hominems" and engage in non sequiturs without answering a single argument.

It is really strange that I should be accused of supporting the Confederates and be anti-Black in view of my strongly stated opinion, in a related thread, that this piece by Huxley, written in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War was evil racism - http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/23119/
I have formally quoted it in full, but here is a selection -
''It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites.''

What sought of twisting of the facts is this, particularly when I was told by Putin that this essay was not racist? Perhaps Huxley was just a ''man of his time'' like Lincoln? -
"While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet, as the question was asked me, I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, or intermarry with the white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.''
http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/the-writings-of-abraham-lincoln-05/ebook-page-14.asp