Jimmy Carter says Civil War was unnecessary

wow, that's pretty sweet. It's nice to be reminded that not just libertarians want to avoid war.
 
Carter

He was still a horrible president.


The entire 1970's and early 1980's stagflation drama was due to a misunderstanding of the Phillips Curve.

Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan were just minor footnotes to the Milton Friedman revolution and the Volcker miracle.

But since Carter appointed Volcker, he deserves a little bit of credit right? Carter put a proponent of a monetarism into the Fed.

That's a pretty good record right there.

btw- what giant new entitlement programs did Carter enact? just asking.

The rise of the popularity of monetarism in political circles accelerated when Keynesian economics seemed unable to explain or cure the seemingly contradictory problems of rising unemployment and inflation in response to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1972 and the oil shocks of 1973. On the one hand, higher unemployment seemed to call for Keynesian reflation, but on the other hand rising inflation seemed to call for Keynesian disinflation. The result was a significant disillusionment with Keynesian demand management: a Democratic President Jimmy Carter appointed a monetarist Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker who made inflation fighting his primary objective, and restricted the money supply to tame inflation in the economy. The result was the creation of the desired price stability.

Credit where credit is due


Even Lew Rockwell was a big Jimmy fan apparently.

re: Jimmy Carter Causes Neocon To Blow His Top
Posted by Lew Rockwell at 11:57 PM
Tom, I've long thought that Jimmy Carter was the least bad president of my lifetime, and the only decent ex-president--an actual peacemaker--but now that I know he has apparently been reading you and Ron Paul, well: Go, Jimmy!
 
Last edited:
Well DUH, Jimmy. :rolleyes: You mean the single greatest SNAFUBAR tragedy in American history could have been avoided? :eek: I still love the barbaric doublethink classic oxymoron, "civil war". :rolleyes:

Have a cookie.
 
Last edited:
He was still a horrible president.

I don't believe any president in my lifetime ever got less cooperation from the Congress. Ever. Hell, they were treating Nixon better early in the summer of 1974--and they were getting ready to impeach him. Clinton got more cooperation from the Congress that impeached him as well, I do believe.
 
Carter deregulated natural gas. That didn't win him any friends with the Dems.

His big problem was that he didn't play well with others. The beltway boys rode roughshod over him.
 
jimmy carter is sorta somewhat a morph of these four guys....

curiously, harry s. truman could dicker with congress whilst decrying them.
woodrow wilson was known for putting political principle above expediancy...
andrew johnson DELIBERATELY sought out a confrontation with congress.
grover cleveland did try to balance the budget and not exceed his authority
then we have potus jimmy the peanut farmer and his grand take on history...
 
Last edited:
I went over to LGF to see how the comments were running, because I got confused and thought they were agreeing with Carter.

Apparently they read the forums, because there's at least two blog entries referencing to something that was said here.

Not worth linking to. I just thought it was weird, because you'd think they'd have better things to do.
 
chief justice taney's dred scott decision threw out all of henry clay's unwritten compromises...
the war was almost inevitable tacitly due the precarious political balance in the late 1850s...
there was a point where a massive funding decision by congress could have forestalled the war...
congress did debate the ways to compensate the slaveowners, and later on, congress debated
reconstruction. yes, the war was costly, bloody & long and well nigh inevitable perhaps due to
the way james buchanan in pure horror distanced his office from the way both sides were polarizing...
 
I didn't check out the link but if Jimmy Carter said the Civil War was unecessary he's correct. It wasn't even a Civil War. The 7 original Gulf states that seceded didn't care to control the other states, they just wanted to go their own way. When Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee realized that invading armies would have to go through their states, they seceded also. The big money northern industrialists, the one worlders of their day would not permit it. So a vicious terrible war ensued that resulted in most of the south being a basket case for a century and slavery at least initially replaced by sharecropping. In any case, it wasn't a Civil War in the sense that the Bolshevik revolution, 1936-39 war in Spain and Cromwell vs the Royalists were true Civil Wars.

I noticed Paul Volcker mentioned here. I firmly disagree with the praise. He almost singlehandedly destroyed American industry. Many of the problems we see today in the old industrial north are just a continuation of what has been going on since the 70s. Volcker squeezed out capital at a time when heavy industry was trying to get back on its feet in the wake of a severe recession in 1973-74.
 
thank you, mr. ex-president carter! thank you for your take on our mutual history... toss in the tariffs, and the dred scott case CHANGING slightly slavery as an institution, let alone the ability of the rival papers north and south to get very tabloid upon each new development...
 
1860 to 1861 saw a totally illogical flarepoint issue totally powderkeg up in the extreme...
 
Back
Top