2
2
0
We all know that POTUS has made some controversial choices but he is not the only one. My favorite President and historical figure in American history has done few worse. I give you Andrew Jackon! He is the only president to have killed a man in a duel. Not good enough. While he was president he was first to be subjected to an assassination attempt. While he failed and Andrew Jackson ended up beating the would be assassination with his cane. Or even worse. While he was a General he was charged with defeating the Indians in Georgia and to prevent the Indians from fleeing to Florida and taking refuge. Florida was controlled by Spain at the time. So he decided that the best way to do this was to invade Florida and pretty much wipe out anyone in his way. To include Indian villages. He also tried, convicted, executed two Brits that were down there also.
Yet, he is an American Hero and was elected after doing some extremely violent acts.
I am sure there are others out there. I am sure some thought it would lead to the end of the US but the US went on. What other leaders can you think of that were controversial, whether it be military or civilian?
Yet, he is an American Hero and was elected after doing some extremely violent acts.
I am sure there are others out there. I am sure some thought it would lead to the end of the US but the US went on. What other leaders can you think of that were controversial, whether it be military or civilian?
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
Patton. Though I love the man dearly and he is an American icon, a lot of the things he managed to get away with in WWII make the things that modern day GOs are getting relieved and/or retired for today look like minor infractions.
(3)
(0)
I may catch some flak over this, but I have to say MacArthur. It never sat right with me that he left the Solomons saying "I shall return". After the Marines kicked ass, he returned like the hero in shining armor.
I think thats on a par with Kerry getting a silver star for attacking an VC machine gun emplacement and taking their weapons. Yea, after they were wiped out by the PT boats and had exhaused their ammo.
Correct me if I'm wrong but thats how I understand it.
I think thats on a par with Kerry getting a silver star for attacking an VC machine gun emplacement and taking their weapons. Yea, after they were wiped out by the PT boats and had exhaused their ammo.
Correct me if I'm wrong but thats how I understand it.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
That is not entirely true. He was ordered to leave but there wasn't a much he could do. The Marines were there but he was Charge. So he made the plans for the attack. That is how it worked back then. You didn't have a lot of continuity in commands. For example was when Gen. Lejune was in charge of a Army Division in WWII also.
I could say the samething about Fallujah. There were a lot of Army assets that the Marines needed to fight with. Mainly the tanks from 1st IN. The Army was also the first to breach and enter the city for the battle but you won't hear a Marine say that. Sgt Packy Flickinger
I could say the samething about Fallujah. There were a lot of Army assets that the Marines needed to fight with. Mainly the tanks from 1st IN. The Army was also the first to breach and enter the city for the battle but you won't hear a Marine say that. Sgt Packy Flickinger
(1)
(0)
SGT Eric Knutson
MSG Tom Earley - While I will definitely agree that he was a prima dona, based on what I have read, the problem was more that he had total faith in his G2 Willaby (I think that was his name) and the G2 would take what Mac A said as a battle plan and then shaped the intel to fit that. HE should have been relieved several times, but Mac A was very loyal down as well and the guy was on his staff on Corrigador, so that is where that lies as I understand it. But for WW2, HE was the one person in our chain of command that the Philippino's trusted, they still revere him today (at least on Mindanao where my Fiancee lives) and the name still carries weight 75 years later.
(0)
(0)
History has a funny way of defining "controversial". Sure, Andrew Jackson was just down right a bad ass but what makes him controversial now may have been considered okay back then.
Throughout history those in power have been controversial. From wanting to expand west into the unknown to saying every person regardless of skin color is equal to taking this country into a war that most saw was not our fight to standing on a pile of a fallen building saying the country will not tolerate terrorism; each leader faced their own hurdles. How they overcame them may have been viewed as controversial then but at okay now or visa versa.
Maybe it was the way they talked. Take a look at our beloved Gen Mattis. He is viewed by some as a hero while others think what he has said in the past crosses the line. Personally, I think he will go down in history as one of the best leaders in US Military history.
Again, I think a lot of it has to do with the time in which the person was in power and the issue(s) they faced and how they overcame them that would make them controversial.
Throughout history those in power have been controversial. From wanting to expand west into the unknown to saying every person regardless of skin color is equal to taking this country into a war that most saw was not our fight to standing on a pile of a fallen building saying the country will not tolerate terrorism; each leader faced their own hurdles. How they overcame them may have been viewed as controversial then but at okay now or visa versa.
Maybe it was the way they talked. Take a look at our beloved Gen Mattis. He is viewed by some as a hero while others think what he has said in the past crosses the line. Personally, I think he will go down in history as one of the best leaders in US Military history.
Again, I think a lot of it has to do with the time in which the person was in power and the issue(s) they faced and how they overcame them that would make them controversial.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next