Some presidential elections are dumber than others

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

CreamyGoodness

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
7,392
Reaction score
2,125
Location
Ossining
U.S. Grant has long been used by historians as an example of the worst presidents in American History. Other than the fact that he had been touted as the man who almost single-handedly won the Civil War for the North, one of the main reasons for his winning the election was the opposition.

Enter Horace Greely. An abolitionist firebrand who delighted in taking extreme positions, Mr. Greely's newspaper during the war featured correspondence from Mr. Karl Marx, a man he respected but disagreed with almost 100% of the time. Mr. Greely formed a short-lived political party called the Liberal Republicans (you cant make this shizz up) and chose his running mate, a man who criticized President Lincoln for not punishing the South as much as they deserved to be punished, and for not emancipating slaves in Missouri that were still under Confederate control.

Enter Mr. Benjamin Gatz Brown. A man whose alcoholism was so advanced that there are confirmed stories of him trying to butter a watermelon at a campaign picnic. One newspaper quotes him as saying "vote for Horse Greeny. He has the biggest head in North America!" upon which time he "committed an obscenity" in the lobby of his hotel. Lest you think Mr. Gatz Brown was prone to perversion, I am here to note that he merely mistook the hotel's potted palm for a chamber pot.

Mr. Greely would pass away before all votes were counted. The sad thing is that the Democratic party would win only one state in the election... Texas. Apparently, more people in America at the time would vote for a deceased person with a lunatic for a running mate than someone who opposed the war.


There is no moral to this story.
 
i was about to flame out of principal, but that was actually interesting. well, entertaining, anyway.

if any of it is true, that is.
 
John Ashcroft lost his Missouri Senate seat to a dead guy, and thus was available to be in Dubya's cabinet. He didn't even have the 'news-travels-slow' excuse (although it was well known that his opponent's wife would be appointed to the Senate seat if he won).

VP Andrew Johnson was drunk at Lincoln's '64 inauguration, although he wasn't known as an alcoholic.
 
Was it Franklin Pierce who lost the Whitehouse china in a poker game? Sounds like something he would do, being a jackhole and all.
 
We no longer have elections, we have auctions.
In 30 yrs of voting, I have never once actually voted FOR a candidate; I have always voted AGAINST a candidate.
Regards, GF.
 
We no longer have elections, we have auctions.
In 30 yrs of voting, I have never once actually voted FOR a candidate; I have always voted AGAINST a candidate.
Regards, GF.

I think this is the case for a lot of people and paints a perfect picture of the problem with politics in this country. The lesser of two evils will always prevail.

Then again, is there even a single country that exists who agrees with everything their ruler does? It seems impossible...
 
" Mr. Greely formed a short-lived political party called the Liberal Republicans (you cant make this shizz up)
....
The sad thing is that the Democratic party would win only one state in the election... Texas.

The Democrat and republican parties aren't the same as they used to be. The democrats were the powerful southerners who wanted slavery to continue and the Liberals were the Republicans back in the day. Liberal used to me "for liberty", not the same as today. That's right, Republicans freed the slaves, and the Democrats seceded to form a slave state.
 
The Democrat and republican parties aren't the same as they used to be. The democrats were the powerful southerners who wanted slavery to continue and the Liberals were the Republicans back in the day. Liberal used to me "for liberty", not the same as today. That's right, Republicans freed the slaves, and the Democrats seceded to form a slave state.

I agree, its these tidbits of history that I enjoy most. There are well worded (albeit debatable) arguments out there suggesting that former Republicans that would be Democrats if alive today include Lincoln, Eisenhower, and even Nixon.
 
Also, dont forget, McClellan ran as a "War Democrat" against Lincoln in 1864. The "War Democrat" faction had notable opposition in the form of the "Peace Democrats" who were sometimes, but not always, affiliated with a better-known faction, the "Copper-heads." Some were Southern sympathizers and others just didn't see a point. Of course, having the French and English circling like sharks waiting to hop on the newly bitesized chunks of North America should have been clear evidence that THAT position needed improving, but there you have it. By the way, the country across the pond that had the most to LOSE if the South had successfully seceded? Tsarist Russia. This is evidenced by the Russian fleet in New York harbor that was escorting merchant vessels in and out.

By the way, very close to where I grew up, Newburgh New York, was a veritable hotbed of Copperhead activity. But that's just an asides. Also of note is that there was not a single Southern state that didnt send at the least a company of soldiers north to fight for the Union.
 
I find it sad that a country of 300+ million people attempts to be represented by only two major political parties, often boiling down to a single social issue.

I'd love it if Congress had a dozen or so parties that actually represented the diverse views in this country.
 
I find it sad that a country of 300+ million people attempts to be represented by only two major political parties, often boiling down to a single social issue.

I'd love it if Congress had a dozen or so parties that actually represented the diverse views in this country.


The two-party system, almost from the very start, was based on tit-for-tat more than anything. For example, after the Hartford Convention in 1814 (I blame YOU Boston... hehe jk) the Federalists were essentially and for all intents and purposes, kaput... leaving their arch rivals... sigh... the Anti-Federalists. Now that our Not-So-Super-Heroes no longer had Super-Villains to shake their walking-sticks at they were forced to do a little PR clean-up... and rebranded as the Democratic-Republicans. Again, you can't make this up.

See where this is going?

By the way, in 2004, John McCain referred to himself as a Federalist in regards to how he looks at the Constitution. I thought he made a gaffe, since the Federalists believed in a strong central goverment with a national bank regulated by congress etc, and this went almost 100% the other way of what he was saying. In talking to my lawyer ex-girlfriend, *I* was the one who was mistaken. Apparently, the definition of the word Federalist has changed over the centuries as well!
 
I'm not seeing how your post relates to the thread. The thesis of the thread are essentially 1) history is hilarious (which I believe to be a truism) and 2) the lesser point was that words such as "liberal" "conservative" "republican" "democrat" et. Al. now have definitions and usage entirely different from, and sometimes in complete opposition to, their original usage and meaning.

If anyone is a rabid Horace Greely supporter or vehemently dislikes my take on the Hartford Convention, then I apologize.
 
My post just brings up the issue of history repeating itself. Mix in a little first world problems and there you go.
 
By the way, in 2004, John McCain referred to himself as a Federalist in regards to how he looks at the Constitution. I thought he made a gaffe, since the Federalists believed in a strong central goverment with a national bank regulated by congress etc, and this went almost 100% the other way of what he was saying. In talking to my lawyer ex-girlfriend, *I* was the one who was mistaken. Apparently, the definition of the word Federalist has changed over the centuries as well!

A fun, albiet dry, read is to go through the federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. these more than anything should help people understand what our country was founded on an for. Read together they represent all of the arguements we are having today of what is too much power for the government and what is too much power for the states as well as well-reasoned reasons why. Much better than the infighting and name calling that passes as political discourse in our time.
 
I was shocked to discover my favorite founding father is a man I wouldnt have liked personally. Alexander Hamilton. Man knew what he was talking about.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top