vcczar Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 George S Boutswell of MA is exceptionally influential for 10 years. Not captured in the actions is that he was said to act routinely independent of Grant and the cabinet. He was noted to be really opinionated, certain, and somewhat haughty. Nevertheless, he seemed to be hugely effective and Grant seems to have been okay with him going at it, especially since Grant was a general and not a real politician. Probably a perfect match in a rare incident. The 1890s must have certainly pitted him with Henry Cabot Lodge Sr, arguably the ringleader of US imperialism. Both were from MA. His actions: Boutswell, George S 1855 Fmr Dem Gov of MA, switches to GOP over slavery issue Boutswell, George S 1861 Attends Peace Peace Conference to avert war Boutswell, George S 1862 1st Commissioner of Internal Revenue in US history Boutswell, George S 1865 Advocates suffrage for blacks in July 4th speech Boutswell, George S 1867 Introduces resolution to impeach Pres Johnson Boutswell, George S 1868 argues AJ impeachment before Senate Boutswell, George S 1868 presents AJ impeachment case to House Boutswell, George S 1868 Counsel for prosecution in Johnson Impeachment case Boutswell, George S 1868 Major role in framing 14th Amendment Boutswell, George S 1869 introduces 15th Amendment in House Boutswell, George S 1869 Confirmed Sec of Treasury (Grant's 3rd choice) after Boutswell declines interior Boutswell, George S 1869 Reforms disorganized Treasury Dept Boutswell, George S 1869 Thwarts cornering of gold market (Black Friday) but method crashes some industries Boutswell, George S 1869 Significantly reduces the national debt in unusual method of selling/buying gold, bonds, and Greenbacks. Boutswell, George S 1871 Convinced Grant to sign Butler's KKK Act Boutswell, George S 1872 Urges a new Coinage Act Boutswell, George S 1873 Resigns b/c new VP Wilson is from MA and a Senate vacancy was now open Boutswell, George S 1873 Revealed to have had stocks in the Credit Mobilier scandal, but was not active in fraud Boutswell, George S 1874 only forthright backer of school integration Boutswell, George S 1875 Sponsors Civil Rights Act of 1875 Boutswell, George S 1875 Investigates white supremacy violence against blacks and allies in MS Boutswell, George S 1881 Declines Arthur's offer of Sec of Treasury Boutswell, George S 1898 Switches back to Democrat in opposition to McKinley's Imperialistic policies; opposes annexations Boutswell, George S 1898 Founds and becomes the 1st Pres of the American Anti-Imperialist League Boutswell, George S 1900 Supports Bryan over McKinley (had done the reverse in 1896) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted September 17 Author Share Posted September 17 One of the few so far that I'm strongly favorable towards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted September 17 Author Share Posted September 17 Accept for the scandal, I can't see any valid reason why one would find him more disfavorable than favorable. He pretty much does the right thing in every step of his career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVProgressive Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 22 minutes ago, vcczar said: Accept for the scandal, I can't see any valid reason why one would find him more disfavorable than favorable. He pretty much does the right thing in every step of his career. It could be the anti-imperialism later in his career. That’s definitely a negative for me but it isn’t enough to outweigh the positive things he did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted September 17 Author Share Posted September 17 13 minutes ago, WVProgressive said: It could be the anti-imperialism later in his career. That’s definitely a negative for me but it isn’t enough to outweigh the positive things he did. Yeah, exactly. I would assume that was part of the reason, but I can't see that trumping his entire career. Even then, what right have we to rule the Filipino people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pringles Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 2 hours ago, WVProgressive said: It could be the anti-imperialism later in his career. That’s definitely a negative for me but it isn’t enough to outweigh the positive things he did. 2 hours ago, vcczar said: Yeah, exactly. I would assume that was part of the reason, but I can't see that trumping his entire career. Even then, what right have we to rule the Filipino people? It’s the Bryan support for me, I find Bryan to be the closest parallel to Trump in American politics of the past. I find it funny and sad that the man ditched the Republican Party, and was part of a state that voted for McKinley by like 70%. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted September 17 Author Share Posted September 17 30 minutes ago, Pringles said: It’s the Bryan support for me, I find Bryan to be the closest parallel to Trump in American politics of the past. I find it funny and sad that the man ditched the Republican Party, and was part of a state that voted for McKinley by like 70%. I don't see Bryan comparable to Trump other than being populists, but their populisms were very different. Bryan, for one, was ever advocating a coup or locking people up and things like that. He's probably better compared to a non-interventionist Woodrow Wilson than a Trump. You had a good analogy earlier, but this one is quite off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pringles Posted September 17 Share Posted September 17 1 minute ago, vcczar said: Bryan, for one, was ever advocating a coup or locking people up and things like that. This is an obvious truth. However, Bryan is also a 3-time failed nominee, Trump is about to be nominated for the third time and hopefully, fail in 2024. Both had a huge rural-based, evangelical backing, and Bryan however genuine in his faith he was unlike Donald, sure seemed to exploit that to keep a following ready to go with him to the gates of Hell. He clearly had to have had plenty of followers to get nominated 3 times. Populism on the whole is a pretty negative thing to me, so regardless of their populism being different, I do not approve of either of them. Non-ideological mob rule politics isn't healthy, and I might make only an exception for Andrew Jackson just because I agree with him on most of the issues at the time that he was President. There are plenty of good reasons why Bryan failed to become President 3 times. Bryan is on the wrong side of a lot of issues in his time as a public figure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted September 17 Author Share Posted September 17 8 minutes ago, Pringles said: This is an obvious truth. However, Bryan is also a 3-time failed nominee, Trump is about to be nominated for the third time and hopefully, fail in 2024. Both had a huge rural-based, evangelical backing, and Bryan however genuine in his faith he was unlike Donald, sure seemed to exploit that to keep a following ready to go with him to the gates of Hell. He clearly had to have had plenty of followers to get nominated 3 times. Populism on the whole is a pretty negative thing to me, so regardless of their populism being different, I do not approve of either of them. Non-ideological mob rule politics isn't healthy, and I might make only an exception for Andrew Jackson just because I agree with him on most of the issues at the time that he was President. There are plenty of good reasons why Bryan failed to become President 3 times. Bryan is on the wrong side of a lot of issues in his time as a public figure. That’s fine, but Boutswell wasn’t a populist. He supported a destined to lose candidate over a principle that Filipinos shouldn’t be ruled by Americans and that America shouldn’t follow Europe as being colonizing powers. He had been a McKinley supporter, voting for Bryan only in 1900. Dems really didn’t have an alternative to Bryan. Bourbon Democrats had lost support. Bryan even sat out of 1904 and Parker got crushed. He was nominated in 1908 because there was really no one else that was a national enough figure. Power was thrust on him more than he sought it after 1900. Trump’s got more of an iron fist mentality. Bryan’s weaknesses is that he fought against the things that matter most to the Northeast. He was certainly a flyover country person. But he was a mob rule sort of person either. He just wanted power and influence to move away from the northeastern cities and more towards middle America. However the population was still highly in the East. I’m not a huge Bryan fan. I might like 55% of him, but his anti-imperialism is one the virtues that is admirable. There is no reason that any Western nation should annex another people against their will. What virtue is there in that? What ethical motive? What other than power and exploitation? It certainly has strategic importance, but something other than annexation could have been worked out. I probably also would have reluctantly voted McKinley in 1896, but I certainly would have voted Bryan as a protest in 1900, knowing McKinley couldn’t lose. Voters didn’t seem to give a damn about anyone other than Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.