Hiroshima-- are we projecting backwards?

From: Stephen Harding


Cub Driver wrote:

It is still, even with the passage of 30 years, not possible to
view Nixon in an impartial, non-prejudiced manner.

I certainly can't!

Thirty years from now, people will likely be saying the same about
Clinton.

I think Clinton will be neither "good" nor "bad". He'll be one
of those presidents that no one knows too much about, like an
Arthur or Cleveland.

Nixon on the other hand, is going to be more favorably judged by
history than by his contemporaries IMHO.

People are certainly going to know about him, whatever way
history ultimately decides.


SMH

Clinton will be remembered the same way Andrew Johnson is: only for his
impeachment.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: Stephen Harding


Cub Driver wrote:

It is still, even with the passage of 30 years, not possible to
view Nixon in an impartial, non-prejudiced manner.

I certainly can't!

Thirty years from now, people will likely be saying the same about
Clinton.

I think Clinton will be neither "good" nor "bad". He'll be one
of those presidents that no one knows too much about, like an
Arthur or Cleveland.

Nixon on the other hand, is going to be more favorably judged by
history than by his contemporaries IMHO.

People are certainly going to know about him, whatever way
history ultimately decides.

Clinton will be remembered the same way Andrew Johnson is: only for his
impeachment.

I believe some still remember Andrew holding up Reconstruction; resulting in
four more years of slavery, for some.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:51:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: Stephen Harding


Cub Driver wrote:

It is still, even with the passage of 30 years, not possible to
view Nixon in an impartial, non-prejudiced manner.

I certainly can't!

Thirty years from now, people will likely be saying the same about
Clinton.

I think Clinton will be neither "good" nor "bad". He'll be one
of those presidents that no one knows too much about, like an
Arthur or Cleveland.

Nixon on the other hand, is going to be more favorably judged by
history than by his contemporaries IMHO.

People are certainly going to know about him, whatever way
history ultimately decides.

Clinton will be remembered the same way Andrew Johnson is: only for his
impeachment.

I believe some still remember Andrew holding up Reconstruction; resulting in
four more years of slavery, for some.

A bit off topic, but I think Andrew suffered from a Later Johnson's
problem-- he wasn' charasmatic and had a hard time working with
others. But let's not forget that Lincolns original reconstruction
plan was very lenient to the South, so if he lived, the same thing
might be said of him.
Of course, MY opinion (and I'm texan by family), was that what was
needed was somethig very much like what Germany and Japan got in terms
of occupation and "De-southifacation" Of course, at the time, such an
idea would havd been most arrant fantasy.

"Charles Gray" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:51:49 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: Stephen Harding


Cub Driver wrote:

It is still, even with the passage of 30 years, not possible to
view Nixon in an impartial, non-prejudiced manner.

I certainly can't!

Thirty years from now, people will likely be saying the same about
Clinton.

I think Clinton will be neither "good" nor "bad". He'll be one
of those presidents that no one knows too much about, like an
Arthur or Cleveland.

Nixon on the other hand, is going to be more favorably judged by
history than by his contemporaries IMHO.

People are certainly going to know about him, whatever way
history ultimately decides.

Clinton will be remembered the same way Andrew Johnson is: only for his
impeachment.

I believe some still remember Andrew holding up Reconstruction; resulting
in
four more years of slavery, for some.

A bit off topic, but I think Andrew suffered from a Later Johnson's
problem-- he wasn' charasmatic and had a hard time working with
others. But let's not forget that Lincolns original reconstruction
plan was very lenient to the South, so if he lived, the same thing
might be said of him.

Let us not forget that Congress and the States ratified the Thirteenth
Amendment in 1865. Let us not forget that congress and the States then
ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, in support of the Enforcement of the
Thirteenth Amendment. Yet, for all that law, wealthy men in the South
continued the practice of Black slavery.

Of course, MY opinion (and I'm texan by family), was that what was
needed was somethig very much like what Germany and Japan got in terms
of occupation and "De-southifacation" Of course, at the time, such an
idea would havd been most arrant fantasy.

My ancestors were in Arkansas in those days and liberated the State of
Kentucky (thier mother's State of birth), from Union opression. (2nd
Arkansas) Then the 2nd Arkansas joined Briggs at Chatanooga, to fortify his
position. Later, my ancestor represented the Administrator, in the
enforcement of the Thirteenth Amendment, under the processes of Martial Law;
as laid out by the Congress. All very nepotistic.