What are your feelings on Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and others' (who's politics were similar) politics of yesteryear? I have a feeling (but not a strong feeling lol) that we'll agree. It just came into my head awhile ago about what people thought of those people's ideas...I figured Sorianofan, tonyi, Das, and some others would know stuff about them...so I figured I'd give throw it out there...anyone's welcome to answer...

Clay was the ultimate failure as a politician but that sometimes can be a good thing. Looked behind party lines for solutions and compromises and anyman who tried to prevent civil war is to be commended IMO.

 

Could be considered a hypocrite at sometimes but will always be overlooked which is wrong because if only our elected officals would work for progess as a country rather than progress in the party, this country would be a much better one.

He was all about a strong centralized government. That's the 1st problem I have with him.

 

He also wanted to spend federal money on "internal improvements" (i.e. spending federal money to work out things in HIS state). This was common practice for Whigs at the time, and it was never successful....states ended up losing a LOT of money. Probably the closest to success they came in "internal improvements" was building the Erie Canal...which, by the time it was finished, was almost uselss with the railroad boom.

 

Thirdly, I am not a fan of the fact that he was the president of the American Colonization Society, who's main goal was to send blacks to Liberia, Haiti, etc. Pretty much, the American Colonization Society's goal was to make America all-white.

 

Those are just 3 problems I had with him. He was known for his compromising skills (and Daniel Webster for his skills as an orator (sp?).

Clay was the ultimate failure as a politician but that sometimes can be a good thing. Looked behind party lines for solutions and compromises and anyman who tried to prevent civil war is to be commended IMO.

 

Could be considered a hypocrite at sometimes but will always be overlooked which is wrong because if only our elected officals would work for progess as a country rather than progress in the party, this country would be a much better one.

437322[/snapback]

 

He also emancipated his slaves too. The hypocrite statement was based on his views. He featured progressive views on it and tried to stop slavery in Kentucky but of course was in that group.

 

I can't really debate you on the federal government because I know that your views are tight on that. I support him on that, Loose government can not prevail into a power house. He knew what was brewing and passed before it came but I just can't see how breaking your government down is a good thing. In fighting would still have been a problem and a problem that would have continued long past 4 years between states. Clay saw this and compromised with enemies to try to prevent the war but failed.

 

I'm not to well-versed on his internal improvements, I've never gone in depth with him.

 

I still admire him not exactly on policy's but as I said compromising, a practice that is long gone with our elected officials.

Henry Clay was one of the better orators of his time and got a lot done. I don't know about you but i'd rather have Clay's "centralized governemnt" then Bush's version.

 

 

 

Daniel Webster is also vital for the Americans in the 19th century.

Bush has nothing to do with this.

 

A strong central government was exactly what the founding fathers did NOT want. People such as Clay, Lincoln, Webster, etc. felt that Washington DC should be able to decide what happens in every county in Mississippi, and every county in Maine. The fact is, our government has turned into the crap it is (with bureaucracy running wild, the government spending too much on too many things, etc.) because of the Whigs/Republicans of the mid and early 1800s.

Henry Clay refused to die.

 

I'm too lazy to look it up but how many times did he try to run for President?