But Lincoln’s fumbling around for a General for the Army of the Potomac and Commander U.S. Army was critical for extending the Civil war as long as it went.
Look at it this way: The General’s always took the blame in the CW – but we don’t blame the Generals for Vietnmam – rightly we blame JFK, LBJ, RMN. I think Lincoln, because of his otherwise (almost) indusputable greatness gets a free pass on this issue.
I call top 10 blunder (if it was a single blunder) when I see:
Army of the Potomac
General Irvin McDowell: Commander of the Army and Department of Northeastern Virginia (May 27 – July 25, 1861)
Major General George B. McClellan: Commander of the Military Division of the Potomac, and later, the Army and Department of the Potomac (July 26, 1861 – November 9, 1862)
Major General Ambrose E. Burnside: Commander of the Army of the Potomac (November 9, 1862 – January 26, 1863)
Major General Joseph Hooker: Commander of the Army and Department of the Potomac (January 26 – June 28, 1863)
Major General George G. Meade: Commander of the Army of the Potomac (June 28, 1863 – June 28, 1865; Major General John G. Parke took brief temporary command…
Commanding General of the US Army
McCLellan 1860-62, Halleck 62-64, Grant 64-65
Searches memory Didn’t Harding have a mistress? Or am I thinking of someone else? Weren’t there rumors about Cleveland? What about Jefferson and Sally Hemings? Franklin Roosevelt? Eisenhower and what’s-her-name, the military assistant?
If questionable sex choices make the list at all, all ten spots are filled without room for anything else.
In Lincoln’s defense, he did tend to choose generals who had had experience in the Mexican War, from the fairly shallow pool of available candidates who hadn’t sided with the Confederacy. There just is no good way to know how anyone will react when the bullets start flying for real, no matter how well he’s done in peacetime. There was no way for anyone to guess reliably that the much-decorated McClellan, for instance, would be a coward or that a philosophy professor like Chamberlain would be as fine a combat commander as there ever was. It’s bizarrely fortunate in that regard that so many officers were gaining so much experience, proving or disproving themselves, and expanding the talent pool to the point where Grant could emerge as a great commander.
In his further defense, ISTM a true blunder is one that its maker does not recognize, or refuses to correct when he does recognize it. Lincoln was not slow to recognize when a general was not up to the job, or to relieve him once he recognized that fact. If anything, he might have been too quick with the hook on occasion.
If I might return to my earlier comments about Eisenhower, after more reflection I don’t think it’s fair to pick out particular antidemocratic acts, government overthrows or not, during the Cold War period, nor to blame any particular President primarily. Those actions were the result of the Cold Warrior mentality, which dominated all of Washington for decades and still exists today albeit with a change of declared enemy. It inevitably led to the tunnel vision effect whereby all issues with anyone were seen only in their role in the black-white Communism-vs.-Democracy view of the world, where only names really mattered, not any actual situation on the ground. The overthrows of democratic governments weren’t even the worst consequences of the stumbling through the House of Mirrors it caused; I’d list the Vietnam and Second Iraq Wars there.
The fundamental blunder, then, would be the adoption of a tunnel-vision mindset. If we’re still blaming Presidents, then Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Bush 2, and to a lesser extent Truman and Nixon all get their share. I don’t see it for Ford, Carter, Clinton, or Bush 1, though.
I came here to mention Barbara Tuchman’s The March of Folly, which describes somehting like (searching my memory) 7 high-level missions Kennedy sent to Viet Nam to try and determine if we should step up our involvement. These were bright young achievers on the Kennedy model, and ALL SEVEN missions concluded we should get the hell out.
We then smoothly proceeded to escalate. :rolleyes:
I’d think this belongs on the list, although I agree Eisenhower got us started on this path. Still, what did Kennedy send those guys for, if he wasn’t going to listen?
As I recall the test results, they indicated that someone closely related to Jefferson, or Jefferson himself fathered one or more of Hemings’ children. The logical assumption is that person was Jefferson himself; however the evidence was not presented as being “proof” that it was TJ.
Allow me to nitpick. The DNA tests only show that TJ or one of his close male relatives fathered some of SH’s kids. There is other evidence that, when added to the DNA evidence, make a pretty strong case for TJ being the father, but the DNA evidence alone isn’t definitive.
What I find remarkable is SH, being 3/4 European herself, would’ve had children who were 7/8 European if TJ or one of his brothers was the father. They must’ve raised an eyebrow or two with visitors to Monticello. And no wonder some of them just melted into White society once they got off the plantation.
Even if we accept that as true, you can’t determine who has power in sexual politics just by looking at who has power in a non-sexual context. Still, I wouldn’t want to have to convince a judge of that in a sexual harrassment suit filed against me by an intern.
What you’re actually doing, though, is misconstruing my use of the word “aggressor” into an implied context of hostility or conflict that you know was not intended. Lewisnki was in the initiator and willing participant in a consensual sexual relationship. It was her idea. She was in no way harrassed or coerced into it. There was nothing adversarial about any of it, so “power” was irrelevant.
The flaw in this view, is it assumes the Republicans wouldn’t have done the same thing anyway. If they were willing to go as far as they did over a blow job, they’d have just found some other nitpick, or paid some woman to accuse him of something.
So if a homeless man shoots the CEO of a large corporation, that’s not aggression ? Also, as John Mace said, there’s more than one sort of power.
I think that the Japanese-American internment and Jackson’s treatment of Native Americans, while both were cruel and unjust, were not “blunders” in the sense that they harmed either the administration of the time or the country.
I don’t see what Buchanan could have done either.
Also, while not exactly a “blunder” (it accomplished what it was supposed to do), but something I think was a horrible precedent, was Truman’s committing drafted American troops to the Korean [del]War[/del] “Police Action”. For the first time in US history, draftees could be sent without a congressional declaration of war to fight and die in a foreign nation. I keep wondering how history might have been different if a draft protester had taken his case to the Supreme Court and the SCOTUS had ruled that you can’t draft citizens to fight undeclared wars. The US involvement in southeast Asia would have been a lot different.
Should he have expected impeachment? No. However he should have been aware that it’s a new day, and the press don’t give politicians a wink and a nudge over mistresses anymore. Clinton should have known that considering he’d been in trouble in the past over sex scandals.
So to say Clinton was completely unaware that anything was going to happen to him is either wrong OR it means Clinton is a complete idiot. Anyone who doesn’t realize that sex scandals in politics in this day and age = huge political fallout, are stupid. You can argue the morality of it all you want, but politicians need to be aware of the reality.
Clinton is extremely lucky, actually, that the Republicans impeached him. They made themselves look so bad it actually helped his public standing.
Personally I don’t think it’d be a bad thing if we went back to the days when the press allowed the President some privacy, but I think we’ve come too far for that.
The reason your analogy was so bad is you compared a man who was the victim of a completely unprecedented event that there’s no realistic way he could have prevented or even expected. All Clinton had to do was keep his dick in his pants if he wanted to avoid scandal, and he certainly had to be aware of the political risks involved in what he did.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Reagan’s campaign against the democratic Sandinistas in favor of the brutal Somoza dictatorship. /QUOTE]Nitpick: the Sandinista’s overthrew the Somoza regime, then Reagan backed the counterrevolutionary Contras. Or are you saying that the US backed Somoza against all reform until a revolution became inevitable?
He strongly supported the Dred Scott decision, and even lobbied the Taney Supreme Court for it. He supported recognizing the pro-slavery government in Kansas, not the abolitionist one. Both of those steps hastened the Civil War.
I mean, seriously, does anyone remember Gary Hart?
I don’t think Clinton’s blow job was a top ten presidential blunder, but to identify him as an innocent victim is ridiculous. He took an action, and there were consequences. Whether or not those consequences were fair is irrelevant. Anyone who is elected President of the United States had better realize that politics is not fair, not even remotely close to fair. You should also realize any right you may have to a private life is not going to be respected by the press, and you can whine and cry about that all you want but that’s the price of holding high national office. Someone as smart as Clinton was had to have known all of that.
Considering Clinton took a risky action for which any rational politician would recognize there is considerable political risk it has to be considered an error on his part. He’s no more a “victim” than any other politician that gets sandbagged for things that really don’t effect their ability to rule or the performance in office.
Or maybe :o