Libertarian Ranking of the Presidents

[Matt Collins]

Here is a libertarian ranking of US Presidents:
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/12/27/the-presidents-of-the-united-states-on-a-libertarian-scale/

(the one about Lincoln is hilarious):D:D:D

[Reason]

The Near Greats

1. Martin Van Buren (1837-1841)
Good: Deregulated finances (+5), supported gold and silver as money (+7),[1] (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo30.html) advocated lower tariffs (+4) and free trade (+4), opposed war abroad (+8),[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Van_Buren#Presidency_1837.E2.80.931841) kept federal troops out of Mormon War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_War_%281838%29) (+9), laissez-faire policies during Panic of 1837 (+9).[3] (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard184.html)
Bad: Implemented Trail of Tears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears) (-10).[4] (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory155.html)
Score: 34

2. Grover Cleveland (1885-1889, 1893-1897)
Good: Vetoed hundreds of pension expansion bills and other wasteful spending (+9), fought against numerous tariffs (+7), fought valiantly for gold standard (+10), despised imperialism and prevented American colonialism in the Congo (+10),[5] (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo73.html) appointed government employees by merit (+5), reduced number of government employees (+4),[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission) refused to annex Hawai'i (+9).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland#Foreign_policy.2C_1893.E2.80.9318 97)
Bad: Created Interstate Commerce Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission) (-2), Dawes Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Act) (-3), Scott Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Act_%281888%29) (-3), used Army to forcefully stop Pullman Strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike) (-10), pushed Britain out of Latin America with interventions/threats (-10).[8] (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html)
Score: 26

3. John Tyler (1841-1845)
Good: Vetoed Third Bank (+9) twice,[9] (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north545.html) vetoed tariff bill (+5),[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyler#Impeachment_attempt) ended Second Seminole War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Seminole_War) (+7), held back federal troops in Dorr Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorr_Rebellion) (+7), established trade with China (+2),[11] (http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/tyler/essays/biography/5) established role of Vice President while fending off Henry Clay (+2).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyler#.22His_Accidency.22)
Bad: Annexed Texas (led to war with Mexico) (-10).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Texas#Annexation)
Score: 20

4. Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)
Good: Oversaw Roaring Twenties (+5) and budget surpluses (+5), reduced national debt somewhat (+3), almost no inflation despite existence of Fed (+4),[14] (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/galles1.html) resisted federal crop pricing (+5),[15] (http://www.lewrockwell.com/bovard/bovard25.html) despised and minimized regulation (+9),[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge#Industry_and_trade) massively decreased income taxes but raised estate tax and created gift tax (+5),[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge#Finishing_Harding.27s_term) granted citizenship to Native Americans (+1),[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act_of_1924) anti-war but pro-self-defense Kellogg-Briand Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg-Briand_Pact) (+9),[19] (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lovinger1.html) withdrew from Dominican Republic (+8).[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge#Foreign_policy)
Bad: Signed race-based Immigration Act of 1924 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924) (-2), mismanaged Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 (-3),[] (http://mises.org/daily/2658) supported Mexico against rebels (-10) and maintained occupations of Nicaragua (-10) and Haiti (-10).[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge#Foreign_policy)
Score: 19

5. Zachary Taylor (1849-1850)
Good: Clayton-Bulwer Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton-Bulwer_Treaty) (+8), stopped Narciso López (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narciso_L%C3%B3pez)'s filibustering expedition to Cuba (+9), opposed Compromise of 1850 (+1).[22] (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard116.html)
Bad: Nothing.
Score: 18

6. Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877)
Good: General Mining Act of 1872 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mining_Act_of_1872) (+9), supported equal rights for blacks and Native Americans (Fifteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion)) (+4), favored but failed to institute civil service reform (+1),[23] (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard123.html#9) vetoed Inflation Bill of 1874 (+7), cut taxes (+6), lowered debt (+3), fired 2,248 government employees (+6),[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Economy) de facto gold standard (+8),[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1873) Specie Payment Resumption Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specie_Payment_Resumption_Act) (+7), avoided war with Spain/Cuba despite Virginius Affair (+9),[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Cuban_Insurrection) peaceful Treaty of Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Washington_%281871%29) (+6).
Bad: Created Office of Solicitor General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Solicitor_General) (-1), left Reconstruction violence problems to state militias instead of Army but kept some federal troops in South (-2),[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S_Grant#Reconstruction) Ku Klux Klan Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1871) that suspended habeas corpus (-9), wanted to annex Dominican Republic (-10),[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Santo_Domingo) intervened in Liberian-Grebo War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Liberian-Grebo_war) (-10), Comstock laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws) (censorship) (-5), anti-Mormon Poland Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_Act) (-8), Civil Rights Act of 1875 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875) (-9), numerous scandals (-2).[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_%28scandals%29)
Score: 10

[Brett]

Great list. I wonder if Obama will be worse or better than Bush.

"The Greats: None"
^ True, and sad :(

[YumYum]

I enjoyed reading this list. It definetely wouldn't make its way into a High School history book. I didn't agree with his point about Eisenhower sending troops to Little Rock.

[GunnyFreedom]

Claims Jefferson "started" the barbary Pirate's war. What a load of malarkey!

[t0rnado]

This should be printed out and handed to students.

[heavenlyboy34]

lol @ NS Allen's comment: "

N.S. Allen writes
December 27th, 2009 2:44 pm I think I’m going to hold onto this as a wonderful example of how crazy a lot of libertarian thinking is.
Nothing says “My political philosophy is ridiculous and would work horribly when applied to the real world” like listing van Buren, Coolidge, and, good God, Grant and Harding as “near great” presidents while condemning Lincoln and all of the Founding Father presidents to the “below average” and “failure” categories.


"

[BuddyRey]

Awesome! Where's the Digg?

[ChaosControl]

Some of the things are fun to read.


Good: Installed bathtub in White House

:D

[literatim]

21. John Adams (1797-1801)
Good: Nothing.
Bad: Unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts (-9),[90] appointed John Marshall to Supreme Court (-5),[91] Quasi-War (-10).
Score: -24

This is why I don't read random blogs.

The so-called Quasi War was nothing but the French hostilities toward the United States because they remained neutral in their war against Britain, so they started sinking American ships. The congress authorized the President to build a navy to defend against repeated assaults on American merchant ships.

The French did everything they could to start an outright war with America.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yeah, it becomes pretty clear that any sort of involvement in any sort of war whatever rates a -10 in this fellow's book, even if the action was purely responsive and completely defensive.

[BuddyRey]

http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Presidents_of_the_United_States_On_A_Libertari an_Scale

[parocks]

Yeah, it becomes pretty clear that any sort of involvement in any sort of war whatever rates a -10 in this fellow's book, even if the action was purely responsive and completely defensive.

This fella might be a bit libertarian, but certainly is antiwar.

Every bit of military action is a -10.

He seems awfully lenient to (Wilson and other Dems) - The Federal Income Tax is only a -9? Harrison Act a -9? Prohibition a -9?

Reagan gets -10 x 10 for a total of -100 for "funded murderous military groups" in 10 different countries.

[emazur]

Andrew Jackson did more than just not renew the charter of the Second BUS, he put everything on the line in order to get rid of it. Deserves at least another +10 for that.

[Ricky201]

His ranks are ok. I think "Recarving Rushmore" does a better job at ranking the President though.

[james1906]

I'm thinking this guy might be Mormon.

[1000-points-of-fright]

32. Barack Hussein Obama II (2009–)
Good: Ended federal prosecution of medical marijuana (But they're still raiding clinics), ordered closure of Guantánamo and end of torture (+9),[149] opposed and ended Iraq War (No he didn't),[150] improved government transparency (Don't make me laugh),[151] made efforts to improve relations with Muslims (+2),[152] sought worldwide disarming of nuclear weapons (+8).[153]

[justinc.1089]

I disagree a LOT with this person's rankings and reasons for the rankings.

For example, there is no way any president could beat out Lincoln for the worst president when Lincoln caused thousands of people to die for no good reason.

Also Washington, Jefferson, and Jackson were all pretty far down the list. I realize they all did some very non-libertarian things, but come on, they supported freedom way more than most of the presidents after them.

This has got me thinking about making my own ranking of the presidents sometime...

[SWATH]

The point deductions at least for Lincoln doth seem to be a smidge out of scale methinks.

"cotton industry takeover/cronyism (-9)...murdered 350,000 Americans (-10)"

[YumYum]

I'm thinking this guy might be Mormon.

I thought the same thing. That list reeked of Donny Osmond.:D

[Pauls' Revere]

Very Interesting! I found it to summarize our foreign policy throughout history. Interesting to note that Gerald Ford also pushed for swine flu vaccination. Wonder why our media never mentioned that fact that we had a swine flu pandemic and that the vaccination process back in the 70's was just as flawed.

[edit] H1N1
Ford was confronted with a potential swine flu pandemic. Sometime in the early 1970s, an influenza strain H1N1 shifted from a form of flu that affected primarily pigs and crossed over to humans. On February 5, 1976, an Army recruit at Fort Dix mysteriously died and four fellow soldiers were hospitalized; health officials announced that "swine flu" was the cause. Soon after, public health officials in the Ford administration urged that every person in the United States be vaccinated.[25] Although the vaccination program was plagued by delays and public relations problems, some 25% of the population was vaccinated by the time the program was canceled. The vaccine was blamed for twenty-five deaths; more people died from the shots than from the swine flu.[26]

[AggieforPaul]

The point deductions at least for Lincoln doth seem to be a smidge out of scale methinks.

"cotton industry takeover/cronyism (-9)...murdered 350,000 Americans (-10)"

lmao.

But the one under good, "did not finish 2nd term" was hilarious.

[fatjohn]

Jackson f***in' killed the bank! Should be like +50

[fisharmor]

Yeah, there are a lot of things I don't agree with...
For instance, what's up with not mentioning the National Firearms Act of 1934? Isn't it the very first federal gun control? Isn't that an early case of using tax code to enact federal bans?
Why is the Assault Weapons ban missing?
It seems to me that he's not very fond of the red meat libertarian issues, and chooses to concentrate on the tofu side.

[Bucjason]

The point deductions at least for Lincoln doth seem to be a smidge out of scale methinks.

"cotton industry takeover/cronyism (-9)...murdered 350,000 Americans (-10)"

Some would say freeing 4 million SLAVES would be the final result of the Civil War, not the "murder" of Americans.

Besides, if two opposing armies meet on a battlefield , and someone gets killed, you were NOT Murdered. The statement that Lincoln single-handidly murdered them is untruthful, and is simply anti-war emotional rhetoric that is not based in fact. To follow this logic, you could pass the blame of the murder of 350,000 , in all honesty, to the founding fathers . Why? Because in order to come to an agreement on a new government , they refused to deal with an issue they knew was hypocritical to thier claims of liberty , and certain to be a HUGE problem down the road. All our founders did was "kick the can down the road" until Lincoln came along. So if you want to claim that the end result of a war is the "murder" of the loser, then there is PLENTY of blame to go around.


But I've quickly learned on this board that abolishing slavery is not a high priority to libertarians...

[South Park Fan]

Some would say freeing 4 million SLAVES would be the final result of the Civil War, not the "murder" of Americans.

Besides, if two opposing armies meet on a battlefield , and someone gets killed, you were NOT Murdered. The statement that Lincoln single-handidly murdered them is untruthful, and is simply anti-war emotional rhetoric that is not based in fact. To follow this logic, you could pass the blame of the murder of 350,000 , in all honesty, to the founding fathers . Why? Because in order to come to an agreement on a new government , they refused to deal with an issue they knew was hypocritical to thier claims of liberty , and certain to be a HUGE problem down the road. All our founders did was "kick the can down the road" until Lincoln came along. So if you want to claim that the end result of a war is the "murder" of the loser, then there is PLENTY of blame to go around.


But I've quickly learned on this board that abolishing slavery is not a high priority to libertarians...

If you manipulate someone into starting a fight with you, are you not responsible for their and your injuries? If so, then why would it be any different when done at the national level? Abolishing slavery was a low priority for Lincoln, as he was more concerned with the revenue that was lost when the Southern states seceded. He only used slavery as a political tactic. Since you seem to be feigning concern over the slaves, it is worth bringing up that Lysander Spooner, William Lloyd Garisson, and other prominent abolitionists at the time wanted the North to secede from the slaveholding South. Additionally, if people aren't free to secede from their government, is that not slavery in itself?

[TCE]

Some would say freeing 4 million SLAVES would be the final result of the Civil War, not the "murder" of Americans.

Besides, if two opposing armies meet on a battlefield , and someone gets killed, you were NOT Murdered. The statement that Lincoln single-handidly murdered them is untruthful, and is simply anti-war emotional rhetoric that is not based in fact. To follow this logic, you could pass the blame of the murder of 350,000 , in all honesty, to the founding fathers . Why? Because in order to come to an agreement on a new government , they refused to deal with an issue they knew was hypocritical to thier claims of liberty , and certain to be a HUGE problem down the road. All our founders did was "kick the can down the road" until Lincoln came along. So if you want to claim that the end result of a war is the "murder" of the loser, then there is PLENTY of blame to go around.


But I've quickly learned on this board that abolishing slavery is not a high priority to libertarians...


Why didn't Lincoln just buy all of the slaves and set them free? Why was a war necessary? At the very least, he could have bought all of Virginia's slaves and set them free, that way, Virginia would have no reason to secede and the South would have realized that war was never going to work. There would be two separate countries, but if Lincoln had offered the slave owners enough money, they would have set their slaves free and the Union would be whole again. None of those involve the death of over a quarter of a million people.

[fisharmor]

None of those involve the death of over a quarter of a million people.

Your number is off by a factor of three.... it was 750,000, not 250,000.
And you know what, Bucjason? I think I'm pretty comfortable saying that the death of one citizen for every 5 slaves freed is a pretty steep price to pay. Particularly considering the facts that there was already enormous social pressure to get rid of slavery, that slavery had already been peacefully abolished everywhere else in the western world at that point, that industrialization would have killed the institution in 20 to 30 years anyway, and that the war was, like today's war, just a cover-up for the destruction of our liberties.

Getting rid of slavery was a good thing. But the economics of the situation just don't add up.

[Todd]

Obama: opposed and ended Iraq War (+8) :confused:


Uh...what's this guy smokin'?

[RyanRSheets]

I would hardly put Reagan in 40th place, nor would I put Jefferson or Andrew Jackson below average. It should be pretty clear, by now, that the Federal Reserve is the biggest obstruction to Liberty in existence.

Regardless, this article is very educational and exposes some things a lot of people don't realize about our presidents.

[paulpwns]

32. Barack Hussein Obama II (2009–)
Good: Ended federal prosecution of medical marijuana (But they're still raiding clinics), ordered closure of Guantánamo and end of torture (+9),[149] opposed and ended Iraq War (No he didn't),[150] improved government transparency (Don't make me laugh),[151] made efforts to improve relations with Muslims (+2),[152] sought worldwide disarming of nuclear weapons (+8).[153]

Since when has a clinic been raided since the official statement by Holder?
Since Obama made his DEA appointments there hasn't been any raids. If you have a link id love to see it.

[Bucjason]

If you manipulate someone into starting a fight with you, are you not responsible for their and your injuries? If so, then why would it be any different when done at the national level? Abolishing slavery was a low priority for Lincoln, as he was more concerned with the revenue that was lost when the Southern states seceded. Additionally, if people aren't free to secede from their government, is that not slavery in itself?

Manipulated into a fight ?? You are suggesting the Confederacy were totally pure and innocent, and were simply just manipulated ?? Please, get serious.

Slavery was not Lincoln's top priority , but keeping slavery was a HUGE priority of the South. Just read the state's declarations of secession if you don't believe me.



Yes. You are free to secede from ANY oppressive government, as stated in the Declararion of Independence. What you are NOT free to do, is to secede because you want the ability to deny other's thier constitutional and human rights .

Also, a secession also involves the consent of the governed. How many of the enslaved were allowed to vote on whether they wanted secession or not ?? Try Zero.



You so-called "libertarian's" seem to place a lower value on individual rights , than you place on the state's( local government) right to absolute tyranny and injustices. The logic is hypocritical and pathetic...

[GunnyFreedom]

Manipulated into a fight ?? You are suggesting the Confederacy were totally pure and innocent, and were simply just manipulated ?? Please, get serious.

Slavery was not Lincoln's top priority , but keeping slavery was a HUGE priority of the South. Just read the state's declarations of secession if you don't believe me.



Yes. You are free to secede from ANY oppressive government, as stated in the Declararion of Independence. What you are NOT free to do, is to secede because you want the ability to deny other's thier constitutional and human rights .

Also, a secession also involves the consent of the governed. How many of the enslaved were allowed to vote on whether they wanted secession or not ?? Try Zero.



You so-called "libertarian's" seem to place a lower value on individual rights , than you place on the state's( local government) right to absolute tyranny and injustices. The logic is hypocritical and pathetic...

if you want to be taken seriously, then I suggest you stop lying about other people's positions in order to score rhetorical and emotional points within a debate.

I, for one, oppose slavery with every fiber of my being, and I am willing to bet that the vast majority of everybody else here does also.

Your continued assertion that we favor slavery is a disgusting tactic favored by the intellectually and the morally bankrupt, who try to frame and shape a debate based on falsely created emotional content rather than actual facts and data. I, for one am OUTRAGED at being painted as someone who would ever, in any universe, support the concept or the institution of slavery.

That said, the civil war was absolutely unnecessary to end slavery. Every other developed nation on earth ended the disgusting practice without a civil war, and Lincoln's actions were based purely on power and economics, and NOT on the ideas of liberty.

You should apologize for your disgusting mischaracterizations here. You know damn good and well that nobody here supports slavery, and yet you said it anyway, because you hoped to shape the debate with emotion rather than reason. That is pathetic and cowardly, and something I would expect from an OBAMATON. :mad:

[GunnyFreedom]

Where libertarians here differ with the mainstream, is not in opposition to slavery, but in how best it should have been abolished. And you know that. So will you have the intestinal fortitude and moral and intellectual integrity to issue an apology here, or not?

[Theriot]

Obama- murdered three Somalis (-10)

First of all, how does this seemingly non-significant event in the scheme of things deserve a -10? And why was this a negative anyway, this was not an attack on another nation. The US military had every right to respond.

[GunnyFreedom]

Obama- murdered three Somalis (-10)

First of all, how does this seemingly non-significant event in the scheme of things deserve a -10? And why was this a negative anyway, this was not an attack on another nation. The US military had every right to respond.

Agree, this was one of the few military operations we have done RIGHT in the last decade... The fellow at this site seems to be one of those "roll over and die" pacifists, far more than he is actually a libertarian.

[james1906]

Some would say freeing 4 million SLAVES would be the final result of the Civil War, not the "murder" of Americans.

Besides, if two opposing armies meet on a battlefield , and someone gets killed, you were NOT Murdered. The statement that Lincoln single-handidly murdered them is untruthful, and is simply anti-war emotional rhetoric that is not based in fact. To follow this logic, you could pass the blame of the murder of 350,000 , in all honesty, to the founding fathers . Why? Because in order to come to an agreement on a new government , they refused to deal with an issue they knew was hypocritical to thier claims of liberty , and certain to be a HUGE problem down the road. All our founders did was "kick the can down the road" until Lincoln came along. So if you want to claim that the end result of a war is the "murder" of the loser, then there is PLENTY of blame to go around.


But I've quickly learned on this board that abolishing slavery is not a high priority to libertarians...

Slavery was just a minor issue with the Civil War.

[heavenlyboy34]

Slavery was just a minor issue with the Civil War.

qft. Bucjackson needs to go back to the other threads where this subject was debated extensively to get educated.

[GunnyFreedom]

qft. Bucjackson needs to go back to the other threads where this subject was debated extensively to get educated.

I am still offended -- deeply offended at this nonsense that we supposedly support slavery, and am waiting for an apology which will apparently never come. :mad: I know he's seen my posts by now, and his silence is deafening.

[heavenlyboy34]

I am still offended -- deeply offended at this nonsense that we supposedly support slavery, and am waiting for an apology which will apparently never come. :mad: I know he's seen my posts by now, and his silence is deafening.

You are certainly right to be deeply offended, as I am also. It's very disheartening to see that kind of stuff on RPFs. :mad::(

[james1906]

http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/00396/picturegallery1_clip_image001.gif

Please note the border states had a significant number of slaves, yet chose to stay in the Union. The Civil War had other factors.

[GunnyFreedom]

But I've quickly learned on this board that abolishing slavery is not a high priority to libertarians...

I'm calling you out, where the hell are you? :mad:

[South Park Fan]

Manipulated into a fight ?? You are suggesting the Confederacy were totally pure and innocent, and were simply just manipulated ?? Please, get serious.

Slavery was not Lincoln's top priority , but keeping slavery was a HUGE priority of the South. Just read the state's declarations of secession if you don't believe me.



Yes. You are free to secede from ANY oppressive government, as stated in the Declararion of Independence. What you are NOT free to do, is to secede because you want the ability to deny other's thier constitutional and human rights .

Also, a secession also involves the consent of the governed. How many of the enslaved were allowed to vote on whether they wanted secession or not ?? Try Zero.



You so-called "libertarian's" seem to place a lower value on individual rights , than you place on the state's( local government) right to absolute tyranny and injustices. The logic is hypocritical and pathetic...

If you are going to quote me, quote me in full, and include where I show the secessionist sympathies of many antebellum abolitionists. There is no point in further debating with someone as uneducated on the subject as yourself. Read The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked and come back for further discussion on the topic.

[Bucjason]

Slavery was just a minor issue with the Civil War.

It was one of the major to the south . Once again, read the secession papers . I've posted them on here before in other threads . A Right to Slavery is one of the 1st reasons given for the secession.

Alot of revisionist history going on here.

[Bucjason]

if you want to be taken seriously, then I suggest you stop lying about other people's positions in order to score rhetorical and emotional points within a debate.

I, for one, oppose slavery with every fiber of my being, and I am willing to bet that the vast majority of everybody else here does also.

Your continued assertion that we favor slavery is a disgusting tactic favored by the intellectually and the morally bankrupt, who try to frame and shape a debate based on falsely created emotional content rather than actual facts and data. I, for one am OUTRAGED at being painted as someone who would ever, in any universe, support the concept or the institution of slavery.

That said, the civil war was absolutely unnecessary to end slavery. Every other developed nation on earth ended the disgusting practice without a civil war, and Lincoln's actions were based purely on power and economics, and NOT on the ideas of liberty.

You should apologize for your disgusting mischaracterizations here. You know damn good and well that nobody here supports slavery, and yet you said it anyway, because you hoped to shape the debate with emotion rather than reason. That is pathetic and cowardly, and something I would expect from an OBAMATON. :mad:
You are right . The civil war was unnecessary. The south could have accepted the terms of the Emancipation Proclamation , freed the slaves, and the North would no longer have had any moral grounds to continue the war. The Confederacy could have remained sovereign and intact. But the Confederacy didn't want to do that , did they?? Why?? Because, unlike these other countries you mention, that ended slavery peacefully, the Confederacy planned to base it's ENTIRE economy on FREE SLAVE LABOR. So , obviously it wasn't as easy a negotiation as you make out. ( Lincoln, at one point, even offered money per released slave, and was denied) These are histortical facts you can not deny. Your blind defense of the Confederacy as innocent victims in the whole ordeal is laughable to any lover of freedom....

Now to address your indignation: I never said you are in favor of slavery, I said you are AGAINST SLAVERY , AS LONG AS IT DOESN"T INTERFERE WITH A STATE'S SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO ENSLAVE YOU.

That is a ridiculous and hypocritical argument. If it upsets you , then too bad. The shoe fits ...

[Bucjason]

qft. Bucjackson needs to go back to the other threads where this subject was debated extensively to get educated.

I was a part of those other threads , genius. I see you are commited to revisionist history in other areas also....

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=219292&highlight=confederacy&page=23

Nice try....and by the way you lost those other debates also. JMDrake and I took you to school, but you consistently side-stepped the FACTS which you could not deny and just repeated your Dixie-land talking points....

[GunnyFreedom]

You are right . The civil war was unnecessary. The south could have accepted the terms of the Emancipation Proclamation , freed the slaves, and the North would no longer have had any moral grounds to continue the war. The Confederacy could have remained sovereign and intact. But the Confederacy didn't want to do that , did they?? Why?? Because, unlike these other countries you mention, that ended slavery peacefully, the Confederacy planned to base it's ENTIRE economy on FREE SLAVE LABOR. So , obviously it wasn't as easy a negotiation as you make out. ( Lincoln, at one point, even offered money per released slave, and was denied) These are histortical facts you can not deny. Your blind defense of the Confederacy as innocent victims in the whole ordeal is laughable to any lover of freedom....

Now to address your indignation: I never said you are in favor of slavery, I said you are AGAINST SLAVERY , AS LONG AS IT DOESN"T INTERFERE WITH A STATE'S SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO ENSLAVE YOU.

That is a ridiculous and hypocritical argument. If it upsets you , then too bad. The shoe fits ...

That's STILL a mischaracterization of my position. Do you feel proud of yourself for being a liar? Do you go home, look in the mirror, and say, "Now THERE is the kind of LIAR I like to see!" ???

[GunnyFreedom]

You are right . The civil war was unnecessary. The south could have accepted the terms of the Emancipation Proclamation , freed the slaves, and the North would no longer have had any moral grounds to continue the war. The Confederacy could have remained sovereign and intact. But the Confederacy didn't want to do that , did they?? Why?? Because, unlike these other countries you mention, that ended slavery peacefully, the Confederacy planned to base it's ENTIRE economy on FREE SLAVE LABOR. So , obviously it wasn't as easy a negotiation as you make out. ( Lincoln, at one point, even offered money per released slave, and was denied) These are histortical facts you can not deny. Your blind defense of the Confederacy as innocent victims in the whole ordeal is laughable to any lover of freedom....

Now to address your indignation: I never said you are in favor of slavery, I said you are AGAINST SLAVERY , AS LONG AS IT DOESN"T INTERFERE WITH A STATE'S SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO ENSLAVE YOU.

That is a ridiculous and hypocritical argument. If it upsets you , then too bad. The shoe fits ...

Here, instead of just telling everybody what they think and being wrong, what happens when you actually ASK them?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=224612

[GunnyFreedom]

Within 15 minutes of opening the poll, the vote was 0-13. 100% stating that you, Bucjason, are wrong. Now, I gave you the opportunity to retract your vicious and fallacious attack, and you chose to hide away for a day. I still gave you that opportunity, but instead you choose to reassert your falsehood, vehemently. Now I present proof (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=224612).

Will you, or will you not retract your false and vicious attack? Or do we have to start calling you the "Ben Stein" of Ron Paul Forums?

[malkusm]

Since when has a clinic been raided since the official statement by Holder?
Since Obama made his DEA appointments there hasn't been any raids. If you have a link id love to see it.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-03-26/bay-area/17213638_1_marijuana-dispensary-medical-marijuana-medicinal-purposes

[malkusm]

Methinks that Liberty Forest should comprise their own rankings of the Presidents and add it to the Wiki. Who's on board? I'll be glad to contribute... :)

[GunnyFreedom]

You are right . The civil war was unnecessary. The south could have accepted the terms of the Emancipation Proclamation , freed the slaves, and the North would no longer have had any moral grounds to continue the war. The Confederacy could have remained sovereign and intact. But the Confederacy didn't want to do that , did they?? Why?? Because, unlike these other countries you mention, that ended slavery peacefully, the Confederacy planned to base it's ENTIRE economy on FREE SLAVE LABOR. So , obviously it wasn't as easy a negotiation as you make out. ( Lincoln, at one point, even offered money per released slave, and was denied) These are histortical facts you can not deny. Your blind defense of the Confederacy as innocent victims in the whole ordeal is laughable to any lover of freedom....

Now to address your indignation: I never said you are in favor of slavery, I said you are AGAINST SLAVERY , AS LONG AS IT DOESN"T INTERFERE WITH A STATE'S SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO ENSLAVE YOU.

That is a ridiculous and hypocritical argument. If it upsets you , then too bad. The shoe fits ...

27-0 -- 100% says YOU'RE WRONG. Are you going to man-up and acknowledge that there is a universe outside of your closed mind, or continue to be a coward and continue to pretend to believe your own lies?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Methinks that Liberty Forest should comprise their own rankings of the Presidents and add it to the Wiki. Who's on board? I'll be glad to contribute... :)

I'm up for this.

Gunny we've been through this with Buc in the other thread.

I suppose Buc isn't aware that the Native Americans sided and fought with the Confederacy. The Confederacy also promised freedom for many blacks who fought for them. You would be surprised how many abolitionists were in the South compared to the North (A lot more in the South than North). Slavery was on its way out. Lincoln fought for power and money, plain and simple.

Also, to Buc. Slavery wasn't free. They had to pay for the slaves first, then they had to clothe, feed, and house slaves throughout their lifetime. The coming Industrial Revolution would have made slavery obsolete. I also give a lot of fault on our Founders for putting the notion of a "Union" above what was the moral choice. They compromised on this for the sake of a larger country, which to me is abhorrent. :(

I would have liked to see Virginia their own Nation since Jefferson was accomplishing a lot trying to get rid of it. Once the Nation (Union) was created, it completely turned that upside down.

[erowe1]

27-0 -- 100% says YOU'RE WRONG. Are you going to man-up and acknowledge that there is a universe outside of your closed mind, or continue to be a coward and continue to pretend to believe your own lies?

There were also great examples of classical liberalism and libertarianism at the time of the civil war who were both adamantly opposed to slavery and adamantly opposed to the military actions of the north against the south, including (among many others I'm sure) Lysander Spooner, Lord Acton, and (at least at one point in time) Frederick Douglas. It wasn't that they were putting states rights above individual rights. It was that they saw the empowerment of the federal government to rule the states by conquest, rather than to serve them by consent, as the harbinger of tyranny. And they turned out to be right about that. We could have and should have ended slavery without that. Like I mentioned in the other thread, part of what allowed slavery to continue in the slave states was not too little federal government power over the states, but too much, exhibited in the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850.

[Bucjason]

27-0 -- 100% says YOU'RE WRONG. Are you going to man-up and acknowledge that there is a universe outside of your closed mind, or continue to be a coward and continue to pretend to believe your own lies?

Dude , you are insane .

You do realize that some of us actually have to work during the day , and can't sit on Liberty Forest all day ,making poll up poll questions, and posting every 5 minutes to ask why the other person is a coward and hasn't responded yet, LOL.

Relax , I will respond to you when I have time , you nut-case.

Now, let's move on to your non-point : If you don't believe that a state has a right to enslave people , then aren't you conceeding that I am correct when I say that the Confederacy was wrong, and it's claim of secession illegitimate?? Wasn't it as much at fault as Lincoln was??

The only argument any of you have been able to muster is , " Slavery wasn't even Lincoln's #1 priority" . This is irrelevant , because the south BELIEVED Lincoln WOULD free the slaves. Many of them began talking of secession the day he was elected. ALL Confederate States mentioned the Right to Slavery as one of the MAIN reasons for secession in thier Declaration of Secession. Not one of you has attempted to counter this argument , because you can't . It is documented historical fact.

Get off your Dixie-Land high horse. Your "poll" has only made my case even stronger. The Confederacy was as much at fault for the 350,000 deaths as Lincoln was. Not to mention our founding fathers , who refused to deal with the slavery issue , just so they could perserve the Union , and culminating in an almost unavoidable disaster .

[RyanRSheets]

blah blah blah

I don't know how to respond to your silly blabbering. I'm not even going to try.

[Dieseler]

I do, but I'll let this guy do the talking.


Dear Glenn,

First of all, congratulations on deciding to become a community organizer for the cause of liberty and prosperity, as reported all over the media recently. You will be a stark contrast to the Marxist in the White House who boasts of his “community organizing” efforts for the exact opposite cause, ACORN-style socialism as defined by its “People’s Platform.” (His nationalization of banks, General Motors, and possibly health care, and his administration’s bombastic, anti-capitalist rhetoric, reminds me a lot of Lenin’s first months in power.)

Glenn, I’m writing to offer a few suggestions with regard to your upcoming community organizing efforts, which I’m sure will attract huge media attention and could potentially be very influential. First, you really need to “man up” those “Five Pledges” of yours, especially Pledges 1 and 2. There you say you are in favor of a balanced budget, and that government should not increase the financial burden on taxpayers “during difficult economic times.”

I certainly agree with the last part of this statement. Raising taxes during a depression is exactly the opposite of what even a central-planning Keynesian would advocate. This only highlights the fact that Obama is not a Keynesian central planner, as Democratic presidents usually are (and most Republicans as well), but a central planner of the Marxian variety. Marxists want to destroy the existing economic system, creating a social catastrophe that they hope will allow them to foment a revolution and consolidate their political power. Keynesians are merely neo-mercantilists who use Keynesian ideology to pull the wool over the public’s eyes with regard to their policy of perpetual political plunder under the guise of a perpetual quest for prosperity.

But come on, Glenn, don’t fall for that Big Government propaganda line about the alleged virtues of a balanced budget. What the government establishment means by budgetary balance is a devotion to endless tax increases to fund all of their pie-in-the-sky special-interest spending programs. According to this propaganda line a doubling, tripling, or quadrupling of government spending, and the consequent shrinking of private-sector prosperity, is perfectly fine as long as taxes are also doubled, tripled, or quadrupled at the same time. Americans already pay more in taxes than medieval serfs did, so what’s so good about waiting for “good economic times” to be plundered and robbed even more?

I notice that you frequently display a picture of Thomas Jefferson on the television screen during your Fox News Channel program. You would do well to dump those first two pledges and, in their place, adopt what Mr. Jefferson said in his first inaugural address:

[A] wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government . . .

Saying that government “shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned” means there should be no taxes on earnings. If you’re serious about calling yourself a Jeffersonian, Glenn, you would advocate the total elimination of income taxation (for starters), and not potentially endless increases of it “during good times.” You should also abandon that Pledge #3 about “energy independence.” Such rhetoric is just another protectionist smokescreen, no different from those who insist that we must free ourselves of foreign beef, tomatoes, cars, etc. Isolating ourselves from the international division of labor is a good recipe for economic disaster.

Your pledge #5 is also highly problematic. You say, “I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will not apologize for policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet.” The problem with this is that you equate “the United States of America” with the federal government. I think your confusion stems for a misunderstanding of the difference between nationalism and patriotism. A nationalist, as my old friend Clyde Wilson has said, is someone who promotes the aggrandizement of the state in all its “glory.” A patriot, in sharp contrast, is someone who simply loves his country and its people.

Your statement is way too nationalistic. It seems to be a version of the neocon propaganda line that “We saved Europe from the Nazis in World War II, therefore, every successive military intervention, no matter how misguided, and no matter how many innocent foreigners are murdered, is justified. The rest of the world should just shut up.” This is what the neocons at the Claremont Institute and the American Enterprise Institute would call “statesmanship,” but “arrogant, imperialistic propaganda” would be more accurate.

Good luck with the Washington, D.C. rally that you’re planning for next August at the Lincoln Memorial. One more suggestion: Hold the rally at the Jefferson Memorial instead. Lincoln was a tyrant who waged total war on his own citizens, orchestrating the murder of some 350,000 of them, including 50,000 Southern civilians. Jefferson was the founding generation’s champion of liberty. In his first inaugural address Lincoln first made an ironclad defense of slavery, including a promise to support its enshrinement in the U.S. Constitution, while threatening “bloodshed” and “invasion” over tax collection. He said it was his “duty to collect the duties and imposts,” and “beyond that there will not be an invasion of any state.” The tariff on imports had just been doubled two days earlier. “Pay Up or Die” was his message.

Contrast this, Glenn, with what Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural address: “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” This could not possibly be more different from Lincoln’s “Do As I Say Or Die” commandment. After all, secession or “separation” from the British Empire is how America was created. Secession was “the” principle of the American Revolution according to George Washington’s Secretary of State, Timothy Pickering. Since the theme of your television program on the Fox News Channel is “Refounding America,” I think you should highlight and discuss the right of secession and its virtues on your program every single day. It is probably the only real hope that we have to escape Obammunism.

If you’re not convinced, consider this: In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly, Jefferson wrote that “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern . . . and did I now foresee a separation [i.e., secession] at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern . . .” In an August 12, 1803 letter to his friend John Breckenridge on the subject of the New England Federalists, who were at that time threatening to secede from the union, Jefferson said that if there were a “separation” then “God bless them both [North and South] & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”

As you can see, Glenn, Lincoln was in many ways the anti-Jefferson, which is to say, an enemy of liberty. Consider Mr. Jefferson’s most famous publication, The Declaration of Independence. In that document the states are said to be “free and independent.” Lincoln disagreed and waged total war on the Southern states to “prove” himself right. They were not free and independent, he insisted, despite the clear language of the Declaration and of all the other founding documents on this matter.

In his “Train of Abuses” condemnation of the King of Great Britain Jefferson said “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly...” Lincoln imprisoned members of the Maryland legislature, deported a Democratic congressman, and imposed military rule on parts of the South that became conquered territory during the war. This is no different from what King George III did.

“He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone,” Jefferson wrote. By suspending habeas corpus and imprisoning tens of thousands of Northern citizens without any due process, Lincoln made his will the law of the land, just as King George III had done.

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance,” said Jefferson in the Declaration. Myriad new bureaucracies, including an internal revenue bureaucracy, were created to run the occupied states during the war, and all states after the war.

“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.” This is exactly what Lincoln did by suspending the writ of habeas corpus and ordering the mass arrest of thousands of political dissenters in the North during the war.

“He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.” The legislatures of the Southern states did not invite a federal invasion, as required by the “insurrection clause” of the U.S. Constitution in cases of insurrections, which did not exist anyway in 1861. The Party of Lincoln kept standing armies in the South for a decade after the war while the states were ruled as military dictatorships under the direction of the Republican Party.

“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws . . .” Lincoln ignored the Constitution completely. Nowhere is a president given the constitutional authority to invade his own country, suspend habeas corpus, wage war without consent of Congress, deport congressmen, shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers, etc., etc.

“For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.” Lincoln blockaded Southern ports during the war, and was a lifelong protectionist of the worst kind. His party imposed average tariffs in the 50 percent range for almost half a century after the war.

“For imposing taxes on us without consent.” The South did not consent to paying a doubled import tariff. Lincoln kept the promise that he made in his first inaugural address and launched a military invasion of the entire South to force them to pay “his” duties and imposts.

“For depriving us in many cases, of the right of Trial by jury.” How else could one describe Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus?

“He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coast, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies, of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny.” Well, Southerners certainly weren’t “protected” by Lincoln’s invasion of their country; Southern ports were blockaded and Southern ships were sunk; entire Southern towns were burned to the ground by the Union Army under Sherman and others; the lives of some 350,000 Southerners were snuffed out; hundreds of thousands of European mercenaries were paid to wage war on American citizens by the Lincoln regime. “Death, desolation and tyranny” is a perfect description of the Lincoln administration.

Glenn, I know that you have praised Lincoln for “persevering” in his mass murder of fellow citizens from the Southern states until he finally “prevailed.” This of course is an essential part of the neocon/Lincoln Cult party line. It has been repeated endlessly on your own Fox News Channel by all those neocons who keep telling us that we should never, ever, withdraw our military from the Middle East until “the job is finished” (which would probably be long after we are both dead, if ever). But did you know that all other countries of the world that ended slavery in the 19th century, the British, Dutch, Spaniards, French, Danes, Swedes – all did so peacefully without a war? And did you know that slavery was also ended peacefully in all of the Northern states, including New York where slavery still existed in the early 1850s? (See the book, Slavery in New York.) I highly recommend that you read Jim Powell’s excellent book, Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery, which describes in great detail how the rest of the world ended slavery peacefully instead of using slaves as political pawns in a war that was not about them but was a struggle for political power, as all wars are.

This calls into question the fairy tale about Lincoln and emancipation that all Lincoln Cultists repeat endlessly. The war was all a part of some grand strategy to free the slaves, they tell us. But what kind of “statesman” would ignore all of world history including the history of his own country (in the Northern states) with regard to how slavery was ended and plunge his country into the bloodiest war in human history up to that point? Is this “grand strategy” that caused the death of almost 700,000 Americans and maimed several times that number for life a praiseworthy one?

Glenn, if you are upset about the Fed and its showering of corporate welfare on Wall Street banksters and myriad other fat-cat corporations, you should also know that Lincoln spent his entire adult life championing the “American System” of Alexander Hamilton, which was the only policy plank of the Whig Party that Lincoln belonged to for more than twenty years before becoming a Republican. The “American System,” which was really the corrupt British mercantilist system designed for America, involved a central bank that would print money to finance corporate welfare for railroad corporations and others, along with high, protectionist tariffs which are also, of course, a form of corporate welfare. It was Lincoln’s National Currency Acts that resurrected central banking in America and led to the creation of the Fed. No member of the old Whig Party was a more forceful proponent of central banking – a bank run by politicians out of the nation’s capital – than Abraham Lincoln was.

What Lincoln’s Whig Party (which morphed into the Republican Party after the Whig Party imploded in the early 1850s) stood for was perfectly described by the famous playwright and law partner of Clarence Darrow, Edgar Lee Masters of Illinois, in his book, Lincoln the Man. It was a “political system which doles favors to the strong in order to win and to keep their adherence to the government. [It] offered shelter to devious schemes and corrupt enterprises . . . [and] a people taxed to make profits for enterprises that cannot stand alone . . . . Its principles were plunder and nothing else.”

In light of this, I think it would be an absurd farce to hold a rally protesting the Fed, corporate welfare, bailouts, Big Government, etc. at the Lincoln Memorial. Thomas Jefferson opposed every one of these policies, as did his political heirs, the big majority of whom were Democrats and neither Whigs nor Republicans. Hold the rally at the Jefferson Memorial. Best of luck to you.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Dude , you are insane .

You do realize that some of us actually have to work during the day , and can't sit on Liberty Forest all day ,making poll up poll questions, and posting every 5 minutes to ask why the other person is a coward and hasn't responded yet, LOL.

Relax , I will respond to you when I have time , you nut-case.

Now, let's move on to your non-point : If you don't believe that a state has a right to enslave people , then aren't you conceeding that I am correct when I say that the Confederacy was wrong, and it's claim of secession illegitimate?? Wasn't it as much at fault as Lincoln was??

The only argument any of you have been able to muster is , " Slavery wasn't even Lincoln's #1 priority" . This is irrelevant , because the south BELIEVED Lincoln WOULD free the slaves. Many of them began talking of secession the day he was elected. ALL Confederate States mentioned the Right to Slavery as one of the MAIN reasons for secession in thier Declaration of Secession. Not one of you has attempted to counter this argument , because you can't . It is documented historical fact.

Get off your Dixie-Land high horse. Your "poll" has only made my case even stronger. The Confederacy was as much at fault for the 350,000 deaths as Lincoln was. Not to mention our founding fathers , who refused to deal with the slavery issue , just so they could perserve the Union , and culminating in an almost unavoidable disaster .

If that was the sole reason for secession, then yes you would be correct. However, there were multiple reasons for secession, and the largest was the North destroying the South economically. Tariffs ravished the Souths economy. That was the single largest reason for secession. Hell, SC almost seceeded in the 1830s because of Tariffs, and Andrew Jackson threatened them with War also. He hated them using Nullification against his ridiculous Tariffs.

If the South was so in the wrong, how come the Native Americans, Blacks, and others fought on the Souths side? Yes, Slavery was a torrid issue and many in the South wanted to see it gone, but that wasn't the main reason for Secession as was illustrated earlier by many of the border states not fighting for the South.

[GunnyFreedom]

Dude , you are insane .

You do realize that some of us actually have to work during the day , and can't sit on Liberty Forest all day ,making poll up poll questions, and posting every 5 minutes to ask why the other person is a coward and hasn't responded yet, LOL.

Relax , I will respond to you when I have time , you nut-case.

Now, let's move on to your non-point : If you don't believe that a state has a right to enslave people , then aren't you conceeding that I am correct when I say that the Confederacy was wrong, and it's claim of secession illegitimate?? Wasn't it as much at fault as Lincoln was??

The only argument any of you have been able to muster is , " Slavery wasn't even Lincoln's #1 priority" . This is irrelevant , because the south BELIEVED Lincoln WOULD free the slaves. Many of them began talking of secession the day he was elected. ALL Confederate States mentioned the Right to Slavery as one of the MAIN reasons for secession in thier Declaration of Secession. Not one of you has attempted to counter this argument , because you can't . It is documented historical fact.

Get off your Dixie-Land high horse. Your "poll" has only made my case even stronger. The Confederacy was as much at fault for the 350,000 deaths as Lincoln was. Not to mention our founding fathers , who refused to deal with the slavery issue , just so they could perserve the Union , and culminating in an almost unavoidable disaster .

So you refuse to apologize for and retract your statement that "you libertarians" would rather conscience slavery than to impose against US State sovereignty?

Mind you, I do not even identify myself as a 'libertarian' but your statement was so offensive that I had to speak up. It's a lie, and you are STILL clinging to it.

Stop being a coward! Grow a pair and be a man! It's not that hard....

"I'm sorry, when I said that you libertarians only opposed slavery until it intersected against States rights, I was wrong. I misunderstood your position and I apologize."

See? It's not difficult at all. :mad:

Instead, you have seen fit to insist that you are right despite literally mountains of evidence against you. What in the world is wrong with you?

I don't even call myself a "libertarian" and I was offended FOR them on account of these despicable lies!

Now are you going to grow a pair and apologize, whereupon we can continue the debate, or are you going to continue to mischaracterize everyone's position?

Because if the best you've got is to misconstrue other people's positions, then there really is no sense debating you at all, now is there?

[Bucjason]

I'm up for this.

I suppose Buc isn't aware that the Native Americans sided and fought with the Confederacy. The Confederacy also promised freedom for many blacks who fought for them. You would be surprised how many abolitionists were in the South compared to the North (A lot more in the South than North). Slavery was on its way out. Lincoln fought for power and money, plain and simple.

Also, to Buc. Slavery wasn't free. They had to pay for the slaves first, then they had to clothe, feed, and house slaves throughout their lifetime. The coming Industrial Revolution would have made slavery obsolete.

Blacks and Native Americans fought for the Confederacy??
So, some native americans and Blacks were bribed into fighting for the confederates ....wow ...that makes your case stronger how??

Slavery wasn't free, they had to be clothed and feed??
LOL ....wow... a pathetic rationalization ,and doesn't change the fact it was wrong.

The coming industrial revolution was going to make slavery obsolete ??
That is nice. Maybe if the confederates had a Dolorean they could travel in to see the future , they wouldn't have thought it was worth fighting for , wouldn't have given it as a major reason for thier secession , and would have accepted the terms of the Emancipation Proclamation - thus stripping the North of all the moral high ground in the war....I guess slavery was more important ....



My god ! My only point here, is that the Condeferacy was at fault ALSO , along with all our founders and preceeding politicians up to Lincoln, who let the injustice fester.
You can't even admit THAT in your blind willingness to defend the Confederacy. You people are delusional....

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Buc here you go:

Kentucky's Declaration of Secession.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND ORDINANCE OF SEPARATION

November 20, 1861
Whereas, The Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit, and did expressly limit, the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt, and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people, against the express provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism, founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection, with the Constitution, to the people of fifteen States of the Union, have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatice; and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families, under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people, for the purpose of subjugating us to their will;

And whereas, Our own honor and our duty to posterity demand that we shall not relinquish our own liberty, and shall not abandon the rights of our descendants and the world to the inestimable blessings of constitutional government, thertfore,

Be it ordained, That we do hereby forever sever our connection with the Government of the United States, and in the name of the people we do hereby declare Kentucky to be a free and independent State, clothed with all the power to fix her own destiny, and to secure her own rights and liberties.

And whereas, The majority of the Legislature of Kentucky have violated their most solmn pledges made before the election, and deceived and betrayed the people; have abandoned the position of neutrality assumed by themselves and the people, and invited into the State the organized armies of Lincoln; have abdicated the Government in favor of the military despotism which they have placed around themselves, but cannot control, and have abandoned the duty of shielding the citizen with their protection; have thrown upon our people and the State the horrors and ravages of war, instead of attempting to preserve the peace; and have voted men and money for the war waged by the North for the destruction of our constitutional rights; have violated the express words of the Constitution, by borrowing five millions of money for the support of the war, without a vote of the people; have permitted the arrest and imprisonment of our citizens, and transferred the constitutional prerogatives of the executive to a military commission of partisans; have seen the writ of habeas corpus suspended, without an effort for its preservation, and permitted our people to be driven in exile from their homes; have subjected our property to confiscation, and our persons to confinement in the penitentiary as felons, because we may choose to take part in a contest for civil liberty and constitutional government against a sectional majority, waging war against the people and institutions of thirteen States of the old Federal Union, and have done all these things deliberately, against the warnings and voice of the Governor, and the solmn remonstrances of the minority in the Senate and House of Representatives; therefore,

Be it further ordained, That the unconstitutional edicts of a factious majority of a Legislature, thus false to their pledges, their honor, and their interests, are not law, and that such a Government is unworthy of the support of a brave and free people; and we do hereby declare, that the people are absolved from all allegiance to said Government, and have the right to establish any government which to them may seem best adapted to the preservation of their rights and liberties....

[Bucjason]

So you refuse to apologize for and retract your statement that "you libertarians" would rather conscience slavery than to impose against US State sovereignty?



I will not apologize , because I don't yet believe it's true.

If you all agreed with me ( that state's right's don't include the right to enslave people ) , you wouldn't be arguing with me that the Confederates request for secession , in which they give SLAVERY AS A REASON , was illegitimate.

You also wouldn't be claiming that Lincoln single-handidly "murdered" 350,000 people. A ridiculous claim , even if you disagree with the reasons for the Civil War.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Blacks and Native Americans fought for the Confederacy??
So, some native americans and Blacks were bribed into fighting for the confederates ....wow ...that makes your case stronger how??

Slavery wasn't free, they had to be clothed and feed??
LOL ....wow... a pathetic rationalization ,and doesn't change the fact it was wrong.

The coming industrial revolution was going to make slavery obsolete ??
That is nice. Maybe if the confederates had a Dolorean they could travel in to see the future , they wouldn't have thought it was worth fighting for , wouldn't have given it as a major reason for thier secession , and would have accepted the terms of the Emancipation Proclamation - thus stripping the North of all the moral high ground in the war....I guess slavery was more important ....



My god ! My only point here, is that the Condeferacy was at fault ALSO , along with all our founders and preceeding politicians up to Lincoln, who let the injustice fester.
You can't even admit THAT in your blind willingness to defend the Confederacy. You people are delusional....

I never said Slavery wasn't wrong, I was merely correcting your assertion that slavery is free. Economics tells us slavery would have been abolished purely because of economic costs. There was no need to kill 650,000 Americans.

Yes, both sides were at fault, but it wasn't equal fault. Secondly, if you would read my other posts I clearly laid out the fault in the Founders. You are so blinded to your hatred of the Confederacy that you have lost all rationale.

[Dieseler]

I will not apologize , because I don't yet believe it's true.

If you all agreed with me ( that state's right's don't include the right to enslave people ) , you wouldn't be arguing with me that the Confederates request for secession , in which they give SLAVERY AS A REASON , was illegitimate.

You also wouldn't be claiming that Lincoln single-handidly "murdered" 350,000 people. A ridiculous claim , even if you disagree with the reasons for the Civil War.

It was closer to 700,000.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It was closer to 700,000.

Lets not forget the butcher called Sherman. Destroying whole States on his march to Atlanta.

[Bucjason]

Directly from the Georgia Secession papers:

"The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation."
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Confederacy defenders- argument over - you fail.

[Dieseler]

Lets not forget the butcher called Sherman. Destroying whole States on his march to Atlanta.

I won't.

[Bucjason]

Yes, both sides were at fault, but it wasn't equal fault. Secondly, if you would read my other posts I clearly laid out the fault in the Founders. You are so blinded to your hatred of the Confederacy that you have lost all rationale.

I saw your comment , and I agreed with it . I was more refering to all the Lincoln bashing confederate lovers on this board in general , who blame the entire ordeal on 1 man.

[GunnyFreedom]

Likewise, North Carolina did not secede on account of the question of slavery at all, but purely on account of Lincoln's attitude towards the Constitution, and war of aggression:


Secession of the state of North Carolina from the American Union occurred on May 20, 1861; this date was chosen to celebrate the anniversary of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence of 1775. The right of a state to separate from the Federal Union was not seriously questioned during the formation of the American Republic and had even been contemplated by some New England states during the War of 1812. North Carolina’s secession, however, was more in accord with the doctrines of John C. Calhoun (1782-1850) of South Carolina.

Some Tar Heel politicians, including Senator Thomas L. Clingman (1812-1897), expressed secessionist views in 1856, when the Republican Party nominated its first presidential candidate. Secession sentiment, however, was weak prior to the 1860 presidential election of Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865).

North Carolina excluded Lincoln from the ballot. As a result, the popular vote for president was 48,533 for John C. Breckinridge (1821-1875) of Kentucky, the Southern Democratic candidate; 44,039 for John Bell (1797-1869) of Tennessee, the Constitutional Union nominee; and 2,690 for Stephen A. Douglas (1813-1861), the Democratic nominee. Because Bell and Breckinridge supporters expressed allegiance to the Union, the overall vote reveals a strong Unionist sentiment among Tar Heels.

The election of Lincoln prompted secessionists to launch a series of statewide local meetings. The first was held in Cleveland County on November 12, the second in New Hanover on November 19. The movement was encouraged by the secession of South Carolina on December 20, 1860.

Defeating the secessionists by a vote of 47,323 to 46,672, Unionists carried the northeastern counties and most of the Piedmont and western counties. Because a few Unionists like Vance supported the convention call, the delegate elections are more indicative of actual sentiment; only 39 of the 120 delegates were secessionists. A few days after the vote, on March 4, Lincoln gave an inaugural address, which many considered conciliatory.

The secessionists did not give up. On March 22 and 23, delegates from twenty-five counties assembled in Goldsboro and organized the Southern Rights Party. They urged the legislature to reconvene and demanded that North Carolina join the Confederacy. Despite numerous meetings, by early April of 1861, the state seemed no nearer secession than it was in February. Then, reports came of the April 12 bombardment of Fort Sumter near Charleston, South Carolina.

On April 15, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to “put down the rebellion.” Governor Ellis responded: “You can get no troops from North Carolina.” When word arrived of Lincoln’s summons, Zebulon Vance, with arms upraised, was pleading for the preservation of the Union: “When my hand came down from that impassioned gesticulation,” he said, “it fell slowly and sadly by the side of a secessionist.”

Ellis called a special session of the legislature for May 1 and ordered seizure of all federal property. The Assembly voted to have a delegate election on May 13 to an unrestricted convention to meet in Raleigh on May 20. The campaign that followed was characterized more by resignation than enthusiasm, as evidenced by former Unionists’ and secessionists’ speeches disparaging aggression.

When the convention met, delegates debated whether to secede, as some Unionists suggested, on the basis of “the right of revolution.” Radical secessionists, however, favored repealing the state’s ratification of the U.S. Constitution as the most appropriate means of leaving the Union.

The convention elected Weldon N. Edwards (1788-1873), a Democratic planter from Warren County, as president. In a speech, he denounced allying with the “Black Republican Union.” One-time Unionist George R. Badger (1795-1866) introduced a resolution for separation from the Union based on the right of revolution. An alternative ordinance, dissolving the Union by repeal of ratification was proposed by F. Burton Craige (1811-1875) of Rowan County.

The Badger proposal was defeated by a vote of 72 to 40, after which the Craige resolution passed unanimously. Delegates then voted to join the Confederate States of America (CSA). They also voted, at the request of Governor Ellis, not to put the secession ordinance to a popular vote. On May 21, President Jefferson Davis (1808-1889) proclaimed North Carolina a Confederate state.
The convention had not been restricted and met three more times before finally adjourning on May 13, 1862. The convention mostly dealt with military matters, but it also amended the Constitution to permit the ad valorem taxation of slaves and eliminated the disqualification of Jews from holding public office.

North Carolinians seceded reluctantly. Jonathan Worth (1802-1869) stated publicly: “Lincoln had made us a unit to resist until we repel our invaders or die.” Privately, however, Worth feared that the South had “commit[ed] suicide.” The continued strength of Unionist sentiment was revealed a year later when Vance was easily elected governor despite radical secession opposition.

The Tar Heel State, which only acted after Lincoln called for troops, became a bulwark of the Confederate defense, providing more men and supplies to the CSA and suffering more casualties than any other Southern state. In the end, most Tar Heels seceded in the name of self-defense.

Further, no mention was made in the declaration of secession of slavery whatsoever:


AN ORDINANCE
to dissolve the union between the State of North Carolina and the other States united with her under the compact of Government entitled "The Constitution of the United States".

We, the people of the State of North Carolina, in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by the State of North Carolina in the Convention of 1789, whereby the Constitution of the United States was ratified and adopted, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded and abrogated.

We do further declare and ordain, That the union now subsisting between the State of North Carolina and the other States, under the title of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of North Carolina is in full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.

Done in Convention at the city of Raleigh, this the 20th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1861, and in the eighty-fifth year of the independence of said State.

However, I am still not sure why we would want to debate with an knowing and unrepentant liar...

[GunnyFreedom]

I will not apologize , because I don't yet believe it's true.

If you all agreed with me ( that state's right's don't include the right to enslave people ) , you wouldn't be arguing with me that the Confederates request for secession , in which they give SLAVERY AS A REASON , was illegitimate.

You also wouldn't be claiming that Lincoln single-handidly "murdered" 350,000 people. A ridiculous claim , even if you disagree with the reasons for the Civil War.

You claim to know my own opinion more than I, myself know my own opinion? What the HELL is the matter with you?

Who the fuck are YOU to tell ME what I do, and do not think?

You can't argue against what people say, do, and believe, so you have to just invent whatever the fuck you want them to believe because that makes it easier to argue against them?

This displays one of the most bold-faced lack of intellectual integrity that I have ever seen on RPF's.

No, it doesn't matter that EVERYONE says you are brutally mischaracterizing our position, you think that by simply 'refusing' to admit that you are mischaracterizing our positions this gives you some kind of superiority.

Bottom line is that you are mischaracterizing our positions, you know that you are doing so, you have been corrected again, and again, and again, and you refuse to stop lying.

In my book, that puts you in a class with Bush and Obama.

[malkusm]

Why do you continue to debate this guy? Until he reads a book and learns about the reasons for the war, Northern and Southern popular sentiment, the reasons for the Emancipation Proclamation, the history of secession in America, and the emancipation of slaves in the Western world outside of America (a la "The Real Lincoln"), he will continue to throw out the same half-truths that he hears from the media and public education textbooks.

[GunnyFreedom]

I saw your comment , and I agreed with it . I was more refering to all the Lincoln bashing confederate lovers on this board in general , who blame the entire ordeal on 1 man.

And this is why you decided to insinuate that I was pro-slavery? BULLSHIT.

First and foremost, I was never even involved in this Lincoln-bashing Confederate-loving you refer to. I simply said that there was a better way to free the slaves than a war that killed 3/4 of a million people and abrogated the Constitution. For that I was characterized as being OK with SLAVERY. SLAVERY!

And when I demanded a retraction of that piece of shit fuck-witted LIE, you CONTINUE to repeat it! WTF is wrong with you?

[GunnyFreedom]

Why do you continue to debate this guy? Until he reads a book and learns about the reasons for the war, Northern and Southern popular sentiment, the reasons for the Emancipation Proclamation, the history of secession in America, and the emancipation of slaves in the Western world outside of America (a la "The Real Lincoln"), he will continue to throw out the same half-truths that he hears from the media and public education textbooks.

I am outraged that this....(censored)....is trying to claim that I am OK with slavery. I could care less about the rest of the debate until he cops to that and apologizes for it. It is a BOLD-FACED-LIE! Apparently this...(censored)...is perfectly fine with being a LIAR, because even after being corrected, several times, he continues it. :mad:

[malkusm]

You are right . The civil war was unnecessary. The south could have accepted the terms of the Emancipation Proclamation , freed the slaves, and the North would no longer have had any moral grounds to continue the war.

Wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

"The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named ten specific states where it would apply....The Emancipation Proclamation was criticized at the time for freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power."

Not only was the Emacipation Proclamation an illegitimate legal order, since the Confederate states were not under the rule of the Union, but the South couldn't have simply "accepted" the terms of the Proclamation. The war was a year and a half old, and Sherman had already burned entire towns to the ground, killing slaves and civilians as well as soldiers. The Proclamation had one purpose: to cause slave rebellions that might weaken the South enough to enable the Union to turn the tide in the war.


It was one of the major [issues] to the south . Once again, read the secession papers . I've posted them on here before in other threads . A Right to Slavery is one of the 1st reasons given for the secession.

...and yet, that's not why Lincoln chose to fight the war:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." -Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln didn't care about slavery, he cared about the right of secession and the concept of a voluntary union getting in the way of his economic plans - namely, higher tariffs, more subsidies for his friends, and central banking.

[GunnyFreedom]

Wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

"The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named ten specific states where it would apply....The Emancipation Proclamation was criticized at the time for freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power."



...and yet, that's not why Lincoln chose to fight the war:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." -Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln didn't care about slavery, he cared about the right of secession and the concept of a voluntary union getting in the way of his economic plans - namely, higher tariffs, more subsidies for his friends, and central banking.

As I have said, if the object were to end slavery, it could have been done far better without a war, and in a manner that would not have left us in a turmoil of abrogated civil rights and segregation for another century.

If I were to take the same tack as Bucjason here, who seems to think that I am OK with slavery, then I should accuse him of being a segregationist since it was his boy Lincoln's policies that left the US in a period of racial turmoil for 100 years that was not seen in other countries who ended slavery peacefully.

Yeah, that's the ticket. Bucjason -- I happen to KNOW that the reason you favored Lincoln's WAR is because you really don't mind the concepts of segregation and racial inequity and injustice, so long as it's permitted from the Federal government. right? I guess that makes Bucjason a SEGREGATIONIST, and OPPOSED to civil rights?

is that how I should characterize this debate? After all, if he can lie and claim that i am OK with SLAVERY because I think slavery could have been abolished in a far, far better way, then I should be able to say that HE is OK with segregation and racial inequity because he supported Lincoln's war which created those things.

Funny thing is I would have more support for my statement than he does for his... And yet I am still willing to admit that it is a mischaracterization....

[Bucjason]

You claim to know my own opinion more than I, myself know my own opinion? What the HELL is the matter with you?

Who the fuck are YOU to tell ME what I do, and do not think?

You can't argue against what people say, do, and believe, so you have to just invent whatever the fuck you want them to believe because that makes it easier to argue against them?

This displays one of the most bold-faced lack of intellectual integrity that I have ever seen on RPF's.

No, it doesn't matter that EVERYONE says you are brutally mischaracterizing our position, you think that by simply 'refusing' to admit that you are mischaracterizing our positions this gives you some kind of superiority.

Bottom line is that you are mischaracterizing our positions, you know that you are doing so, you have been corrected again, and again, and again, and you refuse to stop lying.

In my book, that puts you in a class with Bush and Obama.

So explain your position then , Mr. Nuance.

If the state's don't have a right to secede in order to continue to enslave people, then why are you defending the Confederates?? Everyone knows that slavery was a part of the reasons for secession, only those morons who completely deny history and documented fact will try and deny that.

The reason you're so upset , is that the truth hurts.

You're a lousy and pathetic excuse for a liberty lover if you would not stand up and fight against slavery of your fellow countrymen , AT ALL COSTS. Your rationalizations , armchair quarterbacking, and hindsight 20/20 logic- all in the name of defending a crooked and tyrannical regime ( Confederacy)-is a joke.

Everyone was at fault for the Civil war !! Most of all our Founding Fathers ! Lincoln was by no means perfect, but he was not evil either. Lincoln , despite what you think his true motives were, was at least able to stop it in the end. That end will forever make him an American Hero , and forever make you a cowardly nobody on a message board.

You want to call names, be overly dramatic, and make accusasions?? So can I. Bring it on , punk..

[Derek Johnson]

So explain your position then , Mr. Nuance.

If the state's don't have a right to secede in order to continue to enslave people, then why are you defending the Confederates?? Everyone knows that slavery was a part of the reasons for secession, only those morons who completely deny history and documented fact will try and deny that.

The reason you're so upset , is that the truth hurts.

You're a lousy and pathetic excuse for a liberty lover if you would not stand up and fight against slavery of your fellow countrymen , AT ALL COSTS. Your rationalizations , armchair quarterbacking, and hindsight 20/20 logic- all in the name of defending a crooked and tyrannical regime ( Confederacy)-is a joke.

Everyone was at fault for the Civil war !! Most of all our Founding Fathers ! Lincoln was by no means perfect, but he was not evil either. Lincoln , despite what you think his true motives were, was at least able to stop it in the end. That end will forever make him an American Hero , and forever make you a cowardly nobody on a message board.

You want to call names, be overly dramatic, and make accusasions?? So can I. Bring it on , punk..

Do me one favor, don't try to defend Lincoln unless you have answers to these charges below, k? There is no excuses for what Lincoln did. None, never, done.

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” - Abe Lincoln

Interspersed among these three discourses is the manner in which Lincoln seems to have wrestled with his own use of the “N-word.” Lincoln used the word far less than did Stephen Douglas, his Democratic challenger for the U.S. Senate, but he did indeed use it in prominent contexts including debates and public speeches. Even as late as April 1862, James Redpath recorded Lincoln’s saying of President Fabre Nicholas Geffard of Haiti (who had offered to send a white man as his ambassador to the United States), “You can tell the President of Hayti that I shan’t tear my shirt if he sends a ****** here!” - Abe Lincoln

So taken was he with the concept of colonization that he invited five black men to the White House and offered them funding to found a black republic in Panama, for the slaves he was about to free. Earlier, he had advocated that the slaves be freed and shipped to Liberia or Haiti. And just one month before the Emancipation became the law of the land, in his Annual Message to Congress on Dec. 1, 1862, Lincoln proposed a constitutional amendment that would “appropriate money, and otherwise provide, for colonizing free colored persons with their own consent, at any place or places without the United States.”

“You can tell the President of Hayti that I shan’t tear my shirt if he sends a ****** here!”

wut did he say?

Lincoln proposed a constitutional amendment that would “appropriate money, and otherwise provide, for colonizing free colored persons with their own consent, at any place or places without the United States.” Lincoln also stated he would support the proposed 13th amendment at his first inaugeral speech that would have made it illegal to intervene with slavery. Huh?

How about these 71 things that the god of some, Barack Obama, opines to be the actions of the greatest president in American history. :rolleyes:

1. Saying contradictory things before different audiences.

2. Opposing racial equality.

3. Opposing giving blacks the right to vote, serve on juries or intermarry while allegedly supporting their natural rights.

4. Being a racist.

5. Supporting the legal rights of slaveholders.

6. Supporting Clay’s American System or mercantilism as his primary political agenda: national bank, high tariff, and internal improvements.

7. Supporting a political economy that encourages corruption and inefficiency.

8. Supporting a political economy that became the blueprint for modern American.

9. Being a wealthy railroad lawyer.

10. Never defending a runaway slave.

11. Defending a slaveholder against his runaway slave.

12. Favoring returning ex-slaves to Africa or sending them to Central America and Haiti.

13. Proposing to strengthen the Fugitive Slave law.

14. Opposing the extension of slavery in the territories so that "free white people" can settle there and because allowing them to become slave states would dilute Republican influence in Congress because of the three-fifths rule.

15. Opposing black citizenship in Illinois or their right to immigrate to that state.

16. Failing to use his legendary political skills to achieve peaceful emancipation as was accomplished elsewhere – Lincoln's war was the only "war of emancipation" in the 19th.

17. Nullifying emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia early in the war.

18. Stating that his primary motive was saving the union and not ending slavery.

19. Supporting a conscription law.

20. Sending troops into New York City to quell draft riots related to his emancipation proclamation, resulting in 300 to 1,000 deaths.

21. Starting a war that took the lives of 620,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians and caused incalculable economic loss.

22. Being an enemy of free market capitalism.

23. Being an economic illiterate and espousing the labor theory of value.

24. Supporting a disastrous public works project in Illinois and continuing to support the same policies oblivious of the consequences.

25. Conjuring up a specious and deceptive argument against the historically-recognized right of state secession.

26. Lying about re-supplying the fed’s tax collection office known as Fort Sumter.

27. Refusing to see peace commissioners from the Confederacy offering to pay for all federal property in the South.

28. Refusing to see Napoleon III of France who offered to mediate the dispute.

29. Provoking Virginia to secede by taking military action against the Deep South.

30. Supporting a tariff and other policies that systematically redistributed wealth from the South to the North, causing great consternation in the South.

31. Invading the South without consulting Congress.

32. Illegally declaring martial law.

33. Illegally blockading ports.

34. Illegally suspending habeas corpus.

35. Illegally imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens.

36. Tolerating their subjection to inhumane conditions in prison.

37. Systematically attacking Northern newspapers and their employees, including by imprisonment.

38. Deporting his chief political enemy in the North, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio.

39. Confiscating private property and firearms.

40. Ignoring the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

41. Tolerating the arrest of ministers who refused to pray for Lincoln.

42. Arresting several duly elected members of the Maryland Legislature along with the mayor of Baltimore and Maryland Congressman Henry May.

43. Placing Kansas and Kentucky under martial law.

44. Supporting a law that indemnified public officials for unlawful acts.

45. Laying the groundwork for the establishment of conscription and income taxation as permanent institutions.

46. Interfering with and rigging elections in Maryland and elsewhere in the North.

47. Censoring all telegraph communication.

48. Preventing opposition newspapers from being delivered by the post office.

49. Illegally creating the state of West Virginia out of the "indestructible" state of Virginia.

50. Tolerating or supporting mistreatment of citizens in conquered territory.

51. Taxing those citizens without their consent.

52. Executing those who refused to take a loyalty oath.

53.Closing churches and arresting ministers.

54. Burning and plundering Southern cites.

55. Quartering troops in private homes unlawfully.

56. Creating an enormous political patronage system.

57. Allowing an unjust mass execution of Sioux Indians in Minnesota.

58. Engineering a constitutional revolution through military force which destroyed state sovereignty and replaced it with rule by the Supreme Court (and the United States Army).

59. Laying the groundwork for the imperialist and militarist campaigns of the future as well as the welfare/warfare state.

60. Creating the dangerous precedent of establishing a strong consolidated state out of a decentralized confederation.

61. Effectively killing secession as a threat, thus encouraging the rise of our modern federal monolith.

62. Waging war on civilians by bombing, destruction of homes, and confiscation of food and farm equipment.

63. Tolerating an atmosphere which led to large numbers of rapes against Southern women, including slaves.

64. Using civilians as hostages.

65. Promoting a general because of his willingness to use his troops as cannon fodder.

66. The plundering of the South by Lincoln’s allies.

67. Supporting government subsidies of the railroads leading to corruption and inefficiency.

68. Supporting a nationalized paper currency which is inherently inflationary.

69. Creating the federal tax bureaucracy and various taxes that are still with us.

70. Establishing precedents for centralized powers and suppression of liberties that continue to be cited today.

71. Ending slavery by means that created turbulence that continues to this day instead of letting slavery run its natural economic course as it had everywhere else.

[Bucjason]

Do me one favor, don't try to defend Lincoln unless you have answers to these charges below, k? There is no excuses for what Lincoln did. None, never, done.

.

All of you dixie-land tyrants' talking points and qoute-mining has been thouroughly discussed and countered in prior threads. I am not going to waste my time trying to convince you people , and go in circles, any longer.

So , do me a favor . Kiss my ass , K ? You are a disgrace to liberty.

[GunnyFreedom]

So explain your position then , Mr. Nuance.

If the state's don't have a right to secede in order to continue to enslave people, then why are you defending the Confederates?? Everyone knows that slavery was a part of the reasons for secession, only those morons who completely deny history and documented fact will try and deny that.

The reason you're so upset , is that the truth hurts.

You're a lousy and pathetic excuse for a liberty lover if you would not stand up and fight against slavery of your fellow countrymen , AT ALL COSTS. Your rationalizations , armchair quarterbacking, and hindsight 20/20 logic- all in the name of defending a crooked and tyrannical regime ( Confederacy)-is a joke.

Everyone was at fault for the Civil war !! Most of all our Founding Fathers ! Lincoln was by no means perfect, but he was not evil either. Lincoln , despite what you think his true motives were, was at least able to stop it in the end. That end will forever make him an American Hero , and forever make you a cowardly nobody on a message board.

You want to call names, be overly dramatic, and make accusasions?? So can I. Bring it on , punk..

Avoiding fallacious argument is a "nuance"? I call it "integrity" but I can see given your history here how that might not be important to you. And YOU are clearly the PUNK running around F-ing LYING and painting people as PRO-SLAVERY because they refuse to succumb to the same irrational illogical nonsense that you call "the right position."

For instance, you use the phrase: "If the state's don't have a right to secede in order to continue to enslave people" in which you intertwine concepts that do not belong married in order falsely characterize one or the other.

Does a thief have the right to breathe in order to jack your car?

Does a shoplifter have the right to wear clothes in order to lift candy bars?

Does a con-man have a right to speak, in order to sell people on his cons?

There is no foundation for rational discussion here because you conflate and intermingle concepts that do not belong together. YES the states have a right to secede. NO the states to not have a right to institute slavery. NO the civil war was not necessary -- slavery could have been ended without bloodshed, without secession, and without 100 years of the segregation and racial inequality that followed.

Oh that's right, I forgot, Bucjason is a segregationist! :rolleyes: Or at least, you wouldn't have put an end to segregation so long as it was caused at the Federal level. :rolleyes:

Fella, you are going to have to look in the mirror and face some long hard critical thinking. First and formost, your logic on this subject is all warped and perverted. Secondly, you blame 'everyone else' for your own warped logic. Thirdly, that blame comes out as a "fantasy-land" type of accusing people of believing things that they do not believe.

You think I was "overly dramatic" because I got outraged when you accused me of being pro-slavery? I didn't become outraged until you insisted that you were right, even after you were corrected. You think you know what's in my own mind better than I know what's in my own mind? That ALONE is a sign of a logical and/or a mental defect.

Your entire argument here has been illogical, illegitimate, and illicit. You ask me the the infamous "have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no!" and then try and chortle at my anger and continue to demand an answer. The problem is that we are amongst people on RPF's who are not brain-dead, and amongst whom your petty and juvenile tactics to not work.

You have been given opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to correct your abhorrent behavior and time and again you refuse, and continue your libelous and deceptive practices of illicit rhetoric and illegitimate logic. You do not care to join the world of adults, because the grade-school playground where you can win your arguments by mere bullying alone is more comforting. You simply do not have the logic to win your argument, so you consign yourself to the world of mental midgets...and cannot stand amongst giants without accusing them of such blasphemies such as supporting slavery.

You are a cretin. You don't give a damn about what is right and what is wrong, it's all about your precious self-image and your lasting reputation.

I mean, really, who the hell seriously claims to know what people THINK better than those people themselves know what they think? You live in a pretty sad, pathetic little world where you have to claim supremacy over an understanding of what people think -- better than the people themselves -- in order to cling to irrational and irrelevant rhetoric in order to (hopefully) improperly influence an argument emotionally.

Nobody here supports anybody's "right" to keep slaves against their will, NOBODY!

And when I demanded that you withdraw and apologize for that vicious attack, you entrenched! I even gave you several layers of opportunity to withdraw and apologize without abject humiliation, and you were not man enough to back off of that obvious absurdity.

Regardless of your age, you are a child. A pathetic adolescent trying to make his mark in the midst of sagacious and aged men. You had the chance to do the right thing (you still do, to a lesser extent) and you refused to take it. You have consigned yourself to ignominy and irrelevance by your own dishonesty and deception.

If you learn nothing else from this, then you should damn well take this one to heart: never, NEVER claim to 'know' what other people think and feel better than what they, themselves know how they think and feel. No matter how well you "emotionally charge" your rhetoric, everybody on Earth will still know that nonsense is dishonest, and stupid in the extreme.

[heavenlyboy34]

All of you dixie-land tyrants' talking points and qoute-mining has been thouroughly discussed and countered in prior threads. I am not going to waste my time trying to convince you people , and go in circles, any longer.

So , do me a favor . Kiss my ass , K ? You are a disgrace to liberty.

lol @ the Lincoln sycophant. ^^

[Galileo Galilei]

These "Libertarian" ratings should be re-named the Anarchy ratings.

According to these ratings, the first 7 presidents, the ones we consider Founding Fathers, were all below average, with 5 of them called failures. What a joke.

Let's look at these men:

George Washington

George Washington sacrificed most of his life for the American people. His actions as president are not that much different, just muuch less extreme than when he commanded the continental army. He sought advice of many great leaders before making decisions. He set a precedent that the Constitution was the supreme example of a limited democratic republic. There was very little corruption during his term and the Bill of Rights was ratified during his term. He made a few mistakes, but given the desperate times he lived in, they can be forgiven.

John Adams

Adams was less assertive than he should have been. But he put his foot down and averted war with France. The time of Adams was arguably the most chaotic period in our history under the Constitution. The quasi-war should be a +10, not a -10.

Thomas Jefferson

The ratings forget to mention the Lousiana Purchase, which put a great land mass under a limited Constitutional republic, rather than heathen pre-industrial anarchy of continuel civil war (The Indians had been fighting each other for thousands of years). The Lewis & Clark expedition was not mentioned either, which established friendly relations with the Indians and set a precedent for further trade with them. Jefferson also invited the leaders of may Indians tribes to the Capital. The Barabary wars were not started by Jefferson, they were started by anti-Libertarian bandits who had no reverance for property rights. The embargo act (actually pushed for by Madison) was a last ditch attempt to avoid war. Supposedly these ratings are anti-war. The embargo act should eb a +9, not a -9. The embargo act was also anti-empire, as it was aimed at a giant empire (Great Britian), so again these anarchy ratings are pro-empire.

James Madison

Madison is easily the most Libertarian president of all time for one simple reason; he is the only president to preserve the Constitution during a time of a major war. This alone makes him great. Madison set a precedent that prohibitied later presidents like Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ from violating the Constitition. Because of James Madison, there is no plausible reason for ANY president to violate the Constitution EVER. If the Constitution can be followed to the letter during the greatest crisis in our history, when we were invaded by a giant empire, then it can easily be followed in peacetime and during a minor crisis.

The Madison ratings also have other gross errrors. It marks him down for creating the 2nd national bank. But Madison ended the first bank, so this should be a wash at worst. Actually, it is a plus, because the bank disappeared for 5 years, from 1811 to 1816. Also, Madison, on January 30, 1815 vetoed the 2nd national bank. This veto set a precedent (followed until 1913), of what attributes are permitable for a national bank.

Madison's veto established:

1) national banks must be temporary (violated by Fed of 1913)

2) national banks only permitable during a true national crisis, as defined by a period when the federal government does not have enough money to operate. But we have only had that happen twice; during the time of Wahington and the time fo the War of 1812. Ever since the Era of Good Feelings, the federal goverment has had plenty of money to operate, so under Madison's principles, no bank has been needed since. Jackson followed up on Madison's principle when he got rid of the bank for good in he 1830s.

(the reality is that the first national bank would never had been created had their not been an extreme real national crisis. Nor would the Founding Fathers today ever create a national bank)

3) no fiat currency (violated by Fed).

4) no banking secrecy (violated by Fed).

5) national banks must be partially publically owned [20%] (violated by Fed).

6) state banks allowed to operate independently/competition (violated by Fed).

7) corruption not tolerated in national bank. The national bank became corrupted much later under Biddle, another reason Jackson got rid of it, and another reason why national banks should always be temporary.

The ratings also mark Madison down for occupying Spanish Florida. But this land was now put under a limited democratic republic, rather than a corrput empire, so that was a good thing. The people living there also accepted it.

The Creek war was part of the War of 1812, and the Creeks were legitimate military targets, as they had allied with a corrupt empire. This is not a negative.

It also says that Madison started the War of 1812. This is false. Under the Constitution, the congress starts wars, and the president ends them. That is what happened. Madison pushed for peace negotiations from the beginning of the war. The war was started by the War Hawks, not Madison.

The War of 1812 was the shortest and had the least casualties of our major wars, due to James Madison.

The War also was a giant boom for free trade. Free trade is Libertarian, right? After the War, the Great Lakes, the Mississippi river, the Atlantic ocean, and the West Indies were open to free trade. That is what you fight for in a war, you fight for economic liberty.

Madison also ended the Barbary wars, so if Jefferson is marked down for stating them, then Madison should be rated up for ending them. But that is if you think these bogus ratings have any merit.

Madison ended his second term as the most popular president ever in the history of the United States. He started the Era of Good Feelings and exterminated the big government Federalist Party that had pushed for the alien & sedition acts.

Jamse Monroe

Monroe is one of the most under-rated presidents. He mostly followed the examples of Jefferson and Madison. He did a good job as he was re-elected by unanimous vote of the states.

The Monroe doctine is anti-Libertarian? That's a good one. It recognized the Independence of Mexico from a corrupt empire (Spain), and declared free trade in the Western Hemispere.

John Quincy Adams

By today's standards, John Quincy would be one of the best presidents of all time. He followed Monroe's lead for the most part. He could have been a little more assertive, but was one of our best educated and enlightened scholars ever to occupy thr White House.

Andrew Jackson

After making a personal sneak visit to James Madison in the summer of 1832, Jackson decided to get rid of the national bank. Jackson erroneousely belived that Madison supported a national bank, but did not understand Madison's principles until after the meeting.

Jackson was president during a time hailed by de Tocheville as a time of "Jacksonian democracy", one fo the most glorious of all time for the liberty of the average person. While the rest of the world lived under corrupt empires and monarchs, people in American had liberty. The Era of Good Feelings and Jacksonian democracy led to the people of the rest of the world to throw off the yokes of their oppressors.

All 7 of the fisrt 7 presidents were great leaders, great Founding Fathers, and great Libertarians.

I would take any of them as president over whoever wrote up these stupid presidential ratings. The people who wrote these ratings did not live in the times of the Founding Fathers, and seem to have no understanding what things were like at that time. It is a lot easier today to defend liberty than 200 years ago when we were surrounded by enemies, had a small economy, no industrial revolution yet, and few lessons of history.

Today, we have the lesson of history, including the mistakes and successes, of the Founding Fathers to learn from. The Founding Fathers had to dig through erratic records of the ancient Greeks, Romans, the Bible, and the Enlightenment to make their theories. Now their theories have been tested for our benefit.

[GunnyFreedom]

All of you dixie-land tyrants' talking points and qoute-mining has been thouroughly discussed and countered in prior threads. I am not going to waste my time trying to convince you people , and go in circles, any longer.

So , do me a favor . Kiss my ass , K ? You are a disgrace to liberty.

And you are clearly a racist, and a segregationist.

I, for one, believe that ALL humans are created equal, and along with Martin Luther King, I share his dream that one day all people will be judged according to the content of their character and NOT based on the color of their skin.

You, however, support a racist, and support the very policies that led to segregation. That is ABHORRENT. No racist or segregationist is a friend of liberty!

You call US disgraces to liberty because we believe that all people should be EQUAL? Because we believe that slavery should have been rightfully and peacefully ABOLISHED?

Well, I call YOU a disgrace to liberty because you are a racist and a segregationist!

I have, from day one on this board excoriated white supremacists and all other forms of collectivists. My very earliest knock-down drag-out arguments on this board were to send the stormfront nazis back to their mommas with their tails between their legs.

You, you Lincolnian-segregationist, are no better than the skinheads.

[Derek Johnson]

All of you dixie-land tyrants' talking points and qoute-mining has been thouroughly discussed and countered in prior threads. I am not going to waste my time trying to convince you people , and go in circles, any longer.

So , do me a favor . Kiss my ass , K ? You are a disgrace to liberty.

No thanks on the ass-kiss, I'll pass.

Dixie-land tyrants? I'm from Iowa.

Again, refute the charges instead of weaseling away. What's wrong?

It's you that is the liberty disgrace here, you and "honest" Abe.

[The Deacon]

lol @ the Lincoln sycophant. ^^

I didn't know that Rush Limbaugh had an account here.

[Galileo Galilei]

Galileo's Law:

"As a ronpaulforums discussion grows longer, the probability of a debate involving Lincoln approaches 1."

[erowe1]

Galileo's Law:

"As a ronpaulforums discussion grows longer, the probability of a debate involving Lincoln approaches 1."

That's really just a corollary to a mathematical truism that's so basic it's practically a tautology. As any thread in any forum about any topic grows longer, the likelihood of a debate involving any subject approaches 1.

[LDA]

I guess my problem with rankings in general is that the presidents everyone knows about are the ones that "did something." Of course, a president that acted as a true libertarian would only do what was allowed under the constitution, and would not be well known for much of anything.

If we paid attention to the constitution, we wouldn't need big, sweeping reforms and huge books of legislation. It'd be very cut and dry. We wouldn't need entire TV channels to keep track of what the government was doing. There's this expectation that the government should do something if anything goes wrong, but we know that isn't the case.

[Galileo Galilei]

That's really just a corollary to a mathematical truism that's so basic it's practically a tautology. As any thread in any forum about any topic grows longer, the likelihood of a debate involving any subject approaches 1.

That's not true. An infinite limit can have a finite value.

[Bucjason]

James Madison

Madison is easily the most Libertarian president of all time for one simple reason; he is the only president to preserve the Constitution during a time of a major war. This alone makes him great. Madison set a precedent that prohibitied later presidents like Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ from violating the Constitition. Because of James Madison, there is no plausible reason for ANY president to violate the Constitution EVER. If the Constitution can be followed to the letter during the greatest crisis in our history, when we were invaded by a giant empire, then it can easily be followed in peacetime and during a minor crisis.

The Madison ratings also have other gross errrors. It marks him down for creating the 2nd national bank. But Madison ended the first bank, so this should be a wash at worst. Actually, it is a plus, because the bank disappeared for 5 years, from 1811 to 1816. Also, Madison, on January 30, 1815 vetoed the 2nd national bank. This veto set a precedent (followed until 1913), of what attributes are permitable for a national bank.


Madison was also a strong federalist who wanted a poweful central government .

In the Virginia ratification debates , he even argued against a bill of rights . He was the main reason Patrick Henry's bill of rights , which was much more thorough and specific than the one we have today , was shot down. The reason our constitution has failed us today , is becuase people like Madison insisted on pushing for an imperfect document , and then trying to amend it AFTER the fact...which of course left all kinds of loopholes for the annexing of Liberty. Madison's greatest flaw is that he assumed virtuous men would always be in charge in a Republic ( not the case) , and that our rights would always be "implied".

He gets very few Libertarian kudo's in my book...

[dr. hfn]

bump!