Which is why I wrote that Eisenhower implemented desegregation of the military.
Credit where it’s due.
And credit you shall have good sir.
I stand corrected.
From my point of view, Truman implemented his decision three months before the cantankerous election of 1948. Gutty move even if it didn’t amount to much. Eisenhower was more pragmatic and had four years (then eight) in which to get quietly but eliminate military apartheid.
So the story is more complicated then I thought. Ignorance fought
I meant credit to Eisenhower, not to me.
Sure, Truman deserves accolades as well, I didn’t mean to imply that Truman didn’t play a vital role in the desegregation of the military. But it’s also a feather in Eisenhower’s cap.
I definitely agree with John Major and GHB. For me they actually embodied the strongest elements of conservatism, in that a fair degree of caution is required when running such an important concern as a nation-state. This is also why radical conservatism is such a bust.
Absolutely correct-and Kennedy pushing Kruschev into a corner guaranteed the fall of Kruschev-which set back USA-Russia relations for decades.Kennedy was a man totally unqualified to be president-he knw nothing of world history, and wasn’t very bright.
I’m a big fan of Eisenhower’s. But on this issue, I think it’s fair to say that Eisenhower was finishing up a job that Truman had already gotten past the halfway point.
They should share credit. I never meant to imply that it was all Eisenhower’s doing, but he did much of the work, the nitty-gritty, if you will.
I think history will judge Gordon Brown’s PMship lest harshly.
Gotta disagree on that one. Henry VII was certainly good at surviving and being solvent (ne mean feat, that), but his methods for achieving that were, to put it mildly, regrettable.
I recently read a modern bio of him which made the case that he was a thoroughly rotten king pretty persuasively: Winter King: The Dawn of Tudor England by Thomas Penn. They depict a king who behaved more like a mafia don than a monarch - nakedly having his rutheless agents trump up fake accusations against people and then selling them a “pardon” after a trip to his torture chambers to soften 'em up.
As a method of taxation it left a lot to be desired. Allegedly, people celebrated at his death, hoping his son would be an improvement!
And his passage of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). Which has changed my life and helped many of us in wheelchairs.
He brought stability to England after decades of war. He broke the power of the aristocracy which was one of the main reasons for said instability. He also restored the treasury. His methods were harsh, but he did what was necessary.
He may have left the monarchy stronger than when he found it - but that does not mean he left England better.
While I agree that John Major’s administration is underrated, I’m not sure he deserves credit for staying “the hell out of the Euro”, as the OP puts it. As I recall, the Major administration spent an enormous amount of money trying to stay in the ERM (a precursor of the euro), despite the fact that the currency was overvalued relative to the Deutsche Mark. They got found out by the market. Black Wednesday ensued, or “White Wednesday”, according to those who considered the withdrawal from the ERM a good thing, in the long run.
IIRC the Maastricth negotiations where the British got an exception to the Euro was before the events of Black Wednesday
OK, but the British opt-outs were not necessarily due to John Major, who had a slim majority. He had to appease various factions. The government almost collapsed over the issue.
It certainly isn’t the opinion of modern historians of the Civil War but there was a time when it certainly was.
Peter Novick writing of the creation of the historical profession mentioned how most of its founders were either slave owners or the children of slave owners.
For example, in 1910(IIRC) the head of the history departments of every Ivy League university was the son of a southern slave owner, Woodrow Wilson being the most famous.
Even apart from that, many of the post-Civil War works were written by Confederate officials and military officers, and even with the best of intentions they were unlikely to be completely unbiased. And some most definitely did not have the best of intentions. Many were involved in building the Lost Cause mythology to justify the rebellion.
I also think that Nero did an okay job as Emperor, he certainly dealt well with challenges handed him, such as the Great Fire and rebellions in Judea and Britannia.