Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
I thought you meant like the way Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. The internment violated the civil rights of a group of people; you were saying he favored suspending civil rights. That's different. With XO9066 I'm sure he thought he was acting within the Constitution. (Which does NOT excuse his actions, and I certainly hope you're not suggesting I have been making excuses for them.)
As for censorship, I found a good article (book summary). Sounds to me like he was a model of restraint compared to Wilson; he did however (apparently) abuse the system to hide his poor health and affair. |
I don't see the difference between suspending one groups civil rights and all though.
He banned tons of press though he didn't jail the people making them.
Though then again, he did jail people who he had even less right to jail.
He also to my knowledge supressed news about the Holocaust.
The stuff you mention is straight out Nixon level stuff I didn't even know about though.
Also, yeah i'd say internment was much worse then the 1900 Califronia laws. |
The difference is thinking that you are acting Constitutionally and being wrong, versus deciding to ignore the Constitution for a while.
Does your second paragraph refer to the dozens of newspapers Wilson's laws prevented from being delivered by the USPS or were forced to stop reporting on WWI entirely on threat of such? Does your third paragraph refer to the 170,000 people Wikipedia alleges were jailed for heinous crimes like using "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" in talking about the government? (Perennial Socialist Presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs got 10 years for a speech that "obstructed recruiting", and served 3 until the next President pardoned him.)
As for the Holocaust -- some Internet research revelas that much of the government inaction on that issue can be laid at the feet of obstructionist individuals at the State Department, and in particular Assistant Secretary of State Breckenridge Long (admittedly a personal friend of FDR). I ran across an important document by the Trasury Department, "Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of this Government in the Murder of the Jew", which is essentially an expose of the obstruction by certain actors in the government of other, shall we say, "not antisemitic" actors in the government.
The mere fact that this report was put together is patent evidence IMO that this information was not commonly known at the top levels of government, i.e. FDR.
As for California: the internment may have been a worse experience for those affected than, say, laws preventing immigrants from owning property or marrying whites or becoming citizens etc. etc., but more racist? And creating a worse atmosphere of racism than already existed (which you claim)? I disagree. |
Actually I was refferring to FDR stopping newspapers from print.
Wilson wouldn't be at the top of my list of presidents either though.
Lincoln may or may not depending on how bad the habeous corpus thing, haven't read anything on that.
Though I already think Lincoln is a bit overrated since the emancipation of slaves was soley a political act and not done for any real reason other then he could... and that I think a lot of presidents actually could of did what he did...
Simply the run up to him had 3 of the most incompetent presidents we've ever had however... and the one after wasn't that great either though his hand was forced via politcal pressure of what happened to Lincoln.
To me FDR and Wilson rank near the bottom. Surely they didn't almost destroy the country like some presidents... but they compromised the very meaning of the country to do so.
I think you could draw a great many paralels between FDR and Bush. The only differenece being FDR gambled and won, while George W Bush gambled and lost.
