Who was the Worst Anti-Liberty American of All Time? (Fun Poll)

[Galileo Galilei]

Who was the Worst Anti-Liberty American of All Time? (Fun Poll)

Benedict Arnold

Traitor. Had his plot to give up West Point gone through, the British would have controlled the entire Hudson river and split the colonies in half. Hence, Washington would not have made it down to Yorktown, and we probably would have lost the Revolutionary War.

Alexander Hamilton

To some, the devil incarnate. At first a Patriot, but once the Constitution was ratified, Hamilton immediately twisted the text and pushed for bigger government. Was the driving force behind the 1st National Bank, and his actions at the Whiskey Rebellion are despicable. On top of that, he cheated on his wife.

Aaron Burr

The black sheep of the Founding Fathers, and the grandson of Jonathan Edwards. Opportunistic & talented with no principles whatsoever, sort of like Bill Clinton. His extant writings contain nary a principled political thought. Also involved in treasonous activities until rooted out by Thomas Jefferson. He also had a knack for soaking vulnerable women for their money. Though question; ever heard an Aaron Burr quote?

John Marshall

Had a mixed record as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Usually sided with bigger government. His legal analysis was the slash-and-burn type, it sounded OK until you took a closer look. If there was a gray area, Marshall usually twisted the text for more central power.

Nicholas Biddle

Corrupt leader of the 2nd national Bank. Became president of the bank in 1822, at the end of Monroe's term. By that time, Monroe was getting old and was in poor health, and was unable to keep an eye on him. John Quincy Adams did nothing about Biddle either, but then Jackson (with help from an aging James Madison) took him down.

John Calhoun

The greatest and most eloquent defender of slavery in American history. Always defended the power of the State, rather than the right of the individual.

Henry Clay

Although a great statesman, he had a mixed record over his long career. Pushed for the "American System", that is, lots of protective tariffs (as opposed to revenue tariffs), unconstitutional & corrupting internal improvements, and nationalized banking.

Abraham Lincoln

To many, the devil incarnate. Violated the Constitution, suspended habeas corpus, arrested political opponents, and started a bloody war of aggression. Never learned much about the Constitution, despite his legal training.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Overlooked by many Libertarians, Holmes is the worst Supreme Court Justice of all time. He spent 30 years on the Supreme Court promoting bigger government and twisting the Constitution. His dissent in Lochner vs. New York (1905) was just a harbinger. Since he was a brilliant scholar, his decisions had the illusion of Constitutionality.

Charles Beard

Overlooked by most Libertarians, Beard provided the intellectual fodder for big government in the 20th century with his monumental Economic Interpretation of the Constitution (1913), a book that posited a vast conspiracy by the Founding Fathers to exploit the poor; replacing the traditional view that the Founders were motivated by virtue and learning. This book contained a vast amount of economic data that took decades to debunk. Beard followed in 1915 with a book trashing Thomas Jefferson. Beard did more than anyone in history to undermine the authority of the Founding Fathers and his influence lingers to this day.

Woodrow Wilson

As a native of Virginia and a graduate of Princeton, Wilson betrayed the legacy of James Madison. Under his leadership, we had the coup d'etat of 1913; the income tax, the direct election of Senators, and the Federal Reserve Act (which was clearly unconstitutional per James Madison's bank veto of January, 1815). Wilson also fired all the black people in the federal government, and replaced them with white people, and segregated federal offices. Also, in 1913, we had Charles Beard's first book (above) and the orchestrated Italian Hall mass murder in upper Michigan. In 1914, we got the Harrison Act and the beginning of the war on drugs. In 1915, the sinking of the Lusitania fraud, and Beard's second book. In 1917, the Zimmerman telegram fraud & then our entry into WWI. Wilson is also responsible for the worldwide influenza outbreak, as infected American troops were deliberately moved around the country and the world to mix with virgin populations, as war was more important to Wilson, than life. We also had the Alcohol Prohibition.

Franklin Roosevelt

A big government, socialist war monger.

Lyndon Johnson

A big government, socialist war monger.

Ronald Ray-gun

A war mongering big government neo-fascist who has betrayed the word "Libertarian" and "conservative". Escalated the war on drugs, and kept the Cold War fraud going on for an extra eight years.

Antonin Scalia

Pure evil. A brilliant scholar, he has polluted the term "originalist" and always votes in favor of a police state.

George Bush, Sr.

Pure evil. Escalated the Drug War, invaded Panama, etc.

Bill Clinton

'Aaron Burr' with worse pedigree. Opportunistic with no principles. Engineered a series of false-flag events and other murders, including the first WTC bombing, Waco, Vince Foster's murder, Oklahoma City, Ron Brown's murder, TWA 800, and the USS Cole. Before that, he was known in Arkansas for the Clinton body count. Basically, a corporate socialist.

George Bush, Jr.

Considered by even non-Libertarians to be one of the worst presidents of all time.

Dick Cheney

Darth Vader, along with his sidekick Donald Rumsfeld, planned the 9/11 terrorist attacks and planned two wars of aggression. Also involved in the murder of Pat Tillman and the Jessica Lynch fraud.

Barack Obama

Following the footsteps and policies of George Bush, Jr., and is the subject of a new film; Fall of the Republic.

Now is your time to vent!

[brandon]

Ehh, they're all bad. Lincoln did the most damage though.

[Original_Intent]

No Rockefellers, no Alger Hiss, no Edward Mandell House?

[brandon]

Also I don't know why you say Henry Clay was a great statesman....he was a scumbag.

[Galileo Galilei]

No Rockefellers, no Alger Hiss, no Edward Mandell House?

I should have mentioned that the poll is supposed to be about government officials.

[lester1/2jr]

Joe Lieberman. he seems like a nice enough guy but there is not one measure of state power the guy doesn't favor. he would have made an exceptional communist

[youngbuck]

I voted for Woodrow Wilson. Signing the Federal Reserve Act put a spear through our country's heart. It was either him or Abraham Lincoln.

[Liberty Star]

Team effort award, George Bush and neocons.

Special credits to musch of MSM such as neocon central Fox views, CNN, MSNBC.

Credit also goes to much of GOP's misguided "trust the President" base, large part of Dem party and rest of society. Politicians afterall are reflection of the masses and cannot be the only scapegoats.

[krazy kaju]

FDR has had the worst long-run impact, IMO. He's the one who really brought the welfare state into full-bloom.

[torchbearer]

FDR has had the worst long-run impact, IMO. He's the one who really brought the welfare state into full-bloom.

lincoln destroyed federalism.
if the states still had their sovereign rights under a republic of republics, they could have easily nulified FDRs program.

[heavenlyboy34]

it's hard to pick just one, as they're all so bad! :(

[brandon]

lincoln destroyed federalism.


And killed 700,000 Americans

[Galileo Galilei]

I should have mentioned that the poll is supposed to be about government officials.

oops, except for Charles Beard. Sorry, there's a lot of bad people out there, hard to list 'em all!

[NYgs23]

I think the OP gives too much credit to Marshall and Clay. They were both worshipers of the central state. Marshall laid the foundations the silly-putty interpretation of the Constitution that dominates the courts today. I'd suggest he might be worse than Holmes in that he's Holmes's ideological forbear. Clay carried forward the whole mercantilistic economic apparatus that was created by Hamilton and implemented by Lincoln. He was also one of the biggest whoopers for the War of 1812. As for Calhoun, he pro-slavery ideas were horrible, but he didn't "always defend the power of the State" and tended to support limited, decentralized government, especially in later on. His worst legacy, perhaps, is helping to tie those ideals to a defense of slavery.

[Galileo Galilei]

I think the OP gives too much credit to Marshall and Clay. They were both worshipers of the central state. Marshall laid the foundations the silly-putty interpretation of the Constitution that dominates the courts today. I'd suggest he might be worse than Holmes in that he's Holmes's ideological forbear. Clay carried forward the whole mercantilistic economic apparatus that was created by Hamilton and implemented by Lincoln. He was also one of the biggest whoopers for the War of 1812. As for Calhoun, he pro-slavery ideas were horrible, but he didn't "always defend the power of the State" and tended to support limited, decentralized government, especially in later on. His worst legacy, perhaps, is helping to tie those ideals to a defense of slavery.

Clay would have been a lot worse, had he been elected president. He tried many times, but never won. The voters were a lot smarter back then.

As for the War of 1812, it was really the Second war of Independence. Clay was a shoot first, ask questions later type. But luckily Madison spent several years studying the situation, before acting. Madsion was able to engineer a great America victory without violating the Constitution or creating a military state. The victory led to the Industrial Revolution in America (except the south because of slavery), and opened up free trade on the Great Lakes, Mississippi River, Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and West Indies, bringing tremendous wealth to the American people.

In contrast, during the 5 years previous to the war, over 1000 American ships were seized on the high seas, and over 7000 American men were kidnapped.

The war also eliminated the big government Federalist Party for good.

The military was still is such a puny state after 1815, that even 45 years later, Lincoln almost lost the Civil War, despite a 22 to 5 advantage in white popluation and a gigantic advantage in industrial wealth.

[ChaosControl]

I'd say it is someone of recent times because they are keeping all the wrongdoings of the past.

As bad as some people like say Hamilton were, they'd be a 1000000000x better than most any modern person.

[emazur]

Wilson brought us the Fed, income tax, imperialism, WWI, WWII, and communism. He took down not only the US, but the world.
YouTube - Blame Woodrow Wilson for World War I, Hitler, Communism, World War II, & Cold War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn76HlGiN8Y)

[Galileo Galilei]

I'd say it is someone of recent times because they are keeping all the wrongdoings of the past.

As bad as some people like say Hamilton were, they'd be a 1000000000x better than most any modern person.

I agree with that. I just put him in the poll, for fun.

[Galileo Galilei]

I think the OP gives too much credit to Marshall and Clay. They were both worshipers of the central state. Marshall laid the foundations the silly-putty interpretation of the Constitution that dominates the courts today. I'd suggest he might be worse than Holmes in that he's Holmes's ideological forbear. Clay carried forward the whole mercantilistic economic apparatus that was created by Hamilton and implemented by Lincoln. He was also one of the biggest whoopers for the War of 1812. As for Calhoun, he pro-slavery ideas were horrible, but he didn't "always defend the power of the State" and tended to support limited, decentralized government, especially in later on. His worst legacy, perhaps, is helping to tie those ideals to a defense of slavery.

btw - if you don't like the War of 1812, remember that Calhoun was the biggest war hawk of them all. Calhoun was a notorious flip-flopper.

[sofia]

Fdr....father of the welfare and warfare states...murderer of countless european civilians...

Enabler of stalins takeover of eastern europe as WELL AS the communist foothold in asia

[RevolutionSD]

All bad people and anti-liberty. I voted Woody Wilson but cases can easily be made for Honest Abe and FDR.

[NYgs23]

As for the War of 1812, it was really the Second war of Independence....during the 5 years previous to the war, over 1000 American ships were seized on the high seas, and over 7000 American men were kidnapped.

The British Parliament had ended the impressment policy before Congress declared war, but the news didn't get across the Atlantic until after the war was declared. If it had, it probably would never have been declared since the vote was rather narrow as it was.

The other two ostensible grievances were were that Britain was arming the Indians against settlers in the northwest and that it was interfering with American trade with France (this was during the Napoleonic Wars). But Americans shouldn't have been trying to take Indian lands in the first place--we know how that worked out--and, at the same time, France was trying to interfere in American trade with Britain. So why side with a brutal dictator like Napoleon over Britain, which was arguably the most liberal country at the time other then the USA? So there was no adequate cause that I can see, and it's not surprising it generated such widespread antiwar sentiment, perhaps even more so than Vietnam.



The war also eliminated the big government Federalist Party for good.

It led to the deaths of thousands, conscription in certain states, a failed invasion of Canada, the expansion the navy and the standing army, and war debt, which further led to inflation, the formation of the Second Bank of the United States, and the Panic of 1819.

What were the gains? Impressment had ended before the war had begun. The trade wars had ended with the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1814 (before the end of the War of 1812). And Americans got to continue strong-arming the Indians off their lands. Other than that, there was a return to the status quo before the war. It eliminated the Federalist Party, but all the Federalists came into the Democratic-Republican Party and war fever and nationalism enveloped the mindset of the Democrats more than the Federalists, so the war also eliminated the Democratic-Republican Party as the party of Jeffersonian anti-federalism, turning it into a party of squishy "consensus." President Jefferson had made not be as liberal (in the classical sense) as he should have been, Madison and Monroe were even less so, and JQ Adams was a Federalist in all but name. Then the Party split again into the Democrats and Whigs.

The War of 1812 was a bad war, like all the others I can think of since the Revolution. It certainly was not a just war, under the traditionally high standards of that term.

[NYgs23]

btw - if you don't like the War of 1812, remember that Calhoun was the biggest war hawk of them all. Calhoun was a notorious flip-flopper.

I don't know about the biggest, but he was certainly a war hawk. All I said was that he tended to favor limited government, especially later in his career (i.e. the 1830s and 40s). I'm not a big Calhoun admirer, but I do appreciate his stance on such things as tariffs and nullification.

[talkingpointes]

Where is the cowboy neil option?

[Vessol]

Woodrow Wilson

[erowe1]

Andrew Jackson should be on the list.

[Mandrik]

Lincoln was bad but Wilson was way worse. Someone else already said it, but if he didn't get us involved in WWI, there never would have been a Treaty of Versailles. No Treaty, no Hitler/WWII. That alone makes him worse than Lincoln. Throw in all the other terrible things mentioned in the original post and he can cleary be defined as the worst. This is the guy who put the US on the path to being the policeman of the world. He really is his own league.

[rprprs]

I can't quite decide between Lincoln and FDR.

I think affronts to liberty should not only be measured by the damage done in office, but also by the admiration and reverence they continue to enjoy among large segments of the American populace.

[catdd]

I think of LBJ's role in the Gulf of Tonkin, the attack on the USS Liberty and his possible involvement in the JFK assassination and I rate him the lowest of all times. But I'm not sure which would be the worst anti-liberty... give Obama time and he just may win that title.

[Original_Intent]

I finally settled on Lincoln. I don't think he was the worst exactly, but so much that came later under Wilson, FDR, LBJ and others and Lincoln opened the door, so he gets some of the blame for everything that followed.

I think Lincoln was probably a "well-intentioned" guy, something about the road to hell being paved keeps coming to mind. So much has gone wrong when well intentioned people got power and in order to accomplish something that they considered good they were willing to skirt the rules to "get 'er done".

Sorry, Abe, but you ARE the weakest link.

[Epic]

Lincoln, Wilson, FDR are far and away above all others...

I put Lincoln #1... 600,000 americans died... Yankee leviathan started...

[getch36]

Wish I could vote for more than one. I picked Woodrow Wilson,but god do I hate that no good Fuck Cheney.In my opinion he can't die and go to hell soon enough.

[Brett]

Voted Cheney. Was close between him, Lincoln and FDR.

[Galileo Galilei]

The British Parliament had ended the impressment policy before Congress declared war, but the news didn't get across the Atlantic until after the war was declared. If it had, it probably would never have been declared since the vote was rather narrow as it was.



The British ended the orders of council, not impressment.

Madison had ambassadors in Britian from the beginning of the war with instructions to end the war if impressment ceased. The war would have ended before it started if the British ceased their aggression.

You've received some bad information.

[PBrady]

Dick Cheney

Darth Vader, along with his sidekick Donald Rumsfeld, planned the 9/11 terrorist attacks and planned two wars of aggression. Also involved in the murder of Pat Tillman and the Jessica Lynch fraud.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[klamath]

I would call this a push poll. Tells people who the bad people are using the pollster's own opinion then tells them to vote on the choices he made for them to vote on.

[newbitech]

I went with WW. He signed over the country to a few men.

[sofia]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Sorry, couldn't resist.

In addition to murdering Pat Tillman, Cheney and co. also murdered Senator Wellstone, the DC Madame, and Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto

[aravoth]

I voted for Benedict Arnold. The united States may never have been formed, and our founders would have been lynched if this dude had his way.

[sofia]

Teddy Roosevelt should at least be on the list of choices.

Remember, had it not been for Teddy running as a deliberate 3rd Party spoiler in 1912, Wilson would never had beaten William Howard Taft.

As Secratary of the Navy, TR surely must have had a hand in blowing up the Maine in order to get us into Spanish-American War.

As President, he fomented revolution in Columbia, and brutally suppressed the Phillippinos...he was the FIRST Globalist president.

The Globalists assassinated Vice President Hobart so that TR could be installed. Soon after, they killed President McKinley so TR could become president.

[NYgs23]

The British ended the orders of council, not impressment.

You're right; I was mixed-up. The Orders in Council dealt with the blockades, while impressment ended in 1814. Nonetheless, it's quite likely, in my view, that Congress wouldn't have declared war had the news gotten there sooner.

If the war would have ended when Britain ceased impressment, how come it didn't end in 1814, when it ceased impressment?

[Galileo Galilei]

You're right; I was mixed-up. The Orders in Council dealt with the blockades, while impressment ended in 1814. Nonetheless, it's quite likely, in my view, that Congress wouldn't have declared war had the news gotten there sooner.

If the war would have ended when Britain ceased impressment, how come it didn't end in 1814, when it ceased impressment?

Madison, unlike other war presidents like those in this poll, had respect for human life. In mid-1814, Madison decided the point had been made, that the US could stand up to the British, so Madison pushed for a peace treaty even if impressment was not mentioned in the treaty. Madison also had concern about the economy, and knew the British were concerned about their economy as well. Remember also, the embargo act from 1807 had done damage to the British economy on top of their wars with Napolean.

Madison, as usual, was right. The final peace treaty did not mention impressment, but impressment ended, which was the whole point of the war.

The end of impressment was later solidified in the Treaty of 1818 and the Monroe doctrine of 1823.

The Monroe doctrine would have been unthinkable in 1812.

As far as whether congress would have declared war had they known the orders of council had been revoked, that's a good possibility. The vote for war was 79-49 in the House, but only 19-13 in the Senate.

The war started with good strategy but bad luck. Just as we invaded the British Empire (Canada), Napolean was invading Russia. The War of 1812 would not have lasted long had Napolean not just happened to foolishly invade Russia at that time, because the British would have been stretched too thin. Instead, they got a respite from Napolean, and Napolean was weakened permanently. The Battle of Leipzig in 1813 was a disaster for Napolean as well.

The other bad luck was the incompetance of the American commander ordered to invade Canada in 1812. Madison had spent months going over this possibility, many times over in fact. Madison was promised, even under severe cross-examination, that it would just be a matter of marching. As we all know, the initial stages of the war went very poorly from a military standpoint (but never from a human standpoint, as casualties were very low in the war).

Madison COULD have picked a better commander and one was available, William Henry Harrison. Harrison slaughtered the Indians at the Battle of Tippacanoe in 1811. But Madison did not want to turn this country into a military state. Harrison was a ruthless Indian killer. Harrison had also been double-crossing the Indians by promosing two tribes the same land, and then the Indians would fight for themselves over the same land. This is disgusting. Its not clear when Madison found this out, but he did not trust Harrison. (Harrison becomes even more disappointing when we recall that Harrison's father Benjamin Harrison was a fellow Virginian who had signed Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.)

Harrison, if you've read DiLorenzo's books, you'll know that Harrison went on the champion the American System.

The War of 1812 is the textbook example of how to fight a just war under the US Constitution. James Madison did this for OUR benefit. I have gone over the war in great detail, while also studying Christian Just war theory. Madison followed Just war theory to the letter. In other words, Madison set a precedent on how wars should be conducted. Its too bad that the three leaders in this poll, Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR totally ignored what Madison did.

[Galileo Galilei]

The other two ostensible grievances were were that Britain was arming the Indians against settlers in the northwest and that it was interfering with American trade with France (this was during the Napoleonic Wars). But Americans shouldn't have been trying to take Indian lands in the first place--we know how that worked out--and, at the same time, France was trying to interfere in American trade with Britain. So why side with a brutal dictator like Napoleon over Britain, which was arguably the most liberal country at the time other then the USA? So there was no adequate cause that I can see, and it's not surprising it generated such widespread antiwar sentiment, perhaps even more so than Vietnam.



Going after the British was a no-brainer:

1) The French were not kidnapping our sailors

2) The French did not have forts on our borders (the British were supposed to vacate their forts after the Revolutionary war)

3) We had no way to attack the French as we hardly had a navy.

4) The British had a superior navy and were blocking our trade in more areas, especially the Great Lakes.

5) The British, not the French, were instigating the Indians.

The anti-war sentiment was mostly confined to New England. The real cause of the anti-war sentiment was the LACK OF WAR PROPAGANDA.

James Madison, unlike all the presidents in this poll, did not use war propaganda. He gave the plain facts in concise form, as his war massage shows. The sad fact is that war propaganda works. Madison hoped this would not be a nation of war propaganda. His precedent can still be followed if demanded by the public. But that will not ahppen until the demonization of the War of 1812 ends, and the public is educated.


It led to the deaths of thousands, conscription in certain states, a failed invasion of Canada, the expansion the navy and the standing army, and war debt, which further led to inflation, the formation of the Second Bank of the United States, and the Panic of 1819.

* The casualty rates in the War of 1812 were very low, only 7000 total. By contrast, the Battle of Leipzig of 1813, just one battle, had 82,000 casualties!

* The expansion of the navy? Well, we had no navy before 1812, that's why we had 1000 ships seized on the high seas and 7000 sailors kidnapped.

* The Second bank was formed, but it was a temporay measure that set no precedent. Jackson, working with Madison, got rid of the bank after the 1832 election. You probably don't know this, but Jackson's personal secretary from 1828-1834 was Nicholas Trist, a man so devoted to James Madison that he spent his entire life promoting Madison's legacy. Madison and Jackson were in close contact during Jackson's first term. Then, in 1832, Jackson went to visit Madison before the election, and they agreed to get rid of the bank.

The war actually set a precedent on national banks. In January of 1815, Madison vetoed a bank bill that expanded the powers of the bank from the first bank. In other words, George Washington set a precedent that a bank was Constitutional, and Madison set a precedent on the limits of those powers. Taking this knowledge and this strategy to opposing the Fed is better than what I've seen here. If you argue the Fed is unconstitutional, you are never going to get a majority, as the bank was passed 2 to 1 by the 1st congress and signed by Washington. Better is to emphasize the limits on banking set by the Father of the Constitution, James Madison. Almost everything the Fed does is unconstitutional, per Madison's 1815 veto.

[John Tyler, citing his hero James Madison, vetoed additional bank bills in the 1840s. By that time, we had a great economy. The only reason the Founding Fathers voted for ANY bank bill was that the federal government was struggling to survive. After the debt was paid off by Jackson, that has never happend since.]

* The Panic of 1819 is a red herring and you know it. You know that our overall economy boomed after 1815, just look at the GNP numbers. It was one of the biggest booms in world history. The Panic of 1819 was short-lived, and mostly effected bankers and land specualtors, not ordinary people. The real cause of the panic was LOW LAND PRICES. That's bad for speculators, but GOOD for everyone else.



The more you study James Madison and the War of 1812, the more you can see the evil in Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ. Just wars CAN BE DONE.

[The War of 1812 should be read as a continuation of the Revolutionary War, which it was, rather than an [I]ad hoc anachronism from later evil & unjust wars.]

[NYgs23]

I'm not really sure this thread is the place to get into a drawn-out discussion about this war. I was just referring to it as an aside. But I don't see how you can claim it was better for this country, given the growth and centralization of military structure and the devastation to the economy that would occur shortly thereafter, the use of conscription by states, and the deaths of 24,000 people. All wars are foul and destructive. All wars a damaging even to the victors. All wars enable the expansion of power and the destruction of freedom. All wars encourage the commission of reprehensible atrocities, even by those for whom the war itself may be justified. All wars should be avoided except in the most extreme circumstances.

The British impressment policy, like the blockades, was primarily an outgrowth of the war with Napoleon. So it seems they would have ended the policy with the end of Napoleon anyway, especially with diplomatic pressure from the US, without a war.



The Monroe doctrine would have been unthinkable in 1812.

The Monroe Doctrine does not agree with the policy of strict, absolute neutrality and non-interventionism that I consider the best foreign policy for any country, so I don't support the Monroe Doctrine. But let's not get into a debate over that.


Just as we invaded the British Empire (Canada), Napolean was invading Russia. The War of 1812 would not have lasted long had Napolean not just happened to foolishly invade Russia at that time, because the British would have been stretched too thin. Instead, they got a respite from Napolean, and Napolean was weakened permanently. The Battle of Leipzig in 1813 was a disaster for Napolean as well.

Well, I think that was a good thing. Napoleon was a conquering dictator. I would much rather the US have lost the War of 1812 then let Napoleon conquer Europe. That's another reason I'm against the War of 1812. While the USA was fighting Britain, Britain was already fighting that proto-fascist maniac.


The War of 1812 is the textbook example of how to fight a just war under the US Constitution. James Madison did this for OUR benefit. I have gone over the war in great detail, while also studying Christian Just war theory. Madison followed Just war theory to the letter. In other words, Madison set a precedent on how wars should be conducted. Its too bad that the three leaders in this poll, Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR totally ignored what Madison did.

The standards for just war are terribly, terribly high. For one thing, it must only be done as a last resort. Given that the just grievances that led to the war (impressment and blockades) would have both been moot within two years, was this really the last resort. Also, the benefits brought about by the war need to outweigh the damages. I see zero benefits that came from the War of 1812. As I said, the trade restrictions ended beforehand. Impressment would have ended anyway. Stack that against all the ill effects I've listed, especially the deaths of 24,000 people.

Well, I'm tired of debating this issue. After this post, I'm just going to agree to disagree.

[NYgs23]

Well, I guess I'll make a few final points to this other post.


The British, not the French, were instigating the Indians.

Generally speaking, the Indians were in the right. They were being pushed of their lands. I don't blame them for being "instigated."


The casualty rates in the War of 1812 were very low, only 7000 total.

I was including people who died from disease, as well as killed in battle.


The expansion of the navy? Well, we had no navy before 1812, that's why we had 1000 ships seized on the high seas and 7000 sailors kidnapped.

The original liberal American ideal avoided a centralized military with a standing army and navy, in favor of state-based, volunteer militias to fight off invasions. That's the what I'd prefer.

And now that I think about it, who's "we"? They weren't my ships. They were private merchant vessels. Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for their safe escort on the high seas? Why shouldn't they pay for their own protection?


The Panic of 1819 is a red herring and you know it. You know that our overall economy boomed after 1815, just look at the GNP numbers.

The banks were inflating the currency at that time. Bank inflation is never a good thing because resources are misallocated. And government debts and central banks are never a good thing, temporary or otherwise.

You seem to be a huge fan of James Madison. Just an observation. Are you Nicholas Trist?

[Galileo Galilei]

I'm not really sure this thread is the place to get into a drawn-out discussion about this war. I was just referring to it as an aside. But I don't see how you can claim it was better for this country, given the growth and centralization of military structure and the devastation to the economy that would occur shortly thereafter, the use of conscription by states, and the deaths of 24,000 people. All wars are foul and destructive. All wars a damaging even to the victors. All wars enable the expansion of power and the destruction of freedom. All wars encourage the commission of reprehensible atrocities, even by those for whom the war itself may be justified. All wars should be avoided except in the most extreme circumstances.

You say all wars, but that is not true. Defensive wars are good. You support the second amendment, right? Well, defensive wars are a deterrent to aggressors, just as arms are a deterrent to criminals. The War of 1812 was a defensive war against an aggressor. Just as a lot of people who bear arms end up with accidental shootings, defensive wars cost some lives; but the right of defense prevents more crime/aggression when exercised, then to lay down and become a slave and maybe be killed anyway.


The British impressment policy, like the blockades, was primarily an outgrowth of the war with Napoleon. So it seems they would have ended the policy with the end of Napoleon anyway, especially with diplomatic pressure from the US, without a war.

In June of 1812, nobody in the US knew that Napolean was going to invade Russia and kill off his army. By that time, the British had been harrassing our trade since the beginning of Jefferson's 2nd term.


The Monroe Doctrine does not agree with the policy of strict, absolute neutrality and non-interventionism that I consider the best foreign policy for any country, so I don't support the Monroe Doctrine. But let's not get into a debate over that.

Of course you don't support the Monroe Doctrine; because you live in a perfect world not encumbered by reality. Frankly, the Monroe Doctrine was a Declaration of economic Independence.


Well, I think that was a good thing. Napoleon was a conquering dictator. I would much rather the US have lost the War of 1812 then let Napoleon conquer Europe. That's another reason I'm against the War of 1812. While the USA was fighting Britain, Britain was already fighting that proto-fascist maniac.

The wars of Napolean were all provoked by the British. Especially this is easy to see after 1803, when the British reneged on a treay to vacate Malta, a key naval base. Napolean was a man of peace who was always under attack by a giant world conspiracy of related Royal families. Others claim the international bankers were after Napolean.


The standards for just war are terribly, terribly high. For one thing, it must only be done as a last resort. Given that the just grievances that led to the war (impressment and blockades) would have both been moot within two years, was this really the last resort. Also, the benefits brought about by the war need to outweigh the damages. I see zero benefits that came from the War of 1812. As I said, the trade restrictions ended beforehand. Impressment would have ended anyway. Stack that against all the ill effects I've listed, especially the deaths of 24,000 people.

Last resort? What the hell do you think the War of 1812 was? When Jefferson was president, the British fired on the Cheasepeake in 1807 and killed some of our sailors. In 1805, the British set up a naval blockage over Boston. We had 1000 ships seized from 1807 to 1812, that is 200 per year or about 4 per week!

Ever read about how many people die because the FDA takes so long to validate drugs? Well, the same things happen when your country is beseiged by beligerents of this scale. When ships are seized and 7000 men are kidnapped, people die. People can't get the stuff they need to support their families. Children die. In those days, small changes in welath were the difference between life and death.

Do you not see the difference between the Gulf of Tonkin and the War of 1812? Madison, and Jefferson before him, tried everything, every negotiation possible. they even tried the ill-fated embargo. Do you actually think Madison and Jefferson support embargoes? No, but they oppose war even more.

The trade restrictions did not end before the war started, we already went over this. Impressment was still going on before and during the war, and only ended after we kicked the sh** out of the British at Platteburg, Baltimore, and New Orleans.

Your attempts to put Madison and Jefferson in the same pot as Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and Bush are tiresome.

[Galileo Galilei]

Well, I guess I'll make a few final points to this other post.

Generally speaking, the Indians were in the right. They were being pushed of their lands. I don't blame them for being "instigated."

The British did not give a rats ass about the Indians. White settlers were going to move into Indian lands no matter what any government told them. The British let the Indians hang out to dry. They gave them some guns and told them if they attacked Americans, then the British would support them. Of course that didn't happen.


The original liberal American ideal avoided a centralized military with a standing army and navy, in favor of state-based, volunteer militias to fight off invasions. That's the what I'd prefer.

That's what you support, but those militia armies usually lose wars. Madison did avoid a military state. He set up a very small standing army. Everything Madison did was to keep us from becoming a military state. That's why Lincoln, 45 years later, almost lost the Civil war, despite a 22 to 5 advantage of whites. We were not a military state in 1860.

It seems like you oppose the right of self defense. The Constitution set up the rules for war and Madison followed them. He did not invent "war powers" like Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and Bush.


And now that I think about it, who's "we"? They weren't my ships. They were private merchant vessels. Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for their safe escort on the high seas? Why shouldn't they pay for their own protection?

That's why we pay taxes, so a small amount of limited, delegated services can be provided by the government. The Founding Fathers in their wisdom, delegated a few things that it is better to have under government control. One of them is free shipping. If every shipper had to fend for themself, they'd be eaten alive back in 1815.


The banks were inflating the currency at that time. Bank inflation is never a good thing because resources are misallocated. And government debts and central banks are never a good thing, temporary or otherwise.

I agree, bank inflation is not good. But we had virtually no net inflation between 1800 and 1850, during the era when the Jefferson/Madison principles generally held sway over the government.

You seem to be a huge fan of James Madison. Just an observation. Are you Nicholas Trist?[/QUOTE]

No, I am not Nicholas Trist. Nor am I Andrew Jackson's private secretary. But I am a defender of James Madison, our greatest and most powerful Founding Father. And I can't stand Wilson, FDR, and FDR especially. The difference between them and their wars, compared to Madison, is as big as night and day.

[merrimac]

For me, it was a hard decision between Lincoln and Wilson.

I had to go with Wilson because at least Lincoln could argue he had the excuse of a civil war that was thrust upon him or whatever and helped eradicate slavery. What he did that really hurt liberty was he helped take away the states' main source of leverage over the federal government, that being secession. But was that his aim? I don't know.

Wilson flat out sold this country over to bankers and he admitted it. And he gave us the income tax and was the person who started the neoconservative idea of interventionism. And he wanted to get America into a United Nations! This guy has no excuses for what he did.

[hugolp]

lincoln destroyed federalism.
if the states still had their sovereign rights under a republic of republics, they could have easily nulified FDRs program.

^^ This. Also, Lincoln destroyed the free banking system that Andrew Jackson left, creating the roots for the dominance of the New York banks over the country.

[Danke]

Wilson flat out sold this country over to bankers and he admitted it. And he gave us the income tax and was the person who started the neoconservative idea of interventionism.

No, Lincoln can take the blame for the income tax. It goes all the way back to 1862.

[Galileo Galilei]

I think Wilson did more permanent damage to the Constitution, than Lincoln. After Lincoln, the states still had the Senate. And the southern states had their numbers increased in the House & Electoral College, because when they freed the slaves, the 3/5th rule was out, so they were ale to still be an influence in the national government.

[Freedom 4 all]

He's not as bad as Lincoln, Wilson or FDR (mainly because he never had that kind of power) but I think Rudy "Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.” Giullianni at least deserves a spot on that list.

[RevolutionSD]

No, Lincoln can take the blame for the income tax. It goes all the way back to 1862.

Both were evil bastards and you can make a case for either Lincoln or Wilson being the worst of the worst. Wilson also ushered in the Federal Reserve and WWI. Lincoln instituted a temporary income tax that actually went away (not that temporary taxes are acceptable).

But as we can see, the constitution which many people on this board are in love with, are what allowed all of this anti-liberty action to happen.

[Galileo Galilei]

Both were evil bastards and you can make a case for either Lincoln or Wilson being the worst of the worst. Wilson also ushered in the Federal Reserve and WWI. Lincoln instituted a temporary income tax that actually went away (not that temporary taxes are acceptable).

But as we can see, the constitution which many people on this board are in love with, are what allowed all of this anti-liberty action to happen.

Sure, its not Lincoln or Wilson's fault; it the Constitution stupid!

Of course we would have no taxes if not for the Constitution.

Just think, we would have had 200 years on idyll bliss if only we had kept the Articles of Confederation.

Evil people like Lincoln and Wislon, backed by banks, would get nowhere under the Articles. Nope, they'd never be able to buy up whole states and enslave us all. Never would ahve happened.

[RevolutionSD]

Sure, its not Lincoln or Wilson's fault; it the Constitution stupid!

Of course we would have no taxes if not for the Constitution.

Just think, we would have had 200 years on idyll bliss if only we had kept the Articles of Confederation.

Evil people like Lincoln and Wislon, backed by banks, would get nowhere under the Articles. Nope, they'd never be able to buy up whole states and enslave us all. Never would ahve happened.

How about none of the above and just have pure freedom?

Do you find freedom to be scary? (not trying to be snotty here, I really mean that because lots of people are afraid of freedom).

[Peace&Freedom]

If the Constitution had not been created, the forces for central banking and central government would have corrupted the Articles of Confederation, turning them in time into the Articles of Consolidation. The damage done by Lincoln is double: he set the largest number of bad precedents for tyranny, AND serves (along with Pearl Harbor) as the perennial poster boy for "strong government" to wage war against all alleged enemies, while suspending rights and freedoms until the perpetual 'emergency' situation is abated.

[brandon]

He's not as bad as Lincoln, Wilson or FDR (mainly because he never had that kind of power) but I think Rudy "Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.” Giullianni at least deserves a spot on that list.

Absolutely

[Galileo Galilei]

An old friend of mine, who I went to grade school with, sent me the following email:

"Galileo:

As someone who has made the study of politics and political theory one of his favorite pastimes, here is my advice. Cast all votes for Lincoln. In this way you will virtually guarantee the Libertarian Party will never move beyond the extreme fringe third rate party it is now and will forever languish with no real political power. Your candidates will continue to waste millions or dollars on hopeless campaigns at the conclusion of which they will have less or no more power than they had when they took out nomination papers.

The Libertarians, with their focus on limited government, could and probably should play a larger role in determining policy. Unfortunately, they don't. Lists like these are certainly part of the reason why. I know you are not the author because you've demonstrated more than once you possess far more wit than what is on display here.

What is overlooked about Arnold was his actions were welcomed by a signifiant number of Americans who did not support the Revolution. The idea all Americans united behind Washington's army is false. There were a significant and powerful cadre of Americans who supported the British and thought the Revolutionary cause was folly.

As to Hamilton, Burr and Clay I would suggest these were merely men who engaged in real power struggles and lost. That's not a sufficient reason to vilify them. They had to take historically opposing views or they would not have been in opposition to the power they wanted to obtain. Remember, to the victors go the history books.

Both the Civil War and the Second World War made the country significantly stronger. Woodrow Wilson was instrumental in KEEPING the US out of the First World War until it was substantially decided, saving perhaps a million American lives. He also founded ideals that grew into the United Nations.

I do agree on Cheney. The Bush administration perpetrated an assault on the Rule of Law unseen in the history of the Republic. For that, they should all be hung.

Bob"

[Naraku]

So many are left out of this. What of John Adams who signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, far worse than the Patriot Act?

Of course, one evaluating this subject objectively would see that many of the Founders despite their pro-libert rhetoric would often engage in acts against liberty. They would use libel laws to strike down political opponents, took over the press to target their political opponents and in the case of Aaron Burr actually arrested them.

People forget the use of thugs, the bribing of voters and politicians, and any other number of acts were committed in the early United States. It was not some bastion of freedom as so many romantics like to portray it.

I am also curious about the fact J. Edgar Hoover is missing and Nixon of all people.

Also, the War of 1812 was as much about independence as the Cold War was about communism.

[tremendoustie]

Wow, so many good options. I went for Lincoln, as pretty much everything he did other than freeing the slaves was evil, and he really did kill states rights.

[Galileo Galilei]

.

Also, the War of 1812 was as much about independence as the Cold War was about communism.

The War of 1812 was about economic independence. Over 1000 American ships had been seized since 1807, and 7000 men kidnapped.

Thaty works out to 4 ships per week siezed and 4 men per day kidnapped.

We did not have free trade on the Great Lakes. Nor on the Atlantic ocean. Nor on the Mississippi river. Nor in the Gulf of Mexico. Nor with the West Indies.

After the war of 1812, we had all of that.

You support free trade, right?

Economic independence is the core of liberty. Without economic liberty, you are not truly free.

[Galileo Galilei]

So many are left out of this. What of John Adams who signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, far worse than the Patriot Act?



Thanks to John Adams, we got the Virginia Resolution, the Kentucky Resolutuion, and the Report of 1800.

btw - John Adams didn't really support the Alien & Sedition Acts. His wife Abagail was ragging on him because she was sick of all the bad talk about her husband in the newspapers. She basically forced John Adams to sign these bills, probably by withholding sex.

So I should have put Abagail Adams on the list.

[Feenix566]

This thread would be better without the conspiracy theory asserted as fact in the OP.

[Galileo Galilei]

This thread would be better without the conspiracy theory asserted as fact in the OP.

What is your definition of a conspiracy theory?

[Feenix566]

What is your definition of a conspiracy theory?

Ummm.... Bill Clinton bombed the WTC the first time and Dick Cheney attacked it the second?

[Naraku]

The War of 1812 was about economic independence. Over 1000 American ships had been seized since 1807, and 7000 men kidnapped.

They only began that process because the U.S. was gleefully accepting British deserters from their navy. Remember Jefferson and many of the Democratic-Republicans were sympathetic with Napoleon. The War of 1812 was the most unpopular war in American history for a reason.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

They only began that process because the U.S. was gleefully accepting British deserters from their navy. Remember Jefferson and many of the Democratic-Republicans were sympathetic with Napoleon. The War of 1812 was the most unpopular war in American history for a reason.

Eh, the most unpopular has to be Vietnam. The War of 1812 propelled Andrew Jackson to the Presidency.....

This is a no-brainer. Lincoln (politician wise) bar none.

Also to the OP you missed Sherman who I would rank as worse than Lincoln....You can't even imagine the contempt I have for Sherman.....:mad::mad::mad::mad:

[purplechoe]

Plato

http://arran.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/rove-plato.jpg

[Ricky201]

That's not an easy one...

1) Woodrow Wilson
2) Abraham Lincoln
3) John Marshall

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Aratus]

aaron burr...
had he been successfull...
we'd be totally different than we now are!

[Naraku]

Eh, the most unpopular has to be Vietnam. The War of 1812 propelled Andrew Jackson to the Presidency.....

Really? Which states tried to secede because of the Vietnam war?

[Bucjason]

Woodrow Wilson was the worst if you look at his record.

ALexander Hamilton was pretty bad also. If he had gotten his way, we'd have a Monarchy right now , and no bill of rights. He didn't accomplish any of that , though , so I can't really pick him.

Honorable Mention: Obama has the potential to top them all...

[heavenlyboy34]

aaron burr...
had he been successfull...
we'd be totally different than we now are!

That would be a good thing, tho! This poll is about the worst of them. ;)

[Galileo Galilei]

Ummm.... Bill Clinton bombed the WTC the first time and Dick Cheney attacked it the second?

That's a military operation, not a conspiracy.

[Galileo Galilei]

They only began that process because the U.S. was gleefully accepting British deserters from their navy. Remember Jefferson and many of the Democratic-Republicans were sympathetic with Napoleon. The War of 1812 was the most unpopular war in American history for a reason.

You do believe in individual liberty, right? If someone does not want to be a subject of a king, and wants to join a democratic republic, that is his natural right.

Also, about 3/4th of those impressed (kidnapped) were Americans, not British, which makes it even worse.

The War of 1812 was the most popular war in American history. Easily. Despite James Madison being our only war president in history not to issue war propaganda.

* War hawk (from the 12th congress) John Calhoun started a long 40 year political career, including becoming Vice-president.

* War hawk Henry Clay began a long 40 year political career, including several major party nominations for president.

* Richard Mentor Johnson, another war hawk, was elected vice-president in 1836.

* The National Anthem, not a coincidence, came from the war, and Francis Scott Key is one of our greatest national heroes.

* Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry became the 2nd most celebrated naval hero in American history (next to John Paul Jones). His famous quote "We have met the enemy and they are us" was one of the most celebrated quotes of the 19th century.

* The USS Constitution, aka Old Ironsides, is probably the most famous warship in US history.

* The Federalist Party, which opposed the war, became extinct.

* James Monroe, Secretary of State & Secretary of War, was elected president easily in 1816 and 1820, and was Madison's protege.

* Madison was comfortably re-elected president in 1812, despite the election coming shortly after the worst military portion of the war.

* John Quincy Adams who negotiated the Treay of Ghent was elected president in 1824.

* Hero Andrew Jackson won the popular vote in 1824 and was elected president in 1828 and 1832.

* William Henry Harrison, victorious general, was elected president in 1840. "Tippecanoe and Tyler, too" is probably the most famous campaign slogan in US history.

* Zachery Taylor, Madison's 2nd cousin, and a victorious general in the War of 1812 (won the small but key Battle of Ft. Harrison in 1812), was elected president in 1848.

* Winfield Scott, another victorious general from the war, won a major party nomination for president in 1852.

* Another war hawk, Langdon Cheves, became Speaker of the House of Representatives.

* Another war hawk, Felix Gundy, became US Attorney general and a Senator from Tennessee.

* Another war hawk, William Bibb, was elected the 1st Governor of Alabama after the war, but then died a year later.

* Another member of the 12th congress (the war hawk congress), William King of North Carolina, was elected vice-president in 1852.

* Another early supporter of the war, Martin van Buren, was elected president in 1836. In 1812, van Buren was in the New York State Senate.

* John Tyler, who supported the war of 1812 and commanded a small force in it, became president. His idol for small government was James Madison, and he vetoed several bank bills.

* Daniel Tomkins, considered one of the most effective war governers (he was from New York), was elected vice-president in 1816.

* Another Madison appointed official and diplomat during the war, George Dallas, later became Vice-president, and has the city of Dallas, Texas named after him.

* General Henry Dearborn had Dearborn Michigan named after him.

* General Stephen Decatur has 46 communites in the United States named after him.

* Naval Commander James Lawrence's dying words "Don't give up the ship!" became the official slogan of the US navy for over 100 years.

If Madison had denounced the New England opponents & the Hartford Convention of the war as traiters, which they basically were, the war would have been even more popular. Unfortunately, propaganda works. But Madison did not believe in war propaganda. Every war president since, has used it. To regain our American liberty, we need to learn the principles of our Founding Fathers. One princilpe is that war propaganda is not needed to win a war.

It is a liberal and neocon myth that the War of 1812 was unpopular.

Again, compare Madison to the war presidents in this poll, and you will see a very stark difference.

[Call Me V]

Where is the "all of the above" option?

[paulitics]

AL Gore should be on this list for piece of trash, sell out. He is relentless.

[Bucjason]

So where is the poll for the best pro-liberty historic figure??

I nominate our most under-rated founding father , Patrick Henry. "give me liberty, or give me death!"

[Galileo Galilei]

So where is the poll for the best pro-liberty historic figure??

I nominate our most under-rated founding father , Patrick Henry. "give me liberty, or give me death!"

That's a great quote attributed to Henry. He never said it, though, it is a fake quote. The whole speech was made up in a book that was published about 5 or 10 years after he died.

[Galileo Galilei]

So where is the poll for the best pro-liberty historic figure??



PS - do a search of the forum, I put up a poll for that a few months ago.

[Carole]

I chose Woodrow Wilson for stupidly selling out this country with the Federal Reserve Act and income tax.

Though all of them are bad, Wilson's actions have had the most enduring long-term effects on our nation and continue to do so today and in the future. Even he acknowledged his error, but it was too late and countless wars and millions of deaths followed. Millions of lives have been economically destroyed as well as never-ending higher taxes and destruction of wealth have occurred. Through corruption, ponzi schemes, pyramids, and benefiting the few wealthy at the expense of middle class and poor , he did a lot of damage that has no apparent end in sight.

[acptulsa]

What? No sign of the cross-dresser who managed to keep his secret while ferreting out the secrets of the rest of the nation, J. Edgar Hoover? Come on now.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

I voted FDR: he strongly supported global socialism at home and abroad.

[Anti Federalist]

That's a great quote attributed to Henry. He never said it, though, it is a fake quote. The whole speech was made up in a book that was published about 5 or 10 years after he died.

Not quite.

http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Winter02-03/speech.cfm


But are those the words Henry really said?

The speech first appeared in print in 1817 with the publication of the first biography of the “Forest-born Demosthenes,” Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry, by William Wirt, a Richmond lawyer and writer, soon to become attorney general of the United States. The book was immensely popular, but it was a romanticized, exaggerated, one-sided story. Wirt’s report of Henry’s speech has been tarred with pretty much the same brush. No one accused Wirt of fashioning it from whole cloth, but there was, and perhaps still is, a feeling that the fabric had been stretched.

In Wirt’s defense, it must be said that getting factual information on a speech that by its nature dissipated when it hit the air and left behind no physical trace was no easy assignment. In the custom of the day, only sermons were published. Williamsburg’s St. George Tucker, a federal judge, told Wirt that no stenographer attended the Virginia Assembly. Still, Wirt did what he could.

For twelve years he collected materials for his Sketches, and still he could not document significant parts of it. He tapped the recollections of those who had known the orator, some of whom had heard the speech, and reported their recollections in the third person. Or, as historian Richard Beale Davis put it, Wirt molded his memoir “from bits and pieces of myths and memories.”

Jefferson was a big help, but Wirt struck gold with his friend Judge Tucker. The greater part of the speech as Wirt reported it came from Tucker. The judge’s memory of the oration was contained in a letter to Wirt of eleven foolscap pages, which was in the possession of the judge’s grandson, Henry St. George Tucker, in 1905, when it was lost. After finishing ninety-six pages of the manuscript, Wirt told Tucker in a letter of August 16, 1815, “I can tell you I have made free use of you in this work. . . . I have taken almost entirely, Mr. Henry’s speech in the convention of ’75 from you, as well as your description of its effect on you verbatim.”

Computer analysis corroborates Tucker’s authorship. A doctoral dissertation on the work by Steven Taylor Olsen compares fifteen linguistic-stylistic features of the “Liberty or Death” speech with writings by Henry, Wirt, and Tucker and finds Tucker the hands-down winner.

All this insulates Wirt from serious suspicion that he manufactured the speech. It does not, of course, prove that what Patrick Henry said had been tucked away in Tucker’s memory. But that memory does seem to have come fairly close to the mark, for Wirt saw to it that several dignitaries who had been at the church—Jefferson, for one—had a shot at the judge’s rendering, and they did not quibble with it. Furthermore, as David A. McCants, professor of communication at Indiana University–Purdue University at Fort Wayne, said in the Virginia Magazine of October 1979, “Wirt was justified in placing great confidence in Tucker’s reliability as a reporter. Tucker heard the speech as an impressionable youth who was without partisan political commitments . . . and his personal opinions towards Henry as a public leader and orator indicate that his judgments were not quick, nor static, nor the result of hero-worship.” Wirt testified that his confidence in Tucker’s report was bolstered by the similarities of Edmund Randolph’s less detailed account in the introduction to his History of Virginia.

McCants notes that publications of the speech in biographies and anthologies have recast the report in direct voice, dropping the quotation marks and references to Wirt’s sources that appear in the original. As a result, he said, “generations have been deceived into believing in the literalness” of the speech. “Efforts to authenticate the ‘Liberty or Death’ speech, then, are efforts to authenticate a speech report, not a speech text.”

At this point, the reader could be forgiven for wondering whose speech we’re talking about. The last word of a sort could come from William Safire in his Lend Me Your Ears, a collection of speeches that includes “Liberty or Death”—without quotation marks. “My own judgment,” Safire writes, “is that Patrick Henry made a rousing speech that day . . . and that a generation later . . . Judge Tucker recalled what he could and made up the rest. If that is so, Judge Tucker belongs among the ranks of history’s best ghostwriters.”

Pennsylvania-based Jim Cox contributed “The Man Who Moved Independence,” a story about Virginia’s Richard Henry Lee, to the autumn 2002 journal.

“Their souls were on fire for action”
A portion of William Wirt’s report of Henry’s speech, as Wirt got it from St. George Tucker:

“Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we any thing new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find, which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done every thing that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned—we have remonstrated—we have supplicated—we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon, until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight!—I repeat it, sir; we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts, is all that is left us!

“They tell us, sir,” continued Mr. Henry, “that we are weak—unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed; and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our back, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us, hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat, but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged. Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable—and let it come!! I repeat it, sir; let it come!!!

“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north, will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear; or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains, and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!—I know not what course others may take; but as for me,” cried he, with both his arms extended aloft, his brows knit, every feature marked with the resolute purpose of his soul, and his voice swelled to its boldest note of exclamation—“give me liberty, or give me death!”

He took his seat. No murmur of applause was heard. The effect was too deep. After the trance of a moment, several members started from their seats. The cry, “To arms,” seemed to quiver on every lip, and gleam from every eye! Richard H. Lee arose and supported Mr. Henry, with his usual spirit and elegance. But his melody was lost amidst the agitations of that ocean, which the master spirit of the storm had lifted up on high. That supernatural voice still sounded in their ears, and shivered along their arteries. They heard, in every pause, the cry of liberty or death. They became impatient of speech—their souls were on fire for action.

[Anti Federalist]

Oh and Wilson, far and above anybody else.

[Galileo Galilei]

Not quite.

http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Winter02-03/speech.cfm

Thank you for posting that, it is very interesting. I stand corrected. It is too bad the manuscript was lost in 1905. Was it copied before it was lost? That is a very valuable paper.

[Zippyjuan]

Hmm. The worst anti-liberty American of All Time. Tough choices. Would that be the person who did the worst job at being an anti-liberty American which would make them pro-liberty?

[Bucjason]

That's a great quote attributed to Henry. He never said it, though, it is a fake quote. The whole speech was made up in a book that was published about 5 or 10 years after he died.


No, it IS a real qoute. It was reconstructed from oral testimony to the biogragher of Henry's book to basically say,

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

It may not be word for word , and some parts may be left out( supposedly some name-calling at the brits, etc.) , but that is the jist of it , and he did say it.

[Bucjason]

Lincoln was not perfect , but there is no way he is #1 over names like Wilson and Roosevelt. Come on people.

Freeing the slaves ALONE is such a HUGE move towards liberty there is no possible way it wouldn't cancel out enough to not make him #1 on the list....

[Mini-Me]

Lincoln was not perfect , but there is no way he is #1 over names like Wilson and Roosevelt. Come on people.

Freeing the slaves ALONE is such a HUGE move towards liberty there is no possible way it wouldn't cancel out enough to not make him #1 on the list....

I think the reason Lincoln is so high on the list is because he was the "first of the worst," and him destroying federalism is what made so many of the later abuses possible. In addition, saying he "freed the slaves" isn't really accurate, since he only declared slaves in southern states to be free, and ONLY if they didn't return to the Union within the next two-and-a-half months, by January 1st, 1863. Basically, not only was it not about freedom, it wasn't even a spiteful act of war; it was literally nothing other than petty blackmail! Because of this, I find it absurd that anyone - even unapologetic federal supremacists - gives Lincoln any credit for "freeing the slaves." Besides, considering the North was at war with the South, it's not like they were going to be returning any runaway slaves in the first place. :rolleyes: Lincoln even said he would have rather kept the union together (his sole aim, come hell or high water) without freeing the slaves, so I think it's pretty fair to take that at face value. He didn't give a damn about the slaves, only federal supremacy.

...that said, Lincoln could not have gotten away with permanently destroying federalism if it weren't for his later lionization based on the South's reliance on slavery. Therefore, we should seriously also pin the blame on every single pro-slavery Framer and every pro-slavery Southern politician, too. Aside from the fact that slavery is the worst form of tyranny by itself, they are also just as responsible for Lincoln's lasting effect as he is: If they weren't such goddamn tyrants in the first place (hardly different from Lincoln themselves), then modern generations wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the idea of states' rights and decentralized power. Butterfly effect notwithstanding, the first thing I would do if I went back in time to 1776 would be to warn them of what the tyranny and idiocy of the pro-slavery assholes would cost this country. Of course, they probably wouldn't listen, so I'd have to kill them. It's not like any of the same people would be born to later generations the moment I set foot in an earlier time and displaced the air molecules anyway. ;)

Still, I do agree with you: Wilson takes the cake. Although most federal abuses wouldn't have been possible without Lincoln's help, the worst of all fall squarely on Wilson's shoulders. That son of a bitch shares responsibility for every bit of our debt, our inflation, and everything that has come along with it, like the military-industrial complex and numerous unnecessary wars. Not only does he directly or indirectly share responsibility for every life we've lost in every war since World War I, he's also indirectly responsible for World War II in its entirety.

Of course, that's just if we're talking about Americans who had the worst lasting anti-liberty legacy. I have little doubt that deep down in their souls, our modern tyrants are actually even worse.

[Naraku]

You do believe in individual liberty, right? If someone does not want to be a subject of a king, and wants to join a democratic republic, that is his natural right.

It had nothing to do with that, they were deserters from the British Navy in a time of war. Not only did the U.S. shelter them they were provided with false documents.


The War of 1812 was the most popular war in American history. Easily.

Dude. What are you smoking and where can I get a case?


Despite James Madison being our only war president in history not to issue war propaganda.

They didn't need to issue war propaganda. They had plenty of newspapers under their control.


* The National Anthem, not a coincidence, came from the war, and Francis Scott Key is one of our greatest national heroes.

It was made the national anthem over a century later.


* The Federalist Party, which opposed the war, became extinct.

This ties in with most of the other crap you pulled out. The Federalist Party was in decline long before the war.


* Madison was comfortably re-elected president in 1812, despite the election coming shortly after the worst military portion of the war.

Back then elections were not popular efforts. Half the states still chose electors through appointment by state legislatures. Even then the Federalist Party actually gained support in 1812.


* Hero Andrew Jackson won the popular vote in 1824 and was elected president in 1828 and 1832.

For entirely different reasons. Seriously, most people don't vote against someone for being a solider in a war.


It is a liberal and neocon myth that the War of 1812 was unpopular.

It's a reality, not a myth.

[Promontorium]

It was made the national anthem over a century later.



It was made official over a century later. It was always popular. It was used in official events during that "over a century". You're just spinning.

This thread is just rife with spin and subjectivity.

The OP thinks Clinton and Cheney literally and officially personally attacked the WTC. OP's "friend" claims to be objective, then says Wilson, who started wars across the world, including many South American nations, and Russia was a man of peace, while the entire Bush administration should literally be hanged.

If I could, I would put a bomb underneath this whole idiotic thread and blow it to hell. But I think it's good to see no one's perfect around here. We're all just people.

Don't get angry when people don't agree, because this thread proves we come from all over, and not a drop of rational thought is necessary.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Lincoln's election deprived people of their greatest liberty: their life.

Never before or since has an American president raised up a large army of Americans to go kill other Americans.

Lincoln's election in November 1860 was the direct reason South Carolina became the first state to secede in December 1860. That resulted in other states leaving, then the war and finally 620,000 dead Americans.

[Galileo Galilei]

It had nothing to do with that, they were deserters from the British Navy in a time of war. Not only did the U.S. shelter them they were provided with false documents.



You are making a statist argument. If an idividual wants to desert the British navy, that is their natural right. 3/4 of those impressed (kidnapped) were not deserters anyway, they were Americans.

The people who deserted wanted to live in a free country under the Constitution, not under a monarchy.

You are also defending an oppressive empire. Is this not an anti-empire website? Is not Ron Paul an anti-empire candidate?

The British Empire was bullying America, just like America today bullies other nations. Britian had never even complied with the Treaty of Paris (1783). They were supposed to vacate forts on the Canadian frontier. As of 1812, 29 years later, they still had not complied.

I am a defender of national sovereignty, as is Ron Paul. In 1812, America did not have national sovereignty. After the war, we did.

James Madison, like George Washington, was anti-empire, they fought the British Empire. Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR were pro-empire, they expanded the American empire.

btw - In other posts, the Hartford Convention has been misrepresented. Only ONE delegate, Timothy Bigelow of Massachusettes, was in favor of secession. That's it. ONE delegate.

"Notwithstanding a thousand faults and blunders, [Madison's] administration has acquired more glory, and established more union, than all his three Predecessors, Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, put together."

John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 1817

http://www.preservationnation.org/travel-and-sites/sites/southern-region/montpelier.html

[Bucjason]

Lincoln's election deprived people of their greatest liberty: their life.

Never before or since has an American president raised up a large army of Americans to go kill other Americans.

Lincoln's election in November 1860 was the direct reason South Carolina became the first state to secede in December 1860. That resulted in other states leaving, then the war and finally 620,000 dead Americans.


If there are certain states violating the human rights of American citizens and ENSLAVING them , isn't it one of the few justified powers of the federal government to stop that?? Isn't ending slavery something that is worth fighting and dying for if you claim to be a lover of liberty??

[Galileo Galilei]

If there are certain states violating the human rights of American citizens and ENSLAVING them , isn't it one of the few justified powers of the federal government to stop that?? Isn't ending slavery something that is worth fighting and dying for if you claim to be a lover of liberty??

Good points, Bucjason. You are a brave person to say that in this forum.

[AuH20]

FDR forced the supreme court to legitimize his 'interstate commerce' clause which really changed the landscape of federal authority. Plus, many of his New Deal policies have matured into such a burden that they're financially unsustainable by an incredible margin. FDR has to be the runaway enemy of liberty in this country as well as Eastern Europe.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Galileo Galilei]

Everyone knows the evils of slavery. It has little to do with whether slavery is right or wrong. It is a matter of principle.

Is this your constitutional argument?

1787: This is the supreme law of the land and it does not prohibit slavery.
1861: We know what the supreme law of the land has been for the past 74 years However we are a new generation and now that we are in power and we don't care what the law is. We know we do not have enough support to obtain a Constitutional amendment so we are going to impose our moral code and will upon you. By force if necessary.

What is the difference between that and health care? Or any other constitutional argument for that matter. If you believe national health care requires an amendment then you should also believe slavery required one instead of fighting a civil war to impose one. It is about the consistency of law. To amend the law with a proper amendment is one thing but to throw the law out the window is something entirely different.

If you do not support health care because it is not constitutional I can make a principled intellectual argument that you are no better than the people who supported slavery because they argued the same thing. This is one of the reasons the constitution is a failure. No moral consistency.

The Constitution starts with:


It was the Declaration of Independence that stated:


If there is one thing that is perfectly clear from statist history it is might makes right not following the law.

In 1787, slavery was almost everywhere.

In 1861, it was gone in the entire British empire, plus everywhere in the Western Hemisphere except Cuba, Brazil, and Puerto Rico.

In other words, slavery was an accepted evil in 1787, but not in 1861. In 1861, slavery was an unacceptable evil. The Founding Fathers couldn't solve every problem, they left the evil of slavery to the next generations. The North followed the example of the Founding Fathers, and gto rid of slavery. But not the South. The STATES in the south were enslaving people, and it was time to get rid of it. No army, not even that of General Lee, can stop an idea whose time has come.

PS

Your argument leaves me perplexed. Are you saying that runaway slaves like Frederick Douglass were bad?

[Galileo Galilei]

It had nothing to do with that, they were deserters from the British Navy in a time of war. Not only did the U.S. shelter them they were provided with false documents.



Dude. What are you smoking and where can I get a case?



They didn't need to issue war propaganda. They had plenty of newspapers under their control.



It was made the national anthem over a century later.



This ties in with most of the other crap you pulled out. The Federalist Party was in decline long before the war.



Back then elections were not popular efforts. Half the states still chose electors through appointment by state legislatures. Even then the Federalist Party actually gained support in 1812.



For entirely different reasons. Seriously, most people don't vote against someone for being a solider in a war.



It's a reality, not a myth.

Letter from John Adams to Thomas McKean (summer 1815):

"Mr. Madison's administration has proved great points, long disputed in Europe and America:

1. He has proved that an administration, under our present Constitution, can declare war.

2. That it can make peace.

3. That, money or no money, government or no government, Great Britain can never conquer this country or any considerable part of it.

4. That our officers and men by land are equal to any of Wellington's forces from Spain and Portugal.

5. That our navy is equal to any that ever floated on the ocean."

This is high praise for a so-called "unpopular war". James Madison proved that you don't need to violate the Constitution during war, which proves that the actions of Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR are unacceptable.

source (page 157):

http://books.google.com/books?id=EtEqdvpuOwQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22james+madison%22&ei=F1DrSsWsMoTAM4-wsO8L#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[anaconda]

Two clear front runners in this poll! This was a fun poll. Thank you for posting!:D

[Galileo Galilei]

Two clear front runners in this poll! This was a fun poll. Thank you for posting!:D

I forgot to put Jimmy Carter in the poll! Webster Tarpley will kill me!

[Galileo Galilei]

from a book review:

"Most boldly of all, Wood reconsiders what most scholars have thought to be Madison’s greatest failure: his seemingly inept leadership in the War of 1812. In fact, Wood argues, Madison knew exactly what he was doing. He and the Jeffersonians did not prepare for the war before it was upon them because “War, the Republicans realized, would lead to a Hamiltonian monarchical type of government, with increased taxes, an overblown bureaucracy, heavy debts, standing armies, and enhanced executive power.” And once the fighting commenced, “Better to allow the country to be invaded and the capital to be burned than to build up state power in a European monarchical manner.”

Today, as Wood acknowledges, such a thing is unimaginable. But at the time, Madison’s concern for keeping militarism in check, even in wartime, and his respect for civil liberties in extremis, won him great honor among his countrymen. John Adams said he had “acquired more glory, and established more Union, than all his three Predecessors, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, put together.”

“Maybe we ought to spend less time investigating Madison the author of the tenth Federalist and more time investigating Madison the president,” writes Wood. “His conception of war and government, whether we agree with it or not, might help us understand better the world we have lost.”

http://www.amconmag.com/mccarthy/2009/07/03/revolutionary-characters/

[Naraku]

You are making a statist argument. If an idividual wants to desert the British navy, that is their natural right.

I am making an argument that the United States was accepting deserters from the British navy at a time of war precisely because they were deserters from the British navy. The U.S. was not only forging papers but engaging in illegal trade. All the while Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were supportive of the French and against the British.

Hell, the Louisiana purchase only occurred because Napoleon invaded Spain and wrung that territory from them. All the while the U.S. was supportive of efforts against the British in Canada. Look at what Napoleon said of that matter and then consider how the British felt about the U.S. then being so accepting of British deserters.

Don't make the U.S. into some idealistic do-gooder, because it's just not the reality. It never was.


The people who deserted wanted to live in a free country under the Constitution, not under a monarchy.

You're making false assumptions, the first assumption is that the U.S. was a free country at that time. The second is that they deserted for political reasons not because of the usually reasons people become deserters.


You are also defending an oppressive empire. Is this not an anti-empire website? Is not Ron Paul an anti-empire candidate?

The Democratic-Republicans and their successor party Were the architects of the biggest expansions of the United States.


I am a defender of national sovereignty, as is Ron Paul. In 1812, America did not have national sovereignty. After the war, we did.

That's just garbage. We had sovereignty.


Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR were pro-empire, they expanded the American empire.

Wilson and FDR maybe, but what territories did Lincoln acquire exactly? Expanding the power of federal government isn't the same thing as expanding territory.


btw - In other posts, the Hartford Convention has been misrepresented.

Who do you think is responsible for that misrepresentation? You say there was no war propaganda, but anyone who knows the history of American newspapers can tell you that's nonsense.

[Galileo Galilei]

I am making an argument that the United States was accepting deserters from the British navy at a time of war precisely because they were deserters from the British navy. The U.S. was not only forging papers but engaging in illegal trade. All the while Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were supportive of the French and against the British.

3/4th of those impressed were not British. And if papers were forged, it is no different than a runaway slave forging papers for their freedom. And there is no evidence that Madison and Jefferson had anything to do with these alleged forged papers. And Britian was a greater threat to the US than the French. The French were not kidnapping our sailors. The French navy had been destroyed in 1805 by Nelson. And the French did not have forts on our frontier contrary to treaty (1783).


Hell, the Louisiana purchase only occurred because Napoleon invaded Spain and wrung that territory from them. All the while the U.S. was supportive of efforts against the British in Canada. Look at what Napoleon said of that matter and then consider how the British felt about the U.S. then being so accepting of British deserters.

Sour grapes.


Don't make the U.S. into some idealistic do-gooder, because it's just not the reality. It never was.

Madison and Jefferson were indeed idealistic do-gooders, but sometimes reality got in the way. That is why I advocate study of their presidencies of them. If they couldn't do it, nobody can.


You're making false assumptions, the first assumption is that the U.S. was a free country at that time. The second is that they deserted for political reasons not because of the usually reasons people become deserters.

The US was a free country, excepting slavery. It was the most free country in the history of the world up to that time. There was more economic opportunity in the United States, than in Great Britian. And a better chance to own land. A chance to vote. A chance to take part in public affairs or run for office. Etc.


The Democratic-Republicans and their successor party Were the architects of the biggest expansions of the United States.

Not true. The federal government was very small all the way until the Civil War. The Democratic-republican party provided the ideology for this, as well as the Constitution. They brought us glorious periods in our history, including the 1st term of Jefferson, victory in the War of 1812, the Era of Good Feelings, and Jacksonian democracy. All this time, the states retained their powers intended by the Founding Fathers. Only slavery remained as a major problem.


That's just garbage. We had sovereignty.

We had sovereignty on land, but not at sea. We had about 1000 ships seized on the high seas between 1807 and 1812.


Wilson and FDR maybe, but what territories did Lincoln acquire exactly? Expanding the power of federal government isn't the same thing as expanding territory.

Lincoln added the deep South to the Union. The deep South was not in the Union when Lincoln took office.


Who do you think is responsible for that misrepresentation? You say there was no war propaganda, but anyone who knows the history of American newspapers can tell you that's nonsense.

In a free press, you will have newspapers for and against any issue. MADSION did not do war propaganda. You know what I am talking about. James Madison is the only president to preserve the Constitution and refraim from war propaganda during a major war.

If we in the Ron Paul movement ever expect to stop war propaganda and violations of the Constitution, it would help if we had a concrete example that these things are not needed. We do have such an example; James Madison and the War of 1812.

Apologists for the government today always claims they need to break the Constitution out of necessity. But James Madison proves this is not true.

[Naraku]

3/4th of those impressed were not British. And if papers were forged, it is no different than a runaway slave forging papers for their freedom.

It actually is quite different. They were forging papers because they didn't want to fight in the war. They were perfectly fine living in the British Empire otherwise.


Sour grapes.

Really? That's all you have to say?


Madison and Jefferson were indeed idealistic do-gooders, but sometimes reality got in the way.

That's bull. However, it seems you have irrationally romantic notions about post-Revolutionary America so it is no surprise.


The US was a free country, excepting slavery. It was the most free country in the history of the world up to that time.

Wrong.


Not true. The federal government was very small all the way until the Civil War.

As I said the size of federal government has nothing to do with being an empire. However, it was responsible for all the major territorial expansions through war and peace.


The Democratic-republican party provided the ideology for this, as well as the Constitution. They brought us glorious periods in our history, including the 1st term of Jefferson, victory in the War of 1812, the Era of Good Feelings, and Jacksonian democracy. All this time, the states retained their powers intended by the Founding Fathers. Only slavery remained as a major problem.

Someone has eaten up the nationalistic propaganda. The Era of Good Feelings was so named because the Democratic-Republicans had absolute unchallenged power and thus there were not partisan disputes. We also were not victorious in the War of 1812, the British kicked our asses.


Lincoln added the deep South to the Union. The deep South was not in the Union when Lincoln took office.

Seriously, that's your argument? So by reclaiming seceding territories he was actually expanding the United States yet Jefferson buying up massive tracts of land and Polk sparking off the Mexican-American War to take California weren't?


In a free press, you will have newspapers for and against any issue.

They weren't free, they were bought and paid for by party officials. As such they did exactly what was expected of them, destroy the enemies of their masters.

[Dieseler]

Remake the poll and add Mel Watt.

[Romantarchist]

John Calhoun doesn't deserve to be on this list. Yes his support for slavery was very disturbing, but other than that he was just as much of a strict constructionist as Ron Paul. He was the one who got Andrew Jackson to back off on the "Tariff Of Abominations" and he criticized Jackson for remarks he made that he thought implied that the Union was more important than human liberty.

[Galileo Galilei]

John Calhoun doesn't deserve to be on this list. Yes his support for slavery was very disturbing, but other than that he was just as much of a strict constructionist as Ron Paul. He was the one who got Andrew Jackson to back off on the "Tariff Of Abominations" and he criticized Jackson for remarks he made that he thought implied that the Union was more important than human liberty.

You are comparing a tariff to slavery?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASwhipping.jpg

http://brotherpeacemaker.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/slave-being-beaten.jpg

[Galileo Galilei]

It actually is quite different. They were forging papers because they didn't want to fight in the war. They were perfectly fine living in the British Empire otherwise.

They were so fine with Great Britain that they voted with their feet and came to Madison & Jefferson's "Empire of Liberty".


That's bull. However, it seems you have irrationally romantic notions about post-Revolutionary America so it is no surprise.

I said Jefferson and Madison were idealistic do-gooders who confronted reality. I did not say all of post-revolutionary America was idealistic do-gooders.


We also were not victorious in the War of 1812, the British kicked our asses.

Key American Victories in the War of 1812 (43):

1811 (1)

Battle of Tippecanoe
Part of Tecumseh's War/War of 1812
Date November 7, 1811
Location near modern Battle Ground, Indiana
Result United States victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tippecanoe

1812 (7)

USS Constitution vs HMS Guerriere
Date 19 August 1812
Location Atlantic Ocean
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution_vs_HMS_Guerriere

Siege of Fort Wayne
Date September 5 – September 12, 1812
Location Fort Wayne, Indiana
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Wayne

Battle of Fort Harrison
Date September 4 – September 15, 1812
Location Terre Haute, Indiana
Result United States victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Harrison

Raid on Gananoque
September 21, 1812
Gananoque, Ontario
the Americans seized the stores and burned the government depot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Gananoque

Capture of HMS Frolic
USS Wasp captures the HMS FrolicThe capture of HMS Frolic was a naval action fought in the Atlantic of the coast of Virginia on October 18, 1812, between sloops-of-war USS Wasp, commanded by Jacob Jones, and HMS Frolic. The result was an American victory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_HMS_Frolic

USS United States vs HMS Macedonian
Date 25 October 1812
Location Atlantic Ocean
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_United_States_vs_HMS_Macedonian

HMS Java vs USS Constitution
Date 29 December 1812
Location off the coast of Brazil
Result Captured and burned by the USS Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Java_(1811)

1813 (14)

Raid on Elizabethtown
Date February 7, 1813
Location Elizabethtown
Result Successful American Raid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Elizabethtown

Sinking of HMS Peacock
The sinking of HMS Peacock was a naval action fought in the Atlantic off the mouth of the Demerara River, Guiana on February 24, 1813, between the brigs USS Hornet and HMS Peacock. After an exchange of broadsides during which the British vessel's commander was killed, the Peacock attempted to disengage but was pursued by the Hornet and succumbed to raking fire, sinking swiftly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_HMS_Peacock

Battle of York
Date 27 April, 1813
Location Present day Toronto, Ontario
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_York

Siege of Fort Meigs
Date 28 April – 9 May, 1813
Location present-day Perrysburg, Ohio
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Meigs

Battle of Fort George
Date May 25 – May 27, 1813
Location Present day Niagara on the Lake, Ontario
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_George

Battle of Sacket's Harbor
Date 28 May – 29 May, 1813
Location Sackett's Harbor, New York
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sackett%27s_Harbor

Battle of Craney Island
Date June 22, 1813
Location Portsmouth, Virginia
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Craney_Island

Battle of Fort Stephenson
Date August 2, 1813
Location Sandusky County, Ohio
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Stephenson

Battle of St. Michaels
Date August 10, 1813
Location St. Michaels, Maryland
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_St._Michaels

Capture of HMS Boxer
Date 5 September 1813
Location off Pemaquid Point, near Bristol, Maine
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_HMS_Boxer

Battle of Lake Erie
Date 10 September, 1813
Location Lake Erie, near Put-in-Bay, Ohio
Result Decisive American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Erie

Battle of the Thames
Date October 5, 1813
Location Near Moravian of the Thames First Nation in present day Chatham-Kent, Ontario
Result Decisive American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Thames

Battle of Tallushatchee
Date November 3, 1813
Location Mississippi Territory
Result U.S. victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tallushatchee

Battle of Talladega
Date November 9, 1813
Location Mississippi Territory
Result U.S. victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talladega

1814 (17)

Battle of Longwoods
Date 4 March, 1814
Location near Wardsville in present day Southwest Middlesex, Ontario
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Longwoods

Battle of Horseshoe Bend
Date March 27, 1814
Location near Dadeville, Alabama
Result Decisive U.S. - Indian victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Horseshoe_Bend_(1814

Capture of HMS Epervier
The capture of HMS Epervier was a naval action fought off Cape Canaveral, Florida on April 29, 1814 between the sloop-of-war USS Peacock and the brig HMS Epervier in which the Epervier was captured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_HMS_Epervier

Raid on Port Dover
Date 14 May - 16 May, 1814
Location Port Dover, Norfolk County, Ontario
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Port_Dover

Battle of Big Sandy Creek
Date May 29 – May 30, 1814
Location Sandy Creek (town), New York
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Big_Sandy_Creek

Capture of Fort Erie
Date July 3, 1814
Location Fort Erie, Ontario
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Fort_Erie

Battle of Chippawa
Date July 5, 1814
Location Chippawa, Ontario
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chippawa

Battle of Caulk’s Field
Date August 31, 1814
Location near Fairlee, Maryland
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Caulk%27s_Field

Battle of Plattsburgh
Date September 6 – September 11, 1814
Location Plattsburgh, New York
Result Decisive American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plattsburgh

Battle of North Point
Date September 12, 1814
Location North Point, Maryland
Result Strategic American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_North_Point

Battle of Baltimore
Date September 12 – September 15, 1814
Location Baltimore, Maryland
Result Decisive American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baltimore

The First Battle of Fort Bowyer
Date September 14-16, 1814
Location Fort Bowyer, Alabama
The defeat at Fort Bowyer led the British to decide to attack New Orleans instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Bowyer

Siege of Fort Erie
Date 4 August – 21 September, 1814
Location Fort Erie, Ontario
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Erie

Battle of Malcolm’s Mills
Date November 6, 1814
Location Oakland, Brant County, Ontario
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Malcolm%27s_Mills

Battle of Pensacola
Date November 7 – November 9, 1814
Location Pensacola, Florida
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pensacola_(1814)

Battle of Farnham Church
Date December 6, 1814
Location Farnham Church, Virginia
Result United States victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Farnham_Church

Action of 13 December 1814
Date December 13, 1814
Location near Lake Borgne, Louisiana
Result U.S. victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_of_13_December_1814_(Louisiana_Campaign)

1815 (4)

Battle of New Orleans
Date December 23 - January 8, 1815
Location About five miles (8 km) south of New Orleans on the grounds of Chalmette Plantation
Result American victory; British troops and fleet withdraw from Louisiana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans

Siege of Fort St. Philip
Date January 9-18, 1815
Location Fort St. Philip, Louisiana
Result U.S. victory, British flee after failing to reduce the fort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_St._Philip_(1815)

Capture of Cyane
HMS Cyane was a British warship captured by the USS Constitution on 20 February 1815 during the War of 1812. Cyane was sailing in company with HMS Levant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Cyane

Capture of HMS Penguin
On March 23, 1815 USS Hornet captured HMS Penguin in a short battle off Tristan da Cunha. This was one of several naval engagements which took place after the War of 1812 had ended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_HMS_Penguin

Again, the president need not violate the Constitution, issue war propaganda, suspend habeas corpus, intern people of a minority race, shut down newspapers, etc, to win a major war.

This is why James Madison is a defender of liberty, while Wilson and FDR are enemies of liberty.

[Bucjason]

Everyone knows the evils of slavery. It has little to do with whether slavery is right or wrong. It is a matter of principle.

Is this your constitutional argument?

1787: This is the supreme law of the land and it does not prohibit slavery.
1861: We know what the supreme law of the land has been for the past 74 years However we are a new generation and now that we are in power and we don't care what the law is. We know we do not have enough support to obtain a Constitutional amendment so we are going to impose our moral code and will upon you. By force if necessary.

What is the difference between that and health care? Or any other constitutional argument for that matter. If you believe national health care requires an amendment then you should also believe slavery required one instead of fighting a civil war to impose one. It is about the consistency of law. To amend the law with a proper amendment is one thing but to throw the law out the window is something entirely different.

If you do not support health care because it is not constitutional I can make a principled intellectual argument that you are no better than the people who supported slavery because they argued the same thing. This is one of the reasons the constitution is a failure. No moral consistency.

The Constitution starts with:


It was the Declaration of Independence that stated:


If there is one thing that is perfectly clear from statist history it is might makes right not following the law.

Do you really believe the constitution makes it legal to ENSLAVE your neighbor and deny him every human right the constitution grants YOU?? Are you serious ?? Can you not see the difference between not garanteeing a service , like Health care, and denying another human being EVERY bit of freedom he supposedly has a right to in the declaration of independence???

In my opinion , this paragragh alone justifies the civil war:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Even if you disagree , placing Linclon 1st overall is idiotic , IMO.

"Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as a heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors. " - Abraham Lincoln

"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free - honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless." - Abraham Lincoln

[RonPaulFanInGA]

If there are certain states violating the human rights of American citizens and ENSLAVING them , isn't it one of the few justified powers of the federal government to stop that?? Isn't ending slavery something that is worth fighting and dying for if you claim to be a lover of liberty??

Lincoln didn't invade the south over slavery. The first major battle was in July 1861 and ending slavery in the rebelling states (meaning the four slave-holding union states were exempt) didn't become a war goal until after Sharpsburg in September 1862.

Lincoln argued very thoroughly in his March 4, 1861 inaugural address (http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html) that he had no intention of ending slavery in the states where it existed.

[Bucjason]

Lincoln didn't invade the south over slavery. The first major battle was in July 1861 and ending slavery in the rebelling states (meaning the four slave-holding union states were exempt) didn't become a war goal until after Sharpsburg in September 1862.

Lincoln argued very thoroughly in his March 4, 1861 inaugural address (http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html) that he had no intention of ending slavery in the states where it existed.

I realize this is the justification the pro-confederacy people use. The fact remains that slavery was in violation of the Declaration and everything the Union was founded on to begin with ( equal rights , liberty ,etc.). The fact also remains that , no matter what Lincoln said BEFORE the war to try and avoid it , AFTER the war he DID end slavery. Slavery is as ANTI-liberty and ANTI-libertarian as you can possibly get, so ranking him #1 overall is bullshit. End of Story and unarguable , IMO.

[Justinjj1]

I realize this is the justification the pro-confederacy people use. The fact remains that slavery was in violation of the Declaration and everything the Union was founded on to begin with ( equal rights , liberty ,etc.). The fact also remains that , no matter what Lincoln said BEFORE the war to try and avoid it , AFTER the war he DID end slavery. Slavery is as ANTI-liberty and ANTI-libertarian as you can possibly get, so ranking him #1 overall is bullshit. End of Story and unarguable , IMO.

+1

[johnrocks]

I think it would be easier to pick a beautiful call girl in a Nevada Brothel than picking the number one Anti-Liberty American from that list.

[Son of Detroit]

Why is Hamilton beating Obama? Sure he was a big federalist, but Obama is x10.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I realize this is the justification the pro-confederacy people use. The fact remains that slavery was in violation of the Declaration and everything the Union was founded on to begin with ( equal rights , liberty ,etc.). The fact also remains that , no matter what Lincoln said BEFORE the war to try and avoid it , AFTER the war he DID end slavery. Slavery is as ANTI-liberty and ANTI-libertarian as you can possibly get, so ranking him #1 overall is bullshit. End of Story and unarguable , IMO.

The fact remains killing 620,000 Americans for conquest is about as anti-liberty and anti-libertarian as you can get.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Why is Hamilton beating Obama? Sure he was a big federalist, but Obama is x10.

Hamilton proposed a permenant President. He also proposed mercantilism, imperialism, and empire. On top of that, Hamilton subverted the AoC, by hastily calling for a Convention that was supposedly for amending the AoC not abolishing it. Hamilton also called for a Central Banking system. Upon more numerous violations of everything the Revolution stood for. As an aside, he also called for changing the sovereign states into provinces whereby governors would be appointed by the permenant President and the President could veto anything and everything the Governor did. He advocated for the monarchical and tyrannous Government we just fought against.

The top 3:

#1 General Sherman
#2 Abraham Lincoln
#3 Alexander Hamilton

[LDA]

My vote goes to Lincoln. Amazingly, he's still revered as an American hero by the vast majority.

[AuH20]

Hamilton proposed a permenant President. He also proposed mercantilism, imperialism, and empire. On top of that, Hamilton subverted the AoC, by hastily calling for a Convention that was supposedly for amending the AoC not abolishing it. Hamilton also called for a Central Banking system. Upon more numerous violations of everything the Revolution stood for. As an aside, he also called for changing the sovereign states into provinces whereby governors would be appointed by the permenant President and the President could veto anything and everything the Governor did. He advocated for the monarchical and tyrannous Government we just fought against.

The top 3:

#1 General Sherman
#2 Abraham Lincoln
#3 Alexander Hamilton

sherman? Wasn't sherman trying to win the war as fast as possible? I'm no fan of the Union per se, but Sherman destroyed the South's ability to wage war both physically and psychologically. I'd expect the south to do the same if they were provided a critical opportunity to wound the North.

[werdd]

Abe, wilson, roosevelt in that order

[werdd]

sherman? Wasn't sherman trying to win the war as fast as possible? I'm no fan of the Union per se, but Sherman destroyed the South's ability to wage war both physically and psychologically. I'd expect the south to do the same if they were provided a critical opportunity to wound the North.

Like when Lee knew he could of taken Washington but opted against it?

[YumYum]

sherman? Wasn't sherman trying to win the war as fast as possible? I'm no fan of the Union per se, but Sherman destroyed the South's ability to wage war both physically and psychologically. I'd expect the south to do the same if they were provided a critical opportunity to wound the North.

I agree. When the South invaded the North Lee should have had his men inflict horror on the citizens. In doing so a majority of the Northerners would have demanded an end to hostilities.

[AuH20]

Like when Lee knew he could of taken Washington but opted against it?

which partially explains the later fate of the confederate army. ;)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

sherman? Wasn't sherman trying to win the war as fast as possible? I'm no fan of the Union per se, but Sherman destroyed the South's ability to wage war both physically and psychologically. I'd expect the south to do the same if they were provided a critical opportunity to wound the North.

I'm sure you loved WWII with all the Carpet Bombing....Nothing like whole Japanese cities getting burnt to the grown, men, women, and children.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

sherman? Wasn't sherman trying to win the war as fast as possible? I'm no fan of the Union per se, but Sherman destroyed the South's ability to wage war both physically and psychologically. I'd expect the south to do the same if they were provided a critical opportunity to wound the North.

Oh one more thing....IT WAS AN INVASION OF A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY FOR CONQUEST. Missed that part?

[AuH20]

I'm sure you loved WWII with all the Carpet Bombing....Nothing like whole Japanese cities getting burnt to the grown, men, women, and children.

United States should have never involved itself in the conflict. however, once the diplomatic solutions evaporated and there was literally no turning back, you do what you must to achieve victory as quickly as possible. I didn't write the rules. War is horrific for these very reasons I laid out. There can be little hesistation or restraint. It's kill or be killed.

[Bucjason]

Oh one more thing....IT WAS AN INVASION OF A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY FOR CONQUEST. Missed that part?

Nonsense.

So let's get this straight...You support your states right to ENSLAVE you, just so long as the fed can't tell it what to do??


You believe your state has the right to deny life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to select citizens, the SAME reason we gave for OUR independence from the king and WAGED WAR, simply because they have soveriegn authority??

Bullshit....I don't buy your argument at all, it's empty.

[YumYum]

Nonsense.

So let's get this straight...You support your states right to ENSLAVE you, just so long as the fed can't tell it what to do??


You believe your state has the right to deny life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to select citizens, the SAME reason we gave for OUR independence from the king and WAGED WAR, simply because they have soveriegn authority??

Bullshit....I don't buy your argument at all, it's empty.

Actually, I believe we fought the British to protect slavery, because Britain was turning anti-slavery. That is why our early government was so strong in supporting state's rights.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Nonsense.

So let's get this straight...You support your states right to ENSLAVE you, just so long as the fed can't tell it what to do??


You believe your state has the right to deny life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to select citizens, the SAME reason we gave for OUR independence from the king and WAGED WAR, simply because they have soveriegn authority??

Bullshit....I don't buy your argument at all, it's empty.

I'm a non-interventionist. The USA and CSA were two seperate entities. I would not support intervening in the personal affairs of that nation just like I don't advocate getting involved in the personal affairs of Rwanda, Darfur, or Myanmar. I personally condemn that activity, and all Natural Law violations, but that doesn't mean I would violate the NAP to forcefully change another nation when I myself, nor the country has been assaulted. It is up to the people within that country to fight for their determination. If people want to voluntarily assist in that effort, then by all means do so, and they did (They were abolitionists). Yes, it is a horrible atrocity, but killing 620,000 men for conquest is worse.

Secondly, I never said what you are implying, nor did I imply so. The Constitution is a contract. Independant, sovereign States formed the Federal Government on the basis of that contract. The Federal Government violated that contract, and used it against the South to empower the North. The Southern Independant States disagreed with the action and removed themselves from the contract. There is no stipulation within that contract that it is forevermore. In fact, it notorizes the opposite, but only indirectly.

I am coming at this from a moral, contractual viewpoint, not the unhinged emotional response. Logically, if you support the USA invading the CSA on the grounds of Natural Law violations, then you support the USA now invading and conquering and occupying (Reconstruction was occupation) every Nation on this planet. There is not one Nation today that does not violate Natural Law egregiously. I guess I have rooted out a Neo-Con infiltrator. :D

My arguement is the moral, and just arguement based on voluntary contractuality. Secondly, the only way to determine when a war is just, is using the Christian Just War Theory. The War of Northern Aggression violates that theory.

Lastly, read Lincoln Unmasked by Thomas Di'Lorenzo.

[Bucjason]

I'm a non-interventionist. The USA and CSA were two seperate entities. I would not support intervening in the personal affairs of that nation just like I don't advocate getting involved in the personal affairs of Rwanda, Darfur, or Myanmar. I personally condemn that activity, and all Natural Law violations, but that doesn't mean I would violate the NAP to forcefully change another nation when I myself, nor the country has been assaulted. It is up to the people within that country to fight for their determination. If people want to voluntarily assist in that effort, then by all means do so, and they did (They were abolitionists). Yes, it is a horrible atrocity, but killing 620,000 men for conquest is worse.

Secondly, I never said what you are implying, nor did I imply so. The Constitution is a contract. Independant, sovereign States formed the Federal Government on the basis of that contract. The Federal Government violated that contract, and used it against the South to empower the North. The Southern Independant States disagreed with the action and removed themselves from the contract. There is no stipulation within that contract that it is forevermore. In fact, it notorizes the opposite, but only indirectly.

I am coming at this from a moral, contractual viewpoint, not the unhinged emotional response. Logically, if you support the USA invading the CSA on the grounds of Natural Law violations, then you support the USA now invading and conquering and occupying (Reconstruction was occupation) every Nation on this planet. There is not one Nation today that does not violate Natural Law egregiously. I guess I have rooted out a Neo-Con infiltrator. :D

My arguement is the moral, and just arguement based on voluntary contractuality. Secondly, the only way to determine when a war is just, is using the Christian Just War Theory. The War of Northern Aggression violates that theory.

Lastly, read Lincoln Unmasked by Thomas Di'Lorenzo.


They were NOT two seperate entities , they were MANY seperate entities that all entered into to same contract. That contract said we will declare our independence from the king , and our legal grounds for doing so are these:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

Slavery violates that contract ...PERIOD. It makes thier secession request invalid , because it was done for the OPPOSITE reason. Therefore , we had a right to alter and abolish the Confederacy. If you don't believe that contract is binding or has meaning , then it means we had no legitimate reason to claim independence from the king in the 1st place.

So , answer the simple question that I asked you , Mr. Liberty Lover: Do you believe the Federal government has no right to ENSLAVE you , but your State government can ENSLAVE anyone it pleases???

By the way , take the Neocon Card and stick it up your ass. If thinking slavery in my own country is something worth fighting against makes me a "neocon" then call me a neocon all you want. I will call you a coward for not being willing to stand up for a fellow americans human rights promised to them in the Declaration.

[Son of Detroit]

they were not two seperate entities , they were many seperate entities that all entered into to same contract. That contract said we will declare our independence from the king , and our legal grounds for doing so are these:

"we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. — that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. "

slavery violates that contract ...period. It makes thier secession request invalid , because it was done for the opposite reason. Therefore , we had a right to alter and abolish it. If you don't believe that , it means we had no right to claim independence from the king either.

So , answer the simple question that i asked you , mr. Liberty lover: Do you believe the federal government has no right to enslave you , but your state government can enslave anyone it pleases???

By the way , take the neocon card and stick it up your ass. If thinking slavery in my own country is something worth fighting against makes me a "neocon" then call me a neocon all you want. I will call you a coward for not being willing to stand up for a fellow americans human rights promised to them in the declaration.

+1000

[Bucjason]

Hypothetical for the Confederacy defenders:


Tomorrow , The state of California realizes they can no longer balance thier budget under current federal restraints.

In order to fix the problem , they enact a 100% income tax on ALL white-family earnings. (blacks and mexicans are exempt due to political reasons) Those who are jobless will be assigned a job , those who refuse to work are thrown in jail on charges of "tax evasion" .

After people begin to try and escape to other states, California builds a huge barb-wired fence around it self to keep everyone in. Trying to escape is punishable by death.

The feds decide to step in , but California then announces it has decided to secede from the union.

Question: DO you defend the liberties of your fellow americans in California , or do you sit back , yawn , and say , "It's none of my business, California can violate the constitution and do whatever they want to THOSE people... so long as they leave me alone" ???

[Anti Federalist]

Hypothetical for the Confederacy defenders:


Tomorrow , The state of California realizes they can no longer balance thier budget under current federal restraints.

In order to fix the problem , they enact a 100% income tax on ALL white-family earnings. (blacks and mexicans are exempt due to political reasons) Those who are jobless will be assigned a job , those who refuse to work are thrown in jail on charges of "tax evasion" .

After people begin to try and escape to other states, California builds a huge barb-wired fence around it self to keep everyone in. Trying to escape is punishable by death.

The feds decide to step in , but California then announces it has decided to secede from the union.

Question: DO you defend the liberties of your fellow americans in California , or do you sit back , yawn , and say , "It's none of my business, California can violate the constitution and do whatever they want to THOSE people... so long as they leave me alone" ???

I for one, would welcome California secession.

[mconder]

Alexander Hamilton

To some, the devil incarnate. At first a Patriot, but once the Constitution was ratified, Hamilton immediately twisted the text and pushed for bigger government. Was the driving force behind the 1st National Bank, and his actions at the Whiskey Rebellion are despicable. On top of that, he cheated on his wife.

That's why you just have to love Andrew Jackson, the anti-Hamilton. He killed the bank and it stayed dead for 77 years.

[Galileo Galilei]

As a student of James Madison, I have speculated how he might have handled the crisis during the Civil War era:

(It is important to remember that between the time Madison was president, and the time of Lincoln, almost all of the Western world had freed their slaves, or was in the process of doing so, excepting the deep south and Brazil.)

1) Madison would not have orchestrated the "event" at Fort Sumter. Rather, he would have entered into honest negotiations.

2) Madison would have negotiated with the Upper South including Virginia, to keep them in the Union. Remember that the deep South seceded before Lincoln was sworn in, but not the Upper South.

3) During the time Madison was president elect, he would have taken initiatives to start a conference of negotiation, working with lame duck president Buchanan, the states, and the federal congress.

4) Madison would not have invaded the South without a declaration of war.

5) Madison would have stated the war aims at the outset, including preserving the Union and an emancipation plan.

6) Madison would not have suspended habeas corpus.

7) Madison would not have had political opponents arrested, nor would he shut down opposition newspapers.

8) Madison would have used Generals like McClellan who had respect for human life, and would have removed generals liek Sherman that committed war crimes. He would not have supported Grant's "war of attrition" tactics.

9) Madison would not have supported an income tax.

10) Madison would not have supported a draft.

In a nutshell, I think Madison would have organized a giant negotiation convention that would have accomplished the following:

1) The Fugitive Slave Act would be reverted back to the slave Act of 1793.

2) Tariffs reduced.

3) The Dred Scott decision overturned via either legislation or a Constitutional amendment.

4) An gradual emancipation plan for the Upper South modeled on successful plans in the North or the British Empire, with partial compensation for slaveowners funded by sale of Western lands.

5) A plan to help the South industrialize.

6) Frederick Douglass would be allowed to speak and be a voting representative at the conference. Douglass supported allowing freed slaves to move to a new colony in Florida. A large chunk of Flordia could have been set aside for freed blacks, as well as some chunks in the West. This is not to say all blacks would go there. It is a known fact that racism increases when the black population goes over a certain threshhold. This is still seen today, when Hillary Clinton beat Obam in Pennsylvania, but Obama won Iowa. Iowa, being mostly white, is less racist, than PA, which has about 11% blacks. Of course, racsim was much worse in 1860 than today.

7) For the Deep South, they either would be let go, or given more generous terms (slower emancipation) than the Upper South. The big problem with slavery was in the deep South. The congress, or the North, or maybe even Madison, may have been ready to use their power to protect the rights of black people in the deep South if they rejected reasonable negotiations.

One way to do this would be to allow blacks from the South to attend the conference. Under the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the Constitution, blacks have equal rights. By 1860, individual liberty was a recognized natural right.

[Galileo Galilei]

Oh one more thing....IT WAS AN INVASION OF A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY FOR CONQUEST. Missed that part?

The blacks were not allowed to vote in the secession talks.

[jonesohms]

I vote for Barack Obama, because he has the opportunity to stand up for liberty, and isn't.

[Bucjason]

The blacks were not allowed to vote in the secession talks.

lol, good point. Or women...the only ones who voted were the redneck southern farmers who were liqoured up and looking to pick a fight with those damn "nigga lovin yankees"...

Not exactly a legitimite reason for secession...

[Galileo Galilei]

only two votes for LBJ?

[RevolutionSD]

I noticed Ronald Ray-gun didn't get any votes. I guess this is because he did not start any major wars, and talked up small government. However, Reagan started this whole debt mess by raising the debt ceiling 3 times. He also blew up the size of gov't and expanded gov't far more than ol Jimmy Carter.

[Son of Detroit]

I noticed Ronald Ray-gun didn't get any votes. I guess this is because he did not start any major wars, and talked up small government. However, Reagan started this whole debt mess by raising the debt ceiling 3 times. He also blew up the size of gov't and expanded gov't far more than ol Jimmy Carter.

It's because compared to the other jackasses on here, he's not even close. Not nearly.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[hotbrownsauce]

That's a hard one. (Lincoln or Marshall....hmm..) I picked Marshall. I am surprised no one else did!! *Edit* Lincoln did receive the most votes so maybe it's not as bad as I thought.

P.S.
Marshall's court and big government votes paved the way for Lincoln.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

"But it is not from this branch of government we have most to fear. Taxes and short elections will keep them right. The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, "boni judicis est ampliare juris-dictionem." We shall see if they are bold enough to take the daring stride their five lawyers have lately taken. If they do, then, with the editor of our book, in his address to the public, I will say, that "against this every man should raise his voice," and more, should uplift his arm. Who wrote this admirable address? Sound, luminous, strong, not a word too much, nor one which can be changed but for the worse. That pen should go on, lay bare these wounds of our constitution, expose the decisions seriatim, and arouse, as it is able, the attention of the nation to these bold speculators on its patience. Having found, from experience, that impeachment is an impracticable thing, a mere scare-crow, they consider themselves secure for life; they sculk from responsibility to public opinion, the only remaining hold on them, under a practice first introduced into England by Lord Mansfield. An opinion is huddled up in conclave, perhaps by a majority of one, delivered as if unanimous, and with the silent acquiescence of lazy or timid associates, by a crafty chief judge, who sophisticates the law to his mind, by the turn of his own reasoning. A judiciary law was once reported by the Attorney General to Congress, requiring each judge to deliver his opinion seriatim and openly, and then to give it in writing to the clerk to be entered in the record. A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government."
-Thomas Jefferson


JAMES MADISON


"Critics of the decision also included James Madison, who as president of the United States (1809–1817) had signed the bill creating the Second Bank of the United States into law, and who generally supported most of the Supreme Court's nationalist rulings during the second decade of the nineteenth century. Despite this, he believed “that the occasion did not call for the general and abstract doctrine interwoven with the decision of the particular case.” The real danger of Marshall's decision, Madison believed, was “the high sanction given to a latitude in expounding the Constitution which seems to break down the landmarks intended by a specification of the powers of Congress, and to substitute for a definite connection between means and ends, a legislative discretion as to the former to which no practical limit can be assigned.” Among other things, the decision seemed to sanction a federal program of internal improvements. Such a program would have involved not only the building of roads, canals, and bridges, but also an assortment of educational, scientific, and literary institutions throughout the country. Both Jefferson and Madison favored such a program on policy grounds, but believed the jurisdictional problems raised by it were so complex and controversial that they could only be clarified through an amendment to the Constitution"

-James Madison

""In the great system of Political Economy having for its general object the national welfare,everything is related immediately or remotely to every other thing; and consiquently a Power of any one thing\, if not limited by some obvious andprecise affinity, may amountto a power over every other. Ends and meansmay shift their characgter at the will & according to the ingenuity of the Legislative Body. What is an end in one case may be a means in another; nay in the same case, may be either an end or means at the Legislative option."


Madison had an extremely harsh opinion of the Supreme Court's decision for giving congress latitude as to means "to which no practical limit can be assigned" (thus, he might have added, effectively rejecting the teaching of Madisons's Bonus Bill Veto Message). The court was abandoning its task of policing the limits of congressional authority;"

-James Madison

Dear Sir



I have recd. your favor of the 22d Ult inclosing a copy of your observations

on the Judgment of the Supreme Court of the U. S. in the case of M'Culloch

agst. the State of Maryland; and I have found their latitudinary mode of

expounding the Constitution, combated in them with the ability and the force

which were to be expected.



It appears to me as it does to you that the occasion did not call for the

general and abstract doctrine interwoven with the decision of the particular

case. I have always supposed that the meaning of a law, and for a like

reason, of a Constitution, so far as it depends on Judicial interpretation,

was to result from a course of particular decisions, and not these from a

previous and abstract comment on the subject. The example in this instance

tends to reverse the rule and to forego the illustration to be derived from

a series of cases actually occurring for adjudication.



I could have wished also that the Judges had delivered their opinions

seriatim. The case was of such magnitude, in the scope given to it, as to

call, if any case could do so, for the views of the subject separately taken

by them. This might either by the harmony of their reasoning have produced a

greater conviction in the Public mind; or by its discordance have impaired

the force of the precedent now ostensibly supported by a unanimous & perfect

concurrence in every argument & dictum in the judgment pronounced.



But what is of most importance is the high sanction given to a latitude in

expounding the Constitution which seems to break down the landmarks intended

by a specification of the Powers of Congress, and to substitute for a

definite connection between means and ends, a Legislative discretion as to

the former to which no practical limit can be assigned. In the great system

of Political Economy having for its general object the national welfare,

everything is related immediately or remotely to every other thing; and

consequently a Power over any one thing, if not limited by some obvious and

precise affinity, may amount to a Power over every other. Ends & means may

shift their character at the will & according to the ingenuity of the

Legislative Body. What is an end in one case may be a means in another; nay

in the same case, may be either an end or a means at the Legislative option.

The British Parliament in collecting a revenue from the commerce of America

found no difficulty in calling it either a tax for the regulation of trade,

or a regulation of trade with a view to the tax, as it suited the argument

or the policy of the moment.



Is there a Legislative power in fact, not expressly prohibited by the

Constitution, which might not, according to the doctrine of the Court, be

exercised as a means of carrying into effect some specified Power?



Does not the Court also relinquish by their doctrine, all controul on the

Legislative exercise of unconstitutional powers? According to that doctrine,

the expediency & constitutionality of means for carrying into effect a

specified Power are convertible terms; and Congress are admitted to be

Judges of the expediency. The Court certainly cannot be so; a question, the

moment it assumes the character of mere expediency or policy, being

evidently beyond the reach of Judicial cognizance.



It is true, the Court are disposed to retain a guardianship of the

Constitution against legislative encroachments. "Should Congress," say they,

"under the pretext of executing its Powers, pass laws for the accomplishment

of objects not entrusted to the Government, it would become the painful duty

of this Tribunal to say that such an act was not the law of the land." But

suppose Congress should, as would doubtless happen, pass unconstitutional

laws not to accomplish objects not specified in the Constitution, but the

same laws as means expedient, convenient or conducive to the accomplishment

of objects entrusted to the Government; by what handle could the Court take

hold of the case? We are told that it was the policy of the old Government

of France to grant monopolies, such as that of Tobacco, in order to create

funds in particular hands from which loans could be made to the Public,

adequate capitalists not being formed in that Country in the ordinary course

of commerce. Were Congress to grant a like monopoly merely to aggrandize

those enjoying it, the Court might consistently say, that this not being an

object entrusted to the Governt. the grant was unconstitutional and void.

Should Congress however grant the monopoly according to the French policy as

a means judged by them to be necessary, expedient or conducive to the

borrowing of money, which is an object entrusted to them by the

Constitution, it seems clear that the Court, adhering to its doctrine, could

not interfere without stepping on Legislative ground, to do which they

justly disclaim all pretension.



It could not but happen, and was foreseen at the birth of the Constitution,

that difficulties and differences of opinion might occasionally arise in

expounding terms & phrases necessarily used in such a charter; more

especially those which divide legislation between the General & local

Governments; and that it might require a regular course of practice to

liquidate & settle the meaning of some of them. But it was anticipated I

believe by few if any of the friends of the Constitution, that a rule of

construction would be introduced as broad & as pliant as what has occurred.

And those who recollect, and still more those who shared in what passed in

the State Conventions, thro' which the people ratified the Constitution,

with respect to the extent of the powers vested in Congress, cannot easily

be persuaded that the avowal of such a rule would not have prevented its

ratification. It has been the misfortune, if not the reproach, of other

nations, that their Govts. have not been freely and deliberately established

by themselves. It is the boast of ours that such has been its source and

that it can be altered by the same authority only which established it. It

is a further boast that a regular mode of making proper alterations has been

providently inserted in the Constitution itself. It is anxiously to be

wished therefore, that no innovations may take place in other modes, one of

which would be a constructive assumption of powers never meant to be

granted. If the powers be deficient, the legitimate source of additional

ones is always open, and ought to be resorted to.



Much of the error in expounding the Constitution has its origin in the use

made of the species of sovereignty implied in the nature of Govt. The

specified powers vested in Congress, it is said, are sovereign powers, and

that as such they carry with them an unlimited discretion as to the means of

executing them. It may surely be remarked that a limited Govt. may be

limited in its sovereignty as well with respect to the means as to the

objects of his powers; and that to give an extent to the former, superseding

the limits to the latter, is in effect to convert a limited into an

unlimited Govt. There is certainly a reasonable medium between expounding

the Constitution with the strictness of a penal law, or other ordinary

statute, and expounding it with a laxity which may vary its essential

character, and encroach on the local sovereignties with wch. it was meant to

be reconcilable.



The very existence of these local sovereignties is a controul on the pleas

for a constructive amplification of the powers of the General Govt. Within a

single State possessing the entire sovereignty, the powers given to the

Govt. by the People are understood to extend to all the Acts whether as

means or ends required for the welfare of the Community, and falling within

the range of just Govt. To withhold from such a Govt. any particular power

necessary or useful in itself, would be to deprive the people of the good

dependent on its exercise; since the power must be there or not exist at

all. In the Govt. of the U. S. the case is obviously different. In

establishing that Govt. the people retained other Govts. capable of

exercising such necessary and useful powers as were not to be exercised by

the General Govt. No necessary presumption therefore arises from the

importance of any particular power in itself, that it has been vested in

that Govt. because tho' not vested there, it may exist elsewhere, and the

exercise of it elsewhere might be preferred by those who alone had a right

to make the distribution. The presumption which ought to be indulged is that

any improvement of this distribution sufficiently pointed out by experience

would not be withheld.



Altho' I have confined myself to the single question concerning the rule of

interpreting the Constitution, I find that my pen has carried me to a length

which would not have been permitted by a recollection that my remarks are

merely for an eye to which no aspect of the subject is likely to be new. I

hasten therefore to conclude with assurances.

JAMES MADISON to THOMAS JEFFERSON


We arrive at the agitated question whether the Judicial Authority of the U.

S. be the constitutional resort for determining the line between the federal

& State jurisdictions. Believing as I do that the General Convention

regarded a provision within the Constitution for deciding in a peaceable &

regular mode all cases arising in the course of its operation, as essential

to an adequate System of Govt that it intended the Authority vested in the

Judicial Department as a final resort in relation to the States, for cases

resulting to it in the exercise of its functions, (the concurrence of the

Senate chosen by the State Legislatures, in appointing the Judges, and the

oaths & official tenures of these, with the surveillance of public Opinion,

being relied on as guarantying their impartiality), and that this intention

is expressed by the articles declaring that the federal Constitution & laws

shall be the supreme law of the land, and that the Judicial Power of the U.

S. shall extend to all cases arising under them. Believing moreover that

this was the prevailing view of the subject when the Constitution was

adopted & put into execution, that it has so continued thro' the long period

which has elapsed, and that even at this time an appeal to a national

decision would prove that no general change has taken place, thus believing

I have never yielded my original opinion indicated in the "Federalist" No.

39 to the ingenious reasonings of Col: Taylor agst. this construction of the

Constitution.


I am not unaware that the Judiciary career has not corresponded with what

was anticipated. At one period the Judges perverted the Bench of Justice

into a rostrum for partizan harangues. And latterly the Court, by some of

its decisions, still more by extrajudicial reasonings & dicta, has

manifested a propensity to enlarge the general authority in derogation of

the local, and to amplify its own jurisdiction, which has justly incurred

the public censure. But the abuse of a trust does not disprove its

existence. And if no remedy of the abuse be practicable under the forms of

the Constitution, I should prefer a resort to the Nation for an amendment of

the Tribunal itself, to continual appeals from its controverted decisions to

that Ultimate Arbiter.



In the year 1821, I was engaged in a correspondence with Judge Roane, which

grew out of the proceedings of the Supreme Court of the U. S. Having said so

much here I will send you a copy of my letters to him as soon as I can have

a legible one made, that a fuller view of my ideas with respect to them may

be before you.



I agree entirely with you on the subject of seriatim opinions by the Judges,

which you have placed in so strong a light in your letter to Judge Johnson,

whose example it seems is in favor of the practice. An argument addressed to

others, all of whose dislikes to it are not known, may be a delicate

experiment. My particular connexion with Judge Todd, whom I expect to see,

may tempt me to touch on the subject; and, if encouraged, to present views

of it wch. thro' him may find the way to his intimates.

[Galileo Galilei]

That's a hard one. (Lincoln or Marshall....hmm..) I picked Marshall. I am surprised no one else did!! *Edit* Lincoln did receive the most votes so maybe it's not as bad as I thought.

P.S.
Marshall's court and big government votes paved the way for Lincoln.

THOMAS JEFFERSON


JAMES MADISON


JAMES MADISON to THOMAS JEFFERSON

If Marshall were around today, he would be a small government conservative.