NationStates Jolt Archive

People often forget Tsar Alexander II who did much the same kinds of things as Lincon, except arguably better. He liberated more slaves than Lincon, before him and without the acompanying civil war. He set up the Duma, which was Russias first democratic institution, and while the first two failed, the third and fourth Duma were far more sucessfull. Arguably were it not for World War One and the Cold War, the Tsar would be rembered fondly, along with Lincon. I find it a shame that he is not remembered so well.

Would you agree that Alexander II should be held in simmilar esteem, if it is about his actions and not his nationality, as it strikes me that many Americans do not hold foreign polticans and statesmen of the past or present in high esteem, even when they have done so may great things akin to their own leaders.

Oh.

Silly computer, didnt let me finish

People often forget Tsar Alexander II who did much the same kinds of things as Lincon, except arguably better. He liberated more slaves than Lincon, before him and without the acompanying civil war. He set up the Duma, which was Russias first democratic institution, and while the first two failed, the third and fourth Duma were far more sucessfull. Arguably were it not for World War One and the Cold War, the Tsar would be rembered fondly, along with Lincon. I find it a shame that he is not remembered so well
Sadly he made the mistake of being born a Russian, and the Americans in charge of education don't look too favouribly on Russians compared to Americans.

Hearing about those facts, I would agree.

I've never heard of the guy, so this is new to me. But from what you posted, I'd agree with you.

Sadly he made the mistake of being born a Russian.

Quote o' the day my friend, quote o' the day. Sadly, it's so true.

And peopel tell me the schools aren't being filtered by the government...

People often forget Tsar Alexander II who did much the same kinds of things as Lincon, except arguably better. He liberated more slaves than Lincon, before him and without the acompanying civil war. He set up the Duma, which was Russias first democratic institution, and while the first two failed, the third and fourth Duma were far more sucessfull. Arguably were it not for World War One and the Cold War, the Tsar would be rembered fondly, along with Lincon. I find it a shame that he is not remembered so well.

Would you agree that Alexander II should be held in simmilar esteem, if it is about his actions and not his nationality, as it strikes me that many Americans do not hold foreign polticans and statesmen of the past or present in high esteem, even when they have done so may great things akin to their own leaders.

Oh, then yes. I seem to remember that the freeing of the Russian slaves was a bit more complicated than that but I'm really bad at Russian History. I read Dostoyevsky a lot and I have some Russian history books that I never got around to, so like I said, I'm real rusty. But if it is as you say, then yes. High esteem for Tsar Alexander II.

Lincoln only freed the slaves to cripple the South. When campaining in northern Illinois, he was anti-slavery. When in southern Illinois, he promised not to give in to abolitionists.

Alexander was a dictator... nuff said
and i do hold many forign leaders in high regard Charles De Gaulle, and Saladin i think was the only really respectible person out of the crusades. and I like many of the none IRA leaders of Sinn Fien

Lincoln only freed the slaves to cripple the South. When campaining in northern Illinois, he was anti-slavery. When in southern Illinois, he promised not to give in to abolitionists.

But then why did Licoln propose to give blacks voting rights (that which he was killed for)?

Lincoln only freed the slaves to cripple the South. When campaining in northern Illinois, he was anti-slavery. When in southern Illinois, he promised not to give in to abolitionists.

It's called political manuvering and Lincoln was very good at it. He left his motives delibiretly ambigious so as to gain support from moderates of the time.

But then why did Licoln propose to give blacks voting rights (that which he was killed for)?

*BARF* wow that was some bad history their. He was not killed for freeing the slaves, get that out of your head. He was killed in a half baked idea to restart the Revolution of the south, the plan also had the assasination of the Secretay of State and Vice president, but only the president died. Man bad history makes me sick

People often forget Tsar Alexander II who did much the same kinds of things as Lincon, except arguably better. He liberated more slaves than Lincon, before him and without the acompanying civil war. He set up the Duma, which was Russias first democratic institution, and while the first two failed, the third and fourth Duma were far more sucessfull. Arguably were it not for World War One and the Cold War, the Tsar would be rembered fondly, along with Lincon. I find it a shame that he is not remembered so well.

Would you agree that Alexander II should be held in simmilar esteem, if it is about his actions and not his nationality, as it strikes me that many Americans do not hold foreign polticans and statesmen of the past or present in high esteem, even when they have done so may great things akin to their own leaders.

The problem was that Alexander II was a psuedo-liberal at best. He publically made lots of descisions that seemed good, but privatly tried to emasculate all his 'reforms'.
Not to mention he sent Russia spiraling into a nasty depression because he didnt take into account that freed serfs had no money.
If anybody should be admired, its Peter the Great, who took a medeival country and dragged it kicking and screaming into the Rebirth. Sure, he had his faults, like taxing the hell out of everything in sight, and beating his son to death, but hey, all the really cool Tsars did that anyway.
And he left a path of destruction throughout fancy hotels and rental houses across Europe ;)


EDIT:
And confusing Serfs with slaves is a common mistake. Serfs have rights, while technically property, there are rules about what you can and cannot do to a Serf. You couldnt sell them, for one.

Alexander was a dictator... nuff said

No. He was a monarch. Diffrent thing. He did wield autocratic power, but the creation of the Duma and the emancipation of the serfs prove that he was not acting in a dicatorial fashion.

Monarchy is a dictator with a crown, prove to me that their is a diffrence

People often forget Tsar Alexander II who did much the same kinds of things as Lincon, except arguably better. He liberated more slaves than Lincon,
...Russia had more slaves.
before him
Lincoln sucks because Alexander II was born first?
and without the acompanying civil war.
I can't argue that, Lincoln wouldn't have freed the slaves if it weren't for the Civil War (or, for you foreigners out there, the American Civil War).
He set up the Duma, which was Russias first democratic institution, and while the first two failed, the third and fourth Duma were far more sucessfull.
So, Lincoln sucks because we already had a democracy?
Arguably were it not for World War One and the Cold War, the Tsar would be rembered fondly, along with Lincon. I find it a shame that he is not remembered so well.
*shrug* I'm sure Lincoln isn't remembered fondly in Russia, either. Hell, most Americans probably don't know who he is, for that matter.

Would you agree that Alexander II should be held in simmilar esteem, if it is about his actions and not his nationality, as it strikes me that many Americans do not hold foreign polticans and statesmen of the past or present in high esteem, even when they have done so may great things akin to their own leaders.
Sure, why not?

Becken court,

LincoLn.

Other than this and a few other small errors, I like your post.

Lincoln sucks because Alexander II was born first?

Alexander II was born 1818, Lincoln was born 1809 :P

Alexander II was born 1818, Lincoln was born 1809 :P

Had power first. Whatever.

I looked up voting rights and found this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201466.html

I did't realize the voting rights act had to be renewed. Yeah, slightly off topic.

Alexander was a dictator... nuff said
So was Saladin, buddy.
Dictatorship need not be a bad thing.

oh um that... its bullshit. and not true. the Voting act of the 60's isnt what gave african americans the right to vote, it was the constitutional amendment,that dosnt have a time limit. that act was making the govermnt force states (even thought they didnt have to make an act to do this) to follow the laws. Its chain male bullshit like ala said america will invade and MSN is about to delete you account

Lincoln only freed the slaves to cripple the South. When campaining in northern Illinois, he was anti-slavery. When in southern Illinois, he promised not to give in to abolitionists.


Did ya know, there was actually a county here in s. illinois that seceded to the south for a short time? And s. illinois entirely almost went and joined, but i guess it was abe's charm or something that kept them in the union.

So was Saladin, buddy.
Dictatorship need not be a bad thing.

I thought it was salahaddin? two different ways of spelling/pronouncing it?

I thought it was salahaddin? two different ways of spelling/pronouncing it?

Yeah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin

Dictatorship is a bad thing and always will be, Saladin I respect as a military leader and as a man who was more open about faith then the christians he battled, his greatest flaw was he was a dictator

Dictatorship is a bad thing and always will be, Saladin I respect as a military leader and as a man who was more open about faith then the christians he battled, his greatest flaw was he was a dictator

If a dictator does good things though, doesn’t that make him a good leader?

Democracy is no virtue. It is a means to an end, and that end is liberalism and the greater welfare of society. Sometimes it works towards that end, and in some situations a dictator can do just as well or better.

Dictatorship is a bad thing and always will be, Saladin I respect as a military leader and as a man who was more open about faith then the christians he battled, his greatest flaw was he was a dictator

Eh, some of the christians were all right, especially some of the "native Franks" who were of a bit of a "lets not start anything with our neighbors attitude" when left to their own devices, it was the fresh Europeans that kept coming down that caused a far number of the problems.

no a dictator who does good things is still a dictator, and all dictaors have done bad things. none are great. If they were good the moment they got power they would step down and creat democrocy, and if the people want them the will elect them.

People often forget Tsar Alexander II who did much the same kinds of things as Lincon, except arguably better.

He also did some pretty crappy things too.

"At the beginning of his reign, Alexander expressed the famous statement "No dreams" addressed for Poles, populating Congress Poland, Western Ukraine, Lithuania, Livonia and Belarus. The result was the January Uprising of 1863-4 that was suppressed after eighteen months of fighting. Thousands of Poles were executed, tens of thousands were deported to Siberia. The price for suppression was Russian support for Prussian-united Germany. Twenty years later, Germany became the major enemy of Russia on continent.

All territories of the former Poland-Lithuania were excluded from liberal policies introduced by Alexander. The martial law in Lithuania, introduced in 1863, lasted for the next 50 years. Native languages, Lithuanian, Ukrainian and Belarusian were completely banned from printed texts, see, e.g., Ems Ukase. The Polish language was banned in both oral and written form from all provinces except Congress Kingdom, where it was allowed in private conversations only ."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Alexander_II

no a dictator who does good things is still a dictator, and all dictaors have done bad things.
So have all democracies.
none are great. If they were good the moment they got power they would step down and creat democrocy, and if the people want them the will elect them.
Sometime the people are utterly incapable of making decisions for the greater society. A good example is Iraq, or fuck, Mississippi.

So have all democracies.

Sometime the people are utterly incapable of making decisions for the greater society. A good example is Iraq, or fuck, Mississippi.

or fuck, the whole US in electing Bush.

In any case, Alexander deserves great respect for what he did, he reduced his power when he had ultimate power. I dont believe lincoln would've done the same, Lincoln seemed pretty power hungry compared to most American presidents. And its arguable that Lincoln only freed the slaves to help win the Civil War. Thats sick. Just because Alexander had more power than our mondern day rulers does not make him a bad man. Democracy is NOT perfect. And remember, back then, Democracy was still very new and not many people considered it right, even the lowest in society in Europe thought this. Americans just have a problem with praising anyone not 'merican. Esspecially a Russian. Becuase you know, they had a different form of government and rivaled us, they all have to be evil heathens.

or fuck, the whole US in electing Bush.

In any case, Alexander deserves great respect for what he did, he reduced his power when he had ultimate power. I dont believe lincoln would've done the same, Lincoln seemed pretty power hungry compared to most American presidents. And its arguable that Lincoln only freed the slaves to help win the Civil War. Thats sick. Just because Alexander had more power than our mondern day rulers does not make him a bad man[B]. Democracy is NOT perfect. And remember, back then, Democracy was still very new and not many people considered it right, even the lowest in society in Europe thought this. [B]Americans just have a problem with praising anyone not 'merican. Esspecially a Russian. Becuase you know, they had a different form of government and rivaled us, they all have to be evil heathens.
Personally I think its probably more of a mix of not knowing much about Russian history and just not giving a damn.

He also did some pretty crappy things too.

"At the beginning of his reign, Alexander expressed the famous statement "No dreams" addressed for Poles, populating Congress Poland, Western Ukraine, Lithuania, Livonia and Belarus. The result was the January Uprising of 1863-4 that was suppressed after eighteen months of fighting. Thousands of Poles were executed, tens of thousands were deported to Siberia. The price for suppression was Russian support for Prussian-united Germany. Twenty years later, Germany became the major enemy of Russia on continent.

All territories of the former Poland-Lithuania were excluded from liberal policies introduced by Alexander. The martial law in Lithuania, introduced in 1863, lasted for the next 50 years. Native languages, Lithuanian, Ukrainian and Belarusian were completely banned from printed texts, see, e.g., Ems Ukase. The Polish language was banned in both oral and written form from all provinces except Congress Kingdom, where it was allowed in private conversations only ."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Alexander_II

Bastard! You stole my thunder! :)

Good references!

Wait a minute. Alexander II didn't set up the Duma, that was Nicholas II in 1905. And as far as a democratic institution the Duma was far from it. The election laws were weighted to make sure it would be conservative with the majority of the Russian people getting little say with their vote. All it was intended to be was an advisory body and in fact was pretty much ignored by Nicholas. Nicholas didn't give up a shred of his power when creating the Duma and was horribly ineffective as a ruler. Revolutions don't just happen for no reason.

Personally I think its probably more of a mix of not knowing much about Russian history and just not giving a damn.

Which is really quite the travesty, as Russian history and culture is one of the richest and most interesting(to me at least). Even through the Cold War, it remained far more dynamic and interesting than many other nations. Tis sad.

I think the reason why Americans don't hold foreign politicians in high esteem as much as their own...because well.. they're not American.

It's like the British paying homage to the greatness of the American soldiers valor and cunning of American generals/politicians durring the Revolutionary War.. yea..right..

Wait a minute. Alexander II didn't set up the Duma, that was Nicholas II in 1905. And as far as a democratic institution the Duma was far from it. The election laws were weighted to make sure it would be conservative with the majority of the Russian people getting little say with their vote. All it was intended to be was an advisory body and in fact was pretty much ignored by Nicholas. Nicholas didn't give up a shred of his power when creating the Duma and was horribly ineffective as a ruler. Revolutions don't just happen for no reason.

Technically speaking, the Russians Czars had dumas up until the early 1700's, but was recreated in the early 1900's.

Super Nit-Picker, AWAY!

But then why did Licoln propose to give blacks voting rights (that which he was killed for)?

*BARF* wow that was some bad history their. He was not killed for freeing the slaves, get that out of your head. He was killed in a half baked idea to restart the Revolution of the south, the plan also had the assasination of the Secretay of State and Vice president, but only the president died. Man bad history makes me sick

Man, bad reading comprehension makes me sick. Icovir never said he was killed for freeing the slaves. And, according to wiki: Originally, John Wilkes Booth had formulated a plan to kidnap Lincoln in exchange for the release of Confederate prisoners. However, on April 11, 1865 Lincoln gave a speech outside the White House giving his support to voting rights to blacks. This infuriated Booth, who was in the attending crowd. His plan to kidnap Lincoln changed to a plan for assassination.

Next time read carefully before jumping down someone's throat.

I looked up voting rights and found this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201466.html

I did't realize the voting rights act had to be renewed. Yeah, slightly off topic.

oh um that... its bullshit. and not true. the Voting act of the 60's isnt what gave african americans the right to vote, it was the constitutional amendment,that dosnt have a time limit. that act was making the govermnt force states (even thought they didnt have to make an act to do this) to follow the laws. Its chain male bullshit like ala said america will invade and MSN is about to delete you account

Again, you exhibit poor reading comprehension, which wouldn't be problematic except that you insist upon using expletives and acting condescending. I can only assume you are responding to BitchKitten, btw, because you didn't think to quote the post.

She never said the Voting Rights Act gave the vote to the Black community, and she is right, it does need to be renewed.

Also, altho the 15th Amendment does state, Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The use of poll taxes, the grandfather clause, and literacy tests at polls managed to prevent most Black Americans from voting. The Voting Rights Act stopped many of these practices. So it is responsible for effectively enfranchising Black Americans, even tho this right had been gauraunteed for 80 years of so.

*BARF* Man, bad history makes me sick.

Oh wait, no, its bad and incomplete knowledge of history combined with sense of superiority that makes me sick. :rolleyes: