Ken Burns' "Congress" Is Pure Blather

Oregon Magazine ^ | 26 May 2003 | "LL"

[Grand Old Partisan]

I should also add that Thaddeus Stevens was against capital punishment, so all this neo-Confederate nonsense about him wanting to hang the defeated rebels is...nonsense. Stevens even offered to defend Jefferson Davis against any death sentence. It was Andrew Johnson, be it remembered, who had been demanding the gallows for "Jefferson Davis and his pirate crew" (his words).

[tsomer]

Are you really sure you want to go do that road?

Been down and back, several times already. It's a short hike.

[GOPcapitalist]

As for my hero, Thaddeus Stevens, he was the (slightly fictionalized) villian of "Birth of the Nation" , that wildly over-the-top pro-KKK movie -- which to me is a great compliment.

So the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Funny, cause that's what got FDR hooked up with Joe Stalin.

All this Democrat basshing of Stevens ignores the fact that Republican Reconstruction, Radical or otherwise, did not even begin in the South until the March 1867 passage of the Reconstruction Act.

Actually, what can accurately be termed "reconstruction" style policies began in Missouri circa 1862 and continued in varying degrees across southern states both off and on through 1867. At times, some did indeed regain control on their own and this did indeed prompt reaction in Congress, but that alone does not mean that none of the reviled policies predated 1867.

[GOPcapitalist]

As for Thaddeus Stevens, Democrat historians have brutally maligned the man who, in my opinion, was the greatest Republican who ever lived.

Some Democrats think Bill Clinton was the greatest of their ranks who ever lived as well, but that does not mean either is any less disconnected with reality.

Stevens was, at best, a glorified noisemaker and, at worst, a self serving demagogue who bordered on mental instability.

Not much better may be said of his Senate counterpart Charles Sumner, who was an all around repulsive individual. He was obnoxious, dishonest, crude, vitriolic, and downright unpleasant to be around. Except for his following of fellow radicals (I guess one could call them the Wlat Brigade of the day), Sumner was disliked by even his own party members. One need only look at some of the private letters of Charles Francis Adams and William Seward to see exactly what they thought of him.

Unfortunately, Partisan, the leading ranks of the Republican Party in its early days are NOT something that any member of this party today should revere today. They generally included all sorts of unsavory characters - radicals, crooks, atheists, robber barons, welfare whores, liars, and other virtual Bill Clintons of their day (Do not get me wrong - there were a few respectable and level headed individuals, but the Sumner crowd was by far the most outspoken). In fact, some of the more moral-minded abolitionists, such as Lysander Spooner, refused to have anything to do with the GOP at the time not for the slavery issue but rather because they included so many immoral frauds within their ranks.

You have previously quoted many of these individuals, Partisan, not the least among them being the vile Robert Ingersoll - the hero of Madeline Murray O'Hare and a virtual Ted Kennedy of the 19th century. Even Ulysses Grant's image recoils when the light of honest historical scrutiny shines upon him. Prior to Clinton, his was one of the most corrupt administrations in american history. Grant surrounded himself with so many unsavory characters that after his term he himself was scammed into near bankruptcy by one of them. The list of scandals from Grant's administration all the way through Arthur - a string of 4 consecutive mid-19th century Republican presidents - is almost continuous. You know the names - Credit Mobilier, the Whiskey Ring, the 1877 robbery, the Mulligan Letters, the Star Route Affair. You also know the people as well: Grant, Ingersoll, Garfield, Schuyler Colfax, James G. Blaine and their wretched ilk. Did I mention that practically every single one of 'em also championed raising taxes?

If you want to advertise the Republican Party (not something I would disagree with in this day), don't do it by glorifying our pigs, weasils, and bottom feeders. Pick somebody that is deserving of the honors you give them. Pick a Calvin Coolidge or a Thomas Reed. Pick an Everett Dirksen. Pick a Teddy Roosevelt. None of these are by any means perfect, but each is at least a reputable individual - more so than any of the people you regularly praise around here.

In case you are still lost, answer me this - are you offended when the Dems parade the disreputable likes of Bill Clinton around as if he were a hero or saint? Do you not feel an urge to vomit when they call him a "statesman," sing praises of his "legacy" or, worst of all, turn the microphone over to him to do both for himself? If so, then you know the feeling that many historically aware southerners - nay - many historically aware Americans who posess a sense of decency get when the vile likes of Sumner and Ingersoll are paraded around as heroes; when demagogues like Stevens are upheld as roll models; when drunkards and theives like Grant, Blaine, and Colfax, are presented as "statesmen." They are neither in possession of nor deserving of the honors you give them.

[GOPcapitalist]

I should also add that Thaddeus Stevens was against capital punishment

So Thaddeus Stevens:

1. Supported massive tax hikes
2. Supported redistributionary tax schemes
3. Supported government handouts to his business cronies
4. Supported the expansion of the federal government
5. Opposed the death penalty

That looks like the classic definition of a liberal if I ever saw one!

[GOPcapitalist]

The forty percent of southerners -- the blacks and many poor whites -- who supported the Union during the Civil War

Got a source for that stat yet? Didn't think so.

[metesky]

Sorry to disappoint you, but a friend has a book on Klan history (not a friendly history either). I've seen the pictures.

[metesky]

Sorry, boys.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Just as with Thaddeus Stevens being the villian of "Birth of a Nation", GOPcapitalist despising him so much is also a great compliment for "the greatest Republican who ever lived" (my words).

Democrat historians -- South and North -- love to slam Stevens, but they also exaggerate his power. For the first four years after the Civil War, the President of the United States was a Democrat. Federal Government policies toward the South from April 1865 to March 1867 were Democrat policies. Republican Reconstruction did not begin until March 1867, and the Radicals were by no means in charge of it. The Reconstruction Act was written mostly by Ohio Senator John Sherman, General Sherman's brother but not really a Radical (you'll remember that even Andrew Johnson overruled General Sherman's peace terms with Joe Johnston as too lenient). Republican Reconstruction measures, needed a two-thirds majority in Congress to get passed President Johnson's veto, and so were usually much less than the Radical wanted.

Stevens was not King of Congress; he was Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and his influence over the Senate was nil. The Joint Committee on Reconstruction did even exist until March 1867, by which time the ex-rebel Democrats and the Democrat President had been in control of the South for two years. And the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson did not take place until May 1868, just ten months before his term expired.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Just as with Thaddeus Stevens being the villian of "Birth of a Nation", GOPcapitalist despising him so much is also a great compliment for "the greatest Republican who ever lived" (my words).

Democrat historians -- South and North -- love to slam Stevens, but they also exaggerate his power. For the first four years after the Civil War, the President of the United States was a Democrat. Federal Government policies toward the South from April 1865 to March 1867 were Democrat policies. Republican Reconstruction did not begin until March 1867, and the Radicals were by no means in charge of it. The Reconstruction Act was written mostly by Ohio Senator John Sherman, General Sherman's brother but not really a Radical (you'll remember that even Andrew Johnson overruled General Sherman's peace terms with Joe Johnston as too lenient). Republican Reconstruction measures needed a two-thirds majority in Congress to get passed President Johnson's veto, and so were usually much less than the Radicals wanted.

Representative Stevens was not King of Congress; he was Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and his influence over the Senate was nil. His "forty acres and a mule" proposal went nowhere. The Joint Committee on Reconstruction did even exist until March 1867, by which time the ex-rebel Democrats and the Democrat President had been in control of the South for two years. And the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson did not take place until May 1868, just ten months before his term expired.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Thanks, I had wondered about the Harding story but knew about Wilson.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Thanks. I will look for that.

[Diddle E. Squat]

And I can show you pictures of Bush meeting with Chirac, with Byrd, and with Daschle. Meeting with does not mean endorsing or approving. Your post left the impression that Harding hosted the KKK the way Bush would host a prayer meeting or welcome the Tampa Bay Bucs, when in reality if the meeting ever happened it was far more likely to have been a business type meeting with an(at the time) influential group(just like him meeting with Abbas this week) in an attempt to negotiate or discuss some issue. That is what Presidents do. Until you can explain what the meeting is about, given Harding's documented words and actions on race at other times, your implication appears misleading and wrong.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Good point, whether or not that photo/meeting exists/happened. President Harding was very popular among blacks, so this KKK biz is dubious at best.

[GOPcapitalist]

Just as with Thaddeus Stevens being the villian of "Birth of a Nation", GOPcapitalist despising him so much is also a great compliment for "the greatest Republican who ever lived" (my words).

So yet again, it's "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach. As I noted previously, that's also what got FDR hooked up with Joe Stalin.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

She was, IMO, inferring that Lincoln did little or nothing for blacks. >>

Of course not. Lincoln was a Republican, like all Republicans, he was a Klansman and a Nazi and a Christian Fundamentalist who wants to take away everyone's rights.

She has everything in common, IMHO, with our neoconfederate ranters on FR, IMHO.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

So the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Funny, cause that's what got FDR hooked up with Joe Stalin.>>

Zank Gott fuer das, iff he vas not an ally mit Herr Stalin, zis konversashun vould be in Cherman.

[Grand Old Partisan]

The neo-Confederate ranters on Free Republic are spewing Democrat propaganda, in defense of the Democrat-Confederates who rebelled against the government in the 1860s.

[Euro-American Scum]

The treadmill is a lot more fun when you have good DVDs to watch.

The treadmill is never fun. Good DVD or not. -:)

[GOPcapitalist]

Zank Gott fuer das, iff he vas not an ally mit Herr Stalin, zis konversashun vould be in Cherman

You are missing the point entirely. FDR could have easily continued a fight against Hitler with Stalin without becoming friends with the latter. Churchill had little difficulty doing so. But FDR took it a step further and, through open friendship towards Stalin, constructed a communist easter europe for the remainder of the century. An enemy of your enemy can continue to be his enemy. But that does not mean he also has to be your friend.