How much does Veeky Forums actually know about American history?

There were 4 niggas before him, but they weren't the presidents of the USA, but rather something like the representative leaders of the 13 colonies an shiet

Barely a few things. Assholes drowning tea, Civil war, Woodrow Willson/WW1, New Deal and WW2, a few pieces past that mostly modern.

America is so boring.

Lots. Best Grades in Amhist at UNI, read lotsa
books on it ery year.

>American ""history""

cause MURRICA

The more I look into the American independence movement, the more I think the American Founding Fathers were just the equivalent of nouveau riche trying to grab power for themselves, and had a very narrow view of who "We the people" with all their rights and freedoms should be.

The high politics of the Reconstruction Era/Gilded Age are pretty fucking gr8 m8

It's a bizarre combination of pure idealism and horrifically corrupt kleptocracy.

I would like to learn some more in college. Specifically about the American presidents. I too wish to be a great leader and should learn from the past.

honestly very little I spent so much of time studying other areas I find myself out of touch when it comes to the history of my own nation.

>crowned king of the world
Sorry pal. This Civ game isn't over yet.
there is still 34 years left until the game has to end.

>America
>Boring
I disagree.

DELET THIS

The Frankfurt School infiltrated the American body politic in 1930 when they moved into Columbia University. Their disciple Saul Alinsky developed the Cultural Marxist method of Praxis, which along with Antonio Gramsci's Long March Through the Institutions, was put into action by radicals (mainly students) in the 1960s to destroy the United States. They have been largely successful, and are responsible for such things as faggotry, white genocide, and the importation of muslims and mexicans in the country today. If left unchecked, there will not be a United States in another generation.

all this seems higly implausible

>1500s-early 1700s
Boring as fuck m8

>1775-1840s
Very interesting

>1840s-1870s
DUDE MANIFEST DESTINY, INDUSTRIALIZATION, ABOLITION, ETC. LMAO

>1880s-1900s
US, what are you doing? I thought George Washington warned against foreign intervention?

>1910's-Present
Literally satan tier

>Muh Columbus
>Mayflower and colonization
>Getting pissed over taxes and controlled by a bully with bad teeth
>Independence
>Washington/Jefferson/Franklin and other guys like that
>Civil War and Lincoln
>Fucking with small countries in the region
>WWI
>Marketing for the masses & Great Gatsby like shit until the great depression
>WWII
>Rosa Parks, Brown vs someone, MLK
>Kennedy and longdick Johnson meddling in Vietnam
>Nixon lul
>Reagan tries to make america great again
>Bill Clinton plays the sax
>Biggest idiot in US politics is followed by a black man who promised a lot and delivered little
>current year

was there a document that really led you this way?

Wow, Veeky Forums seems like mainly right-wing conspiracy theorists.

Mighty want to read a real book someday

what`s a real book? and what is a left wing conspiracy?

>American Founding Fathers were just the equivalent of nouveau riche trying to grab power for themselves

Rights are meant to be for your advantage. If someone were to oppress your right to speak, and you spoke out against that, I could equally claim you are only fighting for your own self benefit, and trying to seize power for yourself.

Just because the right was something less sexy than speech and more along the lines of taxes, doesn't change the principle.

But there is a difference between speaking out to end oppression and speaking out to gain political power to oppress someone else.

I guess I dont see the equivalency between fighting for self-benefit in the context of systemic oppression and seizing [political] power.

Not at argument.

Bill Whittle-fitting the narrative

It's on youtube

Here's a question that'll test you faggots' knowledge on US history.

Why was President Garfield assassinated, and what were the effects of his death?

His chef killed him because he didn't like his lasagne

The one answer which has been provided to this question thus far is false. Under current law, the maximum possible amount of time under which a given person may serve as president in office is (just shy of) ten years. Of course this would most likely be accomplished all as one contiguous chunk, but it could theoretically be accomplished as up to three chunks of time - we even have precedent for this in Grover Cleveland's non-consecutive terms.

Read the 22nd amendment. Say a sitting president has been in office just a few days over two years into his term, and promptly dies while in office, for whatever reason. The vice president, who serves out the remainder of the late president's term (which is not quite two years, round it to two years for this discussion) has never yet been elected to the office of president - only to the office of vice president. In such a case, like everyone else per the law, that person may yet be elected to the presidency twice, yet have served for over two terms - a theoretical maximum, say, of ten years, and not eight years.

This scenario meaningfully applied to LBJ, who did the term+, but did not get the second term+ (not running that year, and promptly dropping dead a few years later).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Affected_individuals

europoor know dick about american history. They just hate us because they are conditioned to from birth in their faggy light socialist shithole countries

I think the original reason was she designed an outfit to honor the nation she was visiting as an Amazonian diplomat.

So if she was a diplomat to France it'd be blue white and red bars.

I don't know how all of that related to finishing up reconstruction (presumably the hot topic of the day), and desu I can't answer your questions.

The assassin Charles Guiteau however, the least-known of the presidential assassins, came off to me as more of a loser than the others. On the way to execution, he was singing some ditty to himself "I am going to the lordy, I am so glad", over and over.

They were trying new metal-detecting equipment on Garfield to get the damn bullet, but the simps failed to account for the fact that Garfield was laying on a metal bedframe. And so IIRC they never got it out and Garfield lingered very painfully for weeks, if not months, before finally succumbing. This extended period of lingering is unique among presidential assassinations; I differentiate it from that of Mckinley's week (now that I check).

That's the truth
t. burger

The answers I was looking for are:

Charles Guiteau shot Garfield because he wanted a job in Garfield's administration. He was more delusional/insane than a loser.

Because of this, there was massive civil service reform in the US. There was probably other ramifications, but in my 11th grade AP US History class, the civil service reform shit was shoved down our throats.

yup.