Talk:American Legion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Jump to: navigation, search


american legion

The American Legion may indeed be a fine organization now (unless it truly does stand behind squelching U.S. citizens' right to protest the war in Iraq),

[Attacking protestors as wrong is not taking anybody's rights away. The Klan has a right to protest, but people have a right to condemn them too.]

but in the early 20th century, it was controlled by Big Business (members of which had started and financed it - these members, of course, were veterans themselves, but rich veterans) and its politically unsophisticated rank-and-file members were used as strikebreakers. The American Legion, like many organizations or companies, isn't black or white - it's a matter of gray; some good, some bad, depending on the time in question and the leadership. I'm sure that it is completely free of its fascistic outlook now that it had in, say, the 1930s. But, as alluded to above, it doesn't have a squeaky-clean history, and no serious-minded historian can dispute that.

[The "bad" about the organization simply isn't sourced decently. See:

If the organization did want the Japanese interned, it was on the same side of the issue as Earl Warren and FDR. A key fact.]

To whoever disputes the Business Plot, it is very well supported by historical documentation. The McCormack-Dickstein Committee left behind 21 feet of documents that you can access in the National Archives pertaining to subversive activity in the U.S. in the 1930s; in there, you can find exhibits (bank books, letters, hotel register copies, etc.) and sworn, corroborated testimony that point to an intended fascist takeover of the U.S. Government. You can also read "A Man in His Time" by John L. Spivak, a reporter who was lucky enough to get a copy of the unabridged testimony about the Business Plot and printed it in the aforementioned book.

[I'm afraid that this "plot" were simply a hoax directed at Gen. Butler, a retired general who was a bit of a crackpot, but also quite honest. He was led to *believe* there was such a plot, but there is no independent evidence that it existed.]

Also, I believe from what I've read that Grayson Mallet-Prevost Murphy, not Irenee du Pont, was the original bankroller of the American Legion. Murphy himself was an Army colonel in World War I; I don't think Irenee du Pont was ever in the military, but on that last point, I'm not sure, but I do believe, as said above, that he wasn't the original Uncle Moneybags of the organization.

this page needs

This page needs to be worked on in order to bring it up to wikipedia standards. More history of the organization is needed along with perhaps notable members, a list of it's leaders and it's current status.--Fluxaviator 00:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The Business Coup isn't well supported by historical documentation. There needs to be a qualifier indicating they may or may not have participated in a plot.

Added "According to congressional testomony" before the business plot line.--Fluxaviator 14:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Early support for fascism

Here are my sources for the quotes and info in the support for fascism section in this article.

1) Bingham, Alfred M. Insurgent America: Revolt of the Middle-Classes. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1935. 2) Holhut, Randolph T. The George Seldes Reader. Barricade Books, 1994. 3) Seldes, George. Facts and Fascism. New York: In Fact, 1943. --Fluxaviator 22:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[Seldes, unfortunately, was an extreme left-winger, and if these claims can't be supported from more mainstream work, or from primary sources, they should be dropped.]

This whole page is closer to being a diatribe against a very good organization which exists to protect its members, veterans of the US Military who served during wartime.

It is extremely slanted toward the political without a single mention of the good the organization does for its members.Jeff4 16:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome to add info about the good the organization does for its members, I would but am unfamiliar with the modern organization, as I am a history researcher. --Fluxaviator 19:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

That's BS and you know it. What you have put up here is the work of a political hack, and a legitiamte historical researcher would have had the COMPLETE story, not just the hatchet job you've posted here.

This page is so far off base it does not warrant being the main American Legion page.

I have complained to Wikipedia, and to the American Legion about this page.

I will vote and urge that it be taken down unless it remains here as the Anti-American Legion Page.

I do not contest what you've written, I contest what you have NOT written. What you have written does nothing toward describing the American Legion, but gives a Liberal-biased history of some evolutions in the history of the organization, none of which are relevant to the organization. In short, this page is nothing more than a liberal attempt to embarrass a fine organization, about which you have above stated, you know nothing.

What you've done is unsupportable.

I only added the sections about the 1930s and one statement from 2005. This is a collective work and yes it needs work. It would be helpful if you would add the info you say is mission rather then moving the page twice a day.--Fluxaviator 02:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

OKAY um.... If you disagree with what has NOT been written.... then WRITE IT. Why run around complaining to everyone where you can fix your own damn problem.

A return to fascism

Added a few lines summarizing this AL vote calling for an end to protest against the war in Iraq etc.--Fluxaviator 14:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed the sub-section called A return to fascism (replaced it with protest suppression) as it is a POV and the AL has not expressed support for fascism since the 1930's that I am aware of. --Fluxaviator 19:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[Criticizing protestors isn't "suppression." It's "free speech" and the American Legion has as much right to engage in it as the protestors.]

Article still needs alot of work

The article is only a start and need alot of work (officle logos, notable members, list of leaders, etc).

If users do not like the way it is written I encourage them to alter it, but DO NOT simply move it over and over to Anti-American Legion, as that is very unhelpful in creating a better and balanced page. --Fluxaviator 19:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

As it stands it does nothing toward defining the American Legion.

A legitimate historical researcher would have completed the job before posting this hatchet piece.

I will continue to move this page because Anti-American Legion is what this page is. The least you can do is be honest about it.

Again I did not start this page, nor did I write the bulk of it. Look in the history before making accusations and for the last time THIS IS A COLLECTIVE PROJECT you can change and alter what you do not like. I don't understand why you won't help create a better page. --Fluxaviator 02:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I would like to resolve this dispute and would be perfectly willing to work with you to add more information on the positive things the AL does. Once again I am requesting that you not move the page without at least trying to change the content with me. Please see wikipedia page Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes for ideas on how we can work this out. --Fluxaviator 02:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

if you like, a wiki disputed section tag be put on the page, find out more here [1].--Fluxaviator 05:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at this article and, really, this article seems to devote too much space to political affairs or, looking at it from the other direction, too little space to the Legion's work in veteran affairs. And I speak as a non-American, an opponent of the Iraq war, a liberal, etc. It's not a balanced article. I'm putting a NPOV tag on the article for now so that readers will know that we do care that it's essentially a political diatribe. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem if they add more of their work with veterans as long as their other more nefarious practices are kept. --Rakista 02:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, more info on the Legion's work in veteran affairs is needed. --Fluxaviator 08:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I added the 40's and 50's that I could research

It seems like information on this jingoist orginization is being distorted in favor of removing links to their racist fervor during and after World War II, particularly anti-Japanese sentiment. These aren't boy scouts and these aren't monsters like the SS, but they deserve to have criticism of policies they have supported in the past that are now seen to have been hateful and ignorant. I don't care if what they do in the 21st century is spectacularly civil what they did during and after World War II should not be blanked out of this Wikipedia article. --Rakista 09:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Rakista states, in part: "... they deserve to have criticism of policies they have supported in the past ...". It is worth remembering that while Wikipedia articles can note criticisms others have made, it is not the place to make critisisms. Saying an organization "deserves" something is clearly not NPOV. I would request that we all stick to reporting fact. Don't hide history, but don't make judgements on history, either. --DragonHawk 21:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
These criticisms are linked to in the article paragraph by paragraph and they are made by other peoples. What pissed me off is that much of this information was removed in edits long ago, without comment. Any organization that supported the imprisonment of peoples based on race needs to have a hearty dose of critical counterpoint to any of their more humanitarian of works or we will be giving carte blanche for people to pervert history as the rightful conquest of prejudicial people. At the very least admonishments should be made so that deception of their practices past or present are not over written with propoganda. --Rakista 20:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


I personally think the syntax used throughout this article is very awkward, if not completely incorrect.

Haizum 01:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal tools