NationStates Jolt Archive

George Washington that is. That's right. The first President of the US of A implement America's first Affirmative Action program.

http://www.cherokeebyblood.com/chermodhistory.htm

"President Washington informed the Cherokee that they would be used as an experiment in �Indian education and that the future of all other Indian tribes and their dealings with the federal government would depend on their example�. In accordance with this policy, Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, set up loans in 1799 to educate Cherokee youth."

You had to be a member of the Cherokee minority group to get the loan. Also, I think this was actually the first education loan of any type in US history.

President Washington was using the Cherokee experiment to see if it was really possible for nonwhites to be equal to whites. It looks like the Cherokee were able to meet that challenge though the whites weren't too happy about the Cherokees success and that leads us to the trail of tears.

This leads me to conclude that President George Washington would have supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070704-9999-1n4george.html

Eh. Are you sure the intention is really analogous to 1964? I think politics and tribal negotiations probably played a bit more into what you're describing, rather than a belief that economic or race circumstances should be 'equalized' by the government. The Indians had all sorts of involvement in wars and peacekeeping, so subsidizing some of their needs probably worked more as a repayment.

Wow. People are offended and feeling "lied to" when they find out that the first White House had slaves. While I don't think it's cool that the first White House had slaves, I would have thought that it would be obvious, given the times, that some of the presidents would have brought their slaves....

Wow. People are offended and feeling "lied to" when they find out that the first White House had slaves. While I don't think it's cool that the first White House had slaves, I would have thought that it would be obvious, given the times, that some of the presidents would have brought their slaves....

Who's surprised at that? ;) I always thought it was pretty well-known that slave ownership was common, even if not affordable for the average person.

Who's surprised at that? ;) I always thought it was pretty well-known that slave ownership was common, even if not affordable for the average person.

Some guy in the article. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I know. :cool:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070704-9999-1n4george.html

Wait... Are you saying the Bush was not the first President to put himself above the law?

That just goes to show how much more powerful the Presidency today is compared to the Presidency back then. Today President Bush can pretty much tell the states what to do. Back then it was the states telling the President What to do.

Irony eh?

"People knew Washington had slaves, but they didn't realize he'd brought them here to Philadelphia."

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20070705_Blessings_of_liberty_for_all.html

The real issue is not that he had slaves but that he had them in Philidelphia where slavery was illegal. He violated state law.

That just goes to show how much more powerful the Presidency today is compared to the Presidency back then. Today President Bush can pretty much tell the states what to do. Back then it was the states telling the President What to do.

Irony eh?

Once upon a time, the proper grammar was to use "The United States are" rather than "The United States is."

Once upon a time, the proper grammar was to use "The United States are" rather than "The United States is."

Unless you're American in which case the vast majority of Americans, including the educated ones, use "The United States is".
It's a cultural difference. Nothing to do with proper grammar.

"People knew Washington had slaves, but they didn't realize he'd brought them here to Philadelphia."

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20070705_Blessings_of_liberty_for_all.html

The real issue is not that he had slaves but that he had them in Philidelphia where slavery was illegal. He violated state law.

Can you impeach a dead president?

That just goes to show how much more powerful the Presidency today is compared to the Presidency back then. Today President Bush can pretty much tell the states what to do. Back then it was the states telling the President What to do.

Irony eh?

In a lot of ways, the office of president was mainly ceremonial up until last century - but in other ways, especially regarding the military, the president could do things not likely to be possible today. At least, that's how I remember it.

Unless you're American in which case the vast majority of Americans, including the educated ones, use "The United States is".
It's a cultural difference. Nothing to do with proper grammar.

I am American. :rolleyes:
I said that "are" used to be the proper grammar (in the US), whereas it's "is" now.

Edit: IIRC, my 8th grade US history teacher said that the change of grammar occurred after the Civil War...

Can you impeach a dead president?

You can impale them ... whichever manner you see fit, methinks.

Ref:
Nine Drawn And Quartered At Out-Of-Hand Renaissance Fair
-The Onion

I am American. :rolleyes:
I said that "are" used to be the proper grammar (in the US), whereas it's "is" now.

Edit: IIRC, my 8th grade US history teacher said that the change of grammar occurred after the Civil War...People started using the singular some time before the war, but the Union victory clinched it.

I am American. :rolleyes:
I said that "are" used to be the proper grammar (in the US), whereas it's "is" now.

Edit: IIRC, my 8th grade US history teacher said that the change of grammar occurred after the Civil War...

Nice to know. That would explain it though.
Before the civil we saw ourselves as a collection of states and the states, in theory, had the right to secede and the right to tell Congress what to do.
Hence, the term back then was "The United States are"
But then Dictator Lincoln came along, dumped the Constitution for a few years, started a war, and forced everyone to accept a strong federal government that would tell the states what to do.
So the states were no longer soverign as they were before and we started saying "The United States Is", so as to emphasize that we are on nation instead many states.

People idolize Lincoln but the atrocities he committed against civil rights...are outdone by no other President unless you count the Patriot Act in which case then Bush comes pretty close.

In a lot of ways, the office of president was mainly ceremonial up until last century - but in other ways, especially regarding the military, the president could do things not likely to be possible today. At least, that's how I remember it.

Yeah, kind of like how most European Monarchs are today. Except that back then, the President at least how control of the military.

But he still didn't have the power to declare war. Back then when you went to war, you went to Congress first and Congress actually declared war and we went in and got it done.
Today, President goes to Congress, Congress authorizes a ten year military expedition but refuses to declare war which prevents us from us getting things done.

Yeah, the difference between declaring war and authorizing a military expedition is evident in what you can do in one compared with what you are allowed to do in the other.

Congress hasn't gotten serious and declared war on an enemy since World War II and that is why we get these useless 10 year charades.

Nice to know. That would explain it though.
Before the civil we saw ourselves as a collection of states and the states, in theory, had the right to secede and the right to tell Congress what to do.
Hence, the term back then was "The United States are"
But then Dictator Lincoln came along, dumped the Constitution for a few years, started a war, and forced everyone to accept a strong federal government that would tell the states what to do.
So the states were no longer soverign as they were before and we started saying "The United States Is", so as to emphasize that we are on nation instead many states.

People idolize Lincoln but the atrocities he committed against civil rights...are outdone by no other President unless you count the Patriot Act in which case then Bush comes pretty close.

He suspended habeas corpus when massive violent protests occurred in the Northern cities.

Congress still existed you dupe, and still did stuff, like giving the cash for the war and regular junk, not anywhere is there any record describing Lincoln superseding congress.

And, if you had listened to history class, South Carolina seceded because they didn't like who won. They also fired on Fort Sumpter first when it was being resupplied.

He suspended habeas corpus when massive violent protests occurred in the Northern cities.

Congress still existed you dupe, and still did stuff, like giving the cash for the war and regular junk, not anywhere is there any record describing Lincoln superseding congress.

And, if you had listened to history class, South Carolina seceded because they didn't like who won. They also fired on Fort Sumpter first when it was being resupplied.

The reason was that Lincoln did not get there permission. He refused to accept their right to secede and be their own country.
They refused to allow him to resupply because they wanted American troops out of their territory. By keeping them there, Lincoln was violating their soverignty. Their only choice was to remove the Americans by force.

A modern day equivalent would be...
suppose the Serbs decided to keep a base in Kosovo and Kosovo unilaterally declared independence as South Carolina had done. Suppose the Serbs decided not only would they not withdraw from their base, but they were going to resupply it, in violations of the Kosovo government.
Don't you think the Kosovars would attack the base when they saw that the Serbs were resupplying instead of withdrawing?

That's how Fort Sumter happened. The Feds were supposed to withdraw but when the SC government saw they were resupplying instead of withdrawing, the Confederate Army had no choice but to attack the Fort so as to drive the Feds out.

Can you impeach a dead president?

Yes, although it wouldn't serve much of a purpose.