I actually think Washington is underrated. I don't think what he did (and what he chose not to do) can be overstated. Particularly given the history of "conquering revolutionary generals." Literally, all of it was in his hands. There is little to no question that he could have been given some title of nobility, because the country, including many of the others we'd call Founding Fathers, were gladly willing to cede it to him.
He...more or less did. Sure, he didn't win battles. But who cares about winning battles if you don't win the war. You can certainly compare him to another Virginian general who became the symbol of another rebellion eighty years after the Revolution ended. Lee won battles, but had no idea how to actually win a war and heedlessly spent his extremely limited resources pursuing some decisive battle which was never going to turn aside the North. Washington did, which meant that he kept his reserves and the men alive and inspired, which in a guerilla war is the overwhelming priority.
While I agree with much of what you say...you do know when you say things like "this White People on an entire continent" you do realize what year you are talking about, right. I thought it was only 13 States. We hadn't even found gold, yet....or Russian Women? We didn't luck out with getting 50 rich White Guys in the room together who were honest and sincere (like Vatican City or sumpin) We "lucked" out because our best General was also a cool dude. That is what is rare...make no mistake. A guy who bloodies his feet and is cool, later, when talking to all the power in the "Continent" who wants to corrupt him.
really...one of the greatest things? Vital to growth in 1804? Did TJ tell you that? Of course he did...and dozens of our Fore Fathers disagreed with him. So, he was just a Maverick...right? Is that how you are rewriting history...or did the rich dude go against the advice of Congress for economic and Political gain. Now, what? You are going to call me a conspiracy theorist. fine. But then answer my questions....Saying the LP is the one of the countries best achievements...Is that like after buying Manhattan and after the Constitution and before the War of 1812 that was caused by the LP not being permanent? greatest things. Let me ask you... Even after all the great things that won the Revolutionary War. Name me your 5 greatest US accomplishments. And please try to include the stupid, unnecessary $200m purchase of New Orleans on your list.
So, I didn't actually write or even insinuate the gobbledygook you put in quotes, and I've already acknowledged Washington was a great President because his modesty and self-restraint as a winning general prevented a dynastic monarchy. Really not sure how the "luck" paragraphs 2 and 3 are mutually or even marginally exclusive.
Holy crap, you're worked up over this. Not sure I've ever seen anyone get so riled up talking about the Louisiana Purchase...at least not since the 19th century.
lols. Nah, I'm worked up over people using the LP to say TJ was great! And that is not even my reason for saying he is overrated. I'll shut up, now. Cheers!
I'm not sure how it would prove your point, but here goes: 1) Number 19 2) Sherman Anti-Trust Act 3) Panama Canal 4) Marshall Plan 5) Warren Court Rulings on Criminal, Minority Civil Rights and Freaking Birth Control for Christ's Sake
Reminds me of a Jim Gaffigan joke about telling his friends he just saw Heat. "But I wanna talk about it now..."
You realize the Dutch bought manhattan, right? The war of 1812 had many causes including Britain attempting to restrict our trade and forcing our sailors into service. You still havent even expressed a reason why the LP wasnt a great move. You might try a little history channel for the basics. Too many to name but we can start with landing on the moon, jazz, Silicon Valley, the cheeseburger and Hong Kong Phooey. Oh, and the Internet (don't want to forget that). Good luck, HP
Please tell me how the nation of the U.S. could have expanded and grew even close to the rate at which they did without the LP?
HayesStreet and FranchiseBlade What is your obsession with the LP. Is that your only claim to say TJ rocked? I honestly think you are stunned that someone could say TJ Sucked. And you don't know how to deal with so retreat to the Louisiana purchase. So that's your only argument. Well then tell me how Napoleon funded wars, b****es And btw any top five list of US achievements that doesn't include the ramones and BCBG is not reputable
Well, I listed one example. There are tons of other things that Jefferson imparted on the U.S. that were worthwhile including the certain founding documents which have already been mentioned, his forward thinking philosophy on governing etc. Why does how Napoleon funded his wars make Jefferson over rated? I don't really care if anyone says that TJ sucked. I just thought if someone said that in a debate and discussion forum they would want discussion about it. I agree with you about the Ramones by the way.
Uh, I think you're ignoring some posts where all sorts of things besides the LP were referenced. And yes, saying TJ "sucked" is surprising since it's laughable. You say he sucked, your wisp of an arg is crushed, you move on to some other half claim. The LP wasn't a retreat, it was an empirical example of how he helped the country. You still haven't given a reason it wasn't great for the US. YOU are retreating now to LP funded Napolean's wars, lol, which has nothing to do with the evaluation over what TJ did for the US! Nice try. Further, I haven't seen anything to indicate Napolean's reign was negative, so you don't even have an impact.
"Philosophy on governing" We are talking about "Philosophy" "Philosophy" There is no way in hell TJ could defend GW on the court. "We are talking about Philosophy" TJ never brought what he said to the court. He was never a goto man like GW. I didn't say it made TJ overrated,,,I'm discussing the Louisiana Purchase. Does anyone want to field this question for me... TJ sucked because he was a wealthy liar. You say he was a wealthy patriot. I can't scan documents to show you want he said before he flipped flopped, but trust me...dude did. If I told you an awesome story about Joey Ramone, would you believe me?
He sucked because he wrote one thing and did another. He sucked because he could have stopped the growth of Govt. He sucked because he tried to institute a banking system that got crushed 10 yrs later...because it was wrong for a rich man like him to have govt control over banks. Says you. The LP was extremely expensive and most of Congress was against it. We didn't need it. We still had to go to war to keep NoLa. It achieved nothing that we would have otherwise achieved in the same amount of time. TJ could have been right or wrong...but it is by no means a glorious success. So, stop talking about the LP Actually I'm explaining history to you and why the LP happened. For you to say Napolean didn't need the money and didn't go to TJ first with the proposal is silly. What? I mean, really...you think the LP happened as some idea in TJ's mind, like it was a election platform initiative for him. lols
So did Washington. That assumes government growth is bad. Keep throwing **** against the wall and see what sticks. Each time you get trounced and throw out a new stab for your point. Learn us on what exactly your position is that TJ and why it was bad. That most of Congress was against it proves nothing and is a classic fallacy. Says you 1812 happened for New Orleans or that it was bad or that what - achieved anyway? That doesn't even make sense. You can have your opinion but you're going to be pretty lonely. Not sure why your wasting our time with straw men. Never said anything about Napoleon not needing the money. Point it out please. You insinuated giving him the funding was bad. I said that was an assertion made with no rationale. This isn't difficult.
