The Democratic Party: My Third and Current Paradigm (Part 8)
Parts 1-7:
https://caucus99percent.com/content/democratic-party-my-third-and-curren...
https://caucus99percent.com/content/democratic-party-my-third-and-curren... https://caucus99percent.com/content/democratic-party-my-third-and-curren... https://caucus99percent.com/content/democratic-party-my-third-and-curren... https://caucus99percent.com/content/demaocratic-party-my-third-and-curre... https://caucus99percent.com/content/democratic-party-my-third-and-curren... https://caucus99percent.com/content/democratic-party-my-third-and-curren...
Newly-minted Assistant Secretary of the Navy FDR (left), aboard the U.S.S. Dolphin, 1913
For good or ill, Franklin D. Roosevelt still looms large in the Democratic psyche. The current Democratic power structure labeled itself "New Democrats," an attempt to distinguish and distance themselves from Democrats like FDR and Lyndon Baines Johnson. (LBJ was a Congressional aide before winning his first run for U.S. Representative in 1937, near the end of FDR's first term as POTUS.) On the other side of the coin, a segment of the Democrat rank and file consider New Deal and Great Society Democrats the only "real" Democrats, which Party history does not seem to warrant. In any event, a close look at FDR is justified. Part 7 ended with a brief summary of FDR's political career prior to his first run for President. This essay highlights some events of that period.
After FDR learned, in 1910, that following cousin Teddy into the New York State Assembly was not to be, FDR ran instead for the N.Y. Senate. By then, cousin Teddy had held a number of state and federal offices, including President of the United States. Having the same surname had to have been helpful to FDR, especially in New York. FDR's district having been Republican, another aid to his election was a coincidental split in the Republican Party, instigated by cousin Teddy. (Although Teddy had chosen William Howard Taft to succeed him as President, Teddy wanted to prevent Taft's re-election. That split the Republican Party into a right wing and left wing, with the left eventually becoming the Progressive Party.)
An index of papers related to FDR's time in the New York State Legislature indicates that FDR, like erstwhile Assemblyman, Teddy, advocated for "conservation." "Conservation," a typical concern of members of the upper class, was an environmental concern that was very different from the current battle against global warming.
State Senator FDR also advocated for New York State's farmers, Dutchess County then being predominantly agricultural. Manhattan's notorious Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire occurred early in FDR's first term, spurring his concern for worker safety. FDR was perhaps most zealous about political reform, due to the power of Tammany Hall.1 (In addition to the index of papers linked above, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#State_senator_(1910%E2%80%931913). (The entire URL refuses to appear as a link: Please copy and paste.)
In 1912, FDR was re-elected to the N.Y. senate. That same year, and in defiance of Tammany Hall, FDR supported the first run for President of Thomas Woodrow Wilson (whom I've contemptuously derisively dubbed variously T-WoW and T-Woo). Of course, among Wilson's rivals was cousin Teddy, then head of the newly-formed (and short-lived) Progressive Party. Contradistinctively, Teddy had privately encouraged Democrat FDR to run for the N.Y. legislature and never publicly opposed any of FDR's bids for public office. Perhaps blood was thicker than politics for Teddy, but not for FDR?
FDR did not serve out his second term as state senator: Likely as a result of FDR's support, Wilson appointed FDR Assistant Secretary of the Navy.2 At age 31, FDR was the youngest Assistant Secretary of the Navy. He was to hold that position from 1913 to 1920. In 1914, although he had been Assistant Secretary of the Navy for only a short time and war clouds had been massing over Europe, Roosevelt ran in a primary for the U.S. Senate. He lost.
Supposedly, Tammany Hall was responsible for FDR's primary loss. Wilson had not backed him, allegedly because Wilson wanted Tammany Hall's support for his own re-election. In any event, after that loss, FDR backed Tammany Hall's candidates. Please see also https://www.raabcollection.com/franklin-d-roosevelt-autograph/tammany-ha... (1943 letter written by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, opining that Tammany Hall and its members were not all objectionable) So much for FDR's zeal for political reform?
The war in Europe broke out in August 1914. Recognizing the historic moment, FDR wrote his wife Eleanor, “These are history-making days. It will be the greatest war in the world’s history."3
https://www.nps.gov/articles/franklin-delano-roosevelt-assistant-secreta... (By "greatest," I hope he meant something like "largest.")
As Assistant Secretary of the Navy, FDR lobbied hard for early entry into Europe's World War I by the U.S. Once the U.S. joined the war, FDR strove to increase the role of the U.S. Navy. Cousin Teddy had also been Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Teddy had resigned that office to serve in the Spanish-American War, becoming a war hero; and Teddy's children were fighting in World War I. Reportedly, Teddy urged FDR to do the same. Despite FDR's following in many of cousin Teddy's footsteps, however, FDR did not serve in World War I.
One website avers that FDR intended to join the troops, but came down with influenza; and the war was "ending" by the time that he recovered. The website of his Presidential Library mentions that influenza developed into pneumonia, but has a different story about FDR's failure to serve. It says that he implored the Secretary of the Navy for a commission, but the Secretary thought FDR too valuable as Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Neither website cites its sources. Of course, it is possible to join the armed forces without having the Secretary of the Navy grant you a commission before you enlist. However, I saw no mention of that online in connection with FDR.
1 As a Republican politician, Teddy had not had to contend with Tammany Hall (1786-1967, R.I.P). Although Tammany Hall per se may be gone (finally), Democratic Party machines are apparently still thriving in New York City, as they are in other parts of the country. Moreover, a writer for New Republic thinks that the future of the Democratic Party lies in its past, namely in--wait for it--political machines like Tammany Hall. (I wonder if the idea for that article originated with the Democratic Party PTB.) In any event, the irony of the name "Democratic" Party increases with each essay in this series! (Raise your hand if you think Democratic Party bosses will loosen their grip during your lifetime.)
2 Another "interesting" appointment by bounder T-WoW was Wall Streeter Bernard Baruch to head and presumably staff the new War Industries Board. In turn, Baruch appointed to the Board industrialist Samuel Prescott Bush, father of, yes, World War II profiteer, U.S. Senator Prescott Bush. (What a family tradition!) The official purpose of the Board was to promote cooperation in procurement between the Army and the Navy; and one of FDR's primary responsibilities was contracting. Therefore, FDR may well have interacted with Bush.
The index of FDR's files from that period is inconclusive on that subject, showing only things like files from Br-Bu (Box 27) and Bu to Buy (Box 43). However, the index does show a file on then Secretary of Agriculture Herbert C. Hoover, whose bid for a second term in the White House FDR was to defeat in 1932. (Why did Republicans hold such important positions in T-WoW's adminstration? Maybe for the same reason Eisenhower appointed Democrats to the Supreme Court.) "It's a big club and you ain't in it." George Carlin
3 "I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. I have seen men coughing out their gassed lungs. I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. I have seen 200 limping, exhausted men come out of line — the survivors of a regiment of 1,000 that went forward 48 hours before. I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war." President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1936 "I hate war" speech, full text, https://chqdaily.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/president-roosevelt-%E2%80%98i... video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhAFKMIyKW4
[video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pob1NGD6ww]
British World War I song and source of the title of the film Wasn't It a Lovely War?
Comments
Very interesting essay in your series
It seems that FDR was an aberration in the long history of a racist Demonratic partei. TWW was a virulent racist, a veritable Klansman without the white robe. This evil side of the Dems began with racist genocidal Andrew Jackson.
As secretary of the Navy, how did FDR see so many acute battle casualties while sitting behind a Washington DC desk? Is that something akin to Hillary surviving Bosnian sniper fire?
Hi, Ed. My essays have not yet touched upon FDR's race
relations. I'm not at all certain that he was an aberration. If you have more thoughts on the subject, I'd appreciate your filling me in before I get to his Presidency. (I have one or two more essays before I get there.)
As far as his observing the fighting of the war, he did not stay at his desk for his entire 7 years as Assistant Secretary of the Navy. He did travel to the theater. That, in fact, is how he contracted the flu mentioned in the last couple of paragraphs of the essay.
The quote in footnote 3 may or may not contrast with the fact that FDR urged America's entry into World War I. I still don't know why we got into that mess. I think Wilson would have gone in anyway, though.
T-Wow may have gone in even earlier than he did, but we were not war-ready when he took office. He took care of getting the necessary equipment and weapons, instituted the draft, and had the now infamous Espionage Act and Sedition Acts enacted. (Those were the first laws of that kind since the one enacted under John Adams was repealed.)
He ran for re-election on the slogan "He kept us out of war." Then, he hired ad men to sell the war to USians. Then, he got us into war. So, I don't know how much impact FDR had in that regard.
My suspicion is that "Colonel" House pushed Woody
into the war, likely because House was Woody's handler for the Banksters of the era. Of course TWW might have done this on his own, the duplicitous SOB.
Thanks for that Ed. If I had run across House's name while
researching my essays on Wilson, I'd forgotten. According to his wiki, he was the brains behind Wilson's re-election campaign. While looking at his wiki, I saw that Darryl Zanuck made a film about Wilson in 1944. I wonder if anyone has it on compact disk. Think I'll do a search.
I've tried twice
over the years to watch the Wilson movie, but both times abandoned the effort out of boredom. Wilson doesn't seem a compelling enough figure, or didn't the way movies glossed over the rough parts back then. Perhaps a modern-day movie that deals with the WW1 era, rather than a biopic per se, would be a better idea.
I doubt if biopics about Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford or Poppy Bush would get green lighted today either, for good reason. Only historians and determined students of presidential history would be interested, or about 0.01% of the population.
(Edit: unless I've missed it, there hasn't been a recent good biopic of FDR either, and there is plenty of material there and much recent good info that has become available in recent times that is movie-worthy. Sunrise at Campobello (movie based on the stage play) is now nearly 60 yrs old, and again Hollywood basically served up 2-dimensional depictions back then. And Ralph Bellamy was a bit of a dull dud, though he could mimic FDR in certain superficial ways. Of course, I would want to see something modern by an Oliver Stone type director, willing to boldly go where others directors fear to go. But I'm not sure even Oliver Stone makes Oliver Stone movies these days, judging by his post-JFK and post-Nixon offerings.)
Had to look up
"TWW". But does anyone today, or even then, refer to him by those initials?
On the very rare instance, if Woody is mentioned
I call him Wilson, if that makes sense. At the end, he didn't make sense, so his wife and the Colonel ran the country.
Wilson rarely comes
up in conversation around here, or in my many travels into the hinterland. A little less so than Silent Cal Coolidge actually. Even Harding is talked about more (and not in a good way of course).
As for the Colonel, apparently he went from running the country to running Elvis, which may have been a greater challenge ...
FDR in WWI
From what I understand, all of the above is true. When one is Assistant Secretary of the Navy, one reports to a Cabinet-level Federal officer. In situations like these, it is usual and customary that one serves "at the pleasure" of that Cabinet-level boss and hir boss, the President. This means that any change in FDR's job at this point, even resignation, required the assent of the Secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels. If FDR had wanted to simply resign his post and join up like some ordinary working-class folks, Mr. Daniels could have refused him, and FDR would have been legally obligated to continue working as Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
And it's pretty apparent that Daniels had FDR on a pretty short leash.
Wikipedia states that Wilson himself was the one who gave the order that FDR was to stay put.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
FDR could have resigned. Serving at the pleasure of
X means only that X can fire you at any time: You have no right to the job for any period of time. If that were not so, no one who worked for the POTUS or VP could ever resign. People who serve at the pleasure of someone or other resign all the time.
Believe it or not, the Thirteenth Amendment prevents anyone from being required to work for anyone. If you have a contractual obligation to work for someone, which FDR did not have, a lawsuit can prevent you from working for anyone else during the term of the contract. It cannot, however, require you to work whenever you don't wish to work.
As my essay indicated, sources seem to conflict on the subject of FDR's service. Wikipedia does not cite a source for the Wilson order. That he did not serve because the Secretary of the Navy refused him a commission came right off the website of FDR's Presidential Library. Even though no source was cited, I would take his Presidential Library's version as more authoritative than a statement in wikipedia that is not footnoted. Of course, though, both things could be so. Wilson could have told the secretary to refuse FDR a commission.
It seemed strange to me that they would not object to his running for a six-year term in the Senate in 1914, while we were on the brink of war, but would not let him join the troops once we got into the war. In all the US, no one else could have concentrated on Navy contracting? Heck, I bet Wilson could have gotten Teddy back as Asst Secretary, if the war effort required. Besides, as an employer, I would not have wanted an Asst Secretary of the Navy during war time who was in the job only reluctantly.
As implied below...
He could have resigned and enlisted as a seaman recruit, but he needed an "okey-dokey" to be a commissioned officer.
A seaman recruit that the SecNav had a beef with would have a miserable life and probably would have spent the war cleaning latrines at Great Lakes Training Center. I'm told the old wooden barracks were brutal in winter when the cold wet wind comes off Lake Michigan.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
I see FDR's not
serving in uniform a complete nontroversy, as it was crystal clear by the time we entered the war that FDR was an invaluable, experienced and effective administrator working in the Navy office. Wilson and Daniels were right to strongly suggest he remain at his post.
I do find it interesting that FDR (undoubtedly by his own doing) arranged for his mistress Lucy Mercer to become his secretary in the Navy office. At least for a short while. When the conservative-minded traditionalist on marriage Daniels got wind of what was happening, he arranged to remove LM from her post.
I don't fault FDR for this either. Lucy, in various ways, probably helped Franklin be an even better administrator. Though all this didn't help with FDR's marriage, as I believe it was around this time that ER may have found out and asked for a divorce.
Generaions of sailors have cursed Josephus Daniels
for eliminating the grog ration that we inherited from the British navy and banned even wine and brandy from the officer's mess.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
There is no controversy about his not serving. He did not.
That is clear. The issue is whether the reasons given for his failure to serve make sense and, if true, what do they say about him? He urged early entry into the war, but considered himself above serving in it the same way that millions who were drafted or enlisted served? Those who were drafted into the war he urged could not even choose their branch of service, much less decline to serve unless they were made commissioned naval officers before even enlisting.
That he was irreplaceable as Asst. Secretary when we first got into the war is false. His primary responsibility was contracting and there was a war board coordinating procurement. Millions of Americans in this vast nation could have fulfilled Roosevelt's responsibilities.
As I posted to voice in the wilderness, I can see valid reasons why he would not have wanted to serve, but that is not the story being given.
What does it say
about him? Maybe that he was greatly influenced not only by his boss but by the Commander in Chief telling him that his country decided that the best place for him to serve his country was in his current Navy post. In FDR's case, not being a rebel and being more of a traditionalist, it's entirely plausible that the clear instructions from the Navy Sec'y and the POTUS would have trumped whatever encouragement to enlist he received from gung-ho cousin Teddy.
Invaluable or indispensable? I'm not an expert in govt assistant whatever positions, nor in all the duties, written and unwritten, he performed, and maybe it's true as you assert that many others could have done as good a job. But isn't the issue whether his boss Daniels and the President thought he was indispensable, especially as the country geared up to go to war, and that this sense of his indispensability was made clear to him by two very important people, in a position to know?
As for your cites, one from a general history site and the other from the FDR page, looking at the FDR site, it's just a soft, general overview history of the period, so things like footnotes are not apt to be included. Meant for the general reader interested in a 101 on FDR. To track down primary sources for why he didn't serve, one would need the heavy-duty bios, the detailed ones, the more recent ones probably being better places to look (e.g., biographers Dallek, Brands, Smith). On this note, since Wilson didn't survive to write his memoirs, one would look to the memoirs of his boss Sec'y Daniels, who did survive, past WW2 in fact.
As to the non-factor of his pneumonia playing a role in his staying out of serving in uniform (double-pneumonia actually -- he had to be hospitalized when leaving the ship in NY, serious illness), which was apparently offered by one website noted above, this happened just a few months before the end of the war, or Sept 1918 thereabouts. The decision to stay at his job, per orders from above, was made the previous year.
1.What is your source for what Wilson supposedly said about FDR
not joining the troops in the war effort? 2. What clear instructions from the Secretary of the Navy are you referring to and what is your source? The only thing I saw about the Secretary was that he refused FDR a commission. That was from FDR's Presidential Library, which did not cite any source for that info.
As far as the influenza, I don't think that the website that cited that as the reason is especially reliable and I believe that I said something to that effect. However, if we insist upon dealing with that site's version anyway for some reason: The site says he did not serve because he got influenza, but it doesn't say how anyone came to that conclusion. (a)Getting influenza near the end of the war doesn't automatically mean that FDR would have served had he not come down with influenza. (b) Getting influenza near the end of the war doesn't explain a thing about why FDR didn't sign up earlier, if indeed he was ever inclined to serve; (c) the site says nothing about whether or how FDR knew when the war would end; and (d) nothing is wrong with serving for less than a year, if you allegedly actually want to serve.
What does it say about a man that he urges entry by the US into World War I but will not serve in it unless he gets a commission before he enlists? That he thinks he's more entitled that the poor slobs who got drafted or enlisted into a war he urged the US to get into. That's what it says. If any of the sites pointed out that FDR was already 31 when he became Asst. Secretary and had been married a while--maybe even had a child (I haven't checked that), I would totally understand. However, that is not what either site said. Then again, the two sites gave conflicting stories.
BTW, a Presidential Library is usually one of the best sources of information about the President whose library it is. I've never heard anyone claim otherwise. If that is your claim--I couldn't tell if it was or not-- you should back it up.
Again, if you have a reliable source for Wilson's statement or even for the Secretary' refusal of a commission (not an excuse in my book), please post.
Of course he needed approval for a commission. However,
he could have enlisted first, then requested the commission. Thousands of men enlisted in World War I and II without having a commission first. Or ever. Either you want to serve or not.
Basically, I guess I'm skeptical about the whole story.
In fairness, though, he was 31 and had been married a while when he became Asst. Secretary and we didn't get into the war as soon as he got that office. I can see why he would not have wanted to serve, even if Teddy urged him to. If so, that's fine. Just don't try to have it both ways (if that's what happened).
Sorry, I'm a bit confused --
who is trying to have it both ways? You gave 2 cites on the matter of his not serving in uniform, one from the FDR Lib and another from an independent site, both sites completely independent of each other, both pieces written anonymously, but clearly the FDR Lib having far greater weight for accuracy. (edit: the FDR Lib cite logically talks about the decision made in 1917 that he would stay in his current post; the other, independent, site, talks about 18 months later and the illness supposedly keeping him out when he wanted in allegedly, but unless I missed something, I don't think the FDR Lib site talks about a sudden interest in 1918 to get directly involved in the war.)
Presumably the Library would not find it favorable to their credibility to be in the business of putting out false history. And if I were a professional biographer or historian of FDR, I would be inclined to look to the FDR Library's statements of what happened as opposed to some website that claims to deal in history.
Apologies if there's something I missed in the discussion above.
Actually the POTUS grants commissions.
But SecNav may well serve as his agent.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
In theory. In practice, I'm guessing someone other than the
POTUS and other than the Secretary took care of that kind of paper work. And please see my prior post.
Rest assured "The Great War" did not mean "The Splendid war"
It was the World's largest war at that time and surpassed WW II in many statistics, although probably not "tonnage of bombs dropped". That latter was WW II, not surpassed until the Gulf War when USAF used up all it's old arsenal (the better to let more contracts, my dear).
To be fair, military aviation was in its infancy then. The slaughter on the Western front broke England's Social Structure and paved the way for the destruction of the British Empire. Four other empire's died as a consequence of WW I (German, Austrian, Russian, and Turkish)
Note: "Kaiser" derives from "Caesar" which was an Imperial title of the late Roman Empire besides being Gaius Julius Caesar's family name). Promises made to both Arabs and Jews by the two-faced British Foreign Office paved the way for today's Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
It was a shattering event which tend to occur at 100 year intervals. The one previous was the Napoleonic Wars. I forget the one before that. War of the Spanish succession? And coincidentally, we are now living a hundred years later in the Middle east Forever war, which I fully expect to have similar consequences. The rights and civil liberties of free Americans are already a casualty.
The Great War set the stage for the Great Depression. I think a similar depression occurred after the War of 1812 (Napoleonic War in Europe). I'd have to consult a history text to see about others, but our 1970's economic travails were mirrored after the Civil war and the dot com bust is eerily similar to the Depression of 1890.
There is a theory that wars and revolutions occur at two cycles of approximately 100 and 170 years based on temperature and rainfall cycles. Every 500 years they coincide in a 5-3 resonance and whole civilizations fall or are transformed. Toynbee's 1000 year cycles can be seen as two such resonances. Following his analysis, the first crisis turns the civilization inwards and autocratic. The second breaks it entirely. Religions change too. I forget how. My Toynbee is packed away. does anyone here know what were the religious changes? Interestingly, the next 500 year supercycle fell in 2000 AD, so we are now in the first major crisis of Western Technical Civilization? (my name for the Renaissance and beyond, usually prosaically called "Modern"). this should turn WTC inward and autocratic, eventually dying in the next event around 2500 AD which should entire the collapse of civilization and a great folk-wandering sparked by environmental collapse. (loss of Eurasian pasture in the case of 500AD, turning steppe peoples westward (China was having a civilization peak, no way were the Huns turning east. In fact, they were expelled from China.
Ain't history fun? unless you are living it.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Let's not forget
the French and Indian War here in NAmerica, which can be considered the NA theater in the large world-wide war occurring elsewhere known as The Seven Years War.
Arguably that was the real World War 1, so we've had 3 so far. The next one, WW4 could be upcoming with the reckless Donald in power, worried about his re-elect.
Edit: you forgot to note comparing WW1 and 2: death toll, military and civilian: WW1 - 17 million. WW2 - 70-85 million. A huge difference. I wouldn't doubt the tonnage of bombs dropped in WW2, given the more advanced technology and the deliberate firebombing of cities in Europe and Japan, was enormously larger than for the Great War.
Ah yes, the first "modern" war.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Redundant content deleted.
Yes, I thought of
the influenza death toll but wanted to stick to the numbers from more direct causes and wasn't sure the war-influenza causality issue had been settled.
War death tolls also depend much on the source one cites. In the VN War frinstance, I've seen civilian death tolls ranging from 1.5-3.0 million
(edit: this was a reply to HAW's post below)
Both sources linked in my essay cite 40 million for WWI.
Re historical cycles,
there is the theory of the authors of the book The Fourth Turning, that we experience a Major Crisis in civilization every human lifetime or so (75-85 yrs give or take), when the survivors of the previous generational cycle have died off and their collective memory is no longer available, that often results in a major war. The last one in the US was a double crisis -- the Great Depression and WW2 -- which happened roughly 70-75 yrs after the previous cycle and crisis, the Civil War (which occurred about 80 yrs after the prior cycle/crisis, the Revolutionary War).
Iow, 75 yrs removed from the end of WW2, we are about due again for some big drama.
A HUGE one, I think!
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
I'm not sure what you are replying to.
While most of us are familiar with the term "the Great War," FDR did not use that term in his letter to Eleanor. At least not in the letter from which my essay quoted, nor was my comment about what he did say an especially serious one. Also, my essay said nothing about a splendid war or the splendid war. If my comment on FDR's letter is not what you are replying to, then I am even more lost. Maybe my ADD is getting in my way.
Text must have been editted.
Someone said "great war I hope they didn't mean splendid war"
Did you do it in "deleted redundant content" ?
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
"Text must have been edited." ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Your post is both obviously wrong on the facts and highly offensive.
First, your reply was to my essay, not to the deleted post. Why would you see something about a splendid war in a subthread, but reply to the essay?
Second, the redundant content I deleted was indeed redundant of my Tuesday afternoon reply to your Monday evening post about The Great War vs. The Splendid War or whatever you were on about. Short of ability to time travel, how could you possibly have posted Monday evening about something I allegedly said Tuesday afternoon in a reply to your Monday evening post? Moreover, you obviously did not even bother to check the times of the two relevant posts before accusing me of doing something dishonest: I find that inexcusable.
As far as editing the essay itself--and, again, it is to the essay you replied---a link in the essay takes you to FDR's exact wording, which I quoted exactly and which did not, as I told you prevkously, contain the term "the Great War." Nor did my joking comment in the essay about his words include "the Splendid War" or anything remotely like that. (And btw, no one called World War I the Great War before World War I ended; and the letter from which I quoted was written before the war started.
Beyond all that, I am not the kind of poster who deletes X from an essay that at least 14 had already read in order to tell another poster that I don't understand why his or reply to my essay. Even if I were a dishonest poster, why in hell would I do something like that in this instance anyway? W
The only credible explanation is that you replied to my essay because you misread or misremembered part of the essay, namely, the quote from Franklin's letter to Eleanor and my comment about it. But, rather than admit that, you accused me of doing something really dishonest. You owe an apology.
And again, I'd love to know who rec'd your false accusation. I have a feeling it may be the same person who rec'd another false accusation you made about me on another thread some time ago (also because you misread and/or misremembered my posts).
You are not infallible. Stop falsely accusing me of evil things because you cannot admit making an error.
HEY THERE WAS SOMETHING THERE
YOU brought this up! I just made a mild reply and I had taken your comment to be facetious.
For some reason you want a fight. Fuck Off.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
What people do and do not focus upon is always interesting.
The links to part 1 to 6 on top of your current part 8
of your Third and Current Paradigm result in 'page not found' for me. Did I do something wrong? I would love to have them all and archive them for myself, as I am always TTTR (too tired to read) one by one and rather would like to read them all like a book.
I remember having bought in the earlier TOP days three thick books about the Democratic Party. Haven't found them yet in my unpacked book boxes. I think Meteor Blades suggested them back then and warned it's a piece of work to read through them. So I expect the same is happening for me now, when I would try to read through all of your essays one by one. It's a shame that I didn't read them yet and would like to do so one day in the future. They must be a treasure.
Now I am already TTTT. Good night from Germany.
https://www.euronews.com/live
No one did anything wrong.
I cut and pasted each of those links from the address bar above each of the seven essays. I separated the links from each other with semi-colons, a common practice. The problem is that the software made the semi-colon part of the link.
I removed the semi-colons, so the links should be okay now. If not, and you still get "Page Not Found," just delete the semi-colon at the end of the URL in the address bar and click.
My essays are not a treasure, but simply what I described them to be, my personal third understanding/view of the Democratic Party. The information in them is historical but given a different emphasis in my essays than it typically receives. I'm guessing your books both say more and emphasize more positive things about the Party than I say or emphasize.
Although not written off the top of my head by any stretch, the essays are in line with what one might expect from posts made by someone posting as a volunteer, rather than from a book written by a professional author and fact checked and edited by professionals.
Oh great and thanks, the links work now,
when I find the books I was mentioning, I will let you know. They are unpacked since 5 years and I have no clue in which box they are. But I swear to the Almighty, one day I find them and God willing I am still alert enough to come back to you with this.
Thank you and Good Night from Germany.
https://www.euronews.com/live