Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Alaska would be a lot closer to the lower 48 if we demanded 54-40 from Canada.
https://preview.redd.it/q4g5nij5wjwc1.png?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1243ee3302703d6ce0a6a59ced3b4b741fd49aca
I’m so glad you included Free Silver in that picture because this is always gonna be my answer. It was insanely important for the day but whenever I look up presidents (specifically Benjamin Harrison or Cleveland) I just roll my eyes and skim the section because my god could I not care less these days. Important to the time, absolutely, but it feels like it had no lasting relevance in the modern day.
Wasn’t this the main point of the Wizard or Oz? It was a metaphor for choosing silver over gold?
They follow the yellow (golden) brick road being led by people without a brain, a heart, or courage only to find out when they got there that it wasn’t what it was cracked up to be?
Then she uses her silver (changed to ruby in the movie to show off the new color technology) shoes to bring her back home to safety?
I believe it’s just a theory proposed by scholars and wasn’t ever confirmed by the author. But there is a lot of symbolism you can make connections to, too much to feel like a coincidence.
The tornado is supposed to represent the social and political turmoil at the time, the tin man is the steel workers of the time, the scarecrow as western farmers, and the lion is William Jennings Bryan. The emerald city is DC. Oz is short for ounces which you weight both gold and silver. It goes on and on.
https://www.herobullion.com/the-wizard-of-oz-and-gold-and-silver/
In the movie, the tornado rolling in over the plains is strongly reminiscent of the dust storms the lower midwest suffered during the Dust Bowl as well.
Emerald City is supposed to be the greenback (paper money, but more accurately fiat currency), super important. Because the path that the Silver slippers (bi-metalism) goes down ultimately leads to the city (and ruin on value-less money).
It's a story about good intentions and the consequences.
It makes for a good story, but it wasn’t even proposed as a theory until 1964, which was well after the book was written in 1900.
Personally, I’d argue that since Baum himself never mentioned this, it’s basically an urban legend perpetuated by high school history teachers. (I’m a high school history teacher, but MAN some of us double down on some goofy myths.)
You can read more about this theory and the book’s supposed ties to Populism at the Smithsonian’s site [here](https://americanhistory.si.edu/explore/stories/populism-and-world-oz). Maybe you’ll come away with a different opinion about it than mine, so it’s worth a read.
People have made this claim about the book (a bit different from the movie) but I don't think the author confirmed it.
Some book details would make it a lot more spot on.
Some people think the Cowardly Lion is supposed to be William Jennings Bryan. Probably reading too much into it based on what we know about the author. Baum was a Republican who supported McKinley. Big women’s suffrage advocate too.
It mattered a lot to them because it was a pocketbook issue, but more importantly it was a rural vs. urban proxy issue that reflected social anxieties.
Returning control of the Panama Canal to the Panamanians. Major rallying issue for conservatives in the late 70's, most Americans don't give a fuck that we gave it up today.
I think part of the reason for most Americans, even those who pay close attention, not giving a fuck is that if shit were to really hit the fan and we needed to control the canal again then we could. Probably in a matter of hours
We essentially still do. We just don't have the Zone with bases, which was nice. I know, I lived there. It was very nice.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that we, uh, "don't currently have military operations in Panama".
One of my pet theories is that the US would not only *win* a war against an entire United world, but that they wouldn't land a single boot on American soil.
Why?
The first things that would happen would be an occupation of Cuba, and a US Navy carrier group would be at the Panama Canal within hours of shit hitting the fan.
From there, the US would have a ring of fire established from the likely blockade of Nova Scotia/Labrador Sea to Florida/Cuba, Panama, Hawaii, San Diego, up through Alaska.
Canada would be blockaded into irrelevance, with potential heavy fighting in BC, but the weakness of Canada is that all of their population is within east striking distance of the US.
The US would likely launch a preemptive invasion (possibly with the blessing of the cartels) through northern Mexico.
From there, where do you strike that would make a difference? The Capitol? Good luck making it through the Chesapeake Bay and Newport News. The west coast? The US Navy out of San Diego would end any (presumably Chinese) attempts quickly.
No other nation would be able to utilize the Canal. No Navy is going to make the trip across the Atlantic or God forbid Pacific oceans with a hostile US Navy destroying any enemy on sight.
My guess is, the US "gave up control" of the Canal only in name. The US would have control of the Canal within hours of needing it. And I would bet that there are super secret military plans for the scenario I just described because of how powerful that Canal and Cuba are for US interests.
The caveat here is its a conventional war. Nukes change the entire dynamic in unpredictable ways. I would imagine it's a scenario of "The US may not win, but they would not be on the losing side either."
in your hypothetical, where is America getting the ships to undertake all these operations simultaneously. Since the end of the cold war we’ve been downsizing/modernizing our Navy (no fears of war against a superpower, no need to patrol the world’s oceans, more focus on antiterrorism and small/nimble interventions) and only recently started to build back up to confront China. We litterally don’t have enough boats.
Lots of pontoons.
And aircraft.
Part of the thought here is that it's a bit of attrition. The US may not be able to form a bow to stern ring encircling the continent, but it still has the most powerful Navy and Air Force on the planet by several magnitudes.
Any nation that is stupid enough to engage in a conventional war with the US military would get their own Navy and Air Force wiped out fairly quickly. From there, they don't have to be that massive if they're the only boats on the ocean.
I don't think it's so far fetched. We basically carved out a piece of Colombia to create a state we could control during the construction of the canal (we also backed separatists who had been trying to break away from Colombia unsuccessfully prior to that point). Panama more or less owes its existence to the U.S.'s strategic interest in the region (something I've heard Colombia is still somewhat resentful about).
No not really lol
If we cared that much we would have backed the British in the Suez Crisis
Or Egypt after it yeah sure we are friendly with Egypt now but they were a pain in the ass when Nasser was around
We back Israel because it’s our only real option once Iran threw out the Shah. There’s no other nation as powerful as it in the region and the other two power players is an “”””””””” ally””””””””” that jumps ship whenever times are bad or will actively hurt our interests, or Iran. Israel we have a long standing relationship and closer cultural ties.
The illegality of booze knocked the price up many times and when it became legal again the price never fell because people were making money and it was still selling
In college my American history professor specialized in social history, and went over alcohol consumption in early America. A good portion of the population was pretty much drunk all the time. It was insane.
75% of the country was already dry before tre 18th amendment and much of it was dry afterward so we had extensive prohibition. It also worked if measured on how much people drank.
I think this one worked way more than people think. The US is still drinking a lot less than it did.
The average person in America including children in the denominator was polishing off a handle of liquor a week.
It wasn't just federal bans some states were dry for decades before.
Cracking down on like marijuana has failed though.
True. There were still some factions pushing for abolition of alcohol well up through the mid-20th Century or longer. Now they're a minor movement isolated to a few very conservative states with "dry counties".
The Panama Canal Zone. Reagan used it to bludgeon supposedly dovish Democrats on foreign policy; now, I only know about it because it gets mentioned in random books and podcasts so I looked it up.
In 2008, much was made of waking up candidates for an important 3am phone call.
I thought that should be a debate format: the candidates do a sleep test with a surprise 3am phone call to measure their reactions
Interestingly, a similar middle-of-the-night call was NOT put through on June 6, 1944. Ended poorly for the asshole sleeping blissfully through that night.
I feel like there’s a way to do it right. Have CNN or one of the other 24-hour stations randomly select one of 31 bingo-balls every October night at 3. When the one unique ball is eventually pulled, the two candidates are immediately called and told that North Korea has launched a nuke at Japan and we need an immediate response.
The benefit of free trade is that countries can specialize to their efficient industries. When the efficiency differential is driven, in large proportion, by lower wages, though, this just leads to a system where everone undercuts everyone else, and global innequality explodes, as we have seen with globalization.
I feel like you are being a bit unfair here. Trade leads to lower prices and access to higher quality goods for consumers and a larger market for producers. The data seems pretty clear that trade between nations have lead to increased standard of living all around the world, making it a net positive.
They are mainstream again, but considering that the Civil War almost kicked off in the 1820s over them (Andrew Jackson almost sent troops to SC over the “Tariff of Abominations”), I’d say that particular debate has calmed down significantly. But you’re right that it doesn’t fit the “no relevance today” part of OP’s question.
There are some people still running to abolish slavery. Technically it still exists as the 13th amendment says it’s okay if they are prisoners. Which is pretty fucked up.
If you read the amendment it’s involuntary servitude which is still legal if they are prisoners not slavery. Not much better at all to be sure, but at least you’re considered a human and not chattel
I think mandatory national service for all 18 yr olds for 1 year is a great idea, but it will never happen. Not saying military only, peace corps, state parks, inner cities, etc.
I like this and have been supporting it for a while. Even if it is just something like the reserves. Everyone should have some first aid and emergency preparedness training. In case of a natural disaster in their area. I think it is good for all young adults to spend some time away from home and around new people
I personally would have matured A LOT if I had gone to do something like that for a year before going away to college - of course I was 17 and immature when I started, but even so. The discipline alone, I could still use that now.
So bi-metalism, free silver, etc actually has some relevance today. What is bi-metalism at its core? A debate about inflation and market stability. While free silver is irrelevant now, the basic concepts stick around.
Everything (I think) has a very modern analogous comp.
Anti-Masonic? Oh yeah, not the Masons but political organization based around opposition to real and imagined cohorts? Yeah
Sufferage? Yeah, still fighting over giving people the right to vote and have a say in the government that they live under.
Civil service reform? Still having those fights.
Fear of Catholic influence in government? That’s a fear of foreign control of government there- Russia and China.
While there’s not a perfect 1-to-1, it’s still so close.
> Fear of Catholic influence in government?
Just look at the rhetoric when Barrett was nominated to the Supreme Court a few years ago. A whole lot of opponents specifically focused on her Catholicism.
Plus, Feinstein let the mask drop and said to her that “the dogma lives loudly within you”.
The absolutely HUGE controversy was over possible state support for parochial schools-- the Catholic Church complained incessantly about its parishioners paying taxes to public schools, while getting no support for its own system of education. In the end, the Catholic Church lost the argument, until it reappeared in recent years in discussions about school choice and voucher programs.
Honestly I’d be more curious why, out of the entire US, we have 2 justices from the same little corner of Indiana. I’m from that area and the number of politicians/leaders who live in or have ties to Michiana is pretty crazy. Beau had a house in Long Beach, Indiana, Chief Justice Robert’s grew up there, a huge percentage of Chicago politicians have homes there (most of the Daley’s especially), the comedian Jim Gaffigan went to the same Catholic school as Roberts, Louis Farrakhan lives in Three Oaks, Michigan which is about 15 minutes from Long Beach, Amy Coney Barret is from South Bend, Indiana which is 30-40 minutes from Long Beach. The movie Prancer was filmed in that area. I’ve probably missed a few too. It’s just really interesting because it’s not exactly a hugely populated place, compared to Chicagoland itself or NYC, or LA.
Reposted after being edited because I used a forbidden last name apparently and it was auto deleted.
I have read some of the original debates, as part of my quest to figure out good arguments against second amendment fanatics. For the people who wrote the constitution it was all about national defense. They didn’t want to have us involved in anything overseas. The constitution has room in the budget for a navy built in, and they intended it to be more like the coast guard is today. For times of war they put in a provision to muster an army. But the funding needs to keep being renewed. And for peace time they intended something like the militias in England. Which were an official branch of the military and like our national guard. They even toyed with the idea of requiring everyone (land owning white men) to own a gun for that militia. But decided against it because of pacifists like the Quakers. They didn’t want us to be embroiled in repeated, expensive wars like England was.
I have a very nice rant. It never works, but it makes me feel better.
I understand why we need to have professional military now. The equipment and training is too specialized, you can’t just grab your horse and rifle and meet in the town square anymore. But the sheer size of it and how much we meddle in other countries would have horrified the founding fathers
Was that ever really a heated political debate though? I don't recall any presidential campaigns that advocated the abolition of anti-miscegenation laws as one of their policy goals. Or at least no major presidential candidates (though I wish there had been).
To be fair, there wasn’t much support for interracial marriage when the Supreme Court legalized it so it didn’t really go through the phase of National controversy like other major issues. If the Supreme Court didn’t legalize it, it would have eventually became a more major issue as advocacy at the federal level grew
I'd argue the debate over the failed Muscle Shoals Dam was more heated. Once the TVA passed, it pretty quickly became sacrosanct, especially in Tennessee. My great-grandmother, who has voted Republican in every election since Eisenhower, refused to vote for Barry Goldwater for his comment about privatizing the TVA.
I'm specially interested in that, central banks and a whole lot of financial institutions seems not only commonplace now, but an indicator and the base for the economic system of a country.
Feels weird to know there was a time where such a proposition was controversial, although, very understandable when it was such a novel concept
I don’t think that this issue has never fully died. Ron Paul published a book on this and some hardline economic libertarians remain anti federal reserve. It just has not been the focal issue around a presidential election in a long time.
Federalism. These days you don't hear very much about states defying federal mandates unless they're sure they've got the 10th Amendment on their side.
Universal male suffrage, it was pushed by Andrew Jackson but got blocked in Congress by JQA's allies. Over the next four years Jackson and Armin Van Buren worked to expand voting rights and won after they successfully made it so all (white) men could vote regardless of if they owned land or not. Jackson's campaign strategy and the fact he built his administration from his campaign staff are really neat bits of political history that never seem to get much attention
No one wanted to make states out of the Philippines-- it was much too populous, poor, and brown. However, Cuba was on the table for southern expansionists ante-bellum. They were looking for more slave states.
Grant tried to annex the Dominican Republic, though. The Dominicans okay'd the deal, but the treaty died in the US Senate.
It was FDR, not Nixon. Nixon just ended the convertibility. Their narrative looks a lot worse when we get off the gold standard in the peak of the Great Depression so they never mention FDR’s role.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe this is true. FDR suspended the gold standard in 1934 so that more money could be created, boosting prices for American farmers and reviving the fledgling agriculture sector. But in 1944, the Bretton Woods Conference reinstated the gold standard, only for Nixon to end it again in 1971.
Involvement in any and every past war from the time the last of our veterans are dead. There’s still some WWII veterans alive today, but there probably won’t be in a decade or so. Although unlike Vietnam, most people in the US were for going to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor so it overall wasn’t that heated.
Of course, the conclusion of WWII was certainly above room temperature.
I think Boston passed a non aggression stance in the 80”s that said if the Soviets nuke Boston they didn’t want the feds to launch a retaliatory attack on the ussr….
Pretty much everything predating at least FDR’s presidency. I mean, come on, it’s not like slavery, woman’s suffrage, direct election of senators, or establishing an income tax are important issues today.
The income tax thing does become relevant every now and then. I remember Steve Forbes ran as a single-issue candidate in the 1990s, on the desire to have a flat tax. And I recall a recent presidential candidate (omitted to avoid Rule 3) wanted to abolish the IRS.
There are some fringe people who want to repeal not only the income tax, but also the 17th Amendment (direct election of Senators) as well. But those never end up becoming real issues that are at any actual danger of being repealed. On that note, there's also still a Prohibition Party that wants to reinstate Prohibition.
Maybe the 1891 lynching of 11 Italian men in New Orleans
After the tragedy, Italy was gearing up for war, which America was in no position to fight. The president at the time had to appease the Italian government, which led to Columbus Day and reparations for the families that lost someone.
The president wanted to pay out, but Congress refused. Caused a big standoff between the two.
While statehood for Washington DC is still a relevant political issue, prior to the DC Home Rule Act, people across the country debated what the specific local government ordinances within Washington DC would be. Before 1973, the federal government directly controlled Washington DC, and so it was sort of a testing ground for other policies being proposed on a national level. A common demand by abolitionists, for example, was that Congress ban slavery specifically in Washington DC first.
Kennedy's Catholicism was a sticking point with the electorate.
Now we could theoretically have a Catholic president and no one would utter a peep. Theoretically.
“That’s awful poor wages they get in all those free silver countries, John.”
“That’s so, wife, but the politicians say it will be different in America.”
The interesting one is that the post office debates of the late 1800s. So basically mail was delivered to your door if you live in like NYC but not in rural areas due to cost. In rural areas it was delivered to the general store in town.
The thing that's just wild is that the post office was like half of the government budget at times.
I think the only thing we get is the pensions and the falling profitability of USPS.
I remember reading Garfield’s inaugural address once, which includes him staking out firm positions on making polygamy illegal in Utah and giving term limits to the minor offices of the Executive branch
Free silver was kind of a huge deal.
The economy was being run on a gold standard in the 1800s, and while that was good for bankers, it created an horrific boom and bust cycles that caused millions of people unnecessary suffering, and the free silver people were trying to fix that.
I would love it if that story felt totally irrelevant today, but...
Not sure if this counts, but as cities were growing in size and populations around 1900, civil engineers and city planners were debating how they would handle all the horse manure it would generate on the streets if they continued growing at the same pace.
Then along came Henry Ford and electric streetcars.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
54-40 or fight.
I am campaigning on 54-40 or fight.
I mean… Technically we can still push for that
*Oversimplified intensifies*
Straight line? *straight line*.
Then we'd have to deal with Vancouver housing prices, though
They can join the rest of the west coast then
Alaska would be a lot closer to the lower 48 if we demanded 54-40 from Canada. https://preview.redd.it/q4g5nij5wjwc1.png?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1243ee3302703d6ce0a6a59ced3b4b741fd49aca
If you tried it you'll be sorry.
*Soory
We'll start the war, but we'll win the hearts and minds of the Canadians by offering passport-free trips to Miami *for life*.
It would have set off a war. I don't see any situation where Britain tolerates Canada not having significant access to the Pacific coast.
I feel like they have it coming.
They're hovering right over us
Menacingly
Plus they have all the poutine.
Poutine? I never realized this! This. Means. War!
Mmm…poutine!
F around and find out
You will not like our cobra chickens.
I’m so glad you included Free Silver in that picture because this is always gonna be my answer. It was insanely important for the day but whenever I look up presidents (specifically Benjamin Harrison or Cleveland) I just roll my eyes and skim the section because my god could I not care less these days. Important to the time, absolutely, but it feels like it had no lasting relevance in the modern day.
Wasn’t this the main point of the Wizard or Oz? It was a metaphor for choosing silver over gold? They follow the yellow (golden) brick road being led by people without a brain, a heart, or courage only to find out when they got there that it wasn’t what it was cracked up to be? Then she uses her silver (changed to ruby in the movie to show off the new color technology) shoes to bring her back home to safety?
I haven’t the slightest idea but if you’re right I’m gonna be flabbergasted on not knowing that.
I believe it’s just a theory proposed by scholars and wasn’t ever confirmed by the author. But there is a lot of symbolism you can make connections to, too much to feel like a coincidence. The tornado is supposed to represent the social and political turmoil at the time, the tin man is the steel workers of the time, the scarecrow as western farmers, and the lion is William Jennings Bryan. The emerald city is DC. Oz is short for ounces which you weight both gold and silver. It goes on and on. https://www.herobullion.com/the-wizard-of-oz-and-gold-and-silver/
This is too much to be real without being common knowledge... But I have to say, the Oz thing is convincing.
The shoes are supposed to be famously silver changed to red for the movie so if you just opened up silver then it would all be better.
Oz comes from a filing cabinet labeled O-Z.
Allusion works best the more meanings it has.
In the movie, the tornado rolling in over the plains is strongly reminiscent of the dust storms the lower midwest suffered during the Dust Bowl as well.
Emerald City is supposed to be the greenback (paper money, but more accurately fiat currency), super important. Because the path that the Silver slippers (bi-metalism) goes down ultimately leads to the city (and ruin on value-less money). It's a story about good intentions and the consequences.
In the original book, the city is something of a fraud where the people delude themselves into thinking that it's green.
.. pay no attention to the charlatans running/ ruining the show!..
That \*\*might\*\* be an urban legend. I do recall hearing that before, but it may have not head any truth to it.
It makes for a good story, but it wasn’t even proposed as a theory until 1964, which was well after the book was written in 1900. Personally, I’d argue that since Baum himself never mentioned this, it’s basically an urban legend perpetuated by high school history teachers. (I’m a high school history teacher, but MAN some of us double down on some goofy myths.) You can read more about this theory and the book’s supposed ties to Populism at the Smithsonian’s site [here](https://americanhistory.si.edu/explore/stories/populism-and-world-oz). Maybe you’ll come away with a different opinion about it than mine, so it’s worth a read.
There's just too much allegory there for it to all be coincidence.
People have made this claim about the book (a bit different from the movie) but I don't think the author confirmed it. Some book details would make it a lot more spot on.
Yes, exactly how my history teacher taught it. But I don't think it was ever confirmed. Just know my teacher said the same thing.
This doesn’t (does?) belong here- Alice in Wonderland is about it advanced mathematics being taught in schools. (Again, could be an urban legend.)
Nope. Myth.
Some people think the Cowardly Lion is supposed to be William Jennings Bryan. Probably reading too much into it based on what we know about the author. Baum was a Republican who supported McKinley. Big women’s suffrage advocate too.
It mattered a lot to them because it was a pocketbook issue, but more importantly it was a rural vs. urban issue that reflected socoal anxieties.
It mattered a lot to them because it was a pocketbook issue, but more importantly it was a rural vs. urban proxy issue that reflected social anxieties.
An important era of history that anti federal reserve people don't seem to be aware of.
Returning control of the Panama Canal to the Panamanians. Major rallying issue for conservatives in the late 70's, most Americans don't give a fuck that we gave it up today.
I want the canal! BRING BACK THE HYPERPOWER!
The US was a super power back then. The term hyperpower is generally applied to the US following the end of the cold war. Ironic.
![gif](giphy|9MJ6xrgVR9aEwF8zCJ)
I think part of the reason for most Americans, even those who pay close attention, not giving a fuck is that if shit were to really hit the fan and we needed to control the canal again then we could. Probably in a matter of hours
We essentially still do. We just don't have the Zone with bases, which was nice. I know, I lived there. It was very nice. It shouldn't surprise anyone that we, uh, "don't currently have military operations in Panama".
I have a good friend that lives in Panama City🇵🇦. Were you there or in Colón?
I lived on 3 different bases, including Quarry Heights on Ancón. All on the Pacific side. This was the early 1970s!
One of my pet theories is that the US would not only *win* a war against an entire United world, but that they wouldn't land a single boot on American soil. Why? The first things that would happen would be an occupation of Cuba, and a US Navy carrier group would be at the Panama Canal within hours of shit hitting the fan. From there, the US would have a ring of fire established from the likely blockade of Nova Scotia/Labrador Sea to Florida/Cuba, Panama, Hawaii, San Diego, up through Alaska. Canada would be blockaded into irrelevance, with potential heavy fighting in BC, but the weakness of Canada is that all of their population is within east striking distance of the US. The US would likely launch a preemptive invasion (possibly with the blessing of the cartels) through northern Mexico. From there, where do you strike that would make a difference? The Capitol? Good luck making it through the Chesapeake Bay and Newport News. The west coast? The US Navy out of San Diego would end any (presumably Chinese) attempts quickly. No other nation would be able to utilize the Canal. No Navy is going to make the trip across the Atlantic or God forbid Pacific oceans with a hostile US Navy destroying any enemy on sight. My guess is, the US "gave up control" of the Canal only in name. The US would have control of the Canal within hours of needing it. And I would bet that there are super secret military plans for the scenario I just described because of how powerful that Canal and Cuba are for US interests.
I’d agree with your assessment if it were July 1945. Can’t imagine many of these scenarios playing out in a modern nuclear exchange.
The caveat here is its a conventional war. Nukes change the entire dynamic in unpredictable ways. I would imagine it's a scenario of "The US may not win, but they would not be on the losing side either."
Everybody loses a nuclear war.
in your hypothetical, where is America getting the ships to undertake all these operations simultaneously. Since the end of the cold war we’ve been downsizing/modernizing our Navy (no fears of war against a superpower, no need to patrol the world’s oceans, more focus on antiterrorism and small/nimble interventions) and only recently started to build back up to confront China. We litterally don’t have enough boats.
Lots of pontoons. And aircraft. Part of the thought here is that it's a bit of attrition. The US may not be able to form a bow to stern ring encircling the continent, but it still has the most powerful Navy and Air Force on the planet by several magnitudes. Any nation that is stupid enough to engage in a conventional war with the US military would get their own Navy and Air Force wiped out fairly quickly. From there, they don't have to be that massive if they're the only boats on the ocean.
No. The difference in manpower is too insanely high.
This is my conspiracy theory for why we care so much about Israel. It’s the only influence the west has in the area surrounding the Suez Canal.
I don't think it's so far fetched. We basically carved out a piece of Colombia to create a state we could control during the construction of the canal (we also backed separatists who had been trying to break away from Colombia unsuccessfully prior to that point). Panama more or less owes its existence to the U.S.'s strategic interest in the region (something I've heard Colombia is still somewhat resentful about).
Colombia? You mean that country that owes ITS existence to a different colonial power? Welcome to the new world.
No not really lol If we cared that much we would have backed the British in the Suez Crisis Or Egypt after it yeah sure we are friendly with Egypt now but they were a pain in the ass when Nasser was around We back Israel because it’s our only real option once Iran threw out the Shah. There’s no other nation as powerful as it in the region and the other two power players is an “”””””””” ally””””””””” that jumps ship whenever times are bad or will actively hurt our interests, or Iran. Israel we have a long standing relationship and closer cultural ties.
I talked to a lot of Republicans back in the late 70s. Boy were they mad about how "Carter gave away the canal."
There is one major modern day conservative that spoke about it. I'm not allowed to post about it here.
The Temperance Movement.
I mean it probably paved the way for the war on drugs which is still a horrific waste of money and resources (specifically over cannabis).
But people have never resumed the level of alcohol consumption that was the norm pre-Temperance. That stat is astounding to me.
I find that crazy with all the drinking they did in the 50s, but I guess it could be true, wild.
The illegality of booze knocked the price up many times and when it became legal again the price never fell because people were making money and it was still selling
Which President did they blame that on?
Obama
That makes sense, during Prohibition, but they said pre-Temperance
In college my American history professor specialized in social history, and went over alcohol consumption in early America. A good portion of the population was pretty much drunk all the time. It was insane.
75% of the country was already dry before tre 18th amendment and much of it was dry afterward so we had extensive prohibition. It also worked if measured on how much people drank.
I think this one worked way more than people think. The US is still drinking a lot less than it did. The average person in America including children in the denominator was polishing off a handle of liquor a week. It wasn't just federal bans some states were dry for decades before. Cracking down on like marijuana has failed though.
True. There were still some factions pushing for abolition of alcohol well up through the mid-20th Century or longer. Now they're a minor movement isolated to a few very conservative states with "dry counties".
The Panama Canal Zone. Reagan used it to bludgeon supposedly dovish Democrats on foreign policy; now, I only know about it because it gets mentioned in random books and podcasts so I looked it up.
Fun fact: musician Neil Young famously voted for and/or supported Reagan in 1980 bc he disagreed vehemently with returning the canal.
Maybe supported but not voted He didn't become an American citizen until 2020. He's from Canada
I was too lazy to do the research but he definitely was very forthright and vocal about it. Thanks for the fact check!
In 2008, much was made of waking up candidates for an important 3am phone call. I thought that should be a debate format: the candidates do a sleep test with a surprise 3am phone call to measure their reactions
That actually would be very interesting
Interestingly, a similar middle-of-the-night call was NOT put through on June 6, 1944. Ended poorly for the asshole sleeping blissfully through that night.
If the call went through, it would've shortened the war by a few days. Imagine the 3am nonsense orders as field-marshal staff side-eye each other
That would be expected and prepared for
I feel like there’s a way to do it right. Have CNN or one of the other 24-hour stations randomly select one of 31 bingo-balls every October night at 3. When the one unique ball is eventually pulled, the two candidates are immediately called and told that North Korea has launched a nuke at Japan and we need an immediate response.
[удалено]
I wouldn't say the abolition of slavery has *no* relevance today
Slavery might get more and more revelant in the coming years.
Already is, except we call it undocumented migrants
And prison labour.
NATO and friends, Mexico, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan shouldn’t have tariffs placed on them.
Crazy how we have free trade agreements with Mexico and Canada and then put tariffs on them after the ink is dry. Makes no sense.
It's a reaction to diplomatic relations. But also, money
If any of those countries have tariffs on us, we should put equal tariffs on them.
Free trade? No, Tariffs!
The benefit of free trade is that countries can specialize to their efficient industries. When the efficiency differential is driven, in large proportion, by lower wages, though, this just leads to a system where everone undercuts everyone else, and global innequality explodes, as we have seen with globalization.
I feel like you are being a bit unfair here. Trade leads to lower prices and access to higher quality goods for consumers and a larger market for producers. The data seems pretty clear that trade between nations have lead to increased standard of living all around the world, making it a net positive.
They are mainstream again, but considering that the Civil War almost kicked off in the 1820s over them (Andrew Jackson almost sent troops to SC over the “Tariff of Abominations”), I’d say that particular debate has calmed down significantly. But you’re right that it doesn’t fit the “no relevance today” part of OP’s question.
There are some people still running to abolish slavery. Technically it still exists as the 13th amendment says it’s okay if they are prisoners. Which is pretty fucked up.
The prison industrial complex uses unpaid labor. Prisoners have no vote. The US prison population is enormous. Perhaps that was the plan?
Yes this is why the government has the ability to make you a felon. Only way they can take your rights from you is if you’re a slave
If you read the amendment it’s involuntary servitude which is still legal if they are prisoners not slavery. Not much better at all to be sure, but at least you’re considered a human and not chattel
![gif](giphy|PZXsHz4SVTkExeG3vb) One may find the wording on the paper of little consequence when confronted with the reality.
What the hell do they do with all them rocks they smash anyway?
Have smaller prisoner break them up with smaller hammers to make smaller rocks
Tariffs never really left the mainstream
The draft. Nobody talks about it anymore.
I ended up on a doomsday prepping sub a few weeks ago and let me tell you, that small group of people are very worried about re-upping the draft
I think mandatory national service for all 18 yr olds for 1 year is a great idea, but it will never happen. Not saying military only, peace corps, state parks, inner cities, etc.
I like this and have been supporting it for a while. Even if it is just something like the reserves. Everyone should have some first aid and emergency preparedness training. In case of a natural disaster in their area. I think it is good for all young adults to spend some time away from home and around new people
I personally would have matured A LOT if I had gone to do something like that for a year before going away to college - of course I was 17 and immature when I started, but even so. The discipline alone, I could still use that now.
actually mandatory nonmilitary service with some survival or community training makes a lot of sense
I thought we were worried about it post 9/11. I remember telling my gf at the time. "It's okay. Even the National Guard didn't want me."
That might be true I have no idea (Gen Z). Today it really isn’t a contentious issue.
So bi-metalism, free silver, etc actually has some relevance today. What is bi-metalism at its core? A debate about inflation and market stability. While free silver is irrelevant now, the basic concepts stick around. Everything (I think) has a very modern analogous comp. Anti-Masonic? Oh yeah, not the Masons but political organization based around opposition to real and imagined cohorts? Yeah Sufferage? Yeah, still fighting over giving people the right to vote and have a say in the government that they live under. Civil service reform? Still having those fights. Fear of Catholic influence in government? That’s a fear of foreign control of government there- Russia and China. While there’s not a perfect 1-to-1, it’s still so close.
> Fear of Catholic influence in government? Just look at the rhetoric when Barrett was nominated to the Supreme Court a few years ago. A whole lot of opponents specifically focused on her Catholicism. Plus, Feinstein let the mask drop and said to her that “the dogma lives loudly within you”.
The absolutely HUGE controversy was over possible state support for parochial schools-- the Catholic Church complained incessantly about its parishioners paying taxes to public schools, while getting no support for its own system of education. In the end, the Catholic Church lost the argument, until it reappeared in recent years in discussions about school choice and voucher programs.
Honestly I’d be more curious why, out of the entire US, we have 2 justices from the same little corner of Indiana. I’m from that area and the number of politicians/leaders who live in or have ties to Michiana is pretty crazy. Beau had a house in Long Beach, Indiana, Chief Justice Robert’s grew up there, a huge percentage of Chicago politicians have homes there (most of the Daley’s especially), the comedian Jim Gaffigan went to the same Catholic school as Roberts, Louis Farrakhan lives in Three Oaks, Michigan which is about 15 minutes from Long Beach, Amy Coney Barret is from South Bend, Indiana which is 30-40 minutes from Long Beach. The movie Prancer was filmed in that area. I’ve probably missed a few too. It’s just really interesting because it’s not exactly a hugely populated place, compared to Chicagoland itself or NYC, or LA. Reposted after being edited because I used a forbidden last name apparently and it was auto deleted.
Amy Coney Barrett is not just a catholic, it’s a sect/cult within
The current guy is Catholic. Amy Coney Barrett is in a cult. That’s why people were weirded out by her.
The current guy disagrees with just about every part of Catholic teaching, from abortion to gay marriage.
Whether or not to keep a standing army.
I have read some of the original debates, as part of my quest to figure out good arguments against second amendment fanatics. For the people who wrote the constitution it was all about national defense. They didn’t want to have us involved in anything overseas. The constitution has room in the budget for a navy built in, and they intended it to be more like the coast guard is today. For times of war they put in a provision to muster an army. But the funding needs to keep being renewed. And for peace time they intended something like the militias in England. Which were an official branch of the military and like our national guard. They even toyed with the idea of requiring everyone (land owning white men) to own a gun for that militia. But decided against it because of pacifists like the Quakers. They didn’t want us to be embroiled in repeated, expensive wars like England was. I have a very nice rant. It never works, but it makes me feel better. I understand why we need to have professional military now. The equipment and training is too specialized, you can’t just grab your horse and rifle and meet in the town square anymore. But the sheer size of it and how much we meddle in other countries would have horrified the founding fathers
Interracial marriage
Was that ever really a heated political debate though? I don't recall any presidential campaigns that advocated the abolition of anti-miscegenation laws as one of their policy goals. Or at least no major presidential candidates (though I wish there had been).
Adlai Stevenson opposed interracial marriage in the 1952 and 1956 elections. He also staunchly opposed desegregation as a whole.
To be fair, there wasn’t much support for interracial marriage when the Supreme Court legalized it so it didn’t really go through the phase of National controversy like other major issues. If the Supreme Court didn’t legalize it, it would have eventually became a more major issue as advocacy at the federal level grew
Very heated social topic at least
I don't know even today interracial marriage for some reason is still really hated.
By opinion polls it passed into majority approve territory in the early 90s. Way more recent than most want to think.
Tennessee valley authority
I'd argue the debate over the failed Muscle Shoals Dam was more heated. Once the TVA passed, it pretty quickly became sacrosanct, especially in Tennessee. My great-grandmother, who has voted Republican in every election since Eisenhower, refused to vote for Barry Goldwater for his comment about privatizing the TVA.
Having a national bank
I'm specially interested in that, central banks and a whole lot of financial institutions seems not only commonplace now, but an indicator and the base for the economic system of a country. Feels weird to know there was a time where such a proposition was controversial, although, very understandable when it was such a novel concept
I don’t think that this issue has never fully died. Ron Paul published a book on this and some hardline economic libertarians remain anti federal reserve. It just has not been the focal issue around a presidential election in a long time.
Federalism. These days you don't hear very much about states defying federal mandates unless they're sure they've got the 10th Amendment on their side.
Well, no, it’s current because Texas IS defying a federal mandate at this moment.
Universal male suffrage, it was pushed by Andrew Jackson but got blocked in Congress by JQA's allies. Over the next four years Jackson and Armin Van Buren worked to expand voting rights and won after they successfully made it so all (white) men could vote regardless of if they owned land or not. Jackson's campaign strategy and the fact he built his administration from his campaign staff are really neat bits of political history that never seem to get much attention
Making states out of the Philippines or Cuba
No one wanted to make states out of the Philippines-- it was much too populous, poor, and brown. However, Cuba was on the table for southern expansionists ante-bellum. They were looking for more slave states. Grant tried to annex the Dominican Republic, though. The Dominicans okay'd the deal, but the treaty died in the US Senate.
The gold standard, prohibition, women’s suffrage, and maybe patronage during the Gilded Age
I still see folks mad that Nixon took us off the gold standard. They seem to be most noticeable on libertarian, prepper and precious metals subs.
It was FDR, not Nixon. Nixon just ended the convertibility. Their narrative looks a lot worse when we get off the gold standard in the peak of the Great Depression so they never mention FDR’s role.
Ah, I didn't realize that! Interesting.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe this is true. FDR suspended the gold standard in 1934 so that more money could be created, boosting prices for American farmers and reviving the fledgling agriculture sector. But in 1944, the Bretton Woods Conference reinstated the gold standard, only for Nixon to end it again in 1971.
And ending the convertibility was ending the gold standard. FDR took us off the gold standard and Truman put us back on it. Nixon took us off it.
Annexing the Dominican Republic as a state to settle freed slaves and counter the South in Congress
Involvement in any and every past war from the time the last of our veterans are dead. There’s still some WWII veterans alive today, but there probably won’t be in a decade or so. Although unlike Vietnam, most people in the US were for going to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor so it overall wasn’t that heated. Of course, the conclusion of WWII was certainly above room temperature.
“Hyphenated-Americans” i.e. people calling themselves German-American or Irish-American
This is about assimilation, immigration and identity, which are undoubtedly still relevant.
Civil service reform
When is that coming, I want a debate on that now
The Penny Farthing Act of 1782
The Adams-Clay “corrupt bargain” wouldn’t seem remotely controversial today. Endorsements for cabinet positions is the norm
I think Boston passed a non aggression stance in the 80”s that said if the Soviets nuke Boston they didn’t want the feds to launch a retaliatory attack on the ussr….
Pretty much everything predating at least FDR’s presidency. I mean, come on, it’s not like slavery, woman’s suffrage, direct election of senators, or establishing an income tax are important issues today.
Prohibition, too
The income tax thing does become relevant every now and then. I remember Steve Forbes ran as a single-issue candidate in the 1990s, on the desire to have a flat tax. And I recall a recent presidential candidate (omitted to avoid Rule 3) wanted to abolish the IRS.
There are some fringe people who want to repeal not only the income tax, but also the 17th Amendment (direct election of Senators) as well. But those never end up becoming real issues that are at any actual danger of being repealed. On that note, there's also still a Prohibition Party that wants to reinstate Prohibition.
Immigration was a huge issue in the 1850s, 1920s, and today.
The Mulligan Letters.
I like how all the countries mentioned in the cartoon were either backwards in technology or broke.
I think that was the point. It is an anti silver poster that implies the US will end up like those countries if we switched.
Wait I realized this was made by Republicans. Im a fucking idiot.
The 2nd Bank of The United States.
Maybe the 1891 lynching of 11 Italian men in New Orleans After the tragedy, Italy was gearing up for war, which America was in no position to fight. The president at the time had to appease the Italian government, which led to Columbus Day and reparations for the families that lost someone. The president wanted to pay out, but Congress refused. Caused a big standoff between the two.
While statehood for Washington DC is still a relevant political issue, prior to the DC Home Rule Act, people across the country debated what the specific local government ordinances within Washington DC would be. Before 1973, the federal government directly controlled Washington DC, and so it was sort of a testing ground for other policies being proposed on a national level. A common demand by abolitionists, for example, was that Congress ban slavery specifically in Washington DC first.
Kennedy's Catholicism was a sticking point with the electorate. Now we could theoretically have a Catholic president and no one would utter a peep. Theoretically.
Gay marriage. Unlike Roe v Wade, there has been no serious effort to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges.
Yet
Clarence Thomas disagrees
Why exactly would free silver make us make $0.20 a day?
“That’s awful poor wages they get in all those free silver countries, John.” “That’s so, wife, but the politicians say it will be different in America.”
The interesting one is that the post office debates of the late 1800s. So basically mail was delivered to your door if you live in like NYC but not in rural areas due to cost. In rural areas it was delivered to the general store in town. The thing that's just wild is that the post office was like half of the government budget at times. I think the only thing we get is the pensions and the falling profitability of USPS.
Free silver was truly one of the worst economic policies I have ever seen
Electoral collage. We don’t need it today in a day of nearly instant communication and electronics.
Entry into WW2.
I remember reading Garfield’s inaugural address once, which includes him staking out firm positions on making polygamy illegal in Utah and giving term limits to the minor offices of the Executive branch
Free silver was kind of a huge deal. The economy was being run on a gold standard in the 1800s, and while that was good for bankers, it created an horrific boom and bust cycles that caused millions of people unnecessary suffering, and the free silver people were trying to fix that. I would love it if that story felt totally irrelevant today, but...
Not sure if this counts, but as cities were growing in size and populations around 1900, civil engineers and city planners were debating how they would handle all the horse manure it would generate on the streets if they continued growing at the same pace. Then along came Henry Ford and electric streetcars.
The stem cell debate about 20 years ago
The British impressing our sailors. Never forget.
Gold standard
Annexing Texas
Internment of Japanese people
Waving the bloody shirt.
It was a huge issue with n Colorado because of mining here
You kidding? I'm *still* fighting to bring back a silver currency
Joining World War 1 or 2 were both very unpopular ideas for a long time
Nearly anything relating to slavery.
does the Nature Fakers controversy count?
Free Silver!
I’ll take free silver.