I’d probably have taken Cromwell over Oates as well.
Cromwell is an interesting figure, I might actually list him as one of the best and one of the worst figures in that period of history.
To get back to FDR, I feel the same way about him. In general I view him favorably, but take away all the good stuff he did, and some of his actions easily trump the worst of the worst from the rest of America’s good candidates from the 20th century.
I don’t know how I can justify listing Nixon as the worst, when he never imprisoned 100,000+ people without any form of criminal trials, he never tried to pack the supreme court etc. And plus FDR actually has a pretty long rap sheet when it comes to petty political corruption as well.
John, admittedly, was more incompetent than evil - although there is the suspicion that he procured the murder of Prince Arthur, his major contender for the throne. His actions over taxation and the church, well-intentioned though they might have been, managed to alienate both the Barons and the Pope, leaving him without secular or religious power behind him, and his military campaigns were universally disastrous. And he doesn’t really have any serious C13th competition - de Montfort? Again, regarded as a hero of democracy these days.
Cromwell
I’m not sure that “damage” is the best word. Certainly, civil war is never something to be encouraged, but the Divine Right of Kings couldn’t have been overthrown otherwise. He might be critisized for ruling as a dictator rather than allowing Lilburn et al to set up a working republican constitution, and his treatment of the Irish is indefensible, but he did something that had to be done with great success. And if you want to find one person directly responsible for the Civil War, it’ll either be Charles himself or Lenthall - Cromwell wasn’t really involved until the fighting had started.
Still, if FDR is a candidate for the American title, Cromwell has to be on the UK list.
Thinking about the nineteenth century, it’s quite difficult to find a candidate. Castlereagh is demonized today, but he was a reasonable foreign secretary and can’t really be held personally responsible for the policies of his government. Similarly, can Earl Russell be held responsible for the Potato Famine?
On the US side, I note that all nineteenth century candidates have been involved with the Civil War - no votes for Rockerfeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie (OK, he was Scottish), Schwab, Morgan?
I would draw your attention to a certain Mr. Todd, of Fleet Street. In the Tonsorial trade, I do believe. Took flyers in the fast food field with his partner, an enterprising young woman named Lovett.
He’s why I don’t eat at McDonald’s, or get a trim when the shop is empty save for the owner & myself.
Err… I think that introducing fictional characters into the mix is probably going a little too far, otherwise our 20th-century candidate would be one Mr Riddle.
Even if one does believe that Sweeny was a real person (after all, people believe all sorts of things despite evidence to the contrary), he only killed a dozen or so people, quickly and painlessly, for good sound economic reasons. Cumberland’s victims number well into four figures, if not five, and his brutality is legendary to this day.
I think you’re grossly oversimplifying Lee’s moral dilemma. He had three choices:
1- Neutrality. The words of Dante come to mind. Not really an option.
2- Accept command of the Army of the Potomac and invade the land of your birth, the land that all of your family has called home for two centuries and where all you love, including your own sons, reside.
3- Accept command of the army that is defending the land of your birth from invasion and occupation.
The Civil War was about far more than slavery, as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of the soldiers in Lee’s army didn’t own slaves and Lee himself was against the practice and had put his money where his mouth was on the practice. To him it would have been far more immoral to have allowed Union shelling to tear apart the farms and cities whose earth and plants and animals literally provided every cell in his body when he was able to defend it. It wasn’t a simple choice, and he could have been equally damned had he led the army of the Potomac. He was in an impossible situation.
Todd killed around 160 people. Then made em into meat pies, with the help of Mrs Lovett. Then sold em to unsuspecting Londoners. He was a sociopath, obviously, and would likely have been killing even if he didn’t make a dime off of it.
Well, he was rather cruel and venal, but worse than his brother Richard and Philip Augustus more by ( small ) degree than kind - Richard taxed so rapaciously that at one point even John thought he had gone too far. The difference was that he couldn’t command anywhere near the international standing that a lionized crusading hero like Richard ( pun intended ) could. He was the least outwardly chivalrous of the three ( but Philip in particular was no angel ) and by far the most paranoid, which was perhaps his biggest failing.
He was a rather skilled administrator, but a generally lousy politician ( though not all of his choices were dumb as they are sometimes made out to be ).
I’d say near-certainty. He also imprisoned Arthur’s elder sister Eleanor ( captured at the same time as Arthur ) for life.
Actually his Welsh and Scottish campaigns were essentially complete successes. John wasn’t quite a bad commander per se - he performed reasonably enough under Richard and his one real success in France was his lightning descent on Mirebeau to take Arthur in the rear, while Arthur was beseiging his grandmother ( Eleanor of Aquitaine, supporting her son over her grandson ). More a skirmish than a battle, but extremely important for John and showed he could act decisively at times ( he had probably been carefully shadowing Arthur’s movements from Normandy and hence was able to move on him with considerably speed ).
John’s problem appears to have been lack of focus - he frequently reacted lethargically. Also he was just up against a superior strategist ( and much better politician ) in the clever Philip Augustus.
I assume you are referring to Henry III’s opponent. His father, also called Simon de Montfort, a contemporary of John who died in 1218, was a bit of a monster. He was responsible for wholesale barbarity and butchery in in the Albigensian Crusade, inclusin a number of mass burnings of “heretics”. Though at least he wasn’t the originator of that charming phrase - “Kill them all! God will recognize His own!” - which originated with the Papal legate marching with his forces.
However his earldom of Leicester ( which eventually passed to his son ) had been attainted by John, so he was probably more properly thought of as a French noble.
Ahh, if we’re looking for one person to blame for all the evils of the twentieth century, it has to be Richard Wagner. Fortunately, neither he nor Nietzsche were British.
Sorry for the hijack, but this brought up a question I had to ask.
Michelle Malkin, a commentator/author who’s very definitely on your side of the political aisle (AFAIK; I apologize if this is inaccurate), wrote a book called In Defense of Internment, in which she argued that the internment was, if not a good thing, at least morally and practically justifiable. Have you read this book? It got a lot of plaudits in conservative circles. Do you not agree with it?
I haven’t read it, you might as well suggest I read a book denying the Holocaust, I’ll give it the same degree of respect, which would be none. Internment is indefensible, so no, I do not agree with a defense of it. There actually were Japanese Americans who were working for the Japanese government, and there were Japanese citizens who had infiltrated the United States. But there were also German Americans and Germans who had done the same, and we didn’t lock up every German American in the United States. I wonder if that’s because German Americans are white? Or maybe because German Americans represent the single largest ethnic group in the United States?
Either way, internment was racist and uncalled for, and I could care less if every conservative in the world wants to defend it, I sure as hell won’t. I’m right-leaning politically but I won’t be defined by others who share my political persuasion, and feel no need to defend, support, or even acknowledge every single idiotic viewpoint some people who are on the same side of the specturm as me happen to have.
I might as well ask you the same thing, Leaper. FDR was on the left side of the spectrum, which I’m guessing you are too from the tone of your post, did you support internment?
No, I don’t/didn’t (whichever it properly is; I’m not sure). The reason I ask is because the book got such play amongst conservative circles (about how good the book was, how convincing the arguments, especially as it connected to the current War on Terror) that I was curious how far the seeming agreement went. I certainly didn’t connect it to reading a book denying the Holocaust, as you did; my apologies if it seemed like I was looking at you in such a manner.
