Charlie Rose

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/06/2012 08:41 PM Report

Lincoln!

Charlie, remember when you asked Doris, our TV Historian, if Lincoln was gay? She said men slept together and wrote letters to each other so no big deal for that time.

Well the "Maverick" historian says otherwise over on the History Channel.

LINCOLN—10 Things You Did Not Know

TWENTY-TWO Minutes:

http://www.history.com/shows/10-things-you-dont-know-about/videos/10-things-you-dont-know-about-abrah am-lincoln#10-things-you-dont-know-about-abraham-lincoln

Here is the "Maverick" Historian on Wikipedia:

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

Lincoln Slept with Men (documented evidence with three men and one of them as President in a 34 room mansion (no need to share a bed here), 1) Billy Green, slept with him on a narrow cot, 2) Joshua Speed, slept with him for four years, 3) David Derrickson, an Army Officer, slept with him at the Presidential Retreat in 1862--together went to church services, theater and became a bro-mance, daughter of a Supreme Court Justice gossips about this)

Lincoln felt enslaved as a child (by his father to neighbors to pay debt)

Lincoln likes fist fights (Jackson probably first, then Lincoln in number of fights)

Lincoln wrote an essay DENYING the divinity of the Holy Bible and never joined a church (but he knows the power of religion and uses it to help win the Presidency)

Lincoln is the only President to ever get a patent: #6469 (a way to give a Riverboat buoyancy to get off a sandbar)

Lincoln might be considered a Racist (In 1862 he said Blacks are far removed from equality with the White race. So better for both races to be separated. His plan for them was to be deported to Panama to a place like Monroe's Liberia.)

Lincoln had trouble with women (not fun, cold feet about getting married to two women, 3 years of on again-off again drama and then at age 34 gets married to Mary Todd, he is no Jack Kennedy.)

Best Friend owned Slaves (Joshua Speed, who Lincoln slept with for four years, was visited by Lincoln and Speed's family detailed Lincoln a slave to provide him service during his visit, this had a profound effect on Lincoln's attitude toward slavery)

Lincoln gets shot at and the bullet rips into his hat (Lincoln used to ride alone to the summer cottage and this bullet passes inches from his head, he later creates the Secret Service the day before he was assassinated)

Lincoln is actually photographed with his killer (Booth attended a speech and when Lincoln said that freed slaves should get the right to vote this was too much for Booth)

JoannaStelling  03/05/2012 02:42 PM Report

Thank you for such an insightful, glorious hour of conversation. I especially appreaciatd the casualness of it, the anecdotes that were so revealing about these powerful men, and the discussion of how history changes our perception of them. And, to the people who are wondering where Ann Coulter was, or some other representative of the Republicans, it seems to me that the conversation would have degenerated into accusations and sword rattling. I can see confrontation already rasing its ugly head with the way some of these comments are framed, i.e. us vs. them. Anyway thanks again for sharing all of your knowledge and scholarship.

lawforce  03/02/2012 06:38 PM Report

Maybe a few conservative or, God forbid, Republican or Independent pundits would give your "table" at least the tenor of credibility and create listening interest. I tuned out and turned the channel about 20, or so, minutes into the program, since I thought that I was mistakenly watching a meeting of the DNC.

NeilMacCallister  02/27/2012 06:28 PM Report

Dear Mr. Rose, ..You do continue the most admirable "Open Society" in your comment section (Kudos!) But the mesa where you group can hardly be described as a "Round" table.

Where was Ann Coulter tonight? Did you hear her questions? (.."We're being asked to hand Obama another four years in the White House in order to 'send a message'. To whom? And what message?")

Maybe what you have is a "semi-circle", or a "hemisphere"??

learnerWP  02/25/2012 04:27 AM Report

I couldn't disagree with REMant more. I always enjoy it when I learn somethin I didn't already know. I got a lot of that from this group. AND it wasn't boring -- thank you Charlie.

NeilMacCallister  02/24/2012 02:05 AM Report

Wow, Surok, ..what I "notice" is 59healy (is that the automobile??) What could he (if it is the car) be intending?? He (let's assume) simultaneously condemns (individually), and then absolves (generally) "The United States of America", ..what is his/her point???

Gary Oldman?? ..I saw him as Beethoven, I think, ..did he actually play that piano?? ..Gary Oldman, I mean. I like Beethoven, mostly, ..the sixth, anyway.

***

Here's this from Richard Halliburton (1937):

"And rarely in history has a 'Christophe' been so purposeful. He was determined to have obedience. No one could escape his burning desire to rebuild the war torn country.

"He built for himself and his family a magnificent stone chateau, called 'Sans Souci'. In size and beauty it was not equaled.

"Then he organized a court. He created a 'nobility' with princes, and barons, and ladies-in-waiting for his Queen. To educate his young daughters he imported ladies from Philadelphia. from whom they learned poetry, and music.

"But for himself, industry and order in his country were not enough. He would build them a national symbol to respect. He would build a monster fortress! The fortress would lord it over the plain. It would be stronger than his primitive subjects -- something without rival in ANY land, ..something to make the world stare with wonder and admiration.

"But a hundred years later, the jungle had overgrown his Citadel."

***

Pobrecito! ..Ashes to ashes! ..Tend your Garden. Cut the crap, Mr. President.

Surok  02/23/2012 01:07 PM Report

It's never more apparent that Mr. Rose is most contagiously excited with intellectuals, specifically historians, as in this round table.

Gary Oldman's interview aired the next day is a sad comparison: Terry Gross' recent interview [promoting the same movie] left me with an entirely separate impression of Mr. Oldman, and I can't resist asking if anyone else noticed this.(?)

59healy  02/23/2012 09:20 AM Report

The animosity that is held due to the supposed history of slavery must change. Since Biblical times and up until 1865, in the US anyway, slavery was a way of life, right or wrong. Other races besides blacks have been victims of it throughout history. It represents man at his worst. We are ALL more educated and civilized today than we were in the 19th century. Black hatred and racism of today is not warranted nor acceptable. Our lifestyles have changed drastically. The US, in the 18th and 19th century in particular, was an expansionist nation. A thorough study of the causes of the civil war will show that the US was two nations before 1861. After the US effectively conquered the South in 1865, the government then moved west and conquered the American Indians. That, or perhaps the holocaust........or something else, may be the biggest crime against humanity. Blacks were freed and still alive.

ShalomFreedman  02/22/2012 10:11 PM Report

This was a richly informative discussion by those who truly know the subject. If however I were a Republican and certainly a Republican candidate for President I would not be very happy with it. It was a strongly pro- Obama discussion. James Fallows had the keynote and he is a Carter devotee. There was not one critical note about the major failures of the Carter Presidency. There was too a hyping of Obama's alleged overseas successes. The successes are not in anything gained for America, but substantially in bringing the troops home. Robert Caro was of extremely insightful on Lyndon Johnson, as was Doris Kearns. Johnson seemed to be the great favorite of the panel, as master politician . There were many good stories and interesting citations in the discussion. All the members of the club were amiable to each other. The idea that 'temperament' is a key factor in the success of a President is certainly worth thinking about it. Perhaps everyone knows what this is, because no one thought it necessary to define it. I thought the discussion weak in one area. It was by and large celebratory and so did not point out major Presidential failings and weaknesses. The discussion focused on Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Truman, FDR, Kennedy, the Bushes, Carter, Lyndon Johnson and Obama. Kearns mentioned one point I suspect most have not thought about , i.e. humor especially self- deprecating humor which she says was a virtue of Lincoln and JFK. It is also interesting that the discussion did not really focus on 'great accomplishments' and how the true measure of the President is in these.

tabs  02/22/2012 08:27 PM Report

One supposes that if these Folks don't get Obama by now they never will. So one will not reiterate ones whole Obama personality profile again. However one will make one narrow point. The Panel all largely agreed that Obama is a pragmatist over being an ideologue and therefore makes rational changes in his governing style as he learns on the job. Here one can break this down into two facets, first of which is the ability to acknowledge the exigencies of the President's job. During the 2008 campaign Obama PROMISED that one of his first actions would be to close GITMO. Upon entering office Obama realized that in reality there was no other place to put the Detainees and one can not let them go. So Obama has kept GITMO open for business, for which his Liberal base cries "sell out." The second facet is that Obama has a perspective of the world (ideology) that was instilled by his Mother. As Obama said on Mr Roses show in 2007 that "The greatest influence on my life was my Mother and she was ahhhh a socially conscience person." Here one can see that Obama still remains a person who is a Social Democrat (Marxist according to Mary Gabriel's definition) who is incapable of changing his view in spite of the failure of his policies that reflect his ideological perspective. For how is that a politically experienced President who "learns from his mistakes" could make such a foolish mistake as arousing a ethical and moral debate on religious grounds in a reelection year? When even his Campaign Manager Axelrod and Vice President Biden were either aghast or warned against such a move as it would alienate a good portion of the electorate. Here one conjures up the memory of Rose Bird, who to stood upon principle over pragmatism.

argonut  02/22/2012 03:25 PM Report

Charlie & all panelists ~ as historians & journalists, you all need to read “Quiet” by Susan Cain. If you want insight into President Obama, and your question “Why?” answered, read this book ~ long overdue for us introverts who are mightily misunderstood. Susan Cain should be a guest. LINKS:

www.thepowerofintroverts.com

www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/books/review/susan-cains-quiet-argues-for-the-power-of-introverts.html?pag ewanted=all

jaeden  02/22/2012 01:41 PM Report

It it pretty reprehensible that smart people like John Meachum and the rest of the panel never address the crimes against humanity that people like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington committed. SLAVERY. Thomas Jefferson owned over 600 slaves and was a rapist. George Washington owned over 300 slaves. Charlie asked about Jefferson to Meachum and Meachum has the nerve to say "he is an underated president." Is Meachum crazy? Jefferson was extremely pro-slavery and thus a criminal against humanity. For Charlie Rose not to jump all over these historians especially John Meachum on the issue of Jefferson is truly disappointing. Slavery is the greatest crime against humanity the world has ever seen. Over 150 million Africans were taken in the middle passage of slavery. People like Jefferson help to perpetuate this horror. Therefore for these so called "historians" not to address this is truly dispicable and disappointing. Charlie Rose should be ashamed for not jumping all over all of them for this gross ommission in this conversation.

NeilMacCallister  02/22/2012 11:41 AM Report

If our current President was a "leader", wouldn't we all know where we were going, and all know our jobs in getting us there, and all have the materials we need to produce our pieces of the product?

I called in my own request for direction, but discovered the President was out in California, charging people to have breakfast with him.

Is that all there is????

SharkswithfrikingLazers  02/22/2012 02:46 AM Report

The C-SPAN score:

The five best presidents, according to the historians, were Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, and Harry Truman, in that order. Rounding out the top 10 were John F. Kennedy at six, Thomas Jefferson, Dwight Eisenhower, Woodrow Wilson, and Reagan.

The worst presidents, according to the survey, were James Buchanan at 42, Andrew Johnson at 41, Franklin Pierce, William Henry Harrison, Warren Harding, Millard Fillmore, George W. Bush, John Tyler, Herbert Hoover, and Rutherford B. Hayes.

http://www.usnews.com/news/history/articles/2009/02/17/historians-rank-george-w-bush-among-worst-pres idents

So Historians are already hard on George W.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  02/22/2012 02:41 AM Report

You forgot that FDR freed the slaves . . .

"I would put 1942 as the date for the technical end of slavery in the United States," said Blackmon. Why? Because according to Blackmon's research, spun into the compelling narrative of his book, the condition of what he refers to as "neoslavery" did not end until that time.

I watched the documentary last week on PBS.

http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/pbs-film/

SharkswithfrikingLazers  02/21/2012 09:28 PM Report

“ . . . the US Office of Personnel Management list of 2012 holidays for federal workers.

It says NOTHING about "Presidents' Day".

It lists “Washington’s Birthday,” with an explanation. “Though other institutions such as state and local governments and private businesses may use other names, it is our policy to always refer to holidays by the names designated in the law,” says OPM.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2012/0220/Why-you-should-stop-calling-today-Presiden ts-Day-video

In that vein:

• Washington was the only president to have been unanimously elected by the Electoral College, receiving all 69 votes in both the 1789 and 1792 elections. At the time, there was no popular vote for the presidency.

• He was the only president who did not live in Washington, D.C. during his presidency. Instead, he was located first in New York and then spent the lion’s share of his presidency in Philadelphia, which served as the temporary national capital for 10 years, while the District of Columbia was under construction.

• He was the only one of America’s founding fathers to free his slaves. He freed all 124 of his slaves in his will, and he left enough money in his estate to care for all of them decades after his death.

• Washington was also the only president who did not represent a political party.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0220/Presidents-Day-five-facts-you-didn-t-know-about-George-Washing ton/He-was-a-man-of-many-firsts

Now Washington was a President!

idiotprogrammer  02/21/2012 09:24 PM Report

As wonderful as this round table was, it didn't answer the question I most wanted to know: will Obama have the foresight and focus to fight for a climate change bill in the second term? It is distressing to me that his administration has made it a second tier issue. To the guests, I ask this: is climate change too abstract an issue for any leader to feel enough motivation to fight for?

CarolJ  02/21/2012 03:55 PM Report

Charlie Rose this has to be among the of your programs. I love history and these individuals know their stuff.

noopysma  02/21/2012 01:03 PM Report

First off, I'd like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. I look forward to hearing any one of these people individually and seeing them interact together made for an interesting hour. I liked the stories & anecdotes they shared. I don't think this was meant to be a seriously intellectual sort of repertoire but rather a look back at some interesting aspects of several of our presidents past and, perhaps, some projection as to what might be said if Obama should get elected for a second term. I think, for the time in which they were allotted, they did a good job. Most fitting, perhaps, as it was Presidents day was the theme, rather than one related to foreign policy or popular culture. Since this is an election year, there will be plenty of time to dissect individual aspects of the American economy, such as the federal budget, in much more depth. For this program and it's intent, I think it was spot on and well presented.

REMant  02/21/2012 11:15 AM Report

First of all I don't think presidents, great or small, have done much of anything. Certainly not by themselves. That's the "great man" idea of history. And it's also voluntarism. Fact is most of what administrations have done were begun by previous ones anyway, making such assessments dicey at best. And, in as much as the preponderance of the discussants either are or have written almost exclusively about Democrats, talked mostly about Democratic office holders, and the point seemed directed at Obama's re-election chances, I think we have to take any generalizations with a large grain of salt. But they made no generalizations, and aside from relating disconnected anecdotes, suggested only playing politics, to be expected from such a group, particularly Caro, who has made the latter his specialty. Still it is rather astonishing to hear professional historians talk like Sunday morning pundits (or Monday morning quarterbacks). Machiavelli would have at least attempted to derive some principles. But, of course, a case can be made that they aren't really professional historians, no matter how many prizes they count among them.

I would say the fact that the Fed'l budget was in the vicinity of $100 million half a century ago and is now about $4 trillion is of a great deal more importance than "leadership." It was suggested also that Reagan was not an "activist," but you can't have spent as much money as he did and not have spent it on something. The suggestion that Washington is not what was puts the cart before the horse - everyone is running for office 24/7 nowadays, and the budget has has a lot to do with why that is. I think the White House affords no contrast whatever.

As I've said before, and I guess Doris also realizes, men without fathers are trying to live up to their mothers, not their fathers, and we've had an extraordinary number of them in the Oval Office, which I don't think means, anymore than these folks must, that they can get along better with their fellows.

BTW, Holmes was right about FDR and he was not alone in his judgment. He advised him, incidentally, to re-kindle the Civil War, a statement that, I think, gives the lie to notions about the objectivity of his legal realism, and probably FDR's own.

Richard_DeBiase  02/21/2012 11:13 AM Report

I can not believe that these Presidential historians did not mention the Drug War, which is the most pervasive and damaging legacy of every U.S. President since Reagan.

The biggest symptom of American Imperialism is that Americans literally do not care about the lives of people in Central America. It is like people in Central America do not even exist to these historians.

By the way, there was another prison riot in Mexico the day before this show.