Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt

[R. Evans]

Originally Posted by Savez

Haha! That's kind of hard in a thread comparing Lincoln and Roosevelt.

True. Which makes me wonder whether this thread doesn't belong somewhere else as it's not really a Civil War topic.

[Hypaspist]

Originally Posted by R. Evans

True. Which makes me wonder whether this thread doesn't belong somewhere else as it's not really a Civil War topic.

Why don't you wonder it to yourself then?

I'd rather discuss this with people interested in the Civil War and history than in a political sub forum, which really acts as a flytrap.

[R. Evans]

Originally Posted by Hypaspist

Why don't you wonder it to yourself then?

I'd rather discuss this with people interested in the Civil War and history than in a political sub forum, which really acts as a flytrap.

Didn't realize that I wasn't allowed to wonder out loud here.

And it started into flytrap status the minute Lincoln was compared to today's progressives. TR and Lincoln wouldn't recognize today's political landscape at all.

[Hypaspist]

I don't know if it's wondering. Suggesting a thread be moved is kind of a dick move.

[Legate]

Originally Posted by Massena

I believe you're confusing a strong federal government with a large one, the so-called 'big government' problem we have today.

The Founders were for a strong federal government because the lack of one was allowing the country to fall apart under the Articles of Confederation.

That was the purpose of the Constitutional Convention-to revamp redo the Articles and the product was the Constitution which does provide for a strong federal government.

Sincerely,
M

Actually the Founders weren't all that united on ratifying the Constitution. There was a lot of opposition to it. Even Washington himself was hesitant about supporting it until Hamilton and Knox mislead him about the so called Whiskey Rebellion.

[R. Evans]

Originally Posted by Hypaspist

I don't know if it's wondering. Suggesting a thread be moved is kind of a dick move.

Too bad.

[Nickuru]

Originally Posted by Hypaspist

I know that Lincoln was a leader of volunteers. Roosevelt actually went to war though, even if he was a poor soldier. San Juan Hill should have been a massacre, but fortune was on his side. The difference is that Roosevelt's experiences in his youth shaped him to become a better leader. Lincoln's greatest strengths and, perhaps, his genius and deviousness were the result of his years of experience as a lawyer.

On Roosevelt's imperialism: The thing that made TR different than those that followed is that he was a nationalist and an aggressive diplomat before America was involved in any entangling foreign alliances. Part of his audacity, and willingness to intervene as necessary in the Barbary Coast and elsewhere, was due to this. I think his greatest accomplishment was strengthening the Navy. He saw the result of the Czar's fleet traveling around the world to Tsushima, so his Great White Fleet was sent around the world to test its readiness. In contrast to the Russian fleet, the US Fleet would come back stronger, more efficient, and better than it ever had been.

Umm, with all due respects, the Great White Fleet did not have to face a battle proven fleet and commander (Togo Heihachiro) like Zhinovy Rodzhestvensky did after dragging his fleet over halfway around the world, to Tsushima. You may correctly argue that the Russians should never have attempted this in the first place. Believe it or not this was a phenomenal feat of seamanship. The British refused to let their 'allies' use the Suez canal in 1905. Getting a fleet around the Cape of Good Hope was an excellent example of seamanship. It was just that the Japanese were waiting on Rodzhestvensky's fleet. The Great White Fleet never encountered anything more dangerous than a Great White Shark.

[Hypaspist]

Originally Posted by Nickuru

Umm, with all due respects, the Great White Fleet did not have to face a battle proven fleet and commander (Togo Heihachiro) like Zhinovy Rodzhestvensky did after dragging his fleet over halfway around the world, to Tsushima. You may correctly argue that the Russians should never have attempted this in the first place. Believe it or not this was a phenomenal feat of seamanship. The British refused to let their 'allies' use the Suez canal in 1905. Getting a fleet around the Cape of Good Hope was an excellent example of seamanship. It was just that the Japanese were waiting on Rodzhestvensky's fleet. The Great White Fleet never encountered anything more dangerous than a Great White Shark.

That they didn't go into combat is not the point: The Russian Baltic fleet was not prepared to fight anyone by the time they sailed around the world. Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet was launched specifically because of the failure of the Russian fleet, and it came back in better condition because of the experience gained during that voyage and because the US Navy was not as brutally disciplined as the Russian. That the Russians were destroyed was just the inevitable result of poor morale and reduced combat efficiency.
It may be hard to believe today, but the Navy of 100 years ago was tough. Sailors used to be tough.

[doublejm1]

Originally Posted by Hypaspist

On Roosevelt's imperialism: The thing that made TR different than those that followed is that he was a nationalist and an aggressive diplomat before America was involved in any entangling foreign alliances. Part of his audacity, and willingness to intervene as necessary in the Barbary Coast and elsewhere, was due to this. I think his greatest accomplishment was strengthening the Navy. He saw the result of the Czar's fleet traveling around the world to Tsushima, so his Great White Fleet was sent around the world to test its readiness. In contrast to the Russian fleet, the US Fleet would come back stronger, more efficient, and better than it ever had been.

I agree that Teddy deserves a lot of credit for helping the U.S. become the naval superpower it is today.

[doublejm1]

I recently read that at his inauguration Teddy Roosevelt wore a ring that had one of Abe Lincoln's hairs on it. Can anyone corroborate this?

[Selous]

Originally Posted by doublejm1

I recently read that at his inauguration Teddy Roosevelt wore a ring that had one of Abe Lincoln's hairs on it. Can anyone corroborate this?

My copy of Theodore Rex is at my apartment and I am not there, but I can check when I go back. The internet offered up an article by Gene Griessmann called the Lincoln-Roosevelt connection which seems to suggest that that was the case. On closer examination it seems Dr Greissman also appears as Lincoln in speeches and what not.

http://www.presidentlincoln.com/

[doublejm1]

Originally Posted by Selous

My copy of Theodore Rex is at my apartment and I am not there, but I can check when I go back. The internet offered up an article by Gene Griessmann called the Lincoln-Roosevelt connection which seems to suggest that that was the case. On closer examination it seems Dr Greissman also appears as Lincoln in speeches and what not.

http://www.presidentlincoln.com/

Is "Theodore Rex" a good book?

[R. Evans]

Originally Posted by doublejm1

Is "Theodore Rex" a good book?

Yes.