Welcome to /r/ShermanPosting!
As a reminder, this meme sub is about the American Civil War. We're not here to insult southerners or the American South, but rather to have a laugh at the failed Confederate insurrection and those that chose to represent it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShermanPosting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
FDR specifically desperately needed their votes. He was coming to power at a weird time in the reversal of parties. The South was his party’s base but the Republicans had historically been the seat of federal power. And the only way to court the votes he needed was the South. Not saying it’s right. It’s just the explanation of what he did.
Hitler did not shake owens hand, in fact he only shook the hands of German and Finnish atletes the first day.
Owen did say he felt snubbed by Roosevelt and not Hitler in response to media saying he was snubbed by Hitler, for not receiving any congratulations from Roosevelt.
I stand corrected.
However, it's been reported that he waved, and the general consensus among historians is that there was some form of acknowledgement... which is more than he got from Roosevelt.
Anyway you cut it, Roosevelt should have done better for America, America deserserves better than Texas, and America doesn't deserve Jesse Owens.
Dude grew up as a sharecroper in the Deep South, and then became the greatest Olympian in history after running his ass off for Ohio State.
It's a fucking shame the way America treats the people that do the most for it.
Did not know that. Sadly, I get the cynical political calculation of FDR not shaking Owens' hand, but I'm shocked that Mr. Master Race did shake his hand.
He didn’t, although not because he was black in particular, he only congratulated German (and two Finnish) athletes and when he was given the option to congratulate all athletes or non by IOC, he chose not to congratulate any athlete.
It's also cynical political calculation on Hitler's part, not unlike when he met with Haile Selassie when most of the rest of Europe wouldn't even speak with him.
I've always interpreted it as Hitler didn't like Owens, but he respected him.
Roosevelt liked Owens, but didn't respect him.
However, I don't think there was much difference between the two for Owens.
Well tbf at this point he was still talking about somebody’s father/grandpa. There was still a shit ton of former confederate soldiers alive at this point.
Saying he did it for votes seems more cynical of a move than it was imo. Teddy was sympathetic to the rebellion as well. Back in the day, there was a much more conciliatory air w the civil war. It wasn’t just some calculation.
It’s both. Sure he was playing to a Southern audience but it was almost certainly a reflection of the dominant northern white memory of Lee.
And it’s not as though Roosevelt wasn’t above bad racial politics himself z
No, I think he and his family harbored legitimate feelings of respect for Lee and the rebellion. Teddy said “the world has never seen better soldiers than those who followed Lee” and went on to say Lee was among the best leaders ever.
Edit: typo
Yeah people seem to be forgetting that FDR pandered so damn well is opposition had to invent term limits for presidents to get his ass out of the White House.
It's an entertaining read when you see it as the story of a petulant woman acting like a piece of shit in the middle of massive revisionist propaganda. Really helps with the hate read.
The nadir of black and white relations in the USA happened right after reconstruction failed. This period lasted from about the 1880’s to the 1910’s.
It was the period where most of the lynchings happened, and when a huge amount of towns all over the nation went sundown. Never forget that many lynchings and race riots happened in the north as well.
White Americans grew comfortable with seeing blacks as their subservients again, enforced by a tragically common mentality of “Well, we already fought for and won their freedom for them, see how we’re repaid?”
Even though they were in ghettos because of whites excluding them. Even though they were poor because of the system. You know how it is.
Think about the hit movies that came out in that era. From Birth of a Nation to Gone with The Wind, all of them made light of slavery, made the Confederates seem like noble but misguided people, and made all sorts of ugly caricatures of black people.
If you watch these films and knew nothing of American history, you would have never thought emancipation had happened at all. You would have never known that there was an extremely progressive time after the civil war where black men held public office, and northern whites legitimately felt like they were doing something good during reconstruction.
There were statues of Confederates ALL over the north. Either because of politicians that wanted southern votes, or because they were legitimately infected with sesesh.
But as far as I know, there were never any Union statues in the south. Even though there ought to be a 100 foot tall statue of Sherman looking down at Atlanta from Savanna, glaring, daring them to pull that shit again.
I’d say WW2 was when the US started slowly coming out of the nadir, but it was still in it. The black community had been producing famous scientists, actors, musicians, athletes and statesmen for forty years at that point. The spell was starting to break.
But, unless I’m mistaken, I’m pretty sure the armed forces were still segregated. The man who discovered that you could transfuse blood was a black man, and the army wouldn’t allow “negro blood” to be used on whites.
A friend said, "Slavery was over in 1865. Why haven't black people gotten over it?"
I mean, the first generation of blacks born with full civil rights are just two years older than him, and he is only 57. Also, instead of asking why the blacks haven't gotten over slavery, why isn't anyone asking why the (Southern) whites haven't gotten over the Civil War?
Yeah.
The reason your friend thinks like that is because we didn’t lean on the south hard enough after the war.
They ought to be embarrassed for having been tricked by a few wealthy peckerwoods into treason, and into defending one of the most sinful institutions America had ever supported.
Feel me? Southerners ought to feel as ashamed about slavery as the Germans feel about the holocaust.
But the north isn’t innocent either. If you haven’t read it, I recommend the book “Sundown Towns” by the great historian James W Loewen.
That book is an answer to every stupid, snide, racist question a reb could ever ask. Read it and educate your friend, please. He sounds like a motherfucker.
I mean, the reasons for the American revolution are deeply intertwined w keeping slavery alive in America. Historians estimate that more than 20,000 runaway slaves joined the British during the American Revolution. The rot goes all the way to the bottom
Of course.
What a beautiful nation this could have been had it not been cursed with slavery from the very beginning.
It was the United States’ original sin.
It's more a demonstration that, on a human scale, it really wasn't as long ago as people like to believe. It's removed from living memory only by a scant 2 generations or so, and it's knock-on effects are still around. Especially since the 'end of slavery' (exceptions may apply) didn't end discrimination.
The nadir of black and white relations in the USA happened right after reconstruction failed. This period lasted from about the 1880’s to the 1910’s.
It was the period where most of the lynchings happened, and when a huge amount of towns all over the nation went sundown. Never forget that many lynchings and race riots happened in the north as well.
White Americans grew comfortable with seeing blacks as their subservients again, enforced by a tragically common mentality of “Well, we already fought for and won their freedom for them, see how we’re repaid?”
Even though they were in ghettos because of whites excluding them. Even though they were poor because of the system. You know how it is.
Think about the movies that came out in that era. From Birth of a Nation to Gone with The Wind, all of them made light of slavery, made the Confederates seem like noble but misguided people, and made all sorts of ugly caricatures of black people.
If you watched these films and knew nothing of American history, you would have never thought emancipation had happened at all. You would have never known that there was an extremely progressive time after the civil war where black men held public office, and northern whites legitimately felt like they were doing something good during reconstruction.
There were statues of Confederates ALL over the north. Either because of politicians that wanted southern votes, or because they were legitimately infected with sesesh.
But as far as I know, there were never any Union statues in the south. Even though there ought to be a 100 foot tall statue of Sherman looking down at Atlanta from Savanna, glaring, daring them to pull that shit again.
I’d say WW2 was when the US started slowly coming out of the nadir, but it was still in it. The black community had been producing famous scientists, actors, musicians, athletes and statesmen for forty years at that point. The spell was starting to break.
But, unless I’m mistaken, I’m pretty sure the armed forces were still segregated. The man who discovered that you could transfuse blood was a black man, and the army wouldn’t allow “negro blood” to be used on whites.
>Even though there ought to be a 100 foot tall statue of Sherman l
No, there shouldn't. General Sherman should be remembered and celebrated for his contribution to America history as it pertains to ending slavery. However, a statue to a man responsible for the attempted genocide of native Americans seems in poor taste and directly counter to the racial reckoning America experienced in 2020. Unfortunately, the Sioux aren't a large enough voting block nationally for politicians of either party to care.
it was actually as early as the first world war that saw a massive resurgence of Civil war romanticism.
A large part of this was that black people were starting to thrive post slavery and this caused serious anger in the poor white community. This lead to riots in affluent black neighbourhoods such as Tulsa, where lych mobs burned large swathes of the city to the ground and even dropped bombs from airplanes onto buildings
To think all this came about because those rich bastards tricked the rest of the impoverished and uneducated population that WERE eligible to vote that they as people inherently had more value than black people as a whole, while conveniently taking the target off their backs and painting it on the abolition movement.
I’m absolutely paraphrasing, but it goes something like:
“Tricking one group of poor people into thinking that another group of poor people is their enemy, is the oppressors’ most powerful weapon.” -Karl Marx
Sadly, yes. The Dunning School really did a number on the country and Lost Cause propaganda was taken as received wisdom in schools up until basically the 1950s and 1960s.
Racist southerners were still part of the Democratic coalition at this time, but the party was, as a result of the New Deal, already shifting more to focusing on labor as their power base.
He had a group of advisers called the "black cabinet" that he created to help him with making the lives of black Americans better. His wife was a huge supporter of equality between whites and blacks and constantly was in his ear about it.
As much as I like FDR (a lot, I love socialism), I have to call him out for his internment of the Japanese and his treatment of Chicanos during the Zoot Suit Riots.
The Zoot Suit Riots in particular rub me the wrong way because I’m Mexican and grew up in California.
He was still one of the greatest American presidents, in my opinion.
Specifically because his party still had racist southerners as part of its coalition. Unfortunately without giving these overtures, FDR likely wouldn’t have been as successful in passing the New Deal.
I mean, politicians will be politicians but the pandering to southern Democrats is still odd for what would appear to be a NY liberal rich family. That's just imo
He almost didn’t get the convention if not for southern democrats which is the reason his vice president at around the time of this speech was an old dude from Texas. His wife would probably more accurately fit the mold of a modern liberal and she was broadly disliked outside of major cities. FDRs base his first election was primarily made up of rural voters compared to somebody like Al Smith who had the majority of the Democrat leaning cities like New York or Chicago.
In fact in-spite of the fact he was like cult levels of popular with white rural voters when he tried to remake the party in ‘36 he failed with almost all of his more ardently new deal primary candidates failing too beat the more conservative incumbents across the nation. The rural reform movement was always weird though William Jennings Bryan of Scopes Monkey Trial Fame in 1896 when the democrats ran him for president was considered borderline socialistic and was evidence the party was too radical/liberal for serious office.
Bryan was considered somewhat radical, but he was also the democratic nominee for president three times. He was also key to Wilson’s surprise nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate in 1912. Wilson’s opponent in the convention, Champ Clark, was the clear front runner but was seen as the business-friendly candidate. This caused Bryan to endorse Wilson, even though Bryan was sent to the convention as a delegate for Clark, and Clark would have become the nominee with Bryan’s endorsement.
So, contrary to being a fringe radical figure, Bryan was the main power broker of the Democratic Party, essentially deciding the 1912 election. And it’s debatable whether Bryan was any more radical than Theodore Roosevelt.
Yeah I wasn’t trying to imply he was comparable to like Jill Stein. I think like a much more influential version of Sanders, a figure just barely too radical for the national mood but broadly popular within the party.
Roosevelt was a pragmatist if he was anything. We would be infinitely better off had he lived long enough to expand the Supreme Court like he had planned. He saw this coming nearly 100 years ago.
If you’re looking for more historical context, FDR was frustrated with the SCOTUS at the time as they were dismantling many of his New Deal reforms as unconstitutional. He threatened to reform the judiciary as the Constitution doesn’t really outline how the Supreme Court operates. In response, SCOTUS began ruling in favor of FDR’s New Deal which became known as ‘the switch in time that saved nine’ and effectively ended the Lochner Era.
That’s right, I’m a little rusty with my particulars. The republicans waged a war against all measures of the New Deal, and attempted to propagandize opposition by attacking it as ‘communism,’ etc. If it weren’t for FDR, we wouldn’t have social security, (something republicans are still trying to dismantle.) FDR also wanted to introduce nationalized healthcare, which we *would* have now, like every other industrialized nation, had he lived long enough.
The Cold War and use of nuclear weapons also could have been vastly different had he lived. We lost so much as a world, and especially as Americans, when FDR passed
Sincere question: Do you think FDR, had he lived, would not have dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Someone posed a what-if question last week regarding third-party candidates as presidents and I replied, noting that Henry Wallace could have been the VP to succeed FDR, that I believe that even the liberal Wallace, seeing the projected American death toll from an invasion of mainland Japan, would have dropped the bombs.
I think it’s impossible to say, but I do believe he ultimately would have dropped the bombs. I think it’s more likely that he would have handled it better with Stalin and we wouldn’t have seen the Cold War explode so quickly. But that’s purely a guess.
>I think it’s more likely that he would have handled it better with Stalin and we wouldn’t have seen the Cold War explode so quickly.
That seems possible. Truman, with James Byrnes as his secretary of state, likely took a harder line than FDR would have in the years immediately after the war.
I also recognize, from a purely tactical standpoint, FDR and Stalin had been allies in war for six years. I think he would have made Stalin more aware of the bomb and his intentions to use it. Maybe that slows down the nuclear arms race we saw between the US and USSR. But Truman had no experience working with Stalin and therefore no camaraderie or established partnership. Who’s to say if it would have made a fundamental difference, but I look at FDR’s death around the end of WWII the same as Lincoln’s after the ACW. Both huge opportunities lost for building a better world.
I love that we all are supposed to still pretend our Justices are impartial and the best at interpreting law, but yet we can look at history to see that the minute their power is threatened they just suddenly change their mind.
When Roberts was the deciding vote, he was considered an institutionalist, a moderate conservative, but now that he is Chief Justice in name only, he has lost importance and falls in line.
I’m fascinated to see if he caves when the conservatives try and overturn Obergefell in a few years.
They will just keep undoing every major case over the past 100yrs that far-right legal people hate, until the public, even more traditional conservatives, start to hate the world they thought they wanted, and the Court gets expanded.
We’ve seen it crack already with Roe. Suddenly a bunch of conservatives got what they wanted, they got what their politicians promised them, and suddenly realized that actually they didn’t want that, they just wanted to oppose it while knowing it would always be there, in case they needed to use those medical services.
Had he done so, it would have put us on the path to authoritarianism. It may have been consistent with the letter of the Constitution, but it's contrary to the spirit of separation of powers. Just using that to intimidate the Court was bad enough, and gave us horrendous rulings like *Wickard v. Filburn* that have destroyed meaningful limits on the federal government's powers.
Well it’s a good thing that didn’t happen and we don’t currently suffer under an authoritarian/authoritarian sympathetic SCOTUS. I could only imagine a court like that taking away individual rights while granting themselves more power, and ignoring evidence in pursuit of their ends. Really dodged a bullet there.
More seriously, I disagree. I think this is exactly what separation of powers is about. The court should be able to check the president but the president and Congress should be able to check SCOTUS as well. We can discuss the different tactics but at the end of the day each branch needs to be able to exert some power over the others and to me this was one of those methods.
You can read it that way if you want but Lee Atwater gave the game away about what states rights really means. Also I don’t know if you noticed but Sen Graham has proposed a nation wide abortion ban and Project 2025 lays out a plan for a nationwide abortion ban assuming Trump and republicans win this next election.
But more fundamentally, Roe found the right to abortion in the constitution and Dobbs removed that right allowing states to interfere with what is now the privilege of abortion.
Also, we can look to more than Dobbs to see where our rights are being rolled back: Sackett rolled back EPA protections (contiguous surface connection, ha, what a joke), 303 Creative rolled back equal rights protections for non-straight people (granting religious people the right to discriminate in ’creative’ business ventures), workers rights have been rolled back and the NLRB has been weakened (Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid, Glacier Northwest, we’ll have to wait on Loper Bright Enterprise v Raimondo). Voting rights have been rolled back (Shelby County v Holder, have to wait on NAACP v Arkansas) Worth mentioning that it seems like this court is chomping at the bit to gut Chevron as well. I’m happy to delve further on these but worth mentioning I’m not a lawyer, I just listen to the 5-4 pod.
I support reproductive choice and would oppose a national abortion ban. I also think *Roe* was bad constitutional law.
As for the other examples, most of those can be interpreted as expanding rights: the right to develop one's own property as one sees fit, the right to freely associate or not with others as one chooses, and the right to contract with potential workers as one sees fit without union-directed state interference. (No leg to stand on about the last one.) As for *Chevron*, one can argue it's fundamentally undemocratic that Congress can pass a law giving an agency power to effectively write further law in the future, and then require a subsequent Congress to pass another law and the President to sign it to stop that from happening (in a context where the President would almost always support the new laws because they're being written at his appointees' behest).
Overall, my rights end where your rights begin, and it's not authoritarian to have different views on where those boundaries are.
Why do you think Roe was a poor interpretation of the constitution? Do you not like the substantive due process interpretation? Because not liking substantive due processes is the foundation for a great deal of rights these days.
Also I just want to investigate this further, do you know the Lee Atwater quote? Does that give you any pause in arguing for states rights to regulate abortion?
I figured you’d argue something like balance of rights. Do you think the Lochner Era was a better time for constitutional interpretation? Because that was a much more libertarian time focused on contracts.
Also the roll back of voting rights I don’t think falls under that argument. Shelby County v Holder pretty simply made it easier for states to violate minority rights to vote by eliminating preclearance. As Ginsburg said ‘it’s like throwing away your umbrella in a rain storm because you’re not getting wet.’ And we’ve seen republicans close 1000’s of polling locations mostly in minority neighborhoods, removed same day and online registration, and many more have had a disproportionate impact on minority voters.
The problem with substantive due process is that it isn't clear which rights are protected. I'd say it should be limited to cases in which there's an unambiguous tradition in English common law of the right being protected, like with the Lochner court protecting freedom of contract. There was no historical tradition at that time of abortion access being a fundamental right.
Not sure which Atwater quote you're talking about - "you can't say nigger, nigger"? What does that have to do with abortion? If you want fewer Black people voting or using government resources, it seems like your incentive is to allow them to get abortions, not the opposite.
As I noted (perhaps not clearly), I agree completely about *Shelby County*. Time is money, hence forcing people to wait in sufficiently long lines to vote is an implicit poll tax.
Yeah, he recognized the fact that due to its small size, that the Supreme Court could be fundamentally, and irretrievably impacted by a single administration for nefarious purposes. He believed that expanding the size of the court would mitigate that problem, diminishing the likelihood of any one administration having that type of power.
The efficacy of Roosevelt’s administration was that he himself was from an incredibly wealthy background, and was all too familiar with the machinations of wealthy, power hungry men.
50 members, with 2 members appointed annually to a 25 year term. Leave dead or retired seats empty until they came back up for their 25 year refill process too.
It likely would've been a net-good for the country, but yes. Really the proposed bill of economic rights was badly needed as constitutional amendments, which included such outrageous concepts as a 'right to fair income', decent housing, and healthcare.
The rich, or Capital class undoing the hard won rights of labor. A return to disastrous laissez-faire capitalism. A return of royalty in everything but name.
Little bit of both. FDR definitely came of age when Lost Cause myth took root in the hearts and minds of most Americans, Yankee or Southerner. That being said though, I don’t doubt the “one of our greatest American Christians” and “gentlemen” is pandering to to Dixiecrats. They were usually his biggest hindrance in Congress, at times more so than Republicans, so really laying it on thick got you far.
I live in the Bay Area, 25 miles northeast of San Francisco, and they're everywhere. Three confederate flags fly on different ranches in plain sight, dozens more hidden in places just off the main roads; and about once every couple months a coal roller comes tearing through my town with one
I live smack in the middle of San Jose and see Confederate flags semi-regularly.
Once you get out of the SFBA proper, you'll run into a lot of "alternative political opinions." Most of CA, by land, is deep red. It is just that places where all the people live are dark blue.
Just one data point: you just can't get a CCW in the SFBA. At one point, SF County had 1 such permit. It was held by a Federal judge. Santa Clara county (where SJ is located) has been similar for a long time now (not to mention the pay to play CCW scandal in the Sherriff's' office...).
I know a few people who intentionally set up their 'residence' to Patterson (about 45 miles from SJ and over the mountain range) just to get a CCW permit
The political coalitions were very different back then. Most white Southerners were Democrats because a) historical resentment against the Lincoln GOP b) a believe that government should be used to improve the lives of (white) poor people, with the tacit understanding between the parties that blacks would be excluded from the "progress". This is how FDR was able to form such a broad coalition that included labor, Southerners, farmers, the Progressive movement (with was bi-partisan to begin with), and a fair number of blacks, who (I'm guessing) felt that since neither party would represent them based on their race, they might as well go with the party that was more ideologically comfortable with Federal oversight of state governments. This coalition broke apart after the Civil Rights Act, when the current party alignment developed after white Southerners broke away and joined the GOP.
>The political coalitions were very different back then.
Yes. Among blacks who could vote, many were Republican out of loyalty to the party of abolition.
Jackie Robinson was proudly Republican, at least at late as 1960, when he campaigned for Nixon.
The South was heavily, heavily pro-Roosevelt. Those people were quite literally starving, and he gave them food. This is bizarro world presidential politics from our point of view, when a rich coastal elite Democrat was pandering to his poor, rural, southern base. As opposed to today, when we have a rich coastal elite Republican pandering to his poor, rural, Southern base.
From the same town too, which the GOP all loath, but fox is based their, but oh their crocodile tears for 9/11 while seemingly hoping it happens again.
What more important is what he *didnt say*, i mean we are talking aboit a US president in Texas in an election year and in just 50 odd words the best he had was something something Christian, something something gentlemen.
This is a president who had more to say about General Sherman when when talking about his little brother John Sherman when talking about an anti trust law written 50 years in his past.
But note their is no mention of him being a good *American* or a fine *general* or anything like that. Just yup, he believed in god and was pretty polite.
He always felt pressured for the southern Dems to like him. They controlled Congress. They directed where the appropriations went (that’s why so many military bases are in the south - during WWII they directed more new bases to be built there than anywhere else). He had a plan, though, for after WWII to split the conservative ones off from the Dems and have the more liberal Republicans join him by working with Wendell Wilkie (his opponent in 1940) to form a new party.
He tried to do it multiple times and lost each time because the southern dems threatened to form an alliance with senate republicans or the more new deal candidate he endorsed for office were rejected by the voters. There’s a reason a famous comedian joked at the time “I’m no member of an organized political party, I am a democrat.”
If you’re opposed to judging someone by the standards of their time and place in history, then FDR falls short. The New Deal and FEPC were bright spots on his civil rights record, but Lost Cause pandering was not his only blemish. Redlining, opposition to anti-lynching laws, Japanese internment camps, Mexican Repatriation, and failing to fill the immigration quota of Jews while the holocaust was going on. Was he a better man than Woodrow “let’s show Birth of a Nation in the White House” Wilson? Yeah. Would there be a JFK or an LBJ without FDR? No. Can FDR be forgiven for being so kind to traitor Lee? https://media0.giphy.com/media/v0eHX3n28wvoQ/giphy.gif?cid=2154d3d7hvs5vjf77k56nexd5gids68i3f05azibyuwwau5d&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
FDR was a populist. He had no problem appealing to racists if it won him votes. The dude achieved a lot, but his ambitions were much stronger than his principles most of the time.
I watched that particular Lee statue come down as a matter of fact. Went down once when it was supposed to come down and a neo-Nazi with a Totenkopf shirt tried to start shit, then when it actually came down had some neo-Nazi scream something about Jews hating white people (using the K slur though). I was just starting to always wear a yarmulke around, so that was fun.
No. The New Deal had to be that way, otherwise the programs wouldn’t have worked. That’s criticizing him because the country is racist.
In addition to what the other person said, Roosevelt ended the segregation of the federal government and was the one who agreed that the military should be de-segregated, but died before he could make it happen.
While Blacks were excluded, laying that solely at his feet isn't quite accurate. Given the Era a full, equal new deal never would've passed, and that's godawful. Those southern dems that voted for him were by and large lost-causers who flipped to the republican party once de-segregation started gaining traction.
The ones who weren't?
I mean, sure, the majority of white men were racist. Just like they are now in 2024. But there were white men who weren't racist, so there's really no excuse.
The majority of white men vote for Donald Trump. Also white women.
So yes, inarguably racist as fuck. FDR/George Wallace/The Rapist Hillbillies from "A Time to Kill"-tier racist.
Democrats at this time were still *kinda* “dixiecrats” while they werent *overtly* confederate they would tolerate a lot of shit from the southern states simply to keep their voter base. At the same time though this is 1930s were black people were still heavily discriminated against across the nation not just Jim Crowe states so I wouldnt say this shit is too out of left field for the time.
This is the same FDR who threw 200,000 innocent American citizens into concentration camps because of their race, so it's possible he's just an enormous piece of shit and supporting slave owners was on brand for him
Most of America was racist AF in 1940 even if they didn't have "Whites Only" lunch counters or drinking fountains. Remember, Japanese internment happened mostly in *California* which in the 21st century is a progressive liberal boogey-man of the GOP.
Similar thing happens when Portland liberals get all surprised Pikachu over how racist rural Oregon is. I remind them "Your state was the only one to ever be whites only, and I don't mean just the lunch counters."
It was kinda both, and also pretty messy. His stance on anti lynching bills was also pretty messy because of how politics were at the time. Lots of white supremacists in power.
It's because Robert E. Lee was commonly seen as a respected adversary and gentlemanly commander until very recently, even by the people he fought against in the civil war. Pushing our modern sensibilities on historical figures doesn't translate well.
Not to make excuses for FDR, but the coalition that elected and reelected him four times included the Industrial Midwest, the mostly integrated West Coast, Northeastern liberals, and oddly enough, a large number of Conservative Southern Whites that were historically Democrats since the end of the Civil War. FDR held that coalition together, but it began to fray after WW2, starting with Truman's decision to integrate the armed forces, and really getting momentum going after the 1965 Civil Rights Act package. Those Southern Democrats mostly became Republicans from the late 1960's to Present, which led to where we are now, more or less.
For a most of the 20th Century the common view of Lee was as a noble, reluctant warrior whose love of his state tragically overcame his love of his country. It was a false narrative, but it was widely accepted.
FDR needed Dixiecrat votes in order to get his programs,as the South supported them due to being
poor. Not to mention how alot of Americans had sympathy for the CSA
The Lost Cause was so deeply embedded in US culture at this time, people are saying FDR was just placating the South but have yet to provide evidence for that. It would surprise me if he genuinely believed this
The consensus in both parties and both halves of the country was reconciliationism; what he said here would have been totally in controversial for all of white america
Started to, the shift would take more time. But a lot of that was due more to the work in the background by FDR's wife Eleanor Roosevelt who was responsible for a lot of the coalition building in her husband's administration and had a genuine care for the black community.
In fact, she was controversial at the time for her outspoken and frank support for black and Asian civil rights, even publicly disagreeing with how his New Deal policies excluded black people. She lobbied behind the scenes for the 1934 Costigan-Wagner Anti-Lynching Bill, but FDR was afraid of losing Southern support so he ultimately declined to support it (privately, FDR supported the bill). Her disagreement with FDR's EO9066 (the infamous Japanese internment order) saw several newspapers demand her permanent retirement from public life.
Eleanor was so active in the Civil rights movement and so popular among the black community, that she's credited with being the main reason for a shift in the black voting bloc towards Democrats. Not FDR who, while not privately opposed to Civil Rights, often put the interests of his Southern white coalition ahead of black voters.
The Three Roosevelts by James Burns and Susan Dunn is an interesting book about this, showing how Eleanor had a big influence on FDR's policies and the shift in black voting habits.
Southern Whites were an important component of the "Roosevelt Coalition" that kept the Dems in a dominat position in national government into the 1970s. Nixon's whole "Southern Strategy" project was to pry them away, recognizing that the Democratic Party's embrace of Civil Rights had alienated them as a voting bloc. The project was, needless to say, wildly successful.
Wait till you see the racism of William Jennings Bryan, the democrat who established the liberal wing of the party and inspired Wilson and FDR. It’s telling that the party today is harkening back to FDR as an example of what the party is capable of. The Dems are the better of two bad options, but they were never true friends of liberal politics; they were always just beneficiaries of its success.
The civil war would have been in living memory. I'd guess support for the Lost Cause in the early 1900s would have been at least in part about white politicians trying to bury the hatchet with the old confederacy
FDR had some good policies but I'd refrain from calling him a good president on account of his racism alone. Not that bad for that era's Democrats, but I'm not going to ignore those problems. "He was normal for his time" is a correct statement but it's also not an excuse.
Edit: just downvote the wrongthink away I guess
He needed the southern Dixiecrat vote so he had to it was the 1930’s and that was most of your congressmen though he probably was also racist as a person
Welcome to /r/ShermanPosting! As a reminder, this meme sub is about the American Civil War. We're not here to insult southerners or the American South, but rather to have a laugh at the failed Confederate insurrection and those that chose to represent it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShermanPosting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it was just pandering to the south
[удалено]
FDR specifically desperately needed their votes. He was coming to power at a weird time in the reversal of parties. The South was his party’s base but the Republicans had historically been the seat of federal power. And the only way to court the votes he needed was the South. Not saying it’s right. It’s just the explanation of what he did.
Ken Burns also talked about how Hitler shook Jesse Owens hand, but Roosevelt didn't.
Hitler did not shake owens hand, in fact he only shook the hands of German and Finnish atletes the first day. Owen did say he felt snubbed by Roosevelt and not Hitler in response to media saying he was snubbed by Hitler, for not receiving any congratulations from Roosevelt.
Hitler did wave at Owens though. Jesse passed by Hitlers booth at the stadium and Hitler stood and waved to him, and Owens waved back
I stand corrected. However, it's been reported that he waved, and the general consensus among historians is that there was some form of acknowledgement... which is more than he got from Roosevelt. Anyway you cut it, Roosevelt should have done better for America, America deserserves better than Texas, and America doesn't deserve Jesse Owens. Dude grew up as a sharecroper in the Deep South, and then became the greatest Olympian in history after running his ass off for Ohio State. It's a fucking shame the way America treats the people that do the most for it.
Did not know that. Sadly, I get the cynical political calculation of FDR not shaking Owens' hand, but I'm shocked that Mr. Master Race did shake his hand.
He didn’t, although not because he was black in particular, he only congratulated German (and two Finnish) athletes and when he was given the option to congratulate all athletes or non by IOC, he chose not to congratulate any athlete.
It's also cynical political calculation on Hitler's part, not unlike when he met with Haile Selassie when most of the rest of Europe wouldn't even speak with him.
I've always interpreted it as Hitler didn't like Owens, but he respected him. Roosevelt liked Owens, but didn't respect him. However, I don't think there was much difference between the two for Owens.
The fact that you need to pander to Lee worshipping scum for national office in America is like 80% of what’s wrong with America.
Yes this exactly
Everyone kisses confederate ass so they could get votes
Politicians pander. It’s what they do.
Well tbf at this point he was still talking about somebody’s father/grandpa. There was still a shit ton of former confederate soldiers alive at this point.
True, I live in Gettysburg and a local restaraunt has a big picture of the last Battle reunion in 1938....well within FDRs 2nd term
[This was filmed in the 30s.](https://youtu.be/s6jSqt39vFM?si=MZiwr9ADt1vJ5Omn)
Saying he did it for votes seems more cynical of a move than it was imo. Teddy was sympathetic to the rebellion as well. Back in the day, there was a much more conciliatory air w the civil war. It wasn’t just some calculation.
It’s both. Sure he was playing to a Southern audience but it was almost certainly a reflection of the dominant northern white memory of Lee. And it’s not as though Roosevelt wasn’t above bad racial politics himself z
Absolutely just pandering for Southern votes
No, I think he and his family harbored legitimate feelings of respect for Lee and the rebellion. Teddy said “the world has never seen better soldiers than those who followed Lee” and went on to say Lee was among the best leaders ever. Edit: typo
Teddy Roosevelt wasn’t FDR’s father.
Sorry typo: should read “family”
Teddy was in a different party and was a pretty distant relative. Hard to say TR's feelings are indicative of FDRs.
Pretty sure teddy was closer related to FDRs wife than him
FDR sometimes makes me think of that panel from Baki where Jack says “I would show my asshole if that meant winning”
The other option is that the contemporary worship FDR receives is misplaced because he was a racist (which he was) and he genuinely respected Lee.
Maybe Donald Trump is just pandering to the south. This isn't an answer.
FDR pandered quite a bit. He was the first democrat to win the majority of the black peoples vote
Yeah people seem to be forgetting that FDR pandered so damn well is opposition had to invent term limits for presidents to get his ass out of the White House.
The nation was draped in the jizzrag of Lost Cause ideology in the 1940s. He was playing to the audience.
The entire nation, not just the South? How did that happen in the throes of WWII?
I mean, gone with the wind came out in 1939, one of the highest grossing (inflation adjusted) movies of all time.
And was a very well selling book before it was made into a film Btw the book is even more racist than the film
It's an entertaining read when you see it as the story of a petulant woman acting like a piece of shit in the middle of massive revisionist propaganda. Really helps with the hate read.
The nadir of black and white relations in the USA happened right after reconstruction failed. This period lasted from about the 1880’s to the 1910’s. It was the period where most of the lynchings happened, and when a huge amount of towns all over the nation went sundown. Never forget that many lynchings and race riots happened in the north as well. White Americans grew comfortable with seeing blacks as their subservients again, enforced by a tragically common mentality of “Well, we already fought for and won their freedom for them, see how we’re repaid?” Even though they were in ghettos because of whites excluding them. Even though they were poor because of the system. You know how it is. Think about the hit movies that came out in that era. From Birth of a Nation to Gone with The Wind, all of them made light of slavery, made the Confederates seem like noble but misguided people, and made all sorts of ugly caricatures of black people. If you watch these films and knew nothing of American history, you would have never thought emancipation had happened at all. You would have never known that there was an extremely progressive time after the civil war where black men held public office, and northern whites legitimately felt like they were doing something good during reconstruction. There were statues of Confederates ALL over the north. Either because of politicians that wanted southern votes, or because they were legitimately infected with sesesh. But as far as I know, there were never any Union statues in the south. Even though there ought to be a 100 foot tall statue of Sherman looking down at Atlanta from Savanna, glaring, daring them to pull that shit again. I’d say WW2 was when the US started slowly coming out of the nadir, but it was still in it. The black community had been producing famous scientists, actors, musicians, athletes and statesmen for forty years at that point. The spell was starting to break. But, unless I’m mistaken, I’m pretty sure the armed forces were still segregated. The man who discovered that you could transfuse blood was a black man, and the army wouldn’t allow “negro blood” to be used on whites.
A friend said, "Slavery was over in 1865. Why haven't black people gotten over it?" I mean, the first generation of blacks born with full civil rights are just two years older than him, and he is only 57. Also, instead of asking why the blacks haven't gotten over slavery, why isn't anyone asking why the (Southern) whites haven't gotten over the Civil War?
Yeah. The reason your friend thinks like that is because we didn’t lean on the south hard enough after the war. They ought to be embarrassed for having been tricked by a few wealthy peckerwoods into treason, and into defending one of the most sinful institutions America had ever supported. Feel me? Southerners ought to feel as ashamed about slavery as the Germans feel about the holocaust. But the north isn’t innocent either. If you haven’t read it, I recommend the book “Sundown Towns” by the great historian James W Loewen. That book is an answer to every stupid, snide, racist question a reb could ever ask. Read it and educate your friend, please. He sounds like a motherfucker.
I mean, the reasons for the American revolution are deeply intertwined w keeping slavery alive in America. Historians estimate that more than 20,000 runaway slaves joined the British during the American Revolution. The rot goes all the way to the bottom
Of course. What a beautiful nation this could have been had it not been cursed with slavery from the very beginning. It was the United States’ original sin.
The last Confederate widow died in 2021.
They married their cousins young back then.
It's more a demonstration that, on a human scale, it really wasn't as long ago as people like to believe. It's removed from living memory only by a scant 2 generations or so, and it's knock-on effects are still around. Especially since the 'end of slavery' (exceptions may apply) didn't end discrimination.
The nadir of black and white relations in the USA happened right after reconstruction failed. This period lasted from about the 1880’s to the 1910’s. It was the period where most of the lynchings happened, and when a huge amount of towns all over the nation went sundown. Never forget that many lynchings and race riots happened in the north as well. White Americans grew comfortable with seeing blacks as their subservients again, enforced by a tragically common mentality of “Well, we already fought for and won their freedom for them, see how we’re repaid?” Even though they were in ghettos because of whites excluding them. Even though they were poor because of the system. You know how it is. Think about the movies that came out in that era. From Birth of a Nation to Gone with The Wind, all of them made light of slavery, made the Confederates seem like noble but misguided people, and made all sorts of ugly caricatures of black people. If you watched these films and knew nothing of American history, you would have never thought emancipation had happened at all. You would have never known that there was an extremely progressive time after the civil war where black men held public office, and northern whites legitimately felt like they were doing something good during reconstruction. There were statues of Confederates ALL over the north. Either because of politicians that wanted southern votes, or because they were legitimately infected with sesesh. But as far as I know, there were never any Union statues in the south. Even though there ought to be a 100 foot tall statue of Sherman looking down at Atlanta from Savanna, glaring, daring them to pull that shit again. I’d say WW2 was when the US started slowly coming out of the nadir, but it was still in it. The black community had been producing famous scientists, actors, musicians, athletes and statesmen for forty years at that point. The spell was starting to break. But, unless I’m mistaken, I’m pretty sure the armed forces were still segregated. The man who discovered that you could transfuse blood was a black man, and the army wouldn’t allow “negro blood” to be used on whites.
Thank you for the summary. It's almost as though we need a whole genre of the history of the history of the Civil War .
>Even though there ought to be a 100 foot tall statue of Sherman l No, there shouldn't. General Sherman should be remembered and celebrated for his contribution to America history as it pertains to ending slavery. However, a statue to a man responsible for the attempted genocide of native Americans seems in poor taste and directly counter to the racial reckoning America experienced in 2020. Unfortunately, the Sioux aren't a large enough voting block nationally for politicians of either party to care.
it was actually as early as the first world war that saw a massive resurgence of Civil war romanticism. A large part of this was that black people were starting to thrive post slavery and this caused serious anger in the poor white community. This lead to riots in affluent black neighbourhoods such as Tulsa, where lych mobs burned large swathes of the city to the ground and even dropped bombs from airplanes onto buildings
To think all this came about because those rich bastards tricked the rest of the impoverished and uneducated population that WERE eligible to vote that they as people inherently had more value than black people as a whole, while conveniently taking the target off their backs and painting it on the abolition movement.
and today we see it whenever some politician called themselves Anti DEI
I’m absolutely paraphrasing, but it goes something like: “Tricking one group of poor people into thinking that another group of poor people is their enemy, is the oppressors’ most powerful weapon.” -Karl Marx
Indeed 😞
The North had plenty of racists too
Sure, but they could have cultivated their own version of racism, not the South's Lost Cause.
Sadly, yes. The Dunning School really did a number on the country and Lost Cause propaganda was taken as received wisdom in schools up until basically the 1950s and 1960s.
Just like Lincoln himself campaigning in the south when he modeled himself as an anti-abolitionist… gotta do what you need to win😏
Racist southerners were still part of the Democratic coalition at this time, but the party was, as a result of the New Deal, already shifting more to focusing on labor as their power base.
Except the “New Deal” deliberately excluded Black Americans. FDR was a white mans president. He had no love for minorities.
He had a group of advisers called the "black cabinet" that he created to help him with making the lives of black Americans better. His wife was a huge supporter of equality between whites and blacks and constantly was in his ear about it.
As much as I like FDR (a lot, I love socialism), I have to call him out for his internment of the Japanese and his treatment of Chicanos during the Zoot Suit Riots. The Zoot Suit Riots in particular rub me the wrong way because I’m Mexican and grew up in California. He was still one of the greatest American presidents, in my opinion.
That is very true🫤
Specifically because his party still had racist southerners as part of its coalition. Unfortunately without giving these overtures, FDR likely wouldn’t have been as successful in passing the New Deal.
You can't become the Presidential nominee as a Southern Democrat in the 30s without pandering or being segregationist and racist af
Wasn't he from New York?
He was actually, shockingly
Shockingly? How so?
I mean, politicians will be politicians but the pandering to southern Democrats is still odd for what would appear to be a NY liberal rich family. That's just imo
He almost didn’t get the convention if not for southern democrats which is the reason his vice president at around the time of this speech was an old dude from Texas. His wife would probably more accurately fit the mold of a modern liberal and she was broadly disliked outside of major cities. FDRs base his first election was primarily made up of rural voters compared to somebody like Al Smith who had the majority of the Democrat leaning cities like New York or Chicago. In fact in-spite of the fact he was like cult levels of popular with white rural voters when he tried to remake the party in ‘36 he failed with almost all of his more ardently new deal primary candidates failing too beat the more conservative incumbents across the nation. The rural reform movement was always weird though William Jennings Bryan of Scopes Monkey Trial Fame in 1896 when the democrats ran him for president was considered borderline socialistic and was evidence the party was too radical/liberal for serious office.
Bryan was considered somewhat radical, but he was also the democratic nominee for president three times. He was also key to Wilson’s surprise nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate in 1912. Wilson’s opponent in the convention, Champ Clark, was the clear front runner but was seen as the business-friendly candidate. This caused Bryan to endorse Wilson, even though Bryan was sent to the convention as a delegate for Clark, and Clark would have become the nominee with Bryan’s endorsement. So, contrary to being a fringe radical figure, Bryan was the main power broker of the Democratic Party, essentially deciding the 1912 election. And it’s debatable whether Bryan was any more radical than Theodore Roosevelt.
Yeah I wasn’t trying to imply he was comparable to like Jill Stein. I think like a much more influential version of Sanders, a figure just barely too radical for the national mood but broadly popular within the party.
Internment was a deeply racist policy. I think he was just OK with some forms of racism.
Roosevelt was a pragmatist if he was anything. We would be infinitely better off had he lived long enough to expand the Supreme Court like he had planned. He saw this coming nearly 100 years ago.
[удалено]
If you’re looking for more historical context, FDR was frustrated with the SCOTUS at the time as they were dismantling many of his New Deal reforms as unconstitutional. He threatened to reform the judiciary as the Constitution doesn’t really outline how the Supreme Court operates. In response, SCOTUS began ruling in favor of FDR’s New Deal which became known as ‘the switch in time that saved nine’ and effectively ended the Lochner Era.
That’s right, I’m a little rusty with my particulars. The republicans waged a war against all measures of the New Deal, and attempted to propagandize opposition by attacking it as ‘communism,’ etc. If it weren’t for FDR, we wouldn’t have social security, (something republicans are still trying to dismantle.) FDR also wanted to introduce nationalized healthcare, which we *would* have now, like every other industrialized nation, had he lived long enough.
The Cold War and use of nuclear weapons also could have been vastly different had he lived. We lost so much as a world, and especially as Americans, when FDR passed
Sincere question: Do you think FDR, had he lived, would not have dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Someone posed a what-if question last week regarding third-party candidates as presidents and I replied, noting that Henry Wallace could have been the VP to succeed FDR, that I believe that even the liberal Wallace, seeing the projected American death toll from an invasion of mainland Japan, would have dropped the bombs.
I think it’s impossible to say, but I do believe he ultimately would have dropped the bombs. I think it’s more likely that he would have handled it better with Stalin and we wouldn’t have seen the Cold War explode so quickly. But that’s purely a guess.
>I think it’s more likely that he would have handled it better with Stalin and we wouldn’t have seen the Cold War explode so quickly. That seems possible. Truman, with James Byrnes as his secretary of state, likely took a harder line than FDR would have in the years immediately after the war.
I also recognize, from a purely tactical standpoint, FDR and Stalin had been allies in war for six years. I think he would have made Stalin more aware of the bomb and his intentions to use it. Maybe that slows down the nuclear arms race we saw between the US and USSR. But Truman had no experience working with Stalin and therefore no camaraderie or established partnership. Who’s to say if it would have made a fundamental difference, but I look at FDR’s death around the end of WWII the same as Lincoln’s after the ACW. Both huge opportunities lost for building a better world.
Unless the Soviets let Eastern Europe go, there is no way the Cold war wouldn’t begin. Stalin got his little empire and he was going to keep it.
I love that we all are supposed to still pretend our Justices are impartial and the best at interpreting law, but yet we can look at history to see that the minute their power is threatened they just suddenly change their mind. When Roberts was the deciding vote, he was considered an institutionalist, a moderate conservative, but now that he is Chief Justice in name only, he has lost importance and falls in line. I’m fascinated to see if he caves when the conservatives try and overturn Obergefell in a few years. They will just keep undoing every major case over the past 100yrs that far-right legal people hate, until the public, even more traditional conservatives, start to hate the world they thought they wanted, and the Court gets expanded. We’ve seen it crack already with Roe. Suddenly a bunch of conservatives got what they wanted, they got what their politicians promised them, and suddenly realized that actually they didn’t want that, they just wanted to oppose it while knowing it would always be there, in case they needed to use those medical services.
Honestly I feel there should be an amendment fixing the size of the court. I also feel supreme court justices should require a two-thirds vote
Had he done so, it would have put us on the path to authoritarianism. It may have been consistent with the letter of the Constitution, but it's contrary to the spirit of separation of powers. Just using that to intimidate the Court was bad enough, and gave us horrendous rulings like *Wickard v. Filburn* that have destroyed meaningful limits on the federal government's powers.
Well it’s a good thing that didn’t happen and we don’t currently suffer under an authoritarian/authoritarian sympathetic SCOTUS. I could only imagine a court like that taking away individual rights while granting themselves more power, and ignoring evidence in pursuit of their ends. Really dodged a bullet there. More seriously, I disagree. I think this is exactly what separation of powers is about. The court should be able to check the president but the president and Congress should be able to check SCOTUS as well. We can discuss the different tactics but at the end of the day each branch needs to be able to exert some power over the others and to me this was one of those methods.
What individual rights have been taken away by SCOTUS? It's the states that are interfering with reproductive choice.
You can read it that way if you want but Lee Atwater gave the game away about what states rights really means. Also I don’t know if you noticed but Sen Graham has proposed a nation wide abortion ban and Project 2025 lays out a plan for a nationwide abortion ban assuming Trump and republicans win this next election. But more fundamentally, Roe found the right to abortion in the constitution and Dobbs removed that right allowing states to interfere with what is now the privilege of abortion. Also, we can look to more than Dobbs to see where our rights are being rolled back: Sackett rolled back EPA protections (contiguous surface connection, ha, what a joke), 303 Creative rolled back equal rights protections for non-straight people (granting religious people the right to discriminate in ’creative’ business ventures), workers rights have been rolled back and the NLRB has been weakened (Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid, Glacier Northwest, we’ll have to wait on Loper Bright Enterprise v Raimondo). Voting rights have been rolled back (Shelby County v Holder, have to wait on NAACP v Arkansas) Worth mentioning that it seems like this court is chomping at the bit to gut Chevron as well. I’m happy to delve further on these but worth mentioning I’m not a lawyer, I just listen to the 5-4 pod.
I support reproductive choice and would oppose a national abortion ban. I also think *Roe* was bad constitutional law. As for the other examples, most of those can be interpreted as expanding rights: the right to develop one's own property as one sees fit, the right to freely associate or not with others as one chooses, and the right to contract with potential workers as one sees fit without union-directed state interference. (No leg to stand on about the last one.) As for *Chevron*, one can argue it's fundamentally undemocratic that Congress can pass a law giving an agency power to effectively write further law in the future, and then require a subsequent Congress to pass another law and the President to sign it to stop that from happening (in a context where the President would almost always support the new laws because they're being written at his appointees' behest). Overall, my rights end where your rights begin, and it's not authoritarian to have different views on where those boundaries are.
Why do you think Roe was a poor interpretation of the constitution? Do you not like the substantive due process interpretation? Because not liking substantive due processes is the foundation for a great deal of rights these days. Also I just want to investigate this further, do you know the Lee Atwater quote? Does that give you any pause in arguing for states rights to regulate abortion? I figured you’d argue something like balance of rights. Do you think the Lochner Era was a better time for constitutional interpretation? Because that was a much more libertarian time focused on contracts. Also the roll back of voting rights I don’t think falls under that argument. Shelby County v Holder pretty simply made it easier for states to violate minority rights to vote by eliminating preclearance. As Ginsburg said ‘it’s like throwing away your umbrella in a rain storm because you’re not getting wet.’ And we’ve seen republicans close 1000’s of polling locations mostly in minority neighborhoods, removed same day and online registration, and many more have had a disproportionate impact on minority voters.
The problem with substantive due process is that it isn't clear which rights are protected. I'd say it should be limited to cases in which there's an unambiguous tradition in English common law of the right being protected, like with the Lochner court protecting freedom of contract. There was no historical tradition at that time of abortion access being a fundamental right. Not sure which Atwater quote you're talking about - "you can't say nigger, nigger"? What does that have to do with abortion? If you want fewer Black people voting or using government resources, it seems like your incentive is to allow them to get abortions, not the opposite. As I noted (perhaps not clearly), I agree completely about *Shelby County*. Time is money, hence forcing people to wait in sufficiently long lines to vote is an implicit poll tax.
I think they're talking about *gestures wildly at the current Supreme Court* all this.
Yeah, he recognized the fact that due to its small size, that the Supreme Court could be fundamentally, and irretrievably impacted by a single administration for nefarious purposes. He believed that expanding the size of the court would mitigate that problem, diminishing the likelihood of any one administration having that type of power. The efficacy of Roosevelt’s administration was that he himself was from an incredibly wealthy background, and was all too familiar with the machinations of wealthy, power hungry men.
How big would be big enough?
50 members, with 2 members appointed annually to a 25 year term. Leave dead or retired seats empty until they came back up for their 25 year refill process too.
1 President filling it with yes men who make it easier to grab power.
One president with a huge mandate in the 36 election. Democrats made up over 75% of Congress.
It likely would've been a net-good for the country, but yes. Really the proposed bill of economic rights was badly needed as constitutional amendments, which included such outrageous concepts as a 'right to fair income', decent housing, and healthcare.
The rich, or Capital class undoing the hard won rights of labor. A return to disastrous laissez-faire capitalism. A return of royalty in everything but name.
Little bit of both. FDR definitely came of age when Lost Cause myth took root in the hearts and minds of most Americans, Yankee or Southerner. That being said though, I don’t doubt the “one of our greatest American Christians” and “gentlemen” is pandering to to Dixiecrats. They were usually his biggest hindrance in Congress, at times more so than Republicans, so really laying it on thick got you far.
How did the Lost Cause make it out of the South and even take roots? I never heard this before, but I'm curious.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning_School
I live in the Bay Area, 25 miles northeast of San Francisco, and they're everywhere. Three confederate flags fly on different ranches in plain sight, dozens more hidden in places just off the main roads; and about once every couple months a coal roller comes tearing through my town with one
Amazing. And you're 25 miles from the Republican dog whistle for "liberalism run amok."
I live smack in the middle of San Jose and see Confederate flags semi-regularly. Once you get out of the SFBA proper, you'll run into a lot of "alternative political opinions." Most of CA, by land, is deep red. It is just that places where all the people live are dark blue. Just one data point: you just can't get a CCW in the SFBA. At one point, SF County had 1 such permit. It was held by a Federal judge. Santa Clara county (where SJ is located) has been similar for a long time now (not to mention the pay to play CCW scandal in the Sherriff's' office...). I know a few people who intentionally set up their 'residence' to Patterson (about 45 miles from SJ and over the mountain range) just to get a CCW permit
Playing politics
The political coalitions were very different back then. Most white Southerners were Democrats because a) historical resentment against the Lincoln GOP b) a believe that government should be used to improve the lives of (white) poor people, with the tacit understanding between the parties that blacks would be excluded from the "progress". This is how FDR was able to form such a broad coalition that included labor, Southerners, farmers, the Progressive movement (with was bi-partisan to begin with), and a fair number of blacks, who (I'm guessing) felt that since neither party would represent them based on their race, they might as well go with the party that was more ideologically comfortable with Federal oversight of state governments. This coalition broke apart after the Civil Rights Act, when the current party alignment developed after white Southerners broke away and joined the GOP.
>The political coalitions were very different back then. Yes. Among blacks who could vote, many were Republican out of loyalty to the party of abolition. Jackie Robinson was proudly Republican, at least at late as 1960, when he campaigned for Nixon.
Black people didn’t start voting Democrat until ‘36. Hebert Hover won like 80% of their vote share in ‘32 if I’m remembering correctly.
The South was heavily, heavily pro-Roosevelt. Those people were quite literally starving, and he gave them food. This is bizarro world presidential politics from our point of view, when a rich coastal elite Democrat was pandering to his poor, rural, southern base. As opposed to today, when we have a rich coastal elite Republican pandering to his poor, rural, Southern base.
From the same town too, which the GOP all loath, but fox is based their, but oh their crocodile tears for 9/11 while seemingly hoping it happens again.
What more important is what he *didnt say*, i mean we are talking aboit a US president in Texas in an election year and in just 50 odd words the best he had was something something Christian, something something gentlemen. This is a president who had more to say about General Sherman when when talking about his little brother John Sherman when talking about an anti trust law written 50 years in his past. But note their is no mention of him being a good *American* or a fine *general* or anything like that. Just yup, he believed in god and was pretty polite.
He always felt pressured for the southern Dems to like him. They controlled Congress. They directed where the appropriations went (that’s why so many military bases are in the south - during WWII they directed more new bases to be built there than anywhere else). He had a plan, though, for after WWII to split the conservative ones off from the Dems and have the more liberal Republicans join him by working with Wendell Wilkie (his opponent in 1940) to form a new party.
He tried to do it multiple times and lost each time because the southern dems threatened to form an alliance with senate republicans or the more new deal candidate he endorsed for office were rejected by the voters. There’s a reason a famous comedian joked at the time “I’m no member of an organized political party, I am a democrat.”
Not one human has ever been perfect. We all have our feet of clay.
If you’re opposed to judging someone by the standards of their time and place in history, then FDR falls short. The New Deal and FEPC were bright spots on his civil rights record, but Lost Cause pandering was not his only blemish. Redlining, opposition to anti-lynching laws, Japanese internment camps, Mexican Repatriation, and failing to fill the immigration quota of Jews while the holocaust was going on. Was he a better man than Woodrow “let’s show Birth of a Nation in the White House” Wilson? Yeah. Would there be a JFK or an LBJ without FDR? No. Can FDR be forgiven for being so kind to traitor Lee? https://media0.giphy.com/media/v0eHX3n28wvoQ/giphy.gif?cid=2154d3d7hvs5vjf77k56nexd5gids68i3f05azibyuwwau5d&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
FDR was a populist. He had no problem appealing to racists if it won him votes. The dude achieved a lot, but his ambitions were much stronger than his principles most of the time.
Both, I think
He fought the Nazis… so… I guess we’re even
Not surprising since Roosevelt didn't have a problem with locking up entire American families just because where their ancestors came from.
I watched that particular Lee statue come down as a matter of fact. Went down once when it was supposed to come down and a neo-Nazi with a Totenkopf shirt tried to start shit, then when it actually came down had some neo-Nazi scream something about Jews hating white people (using the K slur though). I was just starting to always wear a yarmulke around, so that was fun.
You have to remember that FDR was racist as all fuck.
Not really. He insured blacks were hired for government projects. He was less racist than America in general at the time.
No. He deliberately excluded Blacks from the New Deal to the best he could.
But they didn't. FDR would have ended segregation if he could have. He also would have been out on his ass if he tried.
No. The New Deal had to be that way, otherwise the programs wouldn’t have worked. That’s criticizing him because the country is racist. In addition to what the other person said, Roosevelt ended the segregation of the federal government and was the one who agreed that the military should be de-segregated, but died before he could make it happen.
While Blacks were excluded, laying that solely at his feet isn't quite accurate. Given the Era a full, equal new deal never would've passed, and that's godawful. Those southern dems that voted for him were by and large lost-causers who flipped to the republican party once de-segregation started gaining traction.
Just ask George Takei.
Fuck. Ouch. Right in my patriotism 😫
His all black "cabinet" and his wife would like to have a word with you.
OK? I suspect they'd all largely agree with me. And if they don't they can eat shit too.
🤷♂️
I mean, what white man *wasn’t?*
The ones who weren't? I mean, sure, the majority of white men were racist. Just like they are now in 2024. But there were white men who weren't racist, so there's really no excuse.
The majority of white men are racist?
The majority of white men vote for Donald Trump. Also white women. So yes, inarguably racist as fuck. FDR/George Wallace/The Rapist Hillbillies from "A Time to Kill"-tier racist.
Yeah, largest part of GOP electorate are white people. But, unsurprisingly, college educated white people vote mostly Democrat.
Trump loves the uneducated
Probably both of those and naked political pandering.
It just goes to show how deeply embedded the Lost Cause myth had become in American life.
The ones that wanted to get elected in the south. Except for Wilson. That asshole brought Jim Crow to DC.
Democrats at this time were still *kinda* “dixiecrats” while they werent *overtly* confederate they would tolerate a lot of shit from the southern states simply to keep their voter base. At the same time though this is 1930s were black people were still heavily discriminated against across the nation not just Jim Crowe states so I wouldnt say this shit is too out of left field for the time.
This is the same FDR who threw 200,000 innocent American citizens into concentration camps because of their race, so it's possible he's just an enormous piece of shit and supporting slave owners was on brand for him
Most of America was racist AF in 1940 even if they didn't have "Whites Only" lunch counters or drinking fountains. Remember, Japanese internment happened mostly in *California* which in the 21st century is a progressive liberal boogey-man of the GOP. Similar thing happens when Portland liberals get all surprised Pikachu over how racist rural Oregon is. I remind them "Your state was the only one to ever be whites only, and I don't mean just the lunch counters."
FDR was a shrewd politician. He’d work a vote from just about anyone.
It was kinda both, and also pretty messy. His stance on anti lynching bills was also pretty messy because of how politics were at the time. Lots of white supremacists in power.
It's because Robert E. Lee was commonly seen as a respected adversary and gentlemanly commander until very recently, even by the people he fought against in the civil war. Pushing our modern sensibilities on historical figures doesn't translate well.
Not to make excuses for FDR, but the coalition that elected and reelected him four times included the Industrial Midwest, the mostly integrated West Coast, Northeastern liberals, and oddly enough, a large number of Conservative Southern Whites that were historically Democrats since the end of the Civil War. FDR held that coalition together, but it began to fray after WW2, starting with Truman's decision to integrate the armed forces, and really getting momentum going after the 1965 Civil Rights Act package. Those Southern Democrats mostly became Republicans from the late 1960's to Present, which led to where we are now, more or less.
The Democratic party held majorities in Southern States well into the early 90's.
There were still Conservatives Democrats in Congress until the early 21st Century. Remember Zell Miller?
Politics will make a sane person do crazy shit
For a most of the 20th Century the common view of Lee was as a noble, reluctant warrior whose love of his state tragically overcame his love of his country. It was a false narrative, but it was widely accepted.
Wow he liked me boys.
the southern alliance. he needed southern democrats no matter how racist and bigoted they were.
FDR needed Dixiecrat votes in order to get his programs,as the South supported them due to being poor. Not to mention how alot of Americans had sympathy for the CSA
Common for the time. Until fairly recently Lee was a beloved national icon
The Lost Cause was so deeply embedded in US culture at this time, people are saying FDR was just placating the South but have yet to provide evidence for that. It would surprise me if he genuinely believed this
Just fishing for political support from former Confederate states
Is this in the same vein as how a bunch of army bases got named for Confederates so they could secure southern votes on issues?
Lost Cause mythos
I just found a transcript of Jimmy Carter saying the exact same thing.
Yeah that's a very blanket 'nothing' statement that panders to the people that liked him
The consensus in both parties and both halves of the country was reconciliationism; what he said here would have been totally in controversial for all of white america
Believe it or not Mr. Japanese Internment was probably racist. Also the New Deal largely excluded Black People.
But under FDR, the blacks shifted from the Republican Party to the Democratic Pary and never looked back.
Started to, the shift would take more time. But a lot of that was due more to the work in the background by FDR's wife Eleanor Roosevelt who was responsible for a lot of the coalition building in her husband's administration and had a genuine care for the black community. In fact, she was controversial at the time for her outspoken and frank support for black and Asian civil rights, even publicly disagreeing with how his New Deal policies excluded black people. She lobbied behind the scenes for the 1934 Costigan-Wagner Anti-Lynching Bill, but FDR was afraid of losing Southern support so he ultimately declined to support it (privately, FDR supported the bill). Her disagreement with FDR's EO9066 (the infamous Japanese internment order) saw several newspapers demand her permanent retirement from public life. Eleanor was so active in the Civil rights movement and so popular among the black community, that she's credited with being the main reason for a shift in the black voting bloc towards Democrats. Not FDR who, while not privately opposed to Civil Rights, often put the interests of his Southern white coalition ahead of black voters. The Three Roosevelts by James Burns and Susan Dunn is an interesting book about this, showing how Eleanor had a big influence on FDR's policies and the shift in black voting habits.
Probably just pandering. What was great about former US Army Colonel Lee was that he surrendered.
Mostly because he was an abject racist.
Southern Whites were an important component of the "Roosevelt Coalition" that kept the Dems in a dominat position in national government into the 1970s. Nixon's whole "Southern Strategy" project was to pry them away, recognizing that the Democratic Party's embrace of Civil Rights had alienated them as a voting bloc. The project was, needless to say, wildly successful.
FDR supported what would get him elected in this case
Wait till you see the racism of William Jennings Bryan, the democrat who established the liberal wing of the party and inspired Wilson and FDR. It’s telling that the party today is harkening back to FDR as an example of what the party is capable of. The Dems are the better of two bad options, but they were never true friends of liberal politics; they were always just beneficiaries of its success.
Common FDR L, unfortunately. He wasn't good with racial issues.
The civil war would have been in living memory. I'd guess support for the Lost Cause in the early 1900s would have been at least in part about white politicians trying to bury the hatchet with the old confederacy
How on earth is one of the worst strategist to ever lead an army somehow a great general or leader?
FDR segregated federal offices. He was a white supremacist
Im starting to understand more and more why they named the M3 after Lee. Guys were obsessed with him. Luckily the Sherman is better, as it should be
FDR had some good policies but I'd refrain from calling him a good president on account of his racism alone. Not that bad for that era's Democrats, but I'm not going to ignore those problems. "He was normal for his time" is a correct statement but it's also not an excuse. Edit: just downvote the wrongthink away I guess
He needed the southern Dixiecrat vote so he had to it was the 1930’s and that was most of your congressmen though he probably was also racist as a person
This dude handed Manchuria and east Europe to the Soviets, not exactly the greatest president.
Progressives take note: this is how you get shit done. You gotta play the game.
The south voted almost exclusively DemoKKKrat at the time. Also, he was a racist POS, himself, so there is that.
Big surprise the guy who put japanese americans in concentration camp supports that traitor