Misconceptions We Learn in School.

[Masada]

I don't get it. FDR pursued objectively bad economic policies even from a Keynesian point of view. You can look at Keynes rather famous letter to FDR for evidence of that.

 

[Lord Baal]

He was a good president because he joined the Allies? His Republican counterpart in 1940 would have done the exact same thing. Even most of the isolationists would have supported Britain and China, though not to the extent FDR did. And none of this makes up for his poor domestic policy. Especially considering how poor his war policy actually was.

FDR was not a good president by any objective measure. He certainly wasn't the worst, but he was far from the demi-god many Americans make him out to be.

 

[say1988]

I don't get it. FDR pursued objectively bad economic policies even from a Keynesian point of view. You can look at Keynes rather famous letter to FDR for evidence of that.

And his entire 4 term presidency, including most of WWII, revolved around those economic decisions?

He was a good president because he joined the Allies?

To the Allied countries, he definitely was, for joining with the force that he did, and for Britian, pushing his Europe First policy.

I am not saying he was a good president, but just posting a list of faults is disingenuous, much like those who would just post a list of his acomplishments.

 

[LightSpectra]

Misconception: That Roosevelt being a good or bad president is something that is easily decided and one position can clearly be labeled wrong, and the belief in it to be a misconception.

Somebody that was about to engage in a mass-killing but was only stopped because he died at the last minute is objectively bad.

I don't get it. FDR pursued objectively bad economic policies even from a Keynesian point of view. You can look at Keynes rather famous letter to FDR for evidence of that.

Oh, I forgot that famous anecdote about Keynes. The latter made a presentation to FDR who found it unbearably boring. After Keynes left, FDR said to his aid, "this man knows nothing about politics, does he?," and proceeded to go on as he did before. He also said to his economic advisor Leon Henderson, "Are you laboring under the impression that I read these memoranda of yours?"

 

[Antilogic]

I'd like to add: Franklin Roosevelt was a good president. Though admirable and had good intentions, he marks the beginning of an increasingly large American bureaucracy and federalist state that later emerged into what we see today. The United States was founded as the very antithesis of this.

Myth: The "founders" of the USA were rabid anti-government pro-gun anti-abortion libertarian Bible-thumpers.

The United States was not founded on the idea of "limited" or "no" government. It was founded on the idea that people should have a voice in their government.

Look at how much power those Founding Fathers centralized within a decade of achieving independence. They went from the Articles of Confederation, which left a toothless general assembly nominally in charge, to the Constitution, with a centralized executive and judicial branch (which did not exist under the AoC), an expanded legislative branch with the rights to regulate commerce between all states, the right to raise and command armies from the constituent states, the right to raise taxes, the list goes on...

The sticking point with Britain wasn't that a government existed and taxed. It's that the Americans weren't a part of it.

 

[LightSpectra]

Myth: The "founders" of the USA were rabid anti-government pro-gun anti-abortion libertarian Bible-thumpers.

Nobody thinks they were anarchists; they were certainly "pro-gun" in the sense that hunting was an important part of 18th century culture and militia played a critical part in winning the Revolutionary War; they would be considered very libertarian by our standards; they weren't "rabidly" anti-abortion because that was almost universally considered immoral in their era. The only thing you're right about is that they weren't fundamentalist Christians, because such a thing didn't exist yet.

The United States was not founded on the idea of "limited" or "no" government.

Yes it was. Limited government was most certainly the objective of the Founding Fathers. Read the Federalist Papers, or basically any contemporaneous writing save for maybe Hamilton.

It's actually quite astounding that you're arguing this. The very fact that there is a constitution means that the U.S. was founded upon limited government.

Look at how much power those Founding Fathers centralized within a decade of achieving independence. They went from the Articles of Confederation, which left a toothless general assembly nominally in charge, to the Constitution, with a centralized executive and judicial branch (which did not exist under the AoC), an expanded legislative branch with the rights to regulate commerce between all states, the right to raise and command armies from the constituent states, the right to raise taxes, the list goes on...

That's comparatively very little compared to (a) governments of today, and (b) contemporaneous governments to the Founding Fathers.

 

[Antilogic]

Nobody thinks they were anarchists; they were certainly "pro-gun" in the sense that hunting was an important part of 18th century culture and militia played a critical part in winning the Revolutionary War; they would be considered very libertarian by our standards; they weren't "rabidly" anti-abortion because that was almost universally considered immoral in their era. The only thing you're right about is that they weren't fundamentalist Christians, because such a thing didn't exist yet.

This was meant to imply they did not necessarily share the views of your typical right-wing political pundit. While I realize sarcasm does not transmit well in text posts on the Internet, it was not meant seriously and I do not intend to post on it further.

Yes it was. Limited government was most certainly the objective of the Founding Fathers. Read the Federalist Papers, or basically any contemporaneous writing save for maybe Hamilton.

It's actually quite astounding that you're arguing this. The very fact that there is a constitution means that the U.S. was founded upon limited government.

That's comparatively very little compared to (a) governments of today, and (b) contemporaneous governments to the Founding Fathers.

I find it astounding people argue otherwise. The point of this comparison was the extremely limited AoC government was very quickly retired for the more centralized federal government. This was not a small incremental increase--this was a fundamental change in how the states would interact. In response to your later notes, I did not compare to governments of today or outside of the US for the simple reason that it isn't relevant to the point I made above. This is about the degree of change in the government of one country over a short time period (less than a decade). Or, to describe it biologically, micro-evolution.

Having read more than a few essays from The Federalist (admittedly, back in high school, so it's been a long time), I received the impression it was in favor of a stronger, more centralized government. And if I remember correctly, a number of these essays were dedicated to the idea that the current, limited government was insufficient to meet the needs of the states.

Now is this impression a probable result of Hamilton writing the majority of the works? Maybe, I won't rule it out. I found the tone, if I were to describe it colloquially, along the lines of "all right, nobody wants an autocracy, but don't you think having X is a good idea?"

 

[LightSpectra]

I find it astounding people argue otherwise. The point of this comparison was the extremely limited AoC government was very quickly retired for the more centralized federal government. This was not a small incremental increase--this was a fundamental change in how the states would interact.

Okay, so...? How is your point proven, that the Founding Fathers did not care so much about limited government, if the very first thing they attempted was the smallest government possible, and then made it a little more centralized after they perceived that the Articles weren't enough?

In response to your later notes, I did not compare to governments of today or outside of the US for the simple reason that it isn't relevant to the point I made above. This is about the degree of change in the government of one country over a short time period (less than a decade). Or, to describe it biologically, micro-evolution.

What you said was that "The United States was not founded on the idea of 'limited' government." What I responded with is that by the standards of their time, they had the most limited government in the known world, in accords with the writings of Locke and Montesquieu. I think that's relevant.

Having read more than a few essays from The Federalist (admittedly, back in high school, so it's been a long time), I received the impression it was in favor of a stronger, more centralized government. And if I remember correctly, a number of these essays were dedicated to the idea that the current, limited government was insufficient to meet the needs of the states.

The general fear amongst Americans was that central government would encroach on their personal rights in the same manner the British did. The point of the Federalist Papers was to argue in favor the Constitution as a balance between too little federal power (in which the government cannot protect their rights) and overextended federal power (in which the government has too much interference in the prerogative of the states). Read Federalist No. 39.

 

[Dachs]

I'll tackle your post when the weekend comes around Dach, too busy as of now to bog myself down in it.

Cool, aronna :3

What I meant was that the Royal Navy captures the Coastal Cities, the British Army stockpiles supply in them and then strike into the countryside.

You still need the army to capture said cities in conjunction with the fleet; see Savannah and Manhattan. Anyway, it was just a minor nitpick for lulz.

Okay, I might have overestimated myself and the ability of the British to fight the Revolution. But I do think that, just before the French entry into war, right after the Philadelphia and Saratoga Campaign, both of them which were major wins for both sides, the war could have gone either way. While either outcome was possible, at that defining moment in time, I feel that the British had a much better chance in defeating the US than the US did in defeating the British. The intervention of France and Spain and the Dutch, swung the favour decisively in the US.

On your post about the comparison with the WWI Campaign in East German Africa, I will agree with you. But the resources that I believe are crucial to the war against America that are being diverted by Europe, was the British Royal Navy, not the land forces recruited for defense.

I agree that the war was far from decided in 1777, that it could very conceivably have gone either way. And I've more than willing to acknowledge that the addition of allies played a significant role in keeping the ball rolling. I honestly don't have much of an opinion at all as to which outcome was more likely if the allied powers didn't get involved, though.

 

[aelf]

Having a constitution means having a limited government? Frankly, I'm quite surprised to find out that the French Republic has a limited government, as far as the Libertarian meaning is concerned.

At any rate, the Federalist Papers also contains a very interesting defense of a federal union by Jefferson. Basically his argument was that the union provided for a national political battle ground that would help alleviate the tyranny of parochial interests in their localities. In fact, it seems to me that the American Founding Fathers were more interested in avoiding political tyranny of any sort, especially through but not limited to the over-centralisation of government. Does that imply limited government? Maybe, but I suspect only in the sense of limiting a tyrannical one. The existence of checks and balances does not mean limited government in the Libertarian parlance.

 

[deanej]

Having a constitution means having a limited government? Frankly, I'm quite surprised to find out that the French Republic has a limited government, as far as the Libertarian meaning is concerned.

By that definition, China has a limited government as well.

 

[Antilogic]

Okay, so...? How is your point proven, that the Founding Fathers did not care so much about limited government, if the very first thing they attempted was the smallest government possible, and then made it a little more centralized after they perceived that the Articles weren't enough?

The original claim was that the USA is the antithesis of centralized government. My point is we have built a centralized government from the beginning, and for that I have cited the development of the Constitutional government as more centralized than the AoC. Interpreting this to mean "as small as practicable" is but one of many possible opinions people could have held at this time.

What you said was that "The United States was not founded on the idea of 'limited' government." What I responded with is that by the standards of their time, they had the most limited government in the known world, in accords with the writings of Locke and Montesquieu. I think that's relevant.

I'm still not convinced your argument is winning in this case, and perhaps it is because I'm not making my point clearly. Consider that Virginia signed a separate peace at the end of the Revolution, while under the new Constitution no individual state could maintain any separate foreign embassy. Consider the new Constitution had broad powers with regards to regulating commerce: individual states would not be able to levy tariffs or engage in protectionist economic practices against other states. Consider the new government could levy taxes more easily (and force compliance) instead of simply requesting its operating funds and hoped the individual states complied. Although the national bank is not explicitly part of the Constitution, consider the new government had the authority to form a national bank and declare a single national currency, as opposed to individual state currencies. Consider the creation of a national judicial branch, with an appointed Supreme Court that had authority over local courts on the interpretation of law.

To call this government more limited than an autocracy is to compare all temperatures on the Kelvin scale against absolute zero; all differences seem small compared to such a distant set point (and this is how I see your argument about it being the "most limited"). The point is that the government installed in 1789, willingly, by the same people who fought that supposedly "anti-government" revolution against Britain, is far more centralized than their previous government. That implies, to me, that their problem was not with the nature of government but with their lack of participation in it. I would say the lack of American representation in the Parliament was one of the key factors fueling the revolution--after all, the phrase is "no taxation without representation".

The general fear amongst Americans was that central government would encroach on their personal rights in the same manner the British did. The point of the Federalist Papers was to argue in favor the Constitution as a balance between too little federal power (in which the government cannot protect their rights) and overextended federal power (in which the government has too much interference in the prerogative of the states). Read Federalist No. 39.

I do not recall individual essays from The Federalist and will have to wait to comment more extensively on this. However, pointing out the microevolution again: going from way too little federal power to a good balance of federal power is centralization.

 

[LightSpectra]

Having a constitution means having a limited government? Frankly, I'm quite surprised to find out that the French Republic has a limited government, as far as the Libertarian meaning is concerned.

The Constitution of the French First Republic was completely suppressed by the time the Reign of Terror began. Had it been obeyed, it would've been something of a limited government, though less so than the United States.

At any rate, the Federalist Papers also contains a very interesting defense of a federal union by Jefferson.

Jefferson didn't write any of the Federalist Papers. In fact, he played almost no part in the formulation of the Constitution, as he was serving as ambassador to France at the time of its debate and ratification. I'm assuming you meant James Madison here.

Basically his argument was that the union provided for a national political battle ground that would help alleviate the tyranny of parochial interests in their localities. In fact, it seems to me that the American Founding Fathers were more interested in avoiding political tyranny of any sort, especially through but not limited to the over-centralisation of government. Does that imply limited government? Maybe, but I suspect only in the sense of limiting a tyrannical one. The existence of checks and balances does not mean limited government in the Libertarian parlance.

The context of the Federalist Papers was in favor of the Constitution against the Articles of Confederation. So Hamilton, Madison and Jay were arguing that the nature of the Articles meant that the central government had little power to resist against factions, and that a government under the U.S. Constitution would be more suited for that purpose.

Perhaps more relevant than Federalist No. 10, however, would be No. 84, which argues that a Bill of Rights is unnecessary because it is implied by the Constitution that those rights are already protected.

The original claim was that the USA is the antithesis of centralized government. My point is we have built a centralized government from the beginning, and for that I have cited the development of the Constitutional government as more centralized than the AoC. Interpreting this to mean "as small as practicable" is but one of many possible opinions people could have held at this time.

That's not what you were arguing against before. Before, you were trying to imply that the notion of "limited government" has been falsely post facto applied to what the Founding Fathers established, which is demonstrably false. Now you're simply saying that the U.S. had a federal government, which is tautological.

I'm still not convinced your argument is winning in this case, and perhaps it is because I'm not making my point clearly. Consider that Virginia signed a separate peace at the end of the Revolution, while under the new Constitution no individual state could maintain any separate foreign embassy. Consider the new Constitution had broad powers with regards to regulating commerce: individual states would not be able to levy tariffs or engage in protectionist economic practices against other states. Consider the new government could levy taxes more easily (and force compliance) instead of simply requesting its operating funds and hoped the individual states complied. Although the national bank is not explicitly part of the Constitution, consider the new government had the authority to form a national bank and declare a single national currency, as opposed to individual state currencies. Consider the creation of a national judicial branch, with an appointed Supreme Court that had authority over local courts on the interpretation of law.

Yes, I know what the differences between the Articles and the Constitution are. These aren't relevant to the matter at hand (well, at least before, when apparently we were talking about something different I guess).

To call this government more limited than an autocracy is to compare all temperatures on the Kelvin scale against absolute zero; all differences seem small compared to such a distant set point (and this is how I see your argument about it being the "most limited"). The point is that the government installed in 1789, willingly, by the same people who fought that supposedly "anti-government" revolution against Britain, is far more centralized than their previous government.

Okay. No argument there. Are you aware that even though the U.S. Constitution gives more power to the federal government, that the government still had far less power than that of the United Kingdom?

That implies, to me, that their problem was not with the nature of government but with their lack of participation in it.

Conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

I would say the lack of American representation in the Parliament was one of the key factors fueling the revolution--after all, the phrase is "no taxation without representation".

That was hardly the only problem. The colonists also perceived that they fought for British expansionism in North America without being fairly rewarded. The British had also disallowed the Americans from trading with anybody but other territories in the Empire, not to mention various other problems.

I do not recall individual essays from The Federalist and will have to wait to comment more extensively on this. However, pointing out the microevolution again: going from way too little federal power to a good balance of federal power is centralization.

You keep harping on that but that's entirely irrelevant to what we're talking about.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Misconception: That Roosevelt being a good or bad president is something that is easily decided and one position can clearly be labeled wrong, and the belief in it to be a misconception.

While I agree completely with your point, don't you think it's a bad precedent to set if we start allowing people to post new misconceptions as counter arguments for statements made in this thread? We can always dispute their conclusions, but this thread did start out as misconceptions learned "in school".

 

[bombshoo]

What this thread should have been called: "State a random opinion on history as a fact and then argue about it".

 

[GinandTonic]

Thats the joy of the whole forum

 

[say1988]

Thats the joy of all amature historians (and a lot of professional ones too).

 

[Fr8monkey]

MYTH: Ninjas ran around like this all the time...

Real ninjas wold use that as night camouflage; but would dress more inconspicuous to avoid detection. Like this...

 

[negZero]

MYTH: Ninjas ran around like this all the time...

When was the last time you saw ninja run around?

 

[SG-17]

I remember that my one history teacher several years ago told us that the design of the government of the United States of America was in no way influenced by the Ancient Roman Republic.