Who is the most underappreciated notable figure in American History?

My vote would go to Ulysses S. Grant.

While Robert E. Lee is lionized as a military genius, and has been practically deified by lost causers, Grant went about the business of actually winning the war.

In 8 years the man went from working in his fathers tannery store, to heading the Union armies, attaining the rank of Lieutenant General (the first since Washington), and being elected President of the U.S.

And oh by the way, he then went on to write the best, by far, militray memoir in history, while he was dying a slow painful death from Throat Cancer.

The man had his flaws, and his Presidency was less than successful (though not the disaster often portrayed), but overall a giant figure in American history who deserves to be remembered and honored far more than he has been!

One of my favorite reads from years ago.

She wrote that "Genes Jump" long before DNA was discovered and
she was vilified for being a women. When told that she had
won a noble prize she said, "Oh, that is nice." and went back to her lab
to work.


Barbara McClintock (1902 - 1992)

Until recently, scientific research was considered beyond most women's abilities, despite notable historical exceptions - such as that of the great 19th century co-discoverer of radioactivity, Marie Curie. If a woman displayed natural talent in science and mathematics, the option to pursue her talents as a scientist was likely to be closed off in favor of more traditional roles: mother, wife, and homemaker. Sadly, this was true in America even as late as the 1950s. That is what makes Barbara McClintock and her lifelong achievements in genetics all the more notable. McClintock launched her scientific career at Cornell in 1919 and, in the face of social adversity and tremendous intellectual challenges, established herself among the great geneticists of this century.

At the time McClintock started her career, scientists were just becoming aware of the connection between heredity and events they could actually observe in cells under the microscope. McClintock pioneered the field of maize cytogenetics, or the cellular analysis of genetic phenomena in corn, which for the first time provided a visual connection between certain inheritable traits and their physical basis in the chromosome.

McClintock rose to many challenges throughout her career - not only scientific but personal - from other scientists who felt intimidated or threatened by what one of her colleagues described as her "independence, originality, and extraordinary accomplishment." In the most notable case, Lowell Randolph, her advisor and colleague, became extremely irritated with McClintock's success in solving a problem he had spent his entire life working on. McClintock became the dominant member of his research team, and Randolph found this intolerable. McClintock soon departed, going on to greater things.

For her ground-breaking work in the genetics of corn, Barbara McClintock earned a place among the leaders in genetics. She was elected to the prestigious National Academy of Sciences in 1944. Despite this, she still met with social adversity in her department at the University of Missouri and finally left there, too. She kept her next appointment at the Carnegie Institute at Cold Spring Harbor for the rest of her life.

In 1983, Barbara McClintock was awarded a Nobel Prize in Genetics. To this day, her work is highly esteemed, still relevant despite the fact that much of it was completed over half a century ago, before the advent of the molecular era.

Peace maker, Noble Prize winner, humanitarian & true Christian.

PS: I'm proud he's a fellow Georgian.

been lionized and deified, with both characterizations being wholly wrong as part of the big overall lie spread by the far right.

If his call for energy independence had been heeded 25 years ago the disaster of our present attempts at maintaining Middle East hegemony could have been avoided. Iran and the rest of the radical Arab world would now be marginalized by not having the strategic importance or the economic resources to create instability in our world.

at least as far as Presidents go.

Dolley Madison
Smedley Butler
Joshua Lawerence Chamberlain
SSG Roy Benevides
Eleanor Roosevelt


So many are mentioned so rarely, if at all that it is difficult to come up w/names...:)

To me he is about the most over-mentioned person in the entire Civil War.

His book is among the top sellers of memoirs stil from the era.

I watched the Ted Turner movie recently "Gods and Generals" which followed the early to mid years of the war through the eyes of a Confederate and Federal leader. The author chose Stonewall Jackson for the south and Joshua Chamberlin for the north.

Undermentioned? He's better known than anyone else his rank in the whole union army.

at the time of Gettysburg and Little Round Top, it was not understood exactly what he and the 20th Maine had accomplished, literally the entire war hinged on that hill, and if the 20th ME would have colllapsed, Gettyburg most like would have been a Confederate victory, as the entire Federal line would have been flanked and anything could have happened.

Later in the war, he took a Bde into battle and wound up far ahead of the men in both fog and smoke from the battle, he was standing alone. The Confederates thought he was one of their officers, and in an exceptionally lucid momnet on Chamberlains part, he ordered the Confederates out of their line and into a charge which landed them right in the midst of the Union lines to be captured.

As an aside go to:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohviet.htm

and read the Citation for the MOH for Roy Benevides. After he retired, as a SGM, he spent most of his time going to schools telling kids they could do anything if they put their minds to it. He was an outstanding individual, soldier and citizen. I met him once at Ft. Lewis, and he was a quiet man of incredible dignity, but quite humble...:)

The bit about LRT being the key to Federal victory at Gettysburg is, imo, an overused bit of hyperbole that starts not-conincidentally with Chamberlain himself.

The very same thing could be said about the 1st Minnesota. If not for their sacrifice in the midst of the battle, the Union line would have been cut in half at an extremely vulnerable point with nearly a full corps of Confederates waiting to exploit the breech. Chamberlain, on the other hand, was being attacked by remnants of two regiments with no one above an incompetent colonel to lead them and absolutely no hope of reinforcement had the 20th Maine gone down, and several other Union regiments still in its path, having successfully beaten back other Confederate assaults along that line. But the 1st Minn. didn't have any prolific writers to sing its praises, partly because so many of them were dead.

Moreover, a hundred incidents like this occurred on battlefields in every theater of the war. Chamberlain is singled-out because of an undeserved mythical aura that surrounds Gettysburg and because he exploited his own experiences as a soldier when he became a politician.

All this said, I don't mean to say Chamberlain was not a good man who did well in many aspects of his life, just that he is not "underappreciated."

I sure don't want to belittle Chamberlin's stand on LRT, but I believe the fact is that Hood's division had marched and countermarched and fought all day and while Law's brigade was climbing LRT, the rest of the division was involved in a huge fight at Devil's Den. There were no reinforcements behind them so if Law's Alabamans had taken the crest of LRT, they would have been horribly reduced by casualties, dog tired, without water for hours, and there were federal reinforcements already almost at the hill in overwhelming numbers to sweep them back off the hill.

The federals had inerior lines and greater numbers.

Still these stands by small units are very impressive for sure.

Was it Cadmus Wilcox who thougth quickly and acted on his own to turn his brigade just in time to save Lee's rear while Stonewall Jackson was getting ready to attack at Chancellorsville?

I'll have to go back and look it up, but Early's division had been swept off of Fredricksburg's heights, and that left the way open to the rear of Lee's army. Wilcox (I think) was guarding a ford nearby and noticed that the soldiers on the other side weren't wearing something they'd need to march or something so he abondoned is key position and turned and hit the federals befire they could get to Lee's rear. Hope I'm remembering that story correctly.

At Salem Church. Classic delaying action that forced Sedgewick to deploy repeatedly.

Interesting that you mention him since it was his brigade that was in the midst of breaking through the line at Gettysburg when the 1st Minnesota was ordered into the breach by Hancock. And I believe it was Wilcox who then told either Lee or Longstreet (or both -- foggy on the details) that the problem was not getting to the ridge but actually staying there. It highlighted the problem the Confederates had all across the line, which you mention. The Federals had interior lines and ample reinforcements.

Ironies all over the place there.

hesitation and unloaded muskets to fill the gap. The sacrifice they made was absolutely incredible. Another aspect of the battle was the 7th VT, (IIRC) which had a Company behind a small ridge that opened up on the Confederate left flank sending a battalion into chaos, driving them from the field. Little things like this made a world of difference in the Universe of Battle.

Another person who has been strangely rated was Longstreet. He was often seen as far too cautious, but he was an incredibly intelligent Field General and tactician, something Lee should have looked at more closely at Gettysburg, (I have a theory about Lee at Gettysburg). After the war, he went to great lengths to make a bridge between the Federals and the former Confederates, something he was vilified as a traitor for unfortunately.

My theory about Lee at Gettysburg is really quite simple...There has been talk of him suffering from his heart ailment and a 'sour' stomach, things that are related in the medical aspect of the case. Besides errors in judgment, because of the ailments, I have always had the feeling that Lee knew if the battle were lost, and the Army of Northern VA collapsed, there could be an opening for negotiations.
His ordering the attack on the center was far and away a foolish move for someone of his caliber. While I find it difficult to justify the loss of thousands of troops, I am wondering if the possibility arose to him that this could be the end of the war if the ANV collapsed. I understand that saying this damn near is the same as calling him a traitor, but if the Federals would have pursued the opening after the Pettigrew/Pickett fiasco, as normally would be undertaken under the circumstances, the ANV would have been destroyed. Lee had to know this. He had the Army of the Potomac in front of him, and the river behind him...he was in deep trouble. Meade could have ended the war in the East, and things would most likely have been considerably different.

If you get me started on Longstreet, we could give the Kudzu thread a run for its money. :-) Which is to say you're right that he was "strangely" rated, but it wasn't so strange. It was a deliberate campaign against him set in motion after the war due to his political opinions and associations. As for Lee listening to Longstreet, I have a lengthy paper/presentation I developed on an aspect of this. To summarize very broadly, I think the originating issues were a lack of communication, Longstreet seemingly not offering viable alternatives, and a failure on Lee's part to articulate a clear goal.

Interesting theory about Lee. On its face it has a clear kernel of truth, to wit that Lee was a fatalist who seemed to believe he and his army were at the center of a preordained serious of events that would end, one way or another, climatically on an enormous scale. In that context he likely saw Gettysburg as some sort of Armageddon that had to be played out to its bitter end.

both sides. A Commander should leave room for options on the field of battle so that there can be flexibility, but to say things like, "at your discretion and the time you deem appropriate, you may move forward", is quite simply asking for disaster.

Lee was an interesting character as well, a study in contradictions if you will. While he was devoted to VA almost as if it were a separate nation, he deplored much of what the South stood for. His military acumen was outstanding, but I have a difficult time believing he fought for all of what the South "stood" for, and I'm positive he regretting losing Arlington, but those are things that can be argued for an aternity...:)

The fields of battle were often miles wide and communications were poor. Drawing a line of attack on a map was a lot different than what you actually saw on the ground, so I don't blame Lee for giving his Corps Commanders discretion.

Especially when you think the Corps commanders were Stonewall Jackson and James Longstreet. They deserved discretion.

What would the Second Manassas campaign have bene in Stonewall Jackson didn't have discretion? That campaignturned so fast that it was impossible to controll from away from the field.

AP Hill and Ewell probably didn't deserve the discretion as much, but honestly, maybe they did too. Ewell's campaign into Pennsylvania was masterfully done. Nothing to redict disaster from it, and I think AP Hill was about as good as all but a very few Corps commanders on either side. It hurt though that the campaign was the first for both of them at that level.

Hill especially excelled later south of Petersburg in late 64.

Especially when you think the Corps commanders were Stonewall Jackson and James Longstreet. They deserved discretion.

That is indeed the crux of the matter.

Lee unofficially reorganized his army after the Seven Days so that Longstreet effectively served as battlefield tactician for a sizable chunch of the army, leaving Jackson the bulk of the rest. (The arrangement was of course made official in October of that year.) It worked brilliantly at 2nd Manassas, saved the army at Sharpsburg, and brilliantly again at Fredericksburg. Then came Chancellorsville, where Jackson performed brilliantly with Longstreet not present, leaving other parts of the army to take up the slack and showing mixed results. Lee had to get personally involved in this battle, commanding at a level not intended for the army commander, and that, along with a bit of luck and some outstanding performances by individual commanders here and there, as well as some mismanagement on the part of the federals, saved his butt.

The problem was that after Jackson died, Lee no longer had two commanders responsible for his entire army who were capable enough to use that discretion wisely, which is part of why he split it up into three corps as opposed to two. Hill and Ewell prove the Peter Principle quite well. They rose to their level of incompetence. At the division level, they were fine, but at corps level they froze, especially at Gettysburg, their first battle at that level. Hill got better, but that didn't help him there.

To put it in simple terms, what happened was that Ewell and Hill were not doing their jobs properly, were using their discretion poorly, and from the firing of the first guns this irritated Lee and made him worry about the fight to come. Despite the eventual successes of the first day, it never should have happened, and with Jackson still there, it likely would not have happened, at least not that way. When Longstreet came up and started counseling against anything and everything Lee proposed, it was not what Lee wanted to hear. He forget himself, forgot momentarily that Longstreet was the one who had orchestrated so much success at Seven Days, 2nd Manassas, and Fredericksburg, and he stopped listening to anyone.

Or so runs my theory.

that Lee just didn't leave battles undecided while he still had reserves to throw in. In fact, that may be his greatest gift. He got almost every soldier into every battle. He rarely ended a battle with divisions that never fought.

Anyway, Lee tried the north flank at Culp's Hill and was stopped. He tried the south flank at LRT and was stopped. That only left moving to the defensive in enemy territory or attacking again, and for Lee that was an easy call.

So why hit the center? Because he already saw he couldn't hit the south or north.

Longstreet's atobiography is quite a read.

Here's an interesting story from it. After the breakthrough at Chikamagua, Longstreet and his staff sit down in a meadow to eat fried chicken. An artillery shell explodes above them and the chief of ordinance for First Corps starts writhing in pain. Everyone thought he was a gonner, but it turns out he was just choking on a chicken bone. The name of the Chief of Ordinance of the First Corps of the ANV? Payton Manning.

What should Lee have done at Gettysburg?

I don't think Longstreet's plan was realistic. They'd end up trapped between Washington's defenses and the AOP. It could have been a disaster. Lee couldn't approach Washington until the AOP was close to destroyed.

My choice would have been to detach after day one at Gettysburg and head for Harrisburg. I'm assuming the AOP would have to fllow, and Lee could have picked any of a number of hills to anchor a defense line to receive attack. I don't know if this would be possible and keep the trains shielded though but to me it's the best hope for a win.

I see the matter of Lee not holding back somewhat differently though. At certain battles, yes, it served him well. But, over the long term, it bled his army dry.

Regarding Longstreet's plan, the one with which history has left us was not realistic. There is reason to believe the plan articulated by Longstreet after the war and only vaguely referenced in his battle report was not the only suggestion he made or that the plan as presented post-war was not precisely what he suggested at the time. There's also a question as to what "flanking movement" meant, i.e. strategic movement or tactical. Longstreet was trying to organize a tactical flanking maneuver on the morning of July 3rd, but Lee stopped him and ordered the assault on the center.

That's mostly speculation, though, and leads off in a different direction, so it doesn't matter much at this point. Your point stands because it wasn't workable; Lee knew this, and it was part of why he stopped listening to Longstreet's other suggestions, particularly with regard to the 3rd day, as the battle progressed.

Based on my awareness of the ground, lines of communication, etc., I think the best choice would have been to move back into the mountain passes, specifically around Cashtown, which is where I believe the initial point of concentration was intended to be. The reasons for my belief are complex but can be summarized by noting that this was actually where 2/3rd of the army was converging, and Ewell could have easily made it there had the Union army not moved so fast and blocked the route at Gettysburg. Even so, he could have thrown off a detachment to delay the small bits of the army present in order to get through had Hill not instigated a full scale battle. E.P. Alexander also mentions Cashtown as the point of concentration. The idea that Gettysburg was always the target is another bit of post-war myth started by Early and company in their campaign to deify Lee.

In any case, such a point left open their line of communication and left the western part of the state open forage. Moving toward Harrisburg broke their lines and could have trapped them had they lost a pitched battle. I do think Harrisburg was an eventual target, but only after a battle had been fought and won, forcing the bulk of the federals out of the area.

Longstreet's autobiography is something alright. A lot of fiction amongst the biography.

was the safest route for Lee. If the federals followed him, they were going away from their base of supplies and could possibly be destroyed charging up a hill far from any safe defenses to fall back upon.

However, there are two problems I see.

First is that Lee pretty much left his supply lines in the air by entering Pennsylvania, and he could be isolated in Cashtown if he stayed too long, so the federals would not be forced to attack him at all.

Second, Lee's invasion was chosen by President Davis over two other alternatives. The first was sending a corps to Johnston in Jackson for the relief of Vicksburg. The second option was sending a corps to Bragg for an offensive toward Nashville which would hopefully force Grant to break the siege of Vicksburg.

The point is that Lee's invasion wasn't like most offensives where you try to do what you can and then stop. The CSA was giving up a lot by approving the offensive. If something decisive didn't result from it, Vicksburg would fall and the country would suffer a horrendous loss.

I think that argues against the right and proper course of falling back into the mountains and inviting attack. I think that alternative leads to the federals sniping at his supply lines and Lee slowly moving back into Virginia.

That's why I've tried to see if there was a more aggressive alternative. I just don't like the get beteen the AOP and Washington idea as it seems disastrous to me.

I guess I would have chosen the Harrisburg option if I had the nerve. I have a feeling I would have looked at it and then fallen back into the mountains, but that would be admitting the campaign, which was so vitally important, was a strategic failure.

It sure was a tough position to be in.

I think the very best solution would have been bringing Johnston back to Richmond and putting him back in charge of his ANV with orders to dig in and hold. Then send Lee and a corps (Third Corps?) to Chatanooga to relieve Bragg and strike towards Nashville.

Of course Lee didn't want to go, but he would have if ordered.

Anyway, always enjoy the conversations.

Chamberlain is the well known figure he is in large part due to his own exploitation of his experiences.

sanger, alice b paul, jeanette rankin, and on and on. . . .

Anthony, after all, was put on a coin.

http://www.anglocatholicsocialism.org/chrrev.html#about

http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1946/balch-bio.html

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Greatest American Hero
Actors name was Hinkley.

1981-1983

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081871/

always found that odd.

Feingold's struggle for preserving integrity in Washington is like Diogenes searching the streets for a honest man.

J

public financing of campaigns bill debate.

Can you please post the RECORDS of the battles they chose to take on? That way we can ALL learn about their actual records and their priorities as senators.

Just off the top of my head.

Nine months before Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger, Colvin had done the same thing, but without any fanfare. She was only 15 at the time, and civil rights leaders had reservations about using her as the symbol of their movement. Instead, Parks, who worked for the NAACP and was inspired by Colvin’s example, became the person whom history would remember.

...
Over the years, Colvin, now 65, has grown accustomed to anonymity. After her arrest in 1955, Colvin did become a plaintiff in the NAACP’s federal lawsuit to desegregate buses. But the following year she gave birth to a son Raymond, who was so fair-skinned (like his father) that people frequently accused her of having a white baby. She left Alabama for New York in 1958, and for over 30 years worked the night shift at a Catholic nursing home.

Aside from a handful of articles in the mainstream press about Colvin and other obscure names who preceded Rosa Parks — “It was four women who made the bus boycott successful, otherwise the people would’ve been walking in vain,” she says — being at Stanford University last week was the first time Colvin has ever been publicly recognized, she confirms.

http://inquirer.stanford.edu/Fall2004/vdlt/Unsung.html

I never heard of her before your post. Certainly she has to be on any list of the unsung. Indeed she has moved on to my list of top ten but I can't say which place she occupies as that list is populated by some very important people.

I am left with no choice but to nominate her for some elevation in our collective consciousness, and a call for an award somewhere someplace. As she enters her final days of her life she should know we see her and we thank her.

And thank you Claudette Colvin.

Rep Shirley Chisholm





Rep Bella Abzug





and the phenomenal Rep Barbara Jordan, the voice of God

'Had the great privilege of being in NYC when Bella Abzug ran for mayor.

An exciting soul she was. Hat & all.

All three were amazing. I still can't believe Bella lost her race for mayor (which POS was it, Beame or Koch that beat her?) She stood for something in a way that few current "representatives" could begin to understand. Bella, and Shirley and Barbara were from a time when being a Democrat really meant something. I'm beginning to believe that day has passed and it leaves me very sad.

of people worthy of being designated as great.

How can you explain to the children of today what she meant to us? She was smart, a more solidly liberal Barack Obama, before it was cool to be black. She was awesome, an adjective I could not apply to a single representative or senator currently serving.

George Washington Carver was born and raised into the beginning of Jim Crow in 1864 near Diamond Grove, Missouri. As a black man he had nothing but roadblocks in front of him and left home at 12 to pursue a formal education. Worked as a farm hand and educated himself best he could till he finally forced his way into college at 30, never looked back from there. He developed better methods of crop rotation that helped the south to recover, rubber substitute, adhesives, new types of dyes and materials for road construction, peanut butter and any number of other things that still have good application in todays world.

He did it all with no help and nothing but problems to overcome, then topped it off by giving most of his work to the public domain instead of going for the money.

The epitaph on his grave reads as follows.

"He could have added fortune to fame, but caring for neither, he found happiness and honor in being helpful to the world." - Epitaph on the grave of George Washington Carver.

This subject was discussed twice on C-Span recently and the consensus is that JQA got the nomination from several historians for the following reasons:


* acknowledged as the 19th century's greatest Secretary of State

* authored 95 % of the Monroe Doctrine

* when his father was ambassador to Russia, he served as his translator (he had taught himself the Russian language) and ably set up the good will that made the Romanov's the North's ally during the Civil War thereby averting European intervention in that war

* create the doctrine of infrastructural improvements that were used by FDR to save the USA from the Great Depression

* wrote the legal doctrine that was used by Lincoln to justify the Emancipation Proclamation

* freed the innocents during the Amistad affair by serving as their lawyer (he went unpaid for his great service!)

* fought against the so-called gag order and efforts to stop the right of petition

* acknowledged as one of the greatest Congressmen of the 19th century



When Smithson gave 500,000 UK pounds as a gift to the people of America it was JQA who was entrusted with that huge sum of money. He founded the Smithsonian Institute thereafter. The contributions that this great institution has made to humanity are incalculable.


True, his administration as President was not the best ever. But that's because he belonged to a third party and neither of the two major parties wanted to lose political influence. His total contributions to the betterment of the USA exceeds that of any other figure in this great Nation's history.

No doubt...probably one of our most intelligent Presidents...almost too smart for the job!

But y'all knew that, right?

So yep I did know that ;-)

the historians really seem to play down both Butler and Long, but they were the USA at its best, imo, and neither could ever be called a goody two shoes liberal. Butler was a Union General who was commander of New Orleans after the Union conquered that part of the confederacy: he famously dealt with southern sympathiser women who heaped abuse on Northern armymen in NOLA by insisting that the Union be treated with respect...when that failed, Butler ordered 'stretwalkers' rounded up! Of course, a streetwalkwer was any woman who dissed the Union! LOL! And it worked! Naturally, Butler has been erased from the consciousness by the system. And his suggestion that the southern leadership including re lee were traitors who needed hanging has proven so utterly right, and so contrary to the conventional wisdom of its day that it doomed his political career. If Lincoln can be faulted for anything, it was for his giving in to the swiftboating of Ben Butler...
Huey Long of course was the gov of Louisiana and decided to use its oil revenues re hugo chavez to improve the state for its people....Long said that government had to be colourblind in order to work effectively, so he was first southener gov to outlaw discrimination in gov contracts/tenders etc, and it worked too! The Long administration set standards for Louisiana which still, to this day have benefitted its working people...naturally, Long's enemies, spurred in part by his run for the US presidency(?) and the ruling elite's fear of him, 'lihoped' Huey's murder in 1936....

were first to reach the north pole. He spoke the Inuit dialog, knew navigation, handled the dogs.....and died penniless and unrecognized for his part in the venture.

When Earl Long (Huey's brother and LA governor in the late 50s, early 60s) was asked if he also bought the legislature, he said, "Hell no. I just rent them. It's cheaper that way."

He was the 1970's equivalent of Russ Feingold, except that America was actually willing to listen to Church.

ran for president.

I think he would have made a great president, too.

He initiated bold reforms of the CIA. Not an easy assignment.

.

He was ambassador to the world. And in his spare time he invented jazz. (Not all of it, but he contributed a lot, especially the style of singing that "swings.")

Nah, just tweakin' ya.

:silly:

:evilgrin:

Bushco.
Remember, history has yet to be written...

Or Clarence Darrow

Lt. Cdr. Brockman is a fellow I know almost nothing about, which is why I mention him. On May 24, 1942 he took the USS Nautilus (SS-168) out on its first wartime cruise. Although already an aged submarine, there may have been nobody aboard Nautilus with any actual combat experience, including Brockman himself.

The Americans knew the Japanese fleet was headed toward Midway and Nautilus was one of the few submarines we had to place in its way. On this day, June 4, 1942, Brockman spotted Japanese ships, while being immediately spotted himself and strafed by planes, then bombed, then depth charged by Japanese cruisers.

Just minutes after the attacks, Brockman rose again to periscope depth and continued to maneuver his boat aggressively, launched a torpedo at a battleship and missed (or the highly defective American torpedo of the time failed to detonate) and was counterattacked again.

Brockman stayed submerged for scarcely half an hour before rising to periscope depth again, this time spotting one of the critical Japanese aircraft carriers. Again he maneuvered to attack; again he was counterattacked, and Japanese ships stayed behind to keep Nautilus submerged while the carriers slipped away.

Nautilus scored no hits, but Brockman's persistence against overwhelming odds paid off in an unusual and completely unexpected way. Nautilus was in a position to attack because the Japanese had deviated from the course that American flyers en route to attack them expected them to take. Many of the American formations never spotted the Japanese at all. But one formation of SBD Dauntless dive-bombers, commanded by Lt. Cdr. Wade McClusky, spotted the wake of a single ship, now thought by many to be a destroyer departing from the scene of the depth-charging of Nautilus, hurrying to catch up with the rest of the fleet.

McClusky's dive-bombers followed the wake of the ship to the Japanese fleet and delivered a crushing blow to three of the four carriers, with the fourth to be sunk later that day (Brockman and Nautilus may also deserve credit for finishing off one of the three carriers that McClusky hit, after catching up with one later that same day).

The blow forced the abortion of Japan's invasion of Midway Island, and the Japanese Navy never recovered from the loss of trained pilots and crewmen. The loss of nearly half of Japan's large carriers forced the Japanese onto the defensive earlier than they wished, which almost certainly contributed to an earlier end of the Pacific war.

With 20/20 hindsight, it's easy to forget that at 7am on the morning of June 4th the question of whether or not America could win that war was entirely in doubt. By 4pm that same day, when Brockman surfaced after his last depth charging, it was well on its way to being won.

Brockman himself was awarded the Navy Cross and went on to other adventures, including using a submarine as a troop transport for the Makin Raid. I think Brockman's performance on June 4, 1942, was all the more remarkable for the severe compression of time in which Brockman and the crew of the Nautilus went from untested newcomers to battle-scarred veterans--quite literally from 7am that morning to 4pm that afternoon. Brockman spent the absolute minimum amount of time hiding beneath periscope depth in order to observe, harass and report on the enemy, fired five torpedoes and possibly sank an aircraft carrier, and survived 42 depth charges in at least five distinct separate attacks. And, it could be argued, he won the war.

Not bad for a day's work.

The Jungle=Progresive Movement and all the evils of the gilded age that ended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
http://www.warisaracket.org/

====

"Major General Smedley Darlington Butler (1881 ~ 1940), one of the most colorful officers in the Marine Corps' long history, was one of the two Marines who received two Medals of Honor for separate acts of outstanding heroism."
(more)

US Marine Corp, History and Museums Division
http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/HD/Historical/Whos_Who/Butler_SD.htm

====

WAR IS A RACKET
Smedley Darlington Butler

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War (1) a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

(more)

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

====

THE PLOT TO OVERTHROW FDR
Smedley D. Butler

"In 1932, while many Americans felt the "New Deal" was the way out of the Depression, a powerful group of financiers and industrialists saw it as a threat.
It was this group's plan to either overthrow the newly-elected president or force their agenda on him. They intended to use a paramilitary organization of disgruntled WWI veterans inspired by Marine General Smedley D. Butler to coerce the government. But Butler, discovering the details of the conspiracy, blew the whistle, triggering a Congressional investigation. Leading scholars, historians and government officials reveal the details of one of the most bizarre schemes in American history."

International Historic Films
http://www.ihffilm.com/r547.html

The Failed Coup to Overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt
http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/FDRcoup.html

====

"Apparently, US Marine recruits are regaled with tales of Gen. Butler's heroism in boot camp. After all, the man was one of the most decorated Marines in the history of the Corps, receiving the Medal of Honor not just once, but twice.
However, they seem to leave out all the stuff about what Butler did and said AFTER he retired from the Marines.
Mike Hoffman, co-founder of IVAW and a former Marine told me about this, and how he learned the TRUE story of Smedley Butler in Howard Zinn's 'A People's History of the United States'."
(anonymous)

http://www.ivaw.net/

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Smedley_Butler_photos_041203.htm

Especially considering the two fronts he took point on. He shames Powell. So sad.

Clay would have been a great president but failed in each of three elections. Our current Chimperor is a terrible president but succeeded in each of two elections.

History sure ain't fair.

He spoke to a generation in that generation's voice, and nobody fucked with his style. Just wish he were more prolific in the latter years of his life.

Just my two cents.

Tom Paine, for me, was the greatest of the Founding Fathers, and the most relevant, by far, to today's struggles. I believe the Left in this country should openly call themselves "radicals"--in the true, historical sense of that word--and that Paine has a great deal to teach us, stil...his greatest fame lies ahead of us. As for Dr Walker--I'm astonished that she's never become more of a feminist icon than she has been. If you want to learn about a real pioneer, read about her--battlefield physician during the Civil War, Medal of Honor winner--though they tried to take it back in her old age, and she told them to stuff it...just a remarkable lady...

Followed by a bunch of socialists and union organizers like Eugene Debs, etc.

Primary author of the Constitution, co-author of the Federalist papers, fourth President. He's overshadowed by his wife Dolly and all but forgotten today.

and they influenced all the best things about our constitution in a GIANT way. In my mind James Madison's impact on the country is only slightly behind Jefferson's mainly because he was a Jefferson disciple however no one ever talks about Madison.

in connection with a bogus quote manufactured by a right wing loony....

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pat_quotes/pat_lie.htm

Dolly Madison is much more prominent in the zeitgeist....

Using a state by state strategy, the Women's Suffrage main group was moving ever so slowly. Most women in country still couldn't vote in 1912. In 1913, Alice Paul said, we must demand federal government endorse and push, we need a national strategy. During World War I, she and her followers picketed the White House every day, forcing the issue on Woodrow Wilson and Congress. They ultimately succeeded and fairly quickly. Woodrow Wilson endorsed women's suffrage and it became a federal amendment and law in 1920. She then authored the Equal Rights Amendment in 1923 and made sure it was presented every year in Congress till its time came, in early 1970's.

I met here in 1976, when she was in her 90's. A fascinating woman. HBO had a movie about her starring Hilary Swank, some time in 2005.

Most folks think it's dead. It's not.

And the HBO movie you mentioned, "Iron Jawed Women," is great!

:hi:

George McGovern

He was right about Viet Nam when he unsuccessfully ran against Nixon, and he's still right; he will be 85 years old next month.

A war hero, 22-year U.S. Congressman and 1972 Democratic presidential nominee, George McGovern will long be remembered for his courage in speaking out against U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, his friendship and respect for the common man, and his work on behalf of American farmers and hungry children throughout the world.


http://www.mcgovernlibrary.com/george.htm

Jeanette Rankin

She was the first woman elected to Congress. A Republican and a lifelong pacifist, she was the only member of Congress to vote against United States entry into both World War I and World War II. Additionally, she led resistance to the Vietnam War.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Rankin

Wayne Morse

In 1964, he was one of only two United States Senators to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (Alaska U.S. Senator Ernest Gruening was the other), which authorized further United States involvement in the Vietnam War.

In 1944 he won the Republican primary election for Senator, and the general election that November. Once in Washington, he revealed his progressive roots, to the consternation of his more conservative Republican peers. In protest of Dwight Eisenhower's selection of Richard Nixon as his running mate, he left the Republican Party in 1952. After a term as an independent, he became a Senator for the Democratic Party in 1955. Despite these switches in party allegiance, for which he was branded a maverick, Morse won almost every election for the United States Senate.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Morse

Cindy Sheehan

On July 4, 2005 she was interviewed by a local paper in Fort Lewis, Washington, regarding her meeting with President Bush, this time describing it as "one of the most disgusting experiences I ever had and it took me almost a year to even talk about it." She described President Bush as being "detached from humanity" and said that "his mouth kept moving, but there was nothing in his eyes or anything else about him that showed me he really cared or had any real compassion at all." She continued, "He didn’t even know our names," asking "Who we'all honorin' here today?" when he first entered the room, and then referring to her as "Ma" or "Mom."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan

A great war hero, who went on to become the smartest man in the US government. No one can beat him on integrity.

--IMM

Essentially the godfather of the black civil rights movement, yet hardly anyone knows who he is.

I'll google him

Several versions of what would become our Bill of Rights circulated before the Constitution was amended for their inclusion. It is likely that Madison was actually the author of several of the versions that floated around. Most notably was one that I believe was called something like the North Carolina resolution, or something like that.

At least in his own eyes...

:rofl:

GACK.
The "St. Ronnie" crowd make me want to :puke: :puke: :puke:

Just what did that guy do, anyway, that made him so wonderful? :grr:

Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the basis for our Bill of Rights!

He was outspoken in opposing the British attempts to tax the colonies before the Revolution, participated in both the First and Second Continental Congresses, and participated in the Constitutional Convention as well. He might have seemed a natural to sign the Declaration of Independence, but like many at the time, he was just not ready to embrace the idea of going to war with England. He made numerous other contributions to the founding of this country as well.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/dickinson.htm

The first two are heros of mine but don't need much introduction here. Their effect on the country has been enormous.

These days Benedict Arnold's name is synonymous with "traitor", but there's a good case to be made that we owe our independence to his efforts in stopping the British advance from Canada down through Lake Champlain and the Hudson River.

Kenneth Roberts' Rabble In Arms tells the story well. It's long out of print, but most public libraries have it.

thanks to the media bashing Gore 24/7, he'll never get the credit he deserves.

2008

I'd explain, but I'm really tired all of a sudden. Let's just say: you like the fact that the world hasn't been blown to hell by now? Thank President Carter.

"Thaddeus?!" Uh-uh.

But influential nonetheless and most people don't even know who he is.

Otherwise people don't have a clue who he is.

When the Framers are invoked, Hamilton is mentioned usually only in passing. He wrote over half of the Federalist Papers, set forth an economic vision which would inspire presidents from Lincoln to LBJ, concocted judicial review with John Marshall, opposed slavery, and established the principle of the federal system tilting toward the national government. His influence on America is perhaps unmatched by any other person in American history, except maybe the next person.

Frederick Douglass was the embodiment of the self-made man in American history. He escaped from slavery, educated himself, and became one of the most influential people of the age. I would say he fathered the very idea of the struggle for civil rights because he was living proof that 'racial' differences were little more than a trifling variation on the commonality of humanity.

Though born of fairly humble origins himself, Hamilton believed the US needed an aristocracy and a monarchy to run the place. He feared the common man to the point of paranoia as did many of the founding fathers (electoral college and indirect election of Senators) and was a regular opponent of individual liberties and Thomas Jefferson. The economic vision you speak of was also the basis for the Federal Reserve system and the near enslavement of the working poor and middle class in this country.

But yeah, I guess he did have a great deal of influence. Just none of his influence was great. :shrug:

1. If you seek to judge him, you need to do so in view of his times. The restraints put on majority rule were, at the time, sensible. They feared the tyranny of legislatures, not the executive. Check out Original Meanings by Jack Rakove for more on this.

2. Hamilton was an opponent of individual liberties? The independence of the federal judiciary is maybe his greatest legacy. The very idea of judicial review was created by Hamilton and John Marshall some twenty years before Marbury. Hamilton did argue that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, but that was because he felt, exactly like Madison, that enumerating rights would create a policy of exclusion in the field of rights, not inclusion (guess what? THEY WERE RIGHT).

3. Jefferson was essentially a Hamiltonian. Don't believe me? Reconcile the Louisiana Purchase, his organizing Meriwether Lewis' expedition, or the embargo with Jeffersonian principles. Further, consider how Jefferson, that great champion of the people, consented to and encouraged a purge of federal judges on the basis of political affiliation. Even more, consider Jefferson's half-cocked idea of a patchwork of republics throughout the continent, each manned by yeoman farmers. Or his attempt to revive Anglo-Saxon as a language so that it could be the aristocratic language of the civil servants. The fact that Hamilton opposed Jefferson is a testament to his greatness, not evil. Whereas Jefferson had his head permanently in the clouds, Hamilton was the more practical thinker.

4. The economic vision you decry is the basis for every Democratic economic plan from FDR to the present. Here's a link for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_%28economic_system%29

5. The electoral college is, in spite of popular sentiment, not a bad idea. I don't think changing it to a popular vote would really be for the better because I suspect the greater likelihood that the major parties will focus even more heavily on their sections of the country, rather than go out and conduct a truly national campaign.

6. The Federal Reserve works quite well if a president actually gets involved, unless it's Nixon. The current treatment of the Fed as some preserve too technical for mere mortals infuriates me. The Grangers and Populists of the 19th century had no trouble understanding monetary policy. The only complication, in my mind, is the creation of a host of bs theories which reject actual observation of the real world. That being said, the system hardly enslaves anyone. Like any tool, what matters is how it's used, not that it exists.

7. About the individual liberties thing. Hamilton was a founding member of a manumission society. On that basis alone, Jefferson's regard for individual liberties pales greatly in contrast.

journalist and author of Gothic Politics in the Deep South, Saturday Night Special (about gun control), Why They Call it Politics (a primer on American Democracy), and The Accidental President (an absolutely scathing book about LBJ). Sherill was a contributing editor to The Nation and was the archetype of the two fisted liberal who took no shit from anyone. I was introduced to Sherrill's writing by reading Molly Ivins, who idolized him.

if you expect me to consider that hateful, corrupt old drunk anything notable just because he's been dead and rotting a long time, think again

i suppose in 100 years or so some blissfully ignorant soul will be writing how ronald reagan is the underappreciated american notable of the 20th century, jeezus

and 100 years after that bush will be the underappreciated american

being a stupid, drunken, corrupt idiot in high place means that there will always be someone who thinks it cool to say you're cool, just to be contrarian, i suppose

guess what, evil corrupt thieving drunks are evil corrupt thieving drunks, they get no pass from me

He had crooks in his administration, but was he implicated in it?

edit: I cannot check your profile. Are you, by some chance, from the south?

Grant didn't have sufficient political experience to realize how much corruption occurred during his administration. That is, he wasn't crooked enough!

He drank from time to time. But he was a fine general. And he wrote well.

...and find way down here at the bottom someone has remembered him.

He saved the country from a coup.

Another person who saved us from a coup was Larry Flynt, with his Flynt Report that forced Republicans to back off Bill Clinton. One of Flynt's investigators for that project is a good friend of mine, and he says that Flynt really had the goods; really could have done more damage if he had wanted to.

Butler was my pick right off the bat.

Al Gore is getting a raw deal from the media.

Jane Addams, one of the founders of the Hull House Movement, helping the poor in Chicago--a center for child care, teaching immigrants how to read, and feeding the poor. She also helped found the WPO-World Peace Organization. Eleanor Roosevelt was a member of the Hull House movement--Jane Addams and Eleanor Roosevelt, both, had thick Hoover FBI files--Hoover, I believe, distrusted both women. The Hull House movement helped influence legislation for child labor laws, wage reform and safety standards. Also, the Grimske sisters who were from the south and family owned a plantation--they were abolitionists and suffragettes.

I know we learned about her in grade school in the Chicago area but I wondered whether she was considered local history?

in college. For being a woman, I was sure out of touch of those who were actually very influential in creating progressive policies in this country. Jane Addams was one of the most influential, especially for working rights, poverty reforms. Some of the women that had worked in the Hull House movement, such as Eleanor Roosevelt, were influenced and helped initiate action for civil rights, education, labor rights.

Vida Scudder started a settlement house in Boston with Hannah Dennison at about the same time as Addams, did about as much work in that field, but is not nearly as well known.

to the list. Who owned a newspaper and wrote against the lynchings, especially, in the South. Her paper was burned down, but that didn't stop her--she continued her paper and attacked the inhumanity and injustice of the killings of African Americans. She was a suffragette, civil rights activist and a truth teller--she had guts!!!!

http://www.state.il.us/hpa/lovejoy/bio.htm

November 7, 1837. It finally seemed to be over. The last of the group who guarded the warehouse ran from a final volley of buckshot to the safety of the river. The victorious mob from Alton calmly entered the building, walked past the slain body of Elijah Lovejoy, and began the dismantling of his last printing press. Wordlessly and without celebration, they went about the duty of destroying the last of the abolitionist voice in Alton. Several men hoisted the press up to a third floor window and dropped it to the street below. The party on the street gathered up the fallen pieces of the press and dragged them to the steamboat landing along the Mississippi River where hammers were employed in smashing the press beyond recognition.

I didn't know about Lovejoy. What a concept, someone who stood up for their beliefs and wound up dying at the hands of a bunch of ignorant freeper types. It is the abolitionists who stood up for what they believed was right and moral that aided the end of slavery.

Why does she get only ONE day? She's one of the GREATEST Americans ever born!

http://www.harriettubman.com/day.html



http://www.harriettubman.com/memoriam2.html

His excellent works on the Rights of Man and for a philosophy based on reason and not faith have gone unnoticed.

by both amateur and professional historians.

My choices are the relatively unknown socialists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century like Eugene Debs and Joe Hill. While alone they didn't do anything that would earn more than a footnote in the history books, it is because of the struggles of these individuals that such policies as the eight-hour day, social security, corporate regulation, etc. took place. They were the ones first brave enough to suggest these reforms, and they were co opted by progressives in the Republican and Democratic party. If it weren't for the early socialists, however, we would be living in a very different, very unjust, society.

Professor of rhetoric and belles lettres at Bowdoin College, Chamberlain commanded the 20th Maine at Gettysburgh, where he executed a bayonet charge down Little Round Top on the advancing rebels, thus saving the Union left flank and the Union. The 20th Maine was out of ammunition at the time. As a professor of rhetoric, Chamberlain knew about the ancient sophists, and Aristotle's critique of Protagoras for teaching "ways to make the weaker argument seem the stronger." And yet it was precisely such a rhetorical gambit that won the war. Chamberlain was wounded four times, and later received the surrender from the criminal leader Robert Lee. He went on to serve as governor of Maine and president of Bowdoin.

is certainly worthy of merit, but you exaggerate its importance.

It didn't save the left flank. It didn't win the battle and it certainly didn't win the war.

It was still a strong stand though.

Vietnam is a huge blotch but no president was more committed to Civil Rights and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, The Open Housing Act of 1968 and the nomination of the first African-American to serve on the US Supreme Court (Thurgood Marshall) are monuments to his committment. Beyond that his War on Poverty (his other war) actually cut the poverty rate from better than 20% when he took office to under 13% when he left office. Then there is Medicare.

Mother Jones
Woody Guthrie

I know he is not the only one out there whose accomplishments have been completely forgotten, but Dr. Drew has to be near the top of the list.

http://www.blackinventor.com/pages/charlesdrew.html

-
In 1928, Charles decided to pursue his interest in medicine and enrolled at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. He was received as a member of the Medical Honorary Society and graduated in 1933 with Master of Surgery and Doctor of Medicine degrees, finishing second in his class of 127 students. He stayed in Montreal for a while as an intern at Montreal General Hospital and at the Royal Victoria Hospital. In 1935, he returned to the United States and began working as an instructor of pathology at Howard University in Washington, D.C. He was also a resident at Freedmen's Hospital (the teaching hospital for Howard University) and was awarded the Rockefeller Foundation Research Fellowship. He spent two years at Columbia University in New York attending classes and working as a resident at the Columbia University Presbyterian Hospital. During this time he became involved in research on blood and blood transfusions.

Years back, while a student at McGill, he had saved a man by giving him a blood transfusion and had studied under Dr. John Beattie, an instructor of anatomy who was intensely interested in blood transfusions. Now at Columbia, he wrote a dissertation on "Banked Blood" in which he described a technique he developed for the long-term preservation of blood plasma. Prior to his discovery, blood could not be stored for more than two days because of the rapid breakdown of red blood cells. Drew had discovered that by separating the plasma (the liquid part of blood) from the whole blood (in which the red blood cells exist) and then refrigerating them separately, they could be combined up to a week later for a blood transfusion. He also discovered that while everyone has a certain type of blood (A, B, AB, or O) and thus are prevented from receiving a full blood transfusion from someone with different blood, everyone has the same type of plasma. Thus, in certain cases where a whole blood transfusion is not necessary, it was sufficient to give a plasma transfusion which could be administered to anyone, regardless of their blood type. He convinced Columbia University to establish a blood bank and soon was asked to go to England to help set up that country's first blood bank. Drew became the first Black to receive a Doctor of Medical Science degree from Columbia and was now gaining a reputation worldwide.

-snip

his work has saved millions-billions of lives!!!!!!! Very notable American that gets little notice.

Founder of the CIO. He gets far less credit than he's due for changing the nature of the American workforce and society.

and a great basketball team. :)

from which came "Shay's Rebbellion" and to which Jefferson wrote "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing".

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer/letter.html