What do u guys think about A. Lincoln ..???

[asdfghjkl]

What do u guys think about A. Lincoln ..???
in regards to civil liberties, constitution, central bank system?
Was he really a strict constitutionalist?
Was he trying to abolish the Fed?

[Galileo Galilei]

There was no Fed in 1860. It was already abolished. The Fed was a temporary measure to pay off war debt related to our two wars of independence. By the 1830s, we had paid off all our debt, the industrial revolution had begun, and we had a giant economy, so a central bank would never be needed again.

[Unspun]

What do u guys think about A. Lincoln ..???
in regards to civil liberties, constitution, central bank system?
Was he really a strict constitutionalist?
Was he trying to abolish the Fed?
Well, if he was trying to abolish the Fed he was really looking ahead because the Fed wasn't even created until several decades after his death.

In so far as your other questions I could rant about him for a while but it's late and I'm tired. So instead I will refer you to the search feature of this forum and the King Lincoln Archives (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html) and Thomas DiLorenzo's books.

[South Park Fan]

About the same opinion as I have for Mussolini.

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw_0_11?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=thomas+dilorenzo&sprefix=thomas+dilo

It will answer a lot of questions about Lincoln for you.

[Kludge]

Lol, A. Lincoln II died at the age of 16. Not too much is known about him.

I guess he was poisoned.

[Kotin]

He's a Yank douche.

[jackers]

I hold him about as highly as Alexander Hamilton.

[Galileo Galilei]

I hold him about as highly as Alexander Hamilton.

Yikes! What about George Washington?

[Number19]

In various posts, you read that the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. Lincoln overthrew the Republic and established Federal Supremacy

[torchbearer]

Yikes! What about George Washington?

George Washington prefer to be address as Mr. President and not "Your Highness".
Hamilton would have preferred a king.

[torchbearer]

In various posts, you read that the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. Lincoln overthrew the Republic and established Federal Supremacy

this

[Galileo Galilei]

George Washington prefer to be address as Mr. President and not "Your Highness".
Hamilton would have preferred a king.

Washington signed the bank bill, that Madison & Jefferson tried to stymie. Washington also put Hamilton into the cabinet. Washington also abandoned a de-centralized government, the Articles of Association, and pushed for a strong central government that is set up much like the United Nations; i.e. the Article of Confederation. Washington also was heavy handed when he stomped down on the Whiskey Rebellion, setting a precedent for the Civil War. (Madison & Jefferson also opposed this)

In fact, most of the problems in the United States, pointed out by Thomas Woods and Thomas DiLorenzo, can be traced right back to George Washington.

[torchbearer]

Washington signed the bank bill, that Madison & Jefferson tried to stymie. Washington also put Hamilton into the cabinet. Washington also abandoned a de-centralized government, the Articles of Association, and pushed for a strong central government that is set up much like the United Nations; i.e. the Article of Confederation. Washington also was heavy handed when he stomped down on the Whiskey Rebellion, setting a precedent for the Civil War. (Madison & Jefferson also opposed this)

In fact, most of the problems in the United States, pointed out by Thomas Woods and Thomas DiLorenzo, can be traced right back to George Washington.

So it was Washington's fault? :rolleyes:
ooooooooooooooooook.

[Kludge]

George Washington. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA)

[Galileo Galilei]

So it was Washington's fault? :rolleyes:
ooooooooooooooooook.

not really, but if you dump on Hamilton, you dump on Washington.

[torchbearer]

not really, but if you dump on Hamilton, you dump on Washington.

wtf are you talking about?
Hamilton wanted a king. that is what i said.
Washington refused the crown. that is what i said.
Dump on your stupidity.

[Galileo Galilei]

wtf are you talking about?
Hamilton wanted a king. that is what i said.
Washington refused the crown. that is what i said.
Dump on your stupidity.

Washington put Hamilton on the cabinet, which was a grooming ground for a would-be king. Washington also put Hamilton in charge of the forces that put down the Whiskey Rebellion. If you consider the age & reputation of Washington, John Adams, and Hamilton, Hamilton was third in line for the presidency, after Adams. Hamilton very well could have become president/king, thanks to help from Washington. Things got mucked up because Adams did a poor job as president and Hamilton started feuding with Adams, opening the door for Jefferson & Madison.

If Hamilton was so bad, why did Washington put him in the cabinet?

[cindy25]

Lincoln:
1st income tax
1st paper money
1st draft

he ranks with FDR

[torchbearer]

Washington put Hamilton on the cabinet, which was a grooming ground for a would-be king. Washington also put Hamilton in charge of the forces that put down the Whiskey Rebellion. If you consider the age & reputation of Washington, John Adams, and Hamilton, Hamilton was third in line for the presidency, after Adams. Hamilton very well could have become president/king, thanks to help from Washington. Things got mucked up because Adams did a poor job as president and Hamilton started feuding with Adams, opening the door for Jefferson & Madison.

If Hamilton was so bad, why did Washington put him in the cabinet?

Hamilton wasn't evil incarnate, he just wanted big government.
Washington was a general, someone known for bring people together.

[revolutionisnow]

I hold him about as highly as Alexander Hamilton.

What do you dislike about Hamilton? and why are we sure a King would have been bad? I doubt special interest groups could bribe a King, so those modern day problems would not exist. I guess you are worried they could be a tyrant, but its obvious that pseudo democracy doesn't prevent that either.

[torchbearer]

What do you dislike about Hamilton? and why are we sure a King would have been bad? I doubt special interest groups could bribe a King, so those modern day problems would not exist. I guess you are worried they could be a tyrant, but its obvious that pseudo democracy doesn't prevent that either.

It would have been King by consent of the elite.
Same thing we have today without the king title.

[RSLudlum]

Washington put Hamilton on the cabinet, which was a grooming ground for a would-be king. Washington also put Hamilton in charge of the forces that put down the Whiskey Rebellion. If you consider the age & reputation of Washington, John Adams, and Hamilton, Hamilton was third in line for the presidency, after Adams. Hamilton very well could have become president/king, thanks to help from Washington. Things got mucked up because Adams did a poor job as president and Hamilton started feuding with Adams, opening the door for Jefferson & Madison.

If Hamilton was so bad, why did Washington put him in the cabinet?

Wasn't Hamilton ineligible for the position of president?

[Galileo Galilei]

An assessment of Lincoln:

PROS

His military victories freed the slaves

CONS

Violated habeas corpus, which James Madison proved was not necessary to win a war.

Caused the deep South to secede before he even took office.

Didn't believe in negotiation, instead initiation of force.

Flip-flopped on the issues for political convenience, rather than because of reflective thought.

Lost almost every election he ran for.

Promoted protective tariffs.

What he said and what he did were two different things.

Frankly, his overall impact is mixed. It could have been positive, had the people of the United States insisted that we return to Constitutional law after the war was over.

Basically, Lincoln lucked out. He is remembered well in history, but is way over-rated. His handling of the Civil War was botched because he meddled into military decisions and appointed incompetent commanders. Despite an over-whelming industrial advantage, he would have lost the war had Stonewall Jackson not been killed in an accident.

He also fought a war against a people who enslaved 45% of their population.

Herodotus said; "free men fight better than slaves."

Basically, by 1860, almost the entire world had ended slavery, with few exceptions (Brazil & South Africa were 2 notable exceptions). The Enlightenment had begun over 200 years earlier. Tracts of enlightened philosophers had flooded Europe and America, works by Galileo, Descartes, Edward Gibbon, Hume, Mill, Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Hamilton, Francis Bacon, John Locke, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Baron von D'Holbach, Adam Smith, Hugo Grotius, Vattal, Diderot, Kant, Baruch Spinoza, Giambattista Vico, Hobbes, Pascal, Milton, Pierre Bayle, Cesare Beccaria, Edmund Burke, Antoine Lavoisier, Leibniz and Mary Wollstonecraft.

None of these great philosophers supported slavery, yet the South still had it in 1860. Heck, even Karl Marx and Rousseau were against slavery.

So the best way to be popular is to attack unpopular people. What better way than to attack a nation that enslaved 45% of its population and rigged its state legislatures so that slave plantation owners controlled the government?

[Galileo Galilei]

Wasn't Hamilton ineligible for the position of president?

good question, I'm not sure on that one.

[torchbearer]

Hamilton wasn't born in the colonies, he was not eligible.

[Galileo Galilei]

It would have been King by consent of the elite.
Same thing we have today without the king title.

Thomas Hobbes, writing in 1651 (Leviathan), supported a king. He felt that the only way to set up a stable government that protected liberty and property rights, was with a king. At the time he wrote it, he might have been right, excepting the Roman Republic.

This text was well known to our Founding Fathers.

[Galileo Galilei]

Hamilton wasn't born in the colonies, he was not eligible.

His father was an Englishman, I believe. The test was whether you you were born of an Englishman or in the English colonies, I think the island he was born on was under British rule, this made you a natural born citizen.

[torchbearer]

Thomas Hobbes, writing in 1651 (Leviathan), supported a king. He felt that the only way to set up a stable government that protected liberty and property rights, was with a king. At the time he wrote it, he might have been right, excepting the Roman Republic.

This text was well known to our Founding Fathers.

Ron Paul as king, would be GREAT!
the main problem is the successor, and once the line of benevolent kings ended, the dictators wouldn't allow another one.
Plato has a great book about that... you should read it.

[ChickenHawk]

Hamilton wasn't born in the colonies, he was not eligible.

He was a citizen at the time the Constitution was ratified so he should have been eligible.

[torchbearer]

He was a citizen at the time the Constitution was ratified so he should have been eligible.

I don't recall that exception in the constitution.

[ChickenHawk]

I don't recall that exception in the constitution.

It's there.

[torchbearer]

It's there.

please post it.

[Galileo Galilei]

Ron Paul as king, would be GREAT!
the main problem is the successor, and once the line of benevolent kings ended, the dictators wouldn't allow another one.
Plato has a great book about that... you should read it.

The best historical succession of Kings was the Roman Emperors during the Era of Good Emperors in the Roman Empire from 96 to 180.

Nerva 96-98
Trajan 98-117
Hadrian 117-138
Antonius Pius 138-161, the longest reigning and best of them all
Marcus Aurelius 161-180

This was a non-dynastic succession, where a talented replacement was groomed.

Another example is the succession of Popes. The secret of the stability of the Popes is the 2/3 rule, voted on by the College of Cardinals, which forces either a very popular Pope, or a compromise Pope. The 2/3 rule started in 1187 by Pope Alexander III.

I think the Electoral College should require a 2/3 vote.

[torchbearer]

The best historical succession of Kings was the Roman Emperors during the Era of Good Emperors in the Roman Empire from 96 to 180.

Nerva 96-98
Trajan 98-117
Hadrian 117-138
Antonius Pius 138-161, the longest reigning and best of them all
Marcus Aurelius 161-180

This was a non-dynastic succession, where a talented replacement was groomed.

Another example is the succession of Popes. The secret of the stability of the Popes is the 2/3 rule, voted on by the College of Cardinals, which forces either a very popular Pope, or a compromise Pope. The 2/3 rule started in 1187 by Pope Alexander III.

I think the Electoral College should require a 2/3 vote.

Obama is King. Hitler might as well have had that title.
For every good form of monarchy, their is the exact opposite.
That is the problem.

Though I have to admit, it is easier to get rid of one tyrant than it is to get rid of many.

[Galileo Galilei]

please post it.

At the time of the Declaration of Independence, you were either a citizen of the British Empire, or you weren't. Hamilton was a born citizen of the British Empire.

There was no such thing as being a citizen of a province.

[torchbearer]

At the time of the Declaration of Independence, you were either a citizen of the British Empire, or you weren't. Hamilton was a born citizen of the British Empire.

There was no such thing as being a citizen of a province.

yet, the constitution specifies- natural born citizen.

[ChickenHawk]

From Article2 Section 1:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

[torchbearer]

From Article2 Section 1:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

thank you, the first person in weeks to deliver facts.
now if you can go to the capitalist jesus thread and deliver facts there, i can go to bed happy.

[Terces]

he's a yank douche.

lol

[Unspun]

wtf are you talking about?
Hamilton wanted a king. that is what i said.
Washington refused the crown. that is what i said.
Dump on your stupidity.


George Washington prefer to be address as Mr. President and not "Your Highness".
Hamilton would have preferred a king.

So that makes him a hero and follower of small government libertarianism, how?

Everyone, surprisingly some libertarians even, exalts Washington as some kind of hero because he fought off the British, refused to be called King, and refused to serve a third term setting precedent for other presidents after him, yet no one wants to bring up the fact that he deferred to Alexander Hamilton on economic matters which led to rebellions. Which Washington's response was to send in the military. If you question anything Washington did it's appalling and ridiculous to claim as such and called stupid for doing so.

[torchbearer]

So that makes him a hero and follower of small government libertarianism, how?


Huh? when did I say Washington was a libertarian?
I didn't. So take that shit and shove it down your throat./

[Unspun]

Huh? when did I say Washington was a libertarian?
I didn't. So take that shit and shove it down your throat./

I'm not here to start shit, and rarely even post. But I just want to point out how you call people stupid when they disagree with you and then continue your derogatory responses when someone points out your childish behavior. It shows poorly on your character and I've seen it often from you.