Oh and funny story if you ever read about the life of Jesse Owens.

FDR refused to invite him to the White House with all the other Gold Medalists in 1936. He also reflected that upon being awarded a medal on the stand Hitler waved to him. Owens stated "It was Rosevelt who snubbed me, not Hitler"

It's in his Autobiography.

Final-Fan said: Kasz216 said: Final-Fan said: "Aside from which, he thought the bill of rights should be rescinded during wartime." If you can dig up THAT, then I guess I really won't have a leg to stand on. I read it in an biography piece on Elenaor Roosevelt a while back.  I'll try and dig it up. Though I mean... Japanese Internment did rescind the Bill of Rights for Japanese people... he also rescinded freedom of the press... banning a socialist and anti-war matieral... This book has an indepth account of how much was Roosevelts decision... and some one the racism as well I believe. I just find it frightening people are willing to excuse something so fundamentally wrong? I mean would nobody care about Guantanamo if Bush was a good president in all other regards? When do you draw the line of what can't be erased by good deeds? 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 affai

 

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.

I just can't wait for Shwarzeneger to be president, so I can watch Demolition Man again and have a good laugh.

Strategyking92 said: The Ghost of RubangB said: Bursche said: I personally like Polk. Gets in for one term in office, does an extremely great job, then leaves office and dies 3 months later. Thank you Mr. Polk for much of the West.   nobody really talks about polk much... I didn't even know he did so much.

Manifest Destiny little man!!  You should have learned about that in your US history class.

My pick is Martin Van Buren

 

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.

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.

You don't see... being taken from your home... put in a camp and unable to leave unless you were shot or agreed to join the army as more racist?

Really? It was outright controlling everything they do. It was practically slavery.

Worse =/= more racist. The degree of racism, it seems to me, depends on the degree to which racial hatred motivates the action in question, not just the amount of harm that is done. Even if you disagree, why did you ignore my obvious use of a different definition? You should have argued with my definition, not talked about the fact that greater harm to the individuals was done by internment, since I AGREED WITH THAT. It also seems to me that by your definition Hitler is countless times more racist than the KKK just because his murder campaign was that much more successful. 

What newspapers did FDR shut down?

And you're seriously overreaching to say that FDR was basically a Bush that got lucky.

P.S. You're withdrawing the point about the Holocaust? Or you just haven't finished your rebuttal?

[edit:  and no it fucking was not "practically slavery".  It was "wrongful imprisonment".  Did you even read that before you posted?] 

Final-Fan said: Worse =/= more racist. The degree of racism, it seems to me, depends on the degree to which racial hatred motivates the action in question, not just the amount of harm that is done. Even if you disagree, why did you ignore my obvious use of a different definition? You should have argued with my definition, not talked about the fact that greater harm to the individuals was done by internment, since I AGREED WITH THAT. It also seems to me that by your definition Hitler is countless times more racist than the KKK just because his murder campaign was that much more successful.  What newspapers did FDR shut down? And you're seriously overreaching to say that FDR was basically a Bush that got lucky. P.S. You're withdrawing the point about the Holocaust? Or you just haven't finished your rebuttal? [edit:  and no it fucking was not "practically slavery".  It was "wrongful imprisonment".  Did you even read that before you posted?]

Wrongful inprisonment that you couldn't get out of unless you joined the army against your will. I'd call that practically slavery. I'd say thinking the Japanese shouldn't be citizens is less racist then rounding them up and holding them in camps. Just how thinking Jews shouldn't be citizens and shouldn't hold jobs is less racist then outright killing them. Most Germans held the first view. Hitler held the second. As for the Holocaust. I'll put it this way. Hoover gave FDR plenty of reasons and evidence that there was no just cause that the japanese should be interred... even when his generals told him not to. Are you telling me that Hoover didn't go to FDR about the Holocaust? A much bigger and more serious thing that wasn't getting talked about? Though how is FDR not a bush that got lucky. How was Japanese Internment rapidly different from Guantanamo? Edit: For some reason my replies aren't spacing after i post them. Sorry about that.

Actual names though of the Newspapers? I'll try and find them, though once again what i read simply just said he shut down many newspapers.

For one though he pulled the FCC liscense of the "Yankee News Network".

I think you underestimate just how censored the press was during WW2.
Everything had to run through the Censorship department. Pretty much anything anti-american was gotten rid of if they could get away with it.