North America Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

[Bomberboyokay]

Jefferson Davis: The Confederacy’s first, worst and only president

By Avi Selk May 11

When the city of New Orleans had a century-old memorial to Jefferson Davis torn down before daybreak Thursday, a crowd of the Confederate leader’s sympathizers stood by, chanting: “President Davis! President Davis!”

A man adorned with rebel flags buried his face in his hand as the statue of Davis, the man who stands for the South’s lost cause, was hauled away by crane and truck.

Presumably, empathizers will also stand vigil if New Orleans carries out its threat to remove the city’s other rebel monuments — one of them a statue of one of his generals, P.G.T. Beauregard.

But do those who honor Davis know that this general despised him? “If he were to die to-day, the whole country would rejoice at it,” Beauregard once wrote, when the Confederate States existed.

In fact, Davis was loathed by much of his military, Congress and public — even before the Confederacy died on his watch.

Since then, several historians have made a case that, regardless of whether Davis was a hero or a traitor, he was a lousy president.

“You will see many errors to forgive, many deficiencies to tolerate, but you shall not find in me either a want of zeal or fidelity to the cause,” Davis told the Confederate Congress in his inaugural speech in 1861 — a rush job, apparently.

He had resigned from the U.S. Senate a few weeks earlier with a rousing defense of slavery, and was selected to lead the new Confederacy. But Davis had waited until the day before his inauguration to start writing his address — “like a feckless college student with a term paper deadline looming,” as author Adam Goodheart noted in the New York Times.

Davis’s “many deficiencies” had in fact been apparent long before his political rise, William C. Davis writes in his book, “Jefferson Davis: The Man and His Hour.”

The author calls Davis’s early career “a classic portrait of insecurity, of a man almost wandering through life allowing others to make his decisions for him.”

He had, for example, “categorically rejected the notion of running for governor, got a Senate seat, then four years later resigned it to run for the governorship,” William C. Davis writes. “And through all of his political career, down to his swearing in as president of the Confederacy, he maintained that he took office against his wishes.”

Expecting a war that would, in fact, break out within weeks of his inauguration, Davis began the job with bold ambitions, according to the author.

He tried to make alliances with England and France, who he hoped would send money, ships and troops to fight the Union army.

In fact, no European country would recognize the Confederacy, and Davis would have trouble enough rallying his own people behind him.

“A man who would not relax into informality with his own wife at the table could hardly be the ‘man of the people’ that nineteenth-century Southerners needed to inspire their loyalty and enthusiasm,” William C. Davis writes.

Take, for example, Beauregard, the Louisiana general whose monument in New Orleans is slated to be torn down after Davis’s.

He was one of several generals who wanted to launch a massive assault on the North, according to a New York Times review of “The Man and His Hour” — advice rejected by the president, who concentrated on defending the Confederacy’s long frontier.

After much conflict between the two men, Davis eventually relieved Beauregard of command and replaced him with a friendly general, James M. McPherson writes in “Embattled Rebel: Jefferson Davis as Commander in Chief.” But Davis eventually had to reinstate his rival “because of the general’s popularity among segments of the press and public.”

“He did not practice the skillful politician’s art of telling others what they wanted to hear,” McPherson writes of Davis. “He did not hesitate to criticize others but was often thin-skinned about their criticisms of him.”

Beauregard’s criticism of the president was expressed in private, as quoted in the book: Davis was a “living specimen of gall & hatred,” the general once said. “… either demented or a traitor to his high trust.”

Davis also feuded with Confederate Gen. Joe Johnston, whom he publicly blamed for the fall of Vicksburg, a key Confederate stronghold, in 1863.

But Johnston was popular with the troops. An aide to Davis once returned from a military inspection, McPherson writes, and told the president “that every honest man he saw out west thought well of Joe Johnston … [whose] hatred of Jeff Davis amounts to a religion.”

This criticism was not universal throughout the Confederacy, McPherson notes in his book — which argues that Davis was more competent and gracious than other historians have portrayed him.

Davis maintained a close partnership with Gen. Robert E. Lee, for example, and could count on at least one newspaper in the rebel capital of Richmond to publish leaks against his enemies.

But other Southern journalists were openly hostile to Davis, McPherson writes. The editor of the Richmond Examiner, for example, once wrote that the president “has alienated the hearts of the people by his stubborn follies” and “chronic hallucinations that he is a great military genius.”

As military defeats mounted and inflation spiraled, the end of Davis’s presidency became a cascade of humiliations and traumas.

In 1864, Davis buried his young son, who had fallen off a balcony at the Confederate White House.

A day later, the president had to deliver a speech to Congress on the state of the Confederacy.

“Every avenue of negotiation is closed against us,” Davis told the rebel members. “… Our enemy is making renewed and strenuous efforts for our destruction.”

It was a very brief speech — and not a pleasant one.

About a year later, Davis would give his wife nearly all his gold — keeping just $5 for himself — and tell her to pay or bribe her way to safety with their children, James L. Swanson writes in “Bloody Crimes: The Funeral of Abraham Lincoln and the Chase for Jefferson Davis.”

The Union Army was about to march on Richmond.

“Many who saw me walking toward my residence left their houses to inquire whether the report was true,” Davis later recalled of his last day as president.

“They all, the ladies especially, with generous sympathy and patriotic impulse responded, ‘If the success of the cause requires you to give up Richmond, we are content.’ ”

Davis escaped by train with the remnants of his government in April 1865 — hours before Richmond fell.

The Confederate capital had already been ravaged by hunger riots, Swanson writes. The president’s troops accidentally set fire to it after he had fled.

With a bounty on his head, the president-in-exile was pursued across the collapsing South for more than a month and was finally captured by Union troops in Georgia.

His reputation had been shaky when he had a rebellion behind him. Now that he did not, it went into free fall.

A false rumor that Davis had been captured in his wife’s clothing inspired gross caricatures across the once-again-United States. “Ingenious photographers doctored images of Davis by adding a skirt and bonnet,” Swanson writes.

He was thrown in prison for two years, where his jailers refused to call him president — preferring “Jeffy” or “the rebel chieftain,” according to Swanson’s book.

He was shackled, insulted and deprived of sleep, Swanson writes. “Hate mail poured in to the Confederate president, taunting him about the terrible doom that must await him.”

That doom did not turn out to be execution, as had been threatened, but rather his release into what Swanson calls “a shocking predicament for a member of the elite, planter class.”

Jefferson Davis had to find a job.

It took years, Swanson writes, but he finally became president again — of a life insurance company that soon went bankrupt.

And yet, before his death in 1889, Davis would partially repair his reputation by discovering what Swanson calls “the true purpose of his remaining days — remembering and honoring the dead.”

In other words, Confederate memorials.

After the war, Swanson writes, “the idea of a vast army of the departed who haunted the Southern landscape and memory swept the popular imagination.”

Confederate empathizers “labored to recover the dead from anonymous wartime graves, to build cemeteries for them and to mark the land where they shed their blood with monuments of stone, marble, and bronze.”

Davis latched onto this movement with a eulogy for Robert E. Lee in 1870, Swanson writes — but later became “the titular head of a shadow government, no longer leading a country, but leading a patriotic cause devoted to preserving the past.”

And that’s how Davis got his own memorial in New Orleans in 1911 — and a sympathetic vigil when it fell before dawn Thursday, a century and a half after his presidency failed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-confederacys-first-worst-and-only-president/

 

[Proud SJW]

I don't particularly like this.
I know it happened, and I know the statues of Lee and Beauregard were indeed taken down as well, not long after. But whether or not one could call it a "good thing" is debatable.

To me, it seems there are many similarities between it, and the thread on Cook.
Is the best way to deal with some aspects of history, including those aspects which could highlight how we have changed, as well as what we believe now... to pretend the past never existed, other than in the pages of a book? Or, to be more synonymous with the current era... has history become nothing more than a wiki article read only by those who care enough to look for it?

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

History is written by the winners. Churchill himself said that there is no such thing as public opinion, only published opinion.

The man who said democracy is not a democracy unless its citizens are informed relied on slander to send America and the world in to world war two.

North versus South is like stalin versus hitler. All Monuments of the players from the North need to be pulled down as well.

The North was the financial district the South was the resource District. People don't know that when oil was found in texas the army invaded and took it off the little people.

 

[Proud SJW]

History is written by the winners. Churchill himself said that there is no such thing as public opinion, only published opinion.

The man who said democracy is not a democracy unless its citizens are informed relied on slander to send America and the world in to world war two.

North versus South is like stalin versus hitler. All Monuments of the players from the North need to be pulled down as well.

The North was the financial district the South was the resource District. People don't know that when oil was found in texas the army invaded and took it off the little people.

I would (hesitatingly) agree with most of that. The Civil war was far more complicated than a simple argument over slavery, and many confederates viewed the war as more a second war of independence rather than a civil war.

Robert E. Lee himself was a complicated man. In the excerpt below (a letter written to his wife in 1858 - three years prior to the civil war), he both acknowledges slavery as an evil, and exposes a belief in white superiority at the same time... although whether he believed that a natural state or simply a matter of "civilisation" is unclear.

"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things."

What is clear that he did not believe slavery to be an morally or politically advantageous institution.
Yet he refused an offer to take command of the Federal armies and became a Confederate rebel instead. This speaks to a state of mind among Southerners of a far greater complexity, in many cases, than any potential abolition of slavery.

A man that complicated, and standing as he is an example of the complexity of the American Civil War, does not deserve to have the kind of disrespect that tearing his statue down implies.

And yes, I am aware of the "Lost Cause" arguments and how they are viewed as fallacy. I'm not sure I completely agree with that assessment.

But that's Lee. With regard to Davis, I think it's far more difficult to know who he really was.
The press of the time were not as restrained as those of today, and if the North's press releases regarding Lincoln were any indication, the vitriol directed toward Davis may have been simple fabrication as often as not.

 

[pugsville]

The man who said democracy is not a democracy unless its citizens are informed relied on slander to send America and the world in to world war two.
.

Care to explain this statement?

 

[pugsville]

I would (hesitatingly) agree with most of that. The Civil war was far more complicated than a simple argument over slavery, and many confederates viewed the war as more a second war of independence rather than a civil war.

Slavery was the key issue. It wasn't everything but the war was over that issue. Would not have started without it,

 

[Proud SJW]

Slavery was the key issue. It wasn't everything but the war was over that issue. Would not have started without it,

You're mostly correct, but there are often differences between why a war starts, and why it is fought. It's fairly well known that in order for the public to accept going to war, they need a justifiable cause. In much the same way as most Americans didn't go to fight Germany because of the Jews in World War 2, they didn't necessarily go to fight the Confederates to free the slaves. Other than the black regiments, of course, but those weren't raised until 1863 (mostly - there were exceptions, such as the 1st Kansas Coloured Infantry, which was the first unit using black troops to engage in battle in the Civil War - but wasn't officially authorized by the Union).

For the North, abolition wasn't an economic issue because most states had already made slavery illegal, and even those who didn't (the Border States) had very low rates of slavery by that time anyway. The Northern farms had already begun mechanisation, and that in itself is one reason the North was able to continue supplying itself throughout the war, even when its men left to go fight, but the South could not. At the beginning of the 1860's, the Union were no longer wholly dependant upon manual labour.
It was a dying institution... except in the South. But even there, the advent of more efficient methods meant slavery was economically doomed anyway. It was only a matter of time before even the most traditional of plantation owners could see the advantages of a machine over having to feed hundreds of people. The only real question is how much longer it would have taken were it not for the Civil War.

The primary cause for the Confederate States to secede from the Union in 1861 was because they believed Lincoln would emancipate the slaves (something he explicitly promised not to do before his election), and this would basically impoverish them even further than they already were. So the rallying cry became "States Rights", but the real cause was economic.

For the Federals it was the preservation of the Union. At all costs. Lincoln himself said as much - another quote, from a letter to a prominent journalist (Horace Greely) in 1862:

"Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln."

Of the hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers, very few of them were fighting to keep their slaves. The majority of them didn't have any. Even the most generous estimates guess at a 25% rate of household slave ownership (perhaps a better indicator than individual ownership, which would have been very much lower), but that figure varies by state, of course. What the confederacy needed was a cause, and they had that - the Damned Yankee interfering with the states. And that's why some men, most notably Robert E. Lee, chose to serve the Confederacy.

Abraham Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until late 1862, to take effect on Jan 1st 1863. But even that didn't "free the slaves", entirely.
It freed those in Confederate states, sure. But it left those in the Union, and those secessionist states already under Union control, in the same circumstances they'd always been. Granted, slavery had already been made illegal in many Northern states - but not all of them. The exact wording of a part of the proclamation was:
"Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued."

It's important to note that only the slaves of the Confederate states currently in a state of rebellion were freed directly, and that specific exemptions were made for the parts of those states which were already under Union control. New Orleans, for example, was a bastion of Confederate support, but had been captured in May 1862 and at the time of the proclamation was under occupation and therefore exempt.
Also included in the exemptions were the Border States, which were divided in loyalty (for both political and military reasons). Delaware, for example, remained a part of the Union but neutral in the Civil war - and did not make slavery illegal until the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865. So the final holdout wasn't even a Confederate state.

So why not free those slaves as well? Why not the Border States?
Because the proclamation was, as specifically stated in the first bolded part, a war measure, and not specifically a humanitarian one - other than by default. The aim was to cripple Southern industry, not to free the slaves, per se. And by doing so, of course, thousands of slaves deserted the Southern states for the North, where they became cheap labour for the Union.
It's probably also worth mentioning that the Contrabands themselves were not approved of by Lincoln, because the justification for not returning runaway slaves to the South (as according to the fugitive slave act of 1850) was to declare the Confederacy a foreign nation and therefore no longer subject to that act, which went against all of Lincoln's ideas regarding the preservation of the Union.

Another reason for the Emancipation Proclamation was that it was for the benefit of international observers. Britain and France, in particular, were observing the situation from the beginning, and the Confederacy hoped to engage them as allies, if possible. The loss of cotton from the Confederate states prompted both nations to grant the Confederacy "belligerent" status (a step short of official recognition) in order to expedite continued exports, but that didn't eventuate. Britain went so far as to offer to mediate peace talks, but the Union wanted none of it (the Confederates were open to the idea).

The severe shortage of cotton exports to Europe as a result of the Civil War led Lincoln to worry about foreign intervention, even if simply to ensure exports resumed. The Civil War no longer looked as though it was going to be anytime soon, and Europe was growing impatient for a resolution. Gettysburg had not yet been fought, and the Union was suffering defeat after defeat and not looking like a winner at all. Lincoln thought he needed a reason to keep Europe out of it (whether or not he actually did, is a matter of conjecture - but France was fighting a war in Mexico at the time as well, just over the border, so who knows what may have eventuated).
That reason was slavery. Most countries had by now made slavery illegal, and it would have been embarrassing in the extreme for either France or Britain to openly go to war in support of a Confederacy which was primarily a slave based economy. Lincoln took a huge risk in doing it, and most of his own government were against it, but he did it anyway.
The timing of it was genius, really.

The American Civil War was an economic one. It's easy to point at slavery as the cause, and to paint the war as a war over slavery, but it really wasn't. Slavery was a backdrop to the entire thing, and very much on the minds of most people of the time (and I'd like to make it clear that I'm not in any way trying to paint Lincoln as anything other than an extremely compassionate man, because he evidently was that), but the slavery issue became a cause where expedient during the Civil War - it was not a reason for it in itself.

What the Union did both during and after the civil war is a subject for another time, but it was horrendous, and resulted in the absolute demolition of the South, something from which they have never fully recovered. The concentration camps, the "heroic" March to the Sea, the methods by which Grant broke the Confederacy, the suspension of Habeas Corpus and the subsequent gaolings of politicians and suspected Confederate sympathizers in the North without trial... there were no "good guys" in this war, in the high school history sense. There was only perceived necessity. Which is why I had a little laugh at what Gibbs said, because, in some ways... it was true.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

The post above helps you understand why when ancestors of those southern dynastys destroyed, make the white House, they do what they do.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Care to explain this statement?

Japan made the argument europeans and americans were raping and pillaging Asia's resources by force.

They were right.

They wanted Asia for Asians.

Take the Australian mines in Papua new Guinea. They relied on slavery to keep the profit margins up.

The oil fields in Indonesia the same. The profits flowing to Europeans and bankers and the civilians living in poverty controlled by foreign armies.

Roosevelt was not honest about this. He was knowingly subversive to democracy.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

North versus South is like stalin versus hitler. All Monuments of the players from the North need to be pulled down as well.

"the North" - the USA - continues to exist in the present day. Little different to Stalin's USSR.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

I don't particularly like this.
I know it happened, and I know the statues of Lee and Beauregard were indeed taken down as well, not long after. But whether or not one could call it a "good thing" is debatable.

To me, it seems there are many similarities between it, and the thread on Cook.
Is the best way to deal with some aspects of history, including those aspects which could highlight how we have changed, as well as what we believe now... to pretend the past never existed, other than in the pages of a book? Or, to be more synonymous with the current era... has history become nothing more than a wiki article read only by those who care enough to look for it?

The statues aren't the history. The statues didn't go up until decades after the war when those who fought for the USA were long gone.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

45 million Americans descend from Africans. Not hard to see why people don't want these statues on public land.

 

[The Warlord]

Japan made the argument europeans and americans were raping and pillaging Asia's resources by force.

They were right.

They wanted Asia for Asians.

Take the Australian mines in Papua new Guinea. They relied on slavery to keep the profit margins up.

The oil fields in Indonesia the same. The profits flowing to Europeans and bankers and the civilians living in poverty controlled by foreign armies.

Roosevelt was not honest about this. He was knowingly subversive to democracy.

LOL, Japan just wanted to replace European nations in raping and pillaging the resources of Asia.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

LOL, Japan just wanted to replace European nations in raping and pillaging the resources of Asia.

If you have a problem with Asians exiploiting Asians but think Europeans are well within thier right to exploit Asians, then you have a thinking problem.

 

[pugsville]

Japan made the argument europeans and americans were raping and pillaging Asia's resources by force.

They were right.

They wanted Asia for Asians.

Take the Australian mines in Papua new Guinea. They relied on slavery to keep the profit margins up.

The oil fields in Indonesia the same. The profits flowing to Europeans and bankers and the civilians living in poverty controlled by foreign armies.

Roosevelt was not honest about this. He was knowingly subversive to democracy.

#5

How is any of this an actual explanation of this? None of this addresses slabnder and US entry into ww2,



The man who said democracy is not a democracy unless its citizens are informed relied on slander to send America and the world in to world war two.
.

Care to explain this statement?





And of course as otehrs have pointed out Imperial japan did not want Asia for Asiains (though that indeed was their propaganda) they wanted it for Imperial Japan. I don;t see any real difference in the Imperial Japanese expiotivie methods versus other imperial powers.

 

[pugsville]

If you have a problem with Asians exiploiting Asians but think Europeans are well within thier right to exploit Asians, then you have a thinking problem.

but your claim that Japan wanted Asia for Asians which sort of implies they were not there to exploit. Walking back your position heavily here,

 

[The Warlord]

If you have a problem with Asians exiploiting Asians but think Europeans are well within thier right to exploit Asians, then you have a thinking problem.

Where did I say I thought it was OK?

The Japanese were just as, if not more, racist towards the Asians thy conquered than the Europeans. They remain so.

The Japanese colonial project was no different to the Dutch or British. They may have had some basic spin about Asians helping Asians, but the reality was brutal resource theft.

 

[The Warlord]

but your claim that Japan wanted Asia for Asians which sort of implies they were not there to exploit. Walking back your position heavily here,

Yeah, this notion that Japan was coming to liberate "the Asians" from European colonisation and share the resources with all for equal benefit is ludicrous.

Imperial Japan was a deeply racist and fascist state that just wanted the colonies and their resources for itself.

 

[pugsville]

Yeah, this notion that Japan was coming to liberate "the Asians" from European colonisation and share the resources with all for equal benefit is ludicrous.

Imperial Japan was a deeply racist and fascist state that just wanted the colonies and their resources for itself.

Yeah but there propaganda had to say something, and the Imperial Powers (France Britain, Dutch) had given them plenty of Ammunition, and the Japanses were able to get significant numbers of volunteers form colonial states, though I would think almost entirely on the enemy of my enemy thinking rather than a belief in Japanese propaganda (but still the proprganda had to get themto suspended their disbelief to some extent). What was the British proprganda that had millions of Indians fighting for the British Empire?

All too often the second world war (and indeed others) are represented as simple binary conflicts. For many countries escially the Asians colonies the dynamics of the conflict and politics were quite complex, the interplay between coloniezers, otehr popwers, different indiependce mopvements and vsions of a post war post colonial world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Where did I say I thought it was OK?

The Japanese were just as, if not more, racist towards the Asians thy conquered than the Europeans. They remain so.

The Japanese colonial project was no different to the Dutch or British. They may have had some basic spin about Asians helping Asians, but the reality was brutal resource theft.

The Americans sided with the Japanese in world war 2 fighting communists in China. Sided with chinese drug Lords protected by the imperial Japanese army.

Roosevelt said a democracy is only a democracy if the citizens are informed. He knowingly subverted democracy to protect drug Lords.

If the Japanese were just as bad then they would of dropped nukes on defenseless women and children. Like the British did in South Australia.

 

[The Warlord]

The Americans sided with the Japanese in world war 2 fighting communists in China. Sided with chinese drug Lords protected by the imperial Japanese army.

Roosevelt said a democracy is only a democracy if the citizens are informed. He knowingly subverted democracy to protect drug Lords.

If the Japanese were just as bad then they would of dropped nukes on defenseless women and children. Like the British did in South Australia.

These are all wild diversions away from the original mistake you made.

That the Western powers could work so effectively with the Japanese as they did demonstrates you're wrong when you said the Japanese were liberating those countries for the benefit of Asians.

They were just another coloniser.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

These are all wild diversions away from the original mistake you made.

That the Western powers could work so effectively with the Japanese as they did demonstrates you're wrong when you said the Japanese were liberating those countries for the benefit of Asians.

They were just another coloniser.

My point is that Roosevelt said a democracy is only a democracy if the citizens are informed. Well he lied his head off about the war with Japan. He knowingly subverted democracy so he could force Men to thier deaths to protect white people raping and pillaging Asia.

My point was that Lincoln also subverted democracy for the lies he peddled about the war with the South. Lied and sent Many Men to horrible deaths. Lincolns Banker mates just wanted the south's recourses.

 

[The Warlord]

My point is that Roosevelt said a democracy is only a democracy if the citizens are informed. Well he lied his head off about the war with Japan. He knowingly subverted democracy so he could force Men to thier deaths to protect white people raping and pillaging Asia.

My point was that Lincoln also subverted democracy for the lies he peddled about the war with the South. Lied and sent Many Men to horrible deaths. Lincolns Banker mates just wanted the south's recourses.

That I can agree with.

 

[pugsville]

My point is that Roosevelt said a democracy is only a democracy if the citizens are informed. Well he lied his head off about the war with Japan. He knowingly subverted democracy so he could force Men to thier deaths to protect white people raping and pillaging Asia.

My point was that Lincoln also subverted democracy for the lies he peddled about the war with the South. Lied and sent Many Men to horrible deaths. Lincolns Banker mates just wanted the south's recourses.

How about some specifics to these claims?

How exactly did Roosevelt subvert democracy?
What lles about the war with Japan?

How did Lincoln subvert democracy?
What lies did Lincoln peddle about the war with the south?
Who were Lincoln's banker mates?

Still standing by Imperial Japan as some altruistic pro-all Asians force?

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

How about some specifics to these claims?

How exactly did Roosevelt subvert democracy?
What lles about the war with Japan?

How did Lincoln subvert democracy?
What lies did Lincoln peddle about the war with the south?
Who were Lincoln's banker mates?

Still standing by Imperial Japan as some altruistic pro-all Asians force?

Cool story bro