Group Project: Let's Rank The Presidents and Summarize Their Presidencies [Archive]

View Full Version : Group Project: Let's Rank The Presidents and Summarize Their Presidencies

Pages : [1] 2

John F Kennedy III

05-21-2012, 03:45 PM

Because I am highly interested in knowing the actual truth about the presidents instead of the BS we are taught in school. So what I would like to know is what each president has done while in office and who has actually done their job properly.

Like for instance George W. Bush and Obama rank at the bottom and we can summarize what they have done. I don't think JFK should be as high as I used to and FDR should also be around the bottom. Also I've learned some awful things about Lincoln.

Here's a list of the presidents and their summaries:

George Washington-All star first cabinet. Set the two term precedent. not really a libertarian, unfortunately (he signed on to Hamilton's national bank and whiskey tax bills), but still a genuine believer in the rule of law and not of men, who had every opportunity to be a king or an emperor, but refused, set a powerful precedent against such usurpation, and in so doing gave the United States the opportunity to endure as the freest nation on Earth for many decades. He was also admirably non-interventionist in foreign affairs, and codified it in his farewell address, which has served as a rallying point against imperialism in the centuries since.

John Adams-
Thomas Jefferson-an utter genius, and one of the very greatest proto-libertarian thinkers and leaders. During his presidency, he oversaw the abolition of all internal taxes, the scaling back of the military and federal workforce, the repeal of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the banning of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and the reduction of the national debt by a third-- the government was operating on nothing but tariffs, land sales and postage stamps, and still running a surplus. On the downside, he did (by his own admission) ultimately break with strict constructionism in his actions relating to the Louisiana Purchase, and the Embargo Act of 1807 which he pushed as a means of pressuring Europe into meeting American demands was a disaster.

James Madison-Accomplishments of president James Madison, our greatest president:

1) the first president to establish limited exectuve and war powers. Madison set many precedents regarding what a president can do in a time of war:
a) no military draft needed to win
b) no central bank needed
3) no income tax needed
4) no significant standing army needed
5) no violations of civil liberties
6) no censorship of the press
7) no round up of ethnic minorities or enemies
8) declaration of war debated by public and duly voted upon by congress
9) declaration of war states specifically the causes for war and the goals for victory
10) no special executive wat powers claimed by president

2) War of 1812 the greatest victory in US history:

a) very low casualties, entire war had fewer deaths than single civil war battles or single battles in Napoleoin wars
b) lasting peace established with England
c) Victories at New Orleans, Baltimore, Plattsburgh/Lake Champlain, Horsehoe Bend, Chippewa, Lake Erie, the Thames, Tippacanoe, York, and the 2nd barbary War are among the greatest in US history
d) War of 1812 & 2nd barbary war established free trade on the Great Lakes, Mississippi Rvier, Gulf of Mexico, Carribean Sea, Mediterrenean Sea, and Atlantic ocean.
e) Madison retired as the most popular 2nd term president in all US history per many authorities including John Adams
f) Madison started the Era of Good Feelings
g) victories of the USS Constitution, aka Old Ioronsides, among the most accliamed in all US history.
h) Patriotic Uncle Sam icon created during Madison's term
i) famous people like Sam Houston and Davy Crockett got theoir careers started under Madison
j) War of 1812 veterans dominated congress and the presidency for almost 50 years.

3) Madison delivered 7 vetoes, compared to 0 by Jefferson and Adams and only 2 (minor ones) by Washington.

a) the principle of sepeartion of church and states was clearly established by James Madison, via vetoes.

4) Madison set limits on the powers of a central bank:

a) In January 1815, despite being in the middle for a war, Madison veotes a bill that would have expanded the powers of the central bank (Madison also let the 1st bank die in 1811, even though he knew war was coming).
b) In 1816, Madison signed a bank bill that had the exact sames powers as the bank already deemed Constitutional by George Washington.
c) Everybody knew exactly waht Madison was doing.
d) hence the Federal Reserve Act is not only blantantly unconstitutional, but bad policy as well, per other Madison principles (banks only needed to pay of debts from NECESSARY defensive wars).

5) Madison hand-picked his successor, one of the few to do so:

a) James Monroe went on to become one of our greatest presidents.

6) Madison was never involved in any scandals.

was notable as about the only president ever to conduct a major war without engaging in any massive civil-liberties violations, massacring civilians, or installing any major permanent expansions of the federal government. On the other hand, he oversaw tax increases and signed the Second Bank of the United States into law.

James Monroe-cut taxes and spending, substantially reduced the national debt, took a primarily non-interventionist stance on foreign affairs. He did unleash a certain trigger-happy General Jackson on the Indians (grimly foreshadowing certain future developments) in one unfortunate incident.

John Quincy Adams-pushed increased taxation and government intervention into the economy, but did at least tend toward foreign non-interventionism and substantially reduce the national debt.

Andrew Jackson-paid entire debt off and killed the national bank,

Don't forget killing thousands of natives, denying them their property rights by seizing private Indian land for state and federal purposes, their civil rights, and ejecting them form the country. Also ignoring the rule of law by refusing the acknowledge the ruling and authority of the Supreme Court when it said his acts were unjust. Then there is threatening to hang every citizen of South Carolina when the state threatened to nullify his tariffs. He was not a good President, or even a good man as far as I am concerned.

I know Jackson is very popular with some libertarians for killing the second national bank and briefly extinguishing the national debt, and these are great accomplishments indeed, but his illegal and egregious atrocities toward the Indians and distinctly authoritarian use of presidential power (as when he bullied the states during the Nullification Crisis and ignored a Supreme Court ruling that he had to respect previous treaties with the Indians rather than evict them) knock him way down in my book.

Martin Van Buren-gold and silver advocate; deregulation; non-interventionist

William Henry Harrison- Was president for 39 days. Died of pneumonia he got while giving a two hour speech at his inauguration. Credited with "doing the least damage on any U.S. President.

John Tyler-refused to support huge public works spending and a new national bank

James K. Polk-picked a fight with Mexico for land; almost started simultaneous war with British for land in northwest U.S.; expanded executive power

Zachary Taylor-
Millard Fillmore-
Franklin Pierce-
James Buchanan-
Abraham Lincoln- Believed U.S. was a white man's country and blacks had no place in it. Imprisoned 15,000 political opponents. Started Civil War to keep South from seceding and went to great lengths, including war, to extort money from the South in the form of tariffs. Civil War resulted in 100,000s of American deaths and twice as many maimed for life. Forced servitude through military draft. Restricted firearms ownership. Had a genocidal policy toward Sioux Indians. The National Banking Act. All in all Lincoln was more of a vicious violent dictator than anthing else.

Andrew Johnson-
Ulysses S. Grant-the man cut taxes and spending, reduced the debt, reinstated hard currency, and generally had a respectably non-interventionist (both domestically and abroad) agenda throughout his presidency.

Rutherford B. Hayes-noninterventionist; insisted on keeping gold standard; paid down debt; kept federal govt out of labor issues; pro-voting rights for blacks

James Garfield-
Chester A. Arthur-
Grover Cleveland-
Grover Cleveland-- the best example of genuine fealty to the presidential oath of office, manifested through strict construction and enforcement of the US Constitution's limits on the national government, in all of US history, as illustrated by his issuance of nearly 600 vetoes-- more than all the presidents before him combined. Equally important was his peaceful, non-interventionist foreign policy, best exemplified in his passionate opposition to the US take-over of Hawaii (which he managed, at the least, to delay for a time). He was an outspoken opponent of "paternalism" in government, fought for hard currency in the form of a Gold Standard, fought to decrease taxes and spending (against a Republican congress very eager to run up debt on the perceived credit card that was the American public), and could be relied on to stick to his guns regardless of perceived political advantage. He was the closest thing to a President Paul we've ever had. A story that can bring a tear to the eye: his last words were "I have tried so hard to do right."

Benjamin Harrison-
William McKinley-big-time imperialist; aggressive foreign policy that set the tone for 20th century; Spanish-American War

Theodore Roosevelt-
William Howard Taft-
Woodrow Wilson-probably the worst; foreign intervention; supported income tax; tried for League of Nations; cracked down on civil liberties; the Fed; racist

a self-described socialist and eugenicist; a radical interventionist (in both domestic and foreign spheres), white supremacist (note that he publicly assented to the accuracy of the film "the Birth of a Nation," which depicted the Ku Klux Klan as a band of gallant knights) authoritarian who lied to the public about his intention to get the US into World War I (he actually campaigned on the slogan "he kept us out of war" while, as is well-documented, fully intending to get the US into the war after he was elected), resegregated integrated federal departments, jailed his political opponents under the Sedition Act of 1917, and was a driving force behind the creation of the Federal Reserve and the institution of the federal income tax.

The Wilson legacy:

* sinking of Lusitania (orchestrated event)

* The bogus Zimmerman Telegram (another orchestrated event)

* creation of ADL in 1913

* "lone nut" near assassination against Teddy Roosevelt in October 1912, throwing the election to Wilson

* income tax

* Espionage Act act of 1917, followed by arbitrary arrests of newspaper publishers

* Federal Reserve

* WWI

* Harrison Act of 1914 (war on drugs)

* allowing women to vote without making congressional districts smaller to balance increased number of voters

* League of Nations

* mass murder of over 70 labor unionists in Michigan (Italian Hall fire of 1913, orchestrated event)

* direct election of Senators (worst event on this list)

* alcohol prohibition

* resurgent racism (Wilson set an example for the nation by kicking all the blacks out of the federal government)

* Wilson set a precedent by lying about his health to the people; he should have resigned, his last two years in office he could not function; basically, his unelected wife took over, rather than the Vice President as the Founders intended

* In 1913, Charles Beard, cheered by Wilson, published the most horrific "scholarly" attack upon the Founding Fathers, a bogus book called 'An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution'

* In 1915, Beard published another horrible attack upon Thomas Jefferson

* Wilson was responsible for the massive spread of influenza, he intentionally moved sick soldiers all over the world and then failed to tell local leaders who could have taken some precautions; this alone led to the deaths of 50 million people, making Wilson the greatest mass murdered in human history, beating out Lincoln, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined

Warren G. Harding-President Warren G. Harding understood that depressions were the unavoidable result of speculative bubbles created by monetary inflation. As Harding explained, “There will be depression after inflation, just as surely as the tides ebb and flow.” [iii] The painful liquidation of unsound money and unsound businesses created by Woodrow Wilson’s foolish intervention in World War I was not only unavoidable but necessary if the economy was ever to return to a sustainable path.

Under President Harding, there would be no huge government bailouts to save failing businesses or banks, no grand federal make-work programs to employ the unemployed, no massive regulation of the economy to reign in the markets, stifle investment or impede trade. Most important, there would be no major wars started to stimulate production of useless war materials or to destroy “surplus labor.” Though then-Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover urged the President to take drastic action to fight the depression, Harding largely brushed Hoover’s exhortations aside. Though Harding did humor his Commerce Secretary by calling for a White House Conference on Unemployment, Harding cautioned the conferees regarding the use of federal funds declaring, “The excess stimulation from that source is to be reckoned a cause of trouble rather than a source of cure.” [iv]

Harding was not entirely passive, however. To fight the recession, he called on Congress to dramatically reduce both taxes and spending. Under Harding, federal spending was cut from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and to $3.2 billion in 1922. Federal taxes were also reduced from $6.6 billion in 1920 to $5.5 billion in 1921 and to $4 billion in 1922 with budget surpluses each year used to reduce the federal debt. [v]

The results were astounding. By 1922, GNP had recovered to $74.6 billion and unemployment fell by nearly 50% to 2.8 million (6.7%). By 1926 with Harding’s Vice President, Calvin Coolidge, in the White House, unemployment had fallen even further to 1.8% (the lowest rate ever recorded in peacetime). Unfortunately, behind the scenes the Federal Reserve was already in the process of inflating yet another monetary bubble. This new bubble would burst (as all bubbles do) in the famous crash of 1929. By this time, Harding was dead and Coolidge in retirement. Having learned nothing from Harding and Coolidge, President Hoover proceeded to raise taxes, increase spending, intervene massively in the economy and the rest is, well, mythology.

his brief stint in the presidency was a wonderful remedy to Woodrow Wilson's eight years. He overturned the oppressive Sedition Act of 1917, freed Wilson's political prisoners, finalized peace in the aftermath of World War I, didn't intervene in the economy when the stock market crashed, but instead cut taxes and spending (leading to a quick recovery), balanced the budget, and reduced the national debt. On the downside, he at least paid lip service to supporting alcohol prohibition (though he did very little to enforce it once he took office and was an alcoholic himself), raised tariffs to their highest level in US history up to that stage, and made some poor choices in cabinet members, leading to corruption (graft, patronage and whatnot) scandals within his administration.

Calvin Coolidge-essentially continued Harding's agenda; he cut taxes and spending, kept the federal government out of the economy for the most part, stayed out of other countries' internal affairs, and cut the national debt. On the other hand, Coolidge was a more vigorous enforcer of Prohibition, to the point of assenting to some policies that were outright draconian, such as a scheme by the government to poison ingredients of alcoholic beverages in order to scare people out of drinking them.

Herbert Hoover-
Franklin D. Roosevelt-an autocratic despot whose duplicitousness, brutality, and disregard for the rule of law were unmatched. He embarked on the biggest agenda of government regimentation of the economy in all of US history (which severely prolonged the Great Depression), underhandedly bullied the Supreme Court into accepting his illegal New Deal programs, initiated the worst racial persecution by a US president since the Trail of Tears in the form of Japanese internment, became the first and only president to ignore Washington's two-term precedent, lied through his teeth to the American public about his intention to get the US into World War II, undertook a campaign of vicious firebombing of civilian populations during World War II... the list goes on. All told, he did more to break down the Constitution's barriers against federal power, install a permanent big-government apparatus in the United States, set a standard of amoral Machiavellian policy-making that treats human beings like disposable objects of convenience, and put the country on an irreversible course toward fiscal insolvency than any other individual ever has.

Largely responsible for the national government as we know it today, a vast, unfathomable apparatus that recognizes no limits whatsoever to its power, either at home or abroad. Made it unlawful to own gold coins, bullion or certificates and seized all the Fed's gold, intentionally moving us from real money to an almost completely fiat currency. During the Depression, signed Agricultural Adjustment Act. Paying farmers to either not grow crops or plow them under. Established fascism in America with the National Recovery Administration. It gave him power to establish "codes of fair competition" which soon covered 95% of industrial workers. Gave us the Social Security Act, which has been stealing money from American workers ever since and can be currently described as "a colossal clusterf***". Rounded up and imprisoned 100,000 Americans without due process. The Japanese Internment Camps. His policies prolonged the Great Depression, perhaps by as much as a decade. Was more of a tyrant king than a president.

Harry Truman-("containment" was wasteful and belligerent; federal govt involved in labor disputes; supported compulsory health insurance, mandatory military service, and federal housing

responsible for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atrocities and illegal presidential war in Korea, put the first US troops in Vietnam, tried to illegally seize and nationalize the steel industry.

Dwight Eisenhower-
John F. Kennedy-In his first term within few months as president he did get in bed with the establishments, the 'TPTB' and the secret government and king makers. Note again how he was fully into Vietnam war, Cuban Invasion and several strong supporter of the establishment issues including their commercial colonization (Anglo-Brit -American Elite Economic) of the world financial empire.

However during the Cuban missile crisis along with his confidant and right hand brother Robert and with their apparent part of disclosure of things that are privy to the higher powers only, have seen him (and his brother Robert) to change a 180 degree turn in favour of humanity (circa Sept 1962 up to his November 1963 assassination).

He was quoted around January 1963 telling Robert McNamara "this period and the eminent so close Cuban Nuclear war with Russia have shaken my very foundation which made me change overnight to fight evil for what it is, specially what have woken in me of the real reality of the world... my faith and the power I have been given I will do everything right".

The JFK prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis was totally different from the one that made his righteous legacy of fighting the New World Order in favour of humanity.

Lyndon Johnson-
Richard Nixon-1971: Nixon severs ties to gold
1973: Nixon backs Israel in Yom Kippur War. In retaliation, OPEC declares embargo on US (it lasted 6 months). Nixon rations oil to the states based on 1972 usage rates. States with increased populations had shortages. To encourage new exploration, Nixon fixed the price of oil from existing domestic fields. Prices from newly developed fields are allowed to float at market rates. Because inflation was already picking up from the fiat money switch, existing oil fields became unprofitable. "Old oil" fields were shut down. Shortages increased. This was the beginning of the huge spike in oil that peaked in 1980.

Gerald Ford- Terrible foreign policy, pardoned Nixon.

Jimmy Carter- created the Department of Education and Department of Energy
gets an excessively bad rap in some quarters these days; he actually oversaw moderately significant deregulation of the economy, and was one of the less authoritarian and warlike presidents of the last few decades.

1979: Carter bans oil imports from Iran, imposes import quotas, and tells Americans to install solar panels, lower the temperature in their houses, and to stop driving so damn much.

Deregulated more than Reagan, kept us out of war and had a foreign policy aimed at maintaining peace.

Ronald Reagan-Iran-Contra was among worst constitutional violations ever; big spender;

a divisive figure in and out of libertarian circles, but I think this is largely because of his compelling and distinctive rhetoric and persona; his policies were generally fairly unremarkable. He did deregulate domestically, and was much less of a warmonger than any of the presidents who have followed in his wake (though still too much of one), but also allowed enormous increases in net spending and debt, expanded the drug war, and had the CIA partaking of certain foreign entanglements that would come back to bite us horribly, among other things.

Tripled national debt with his horrid Reaganomics. Genocide of citizens in Nicaragua and other Central American countries. War on Drugs, one of the biggest destroyers of peace, life and liberty. The Reagan of the 1976/80 campaigns could have been a good president. But he did a complete 180 after the assassination attempt.

George Bush Sr.- Taxes. The first Iraq war plus other illegal wars. Drug warrior to the point of invading Panama and kidnapping Noriega. Ruby Ridge happened on his watch. He did some things that would be considered minor by today's standards like banning some types of imported guns.

Bill Clinton- The disaster known as NAFTA. Illegal wars. Was much better economically than Bush Jr or Obama, partially due to the biggest bubble of them all expanding. Tried to implement HillaryCare, which was at least as bad as ObamaCare. The Waco incident. Laid the groundwork for what we have seen from George W. Bush and Obama. The Clinton Body Count. Stole from Social Security to create the illusion of a surplus.

George W. Bush- PATRIOT Act and widespread civil liberties violations; bailouts; unfunded Medicare expansion; general incompetence

Started "War On Terror". No Child Left Behind. Started illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have killed more than 100,000 people and maimed (mentally or physically) several times that many. Committed many war crimes. Greatly expanded the federal government and nearly doubled our national debt. Removed the right to Habeus Corpus with the Military Commissions Act. Used torture and generally found a way to make nearly every country hate us and he was much more of a dictator than president.

Barack Obama- Obamacare. Has gotten us involved in more illegal wars. Signed NDAA and many other bills and Executive Orders that are further destroying our liberties and installing a 1984 style Nanny/Police State. Is actively using drones and troops on American soil. Has added more to our national debt that George W. Bush did. Has pretty much completely given away our sovereignty to the elite globalist banks and U.N.

His policies have substantially worsened unemployment, record numbers of people now depend on government assistance via taxpayer dollars than ever before. Granted himself the power to kill American citizens without trial.

In this OP I put MaxPower's ranking and Recarving Rushmore's ranking and will be slowly working on my own. Members have requested that we group the presidents in tiers instead of rank. So we will be doing that now too.

Here's the Recarving Rushmore list, it only goes to 40 apparently:

1 John Tyler
2 Grover Cleveland
3 Martin van Buren
4 Rutherford B. Hayes
5 Chester A Artur
6 Warren G Harding
7 George Washington
8 Jimmy Carter
9 Dwight D Eisenhower
10 Calvin Coolidge
11 Bill Clinton
12 John Quincy Adams
13 Zachary Taylor
14 Millard Fillmore
15 Benjamin Harrison
16 Gerald Ford
17 Andrew Johnson
18 Herbert Hoover
19 Ulysses S. Grant
20 William Howard Taft
21 Theodore Roosevelt
22 John Adams
23 James Buchanan
24 Franklin Pierce
25 James Monroe
26 Thomas Jefferson
27 Andrew Jackson
28 James Madison
29 Abraham Lincoln
30 Richard Nixon
31 FDR
32 LBJ
33 George HW Bush
34 Ronald Reagan
35 JFK
36 George W Bush
37 James K Pok
38 William McKinley
39 Harry S. Truman
40 Woodrow Wilson

Here's MaxPower's ranking :)

1. Grover Cleveland
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. James Monroe
4. George Washington
5. Warren G. Harding
6. Calvin Coolidge
7. James A. Garfield
8. Ulysses S. Grant
9. James Madison
10. John Tyler
11. Benjamin Harrison
12. Rutherford B. Hayes
13. John Q. Adams
14. Martin Van Buren
15. Zachary Taylor
16. Chester A. Arthur
17. John Adams
18. William H. Taft
19. Andrew Jackson
20. William Henry Harrison
21. Jimmy Carter
22. Gerald Ford
23. Ronald Reagan
24. Herbert Hoover
25. John F. Kennedy
26. Dwight Eisenhower
27. Andrew Johnson
28. Franklin Pierce
29. Millard Fillmore
30. James Buchanan
31. William McKinley
32. Abraham Lincoln
33. Theodore Roosevelt
34. George H.W. Bush
35. James K. Polk
36. Bill Clinton
37. Richard Nixon
38. Lyndon B. Johnson
39. George W. Bush
40. Harry Truman
41. Woodrow Wilson
42. Franklin Roosevelt

Slowly working on my own ranking, not in much of an order yet:

Grover Cleveland
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
John F. Kennedy
Herbert Hoover
Harry Truman
Dwight Eisenhower
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
George H.W. Bush
Bill Clinton
Lyndon Johnson
George W. Bush
Barack Obama
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Abraham Lincoln

Also some members are requesting we group the Presidents rather thank rank them. So group away :) How about 5 tiers?

We are switching to grouping the presidents, unless you want to do both? Group them and list them? I can put both in the OP. Let's debate. If you want a president higher or lower on the list/grouping please tell us why. Also I still need to put in the summaries for each president and need summaries still for more presidents. Definitely need more discussion on most of the presidents.

Sam I am

05-21-2012, 03:54 PM

John F Kennedy III

05-21-2012, 03:57 PM

Sam I am

05-21-2012, 04:12 PM

Can you elaborate on these? It will help in the ranking. I think a healthy debate would be good for this thread. So if you are going to disagree with what he said, please keep it civil.

When Roosevelt was elected, we had many problems with corporatism as we do now. It was incredibly difficult for an individual to stand up to a large corporation in court, and many corporations were doing this thing called trusts where they agreed not to compete with each-other and undermining the invisible hand. Most of the laws at the time unfairly favored the elite, I.E. Strikes would be broken up by the police.

Theodore Roosevelt cracked down on trusts, and made the laws a whole lot more fair for the individual.

Bill Clinton presided over the closest thing We've had to a surplus in over 25 years.

Jimmy Carter was one of the most Anti-war presidents since the great depression. JFK was probably the only other president who you could even argue to be anti-war.

GeorgiaAvenger

05-21-2012, 04:35 PM

I gotta disagree...Teddy, Bill, and Carter were all flaming big government liberals.

TroySmith

05-21-2012, 04:53 PM

Sam's analysis on TR is 180 degree's backwards. Teddy was big into merging government with business. He was our first actual Progressive president. Plenty of books on him.

TroySmith

05-21-2012, 04:58 PM

For good ones:
Washington - the guy who glued it all together. All star first cabinet. Set the two term precedent and non intervention foreign policy.
Jefferson - Paid 1/2 the debt, Lousiana Purchase (there is argument about its Constitutionality, but its minor imo)
Jackson - paid entire debt off and killed the national bank
Van Buren - kept us out of war, financial freedom
Tyler - rejected Whig policy, did a solid job
Polk - fulfilled all his major objectives, although did provoke the Mexican American war
Grover Cleveland - Mr. Veto, gold standard
Calvin Coolidge - drastically slowed progressivism, cut spending and taxes significantly

Lishy

05-21-2012, 05:06 PM

I thought JFK was responsible for the Cuban Missile Crisis because we did not take nukes out of Turkey until it was too late?

And the Bay of Pigs?

In all honesty, I must be underestimating the Soviets during the Cold War, but wasn't most of the Cuban Missile Crisis really his fault in the end?

GeorgiaAvenger

05-21-2012, 05:07 PM

I thought JFK was responsible for the Cuban Missile Crisis because we did not take nukes out of Turkey until it was too late?Taking missiles out of Turkey was what ended it, I believe.

Champ

05-21-2012, 05:08 PM

I like this thread, but know little to nothing about US presidents. Would like to know more!

Lishy

05-21-2012, 05:11 PM

Taking missiles out of Turkey was what ended it, I believe.

Yes. But he still maintained them.

Also, JFK was a president during the 60's. This means her PERMITTED MKUltra and MKArtichoke to continue?

Notably, Eisenhower also permitted MKUltra Subproject 68 in which the CIA kidnapped innocent Canadians and performed inhuman torture and mind control experiments on Canadian citizens in Quebec at the Allen Memorial Institute.

If he could permit that, ain't all his praise bullshit? Eisenhower must have been an UN-sympathetic bastard...

enoch150

05-21-2012, 05:14 PM

Is this a troll thread?

The best president was William Henry Harrison. The country would be much better off if every president did what he did.

John F Kennedy III

05-21-2012, 05:28 PM

Is this a troll thread?

The best president was William Henry Harrison. The country would be much better off if every president did what he did.

No.

And what did he do?

mczerone

05-21-2012, 05:36 PM

No.

And what did he do?

Died from pneumonia contracted at his inauguration.

enoch150

05-21-2012, 05:53 PM

PierzStyx

05-21-2012, 05:58 PM

For good ones:

Jackson - paid entire debt off and killed the national bank

Don't forget killing thousands of natives, denying them their property rights by seizing private Indian land for state and federal purposes, their civil rights, and ejecting them form the country. Also ignoring the rule of law by refusing the acknowledge the ruling and authority of the Supreme Court when it said his acts were unjust. Then there is threatening to hang every citizen of South Carolina when the state threatened to nullify his tariffs. He was not a good President, or even a good man as far as I am concerned.

GeorgiaAvenger

05-21-2012, 05:59 PM

Overall, I have to say the best is Grover Cleveland, a great classical liberal.

PierzStyx

05-21-2012, 05:59 PM

PierzStyx

05-21-2012, 06:00 PM

George Washington invaded the state of Pennsylvania to collect a tax on whiskey.

Thomas Jefferson pushed through the Embargo Acts of 1807-08 which devastated the New England economy. Some areas of New England refused to enforce the embargo and were considered in open rebellion. This was one of the issues that led to the Hartford Convention in 1814 which nearly led to several New England states seceding.

To be fair to Washington, they did more than refused to pay their taxes. They were in armed revolt before Washington ever took the field. Also he didn't invade Pennsylvania, he was asked to intercede by the state government. The same protocol is followed today. A federal force has to be invited into the state before it can take military action.

GeorgiaAvenger

05-21-2012, 06:06 PM

JFK also planned Vietnam, he just got shot before he could carry it out.
I thought he was against it generally, in contrast with the war hawk Johnson?

enoch150

05-21-2012, 06:16 PM

I thought he was against it generally, in contrast with the war hawk Johnson?

If I remember right, JFK had about 2,000 troops there and started the bombing. Johnson started the ground campaign.

GeorgiaAvenger

05-21-2012, 06:20 PM

If I remember right, JFK had about 2,000 troops there and started the bombing. Johnson started the ground campaign. I was thinking JFK had military advisers and wanted to help shape the outcome, but thought the war would be a hell hole(as it was). But I am not too familiar with the situation.

enoch150

05-21-2012, 06:23 PM

To be fair to Washington, they did more than refused to pay their taxes. They were in armed revolt before Washington ever took the field. Also he didn't invade Pennsylvania, he was asked to intercede by the state government.

Why were they considered in armed revolt, if not for Washington's tax? Washington invaded. The fact that the government of Pennsylvania went along with this does not change the matter.

enoch150

05-21-2012, 06:50 PM

I was thinking JFK had military advisers and wanted to help shape the outcome, but thought the war would be a hell hole(as it was). But I am not too familiar with the situation.

In 1962, the United States attacked South Vietnam. In that year, President John F. Kennedy sent the U.S. Air Force to attack rural South Vietnam, where more than 80 percent of the population lived. This was part of a program intended to drive several million people into concentration camps (called "strategic hamlets") where they would be surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards. This would "protect" these people from the guerrillas whom, we conceded, they were largely supporting.

The direct U.S. attack against South Vietnam followed our support for the French attempt to reconquer their former colony, our disruption of the 1954 "peace process," and a terrorist war against the South Vietnamese population. This terror had already left some 75,000 dead while evoking domestic resistance, supported from the northern half of the country after 1959, that threatened to bring down the regime that the U.S. had established. In the following years, the U.S. continued to resist every attempt at peaceful settlement, and in 1964 began to plan the ground invasion of South Vietnam. The land assault took place in early 1965, accompanied by the bombing of North Vietnam and an intensification of the bombing of the south, at triple the level of the more publicized bombing of the north.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/198912--.htm

November 1963 — By this time, Kennedy had increased the number of military personnel from the 900 that were there when he became President to 16,000 just before his death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_United_States_in_the_Vietnam_War#John_ F._Kennedy_.281961.E2.80.931963.29

GeorgiaAvenger

05-21-2012, 06:55 PM

enoch, good info

As for the worst Presidents, I have Woodrow Wilson last.....the Federal Reserve, income tax, league of nations, and WW1 being just the main reasons why....there are certainly more

FDR, Lyndon Johnson, Lincoln, Obama....all are near my bottom as well.

WilliamShrugged

05-21-2012, 07:00 PM

I'll go with worst to best

1) FDR - For his economic policies, getting the USA involved in war, and lack of care to civil liberties.
The Details.
http://mises.org/daily/5517/Out-Out-Damn-Depression-FDR-in-1938
http://newdeal.feri.org/court/fdr5_31_35.htm
http://mises.org/daily/4388
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=258
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/fdr-1.html

2) Lincoln- Main reason executive powers have grown little no care of the constitution. Cared more for keeping the Country as 1 than the lives of thousands.

Details
This should provide everything
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html

3)Wilson- Introduced the FED, Income tax (75%), Prohibition. Used the IRS and FBI to crush who disagreed with him. Followed up on Teddy and Lincolns growth of executive power.

Details
http://www.lewrockwell.com/stromberg/stromberg18.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/powell-jim5.html
http://mises.org/media/1090/Woodrow-Wilsons-Revolution-Within-the-Form
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard100.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/denson/denson9.html

4 Bush jr - I think most understand why...

5 LBJ- Terrible economic policies (lead to the inflation of the 60's and 70's), Vietnam, and Corrupt as &%$!
details
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman24.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/morrow-r1.1.1.html
http://mises.org/daily/3232/
http://mises.org/daily/5208

John F Kennedy III

05-21-2012, 07:13 PM

Thanks for the posts so far guys. I'm eager to see more. Tomorrow I will update the OP with a preliminary ranking. I'm looking to include a pretty detailed summary under each president's name.

keh10

05-21-2012, 07:14 PM

WilliamShrugged

05-21-2012, 07:17 PM

Anyone that want to hear a great book look into this... here is its audio http://mises.org/media/categories/26/Reassessing-the-Presidency

Best

1 Martin Van Buren- I'll let Murray explain it best. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9uW0hepYV1M

details
http://mises.org/media/1094/Martin-van-Buren-What-Greatness-Really-Means
http://mises.org/daily/2201

2 Grover Cleveland- I think many here have pointed this out. but i'll provide sources.

details
http://mises.org/daily/1129
http://mises.org/daily/3627
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo73.html

3 Harding/Coolidge- cut taxes and spending during the 1920 depression. That's about it...

details
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/missing-harding.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/powell-jim4.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods125.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy155.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/galles1.html

kill the banks

05-21-2012, 07:23 PM

Yes. But he still maintained them.

Also, JFK was a president during the 60's. This means her PERMITTED MKUltra and MKArtichoke to continue?

Notably, Eisenhower also permitted MKUltra Subproject 68 in which the CIA kidnapped innocent Canadians and performed inhuman torture and mind control experiments on Canadian citizens in Quebec at the Allen Memorial Institute.

If he could permit that, ain't all his praise bullshit? Eisenhower must have been an UN-sympathetic bastard...

Kennedy wanted to split the CIA into a 1000 pieces ... he inherited the Cuba problem ... he talked to khrushchev secretly to resolve crisis ... he was going to direct military out of Vietnam until Johnson gave the criminals their war back ... he was young and a creature of history and found himself surrounded by the MIC which was warned by Ike and probably would have discovered the secret agenda of the banksters in more detail which would have probably changed his ideas on the united nations which was pushed by them ... in those days one must remember we were v naive and quite stupid during the 50's IMO ... he wanted to contain nukes from israel as well ... he came to hate the CIA and most chicken hawks that ran the military that guided him ... I believe he ordered them to takeover the CIA butL likely that was reason they killed him ( perhaps " the big event " which was later revealed by death bed confession) ... he wanted to do good for us I'm quite sure but no one is ever perfect

ronpaulfollower999

05-21-2012, 07:23 PM

I had to do this back in high school. I'm too embarrassed to tell you who was #1. :o

cityoflight

05-21-2012, 07:30 PM

One of my all-time favorite topics!!

BEST
-George Washington (precedent setter; not perfect but could easily have become elected king, governed with restraint instead)
-Martin Van Buren (gold and silver advocate; deregulation; non-interventionist; refused to intervene in/exacerbate Panic of 1837)
-John Tyler (antiwar; refused to support huge public works spending and a new national bank and got basically kicked out of Whig Party as a result)
-Rutherford Hayes (noninterventionist; insisted on keeping gold standard; paid down debt; kept federal govt out of labor issues; pro-voting rights for blacks)
-Grover Cleveland (big believer in separation of powers; tried to discourage early American imperialism; tight monetary policy; cut spending)

WORST
-James Polk (picked a fight with Mexico for land; almost started simultaneous war with British for land in northwest U.S.; expanded executive power)
-William McKinley (big-time imperialist; aggressive foreign policy that set the tone for 20th century; Spanish-American War)
-Woodrow Wilson (probably the worst; foreign intervention; supported income tax; tried for League of Nations; cracked down on civil liberties; the Fed; racist)
-Harry Truman ("containment" was wasteful and belligerent; federal govt involved in labor disputes; supported compulsory health insurance, mandatory military service, and federal housing)
-George W. Bush (Iraq; other foreign intervention; PATRIOT Act and widespread civil liberties violations; torture; bailouts; unfunded Medicare expansion; general incompetence)
-Guess we can officially put Obama in here too.

UNDERRATED
-Warren Harding (scandal and corruption didn't really affect his policies)
-Jimmy Carter (gets a bad rap from conservatives; deregulated more than Reagan; appointed Volcker as Fed chairman; tried to be anti-war)

OVERRATED (pretty much all the "greats" are grossly overrated but these two really rely on charisma and perception rather than accomplishments)
-Ronald Reagan (talked the talk, didn't walk the walk; Iran-Contra was among worst constitutional violations ever; big spender; gets too much credit for winning Cold War)
-John F. Kennedy (Bay of Pigs; escalated Vietnam; missile crisis)

I love talking about this. A really good book on the topic is "Recarving Rushmore" by Ivan Eland. It's recommended by Ron Paul, Tom Woods, and others, and profiles each president from a constitutional standpoint.

cityoflight

05-21-2012, 07:33 PM

3 Harding/Coolidge- cut taxes and spending during the 1920 depression. That's about it...

True but Coolidge and Harding both also expanded the money supply excessively which led to the Great Depression. They have to lose a few points for that. Coolidge in particular can't be blamed for the length and severity of the Depression but he can be partially faulted for creating the conditions that allowed it to begin.

John F Kennedy III

05-21-2012, 07:36 PM

Kennedy wanted to split the CIA into a 1000 pieces ... he inherited the Cuba problem ... he talked to khrushchev secretly to resolve crisis ... he was going to direct military out of Vietnam until Johnson gave the criminals their war back ... he was young and a creature of history and found himself surrounded by the MIC which was warned by Ike and probably would have discovered the secret agenda of the banksters in more detail which would have probably changed his ideas on the united nations which was pushed by them ... in those days one must remember we were v naive and quite stupid during the 50's IMO ... he wanted to contain nukes from israel as well ... he came to hate the CIA and most chicken hawks that ran the military that guided him ... I believe he ordered them to takeover the CIA butL likely that was reason they killed him ( perhaps " the big event " which was later revealed by death bed confession) ... he wanted to do good for us I'm quite sure but no one is ever perfect

I am fully convinced JFK always wanted to do good for us and did what he thought at the time was best. He is the only president in probably the last 80 years that wasn't a puppet.

enoch150

05-21-2012, 07:38 PM

Bush 2 and Obama are bad, but I can't see putting them among the five worst, if only because the scale of their wars is so much smaller.

I would rank the five worst like this:

1. FDR
2. Lincoln
3. Wilson
4. Nixon
5. LBJ

John F Kennedy III

05-21-2012, 07:41 PM

I had to do this back in high school. I'm too embarrassed to tell you who was #1. :o

My #2 and #3 used to be Bill Clinton and FDR. Now you can share your shame :p

John F Kennedy III

05-21-2012, 07:46 PM

Ok someone needs to buy me a copy of Recarving Rushmore. I'll settle for a used copy :p

http://www.amazon.com/Recarving-Rushmore-Presidents-Prosperity-Independent/dp/1598130226/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337651061&sr=1-1

Definitely on my list the next time I buy some books.

John F Kennedy III

05-21-2012, 07:48 PM

True but Coolidge and Harding both also expanded the money supply excessively which led to the Great Depression. They have to lose a few points for that. Coolidge in particular can't be blamed for the length and severity of the Depression but he can be partially faulted for creating the conditions that allowed it to begin.

So what they teach us in public school about Harding and Coolidge is actually correct?

cityoflight

05-21-2012, 07:53 PM

So what they teach us in public school about Harding and Coolidge is actually correct?

Well, not really still. As I remember the textbook version of the 20s is that businesses were allowed to get out of control and that speculation and lack of regulation caused the Depression. The underlying issues with the monetary supply are rarely mentioned; it's the usual narrative of business bad, government coming in to save the day. Without access to all the easy credit though, a lot of the other problems would have been avoided.

flynn

05-21-2012, 07:58 PM

Austrian school economists LOVE Hardings.

GeorgiaAvenger

05-21-2012, 08:06 PM

But did the President's really have a big influence over credit?

cityoflight

05-21-2012, 08:12 PM

But did the President's really have a big influence over credit?

The federal government under their leadership, through the Fed. The rapid expansion of the money supply couldn't have happened without the Fed, so Wilson gets some blame too.

Lishy

05-21-2012, 08:57 PM

Didn't Ronald Reagen help start the drug war?

Supernaut

05-21-2012, 09:06 PM

Worst president ever was Lyndon B. Johnson. Possibly in the top 20 worst human beings to ever live.

He was an absolute degenerate, lying, cheating, murdering, scumbag. It amazes me that liberals put him on a pedastal.

Ender

05-21-2012, 09:17 PM

Harding was probably the best president of the 20th century.

President Warren G. Harding understood that depressions were the unavoidable result of speculative bubbles created by monetary inflation. As Harding explained, “There will be depression after inflation, just as surely as the tides ebb and flow.” [iii] The painful liquidation of unsound money and unsound businesses created by Woodrow Wilson’s foolish intervention in World War I was not only unavoidable but necessary if the economy was ever to return to a sustainable path.

Under President Harding, there would be no huge government bailouts to save failing businesses or banks, no grand federal make-work programs to employ the unemployed, no massive regulation of the economy to reign in the markets, stifle investment or impede trade. Most important, there would be no major wars started to stimulate production of useless war materials or to destroy “surplus labor.” Though then-Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover urged the President to take drastic action to fight the depression, Harding largely brushed Hoover’s exhortations aside. Though Harding did humor his Commerce Secretary by calling for a White House Conference on Unemployment, Harding cautioned the conferees regarding the use of federal funds declaring, “The excess stimulation from that source is to be reckoned a cause of trouble rather than a source of cure.” [iv]

Harding was not entirely passive, however. To fight the recession, he called on Congress to dramatically reduce both taxes and spending. Under Harding, federal spending was cut from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and to $3.2 billion in 1922. Federal taxes were also reduced from $6.6 billion in 1920 to $5.5 billion in 1921 and to $4 billion in 1922 with budget surpluses each year used to reduce the federal debt. [v]

The results were astounding. By 1922, GNP had recovered to $74.6 billion and unemployment fell by nearly 50% to 2.8 million (6.7%). By 1926 with Harding’s Vice President, Calvin Coolidge, in the White House, unemployment had fallen even further to 1.8% (the lowest rate ever recorded in peacetime). Unfortunately, behind the scenes the Federal Reserve was already in the process of inflating yet another monetary bubble. This new bubble would burst (as all bubbles do) in the famous crash of 1929. By this time, Harding was dead and Coolidge in retirement. Having learned nothing from Harding and Coolidge, President Hoover proceeded to raise taxes, increase spending, intervene massively in the economy and the rest is, well, mythology.

JFK seems to be a playboy that was thrust out of the Matrix and actually tried to stop the Empire.

heavenlyboy34

05-21-2012, 09:36 PM

I gotta disagree...Teddy, Bill, and Carter were all flaming big government liberals. TR was a product of the Progressive Era. :p

heavenlyboy34

05-21-2012, 09:37 PM

John F Kennedy III

05-21-2012, 11:29 PM

Harding was probably the best president of the 20th century.

JFK seems to be a playboy that was thrust out of the Matrix and actually tried to stop the Empire.

I agree with the JFK part. His daddy promised the elites he would be a good little puppet...but he wasn't :)

Thanks for the Harding info. Sounds like he did a great job.

John F Kennedy III

05-21-2012, 11:33 PM

LibertyEagle

05-22-2012, 01:05 AM

tttppp

05-22-2012, 01:37 AM

PierzStyx

05-22-2012, 01:47 AM

I thought he was against it generally, in contrast with the war hawk Johnson?

From what I understand Vietnam had long been in the works and this is one area Johnson was essentially just carrying on plans he already agreed with JFK. Remember JFK was a huge anti-Communist.

PierzStyx

05-22-2012, 01:47 AM

PierzStyx

05-22-2012, 01:50 AM

[QUOTE=Supernaut;4443154]Worst president ever was Lyndon B. Johnson. Possibly in the top 20 worst human beings to ever live.

He was an absolute degenerate, lying, cheating, murdering, scumbag. It amazes me that liberals put him on a pedastal.[/QUOTE
Worse than FDR and Lincoln? I dun't think so...JMO.

Compared with the Presidents we've had this century Lincoln looks like Ron Paul, or at least Ronald Reagan. Johnson was a scumbag. FDR was a fascist. But the worst of the century, if not ever? I'd give that to Woodrow Wilson. The man was a fascist dictator in everything but name. He took the abuses of power we always complain about with Lincoln and FDR to the Nth degree.

Champ

05-22-2012, 01:54 AM

Everything I have been hearing about Harding on these boards has made me like him more and more. I guess there is the corruption problem he had, but besides that, did he have any major downsides, liberty wise of course.

PierzStyx

05-22-2012, 01:55 AM

One of my all-time favorite topics!!

BEST
-Martin Van Buren (gold and silver advocate; deregulation; non-interventionist; refused to intervene in/exacerbate Panic of 1837)

UNDERRATED

-Jimmy Carter (gets a bad rap from conservatives; deregulated more than Reagan; appointed Volcker as Fed chairman; tried to be anti-war)

Martin Van Buren was an a-hole who allowed for the legal extermination (I'm not even exaggerating. Look up "Missouri Extermination Order) of a people based on their religion to take place, for them to be driven from their homes, and for their property and civil rights to be taken away. Disgusting.

And Carter? He CREATED the Department of Education. That is why he gets a bad rap from conservatives. he created one of the single most intrusive government departments that is responsible for molding the minds of your children according to the Fedgov's dictates. The man deserves every bad word said about him.

PierzStyx

05-22-2012, 01:56 AM

PierzStyx

05-22-2012, 02:00 AM

Why were they considered in armed revolt, if not for Washington's tax? Washington invaded. The fact that the government of Pennsylvania went along with this does not change the matter.

Yes it does. An invasion is the uninvited presence of armed forces within a territorial boundary. You might argue Washington invaded their private property but he didn't invade the state since the state asked him to be there.

And yes they were in armed revolt over taxes. But that doesn't mean that they weren't in armed revolt and used armed force first.

John F Kennedy III

05-22-2012, 02:10 AM

From what I understand Vietnam had long been in the works and this is one area Johnson was essentially just carrying on plans he already agreed with JFK. Remember JFK was a huge anti-Communist.

I might be remembering wrong, but I thought JFK was trying to get us out of Vietnam?

enoch150

05-22-2012, 03:30 AM

Yes it does. An invasion is the uninvited presence of armed forces within a territorial boundary. You might argue Washington invaded their private property but he didn't invade the state since the state asked him to be there.

And yes they were in armed revolt over taxes. But that doesn't mean that they weren't in armed revolt and used armed force first.

The first use of force was by the tax collector, not by the people who refused to pay the tax. It's very strange how the same ideas used to justify the Revolutionary War against Britain are suddenly forbidden when applied to the US government. Even the founders themselves turned from the founding principles, once they were the ones in power.

Do you not believe in concepts like nullification, secession, self determination, and voluntary association?

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." A quote from 1848. Obviously he changed his mind a few years later.

PierzStyx

05-22-2012, 04:56 AM

The first use of force was by the tax collector, not by the people who refused to pay the tax. It's very strange how the same ideas used to justify the Revolutionary War against Britain are suddenly forbidden when applied to the US government. Even the founders themselves turned from the founding principles, once they were the ones in power.

Do you not believe in concepts like nullification, secession, self determination, and voluntary association?

A quote from 1848. Obviously he changed his mind a few years later.

You misunderstand if you think the Founding Fathers revolted just because they didn't want to pay their taxes. Remember the whole "No Taxation without Representation!" thing? The problem there isn't taxation, it was the whole "no representation" thing. Americans had no voice for themselves in the British government and could not govern themselves. Finally the abuses got so great and so often, and the oppression so severe, without them having a say in their own governance (even their colonial governors were crown appointed in most cases, not locally chosen leaders) that revolution became justified. But if they had had legal recourse, and representation in Parliament it might have been a different story.

The Whiskey Rebellion was not on the same grounds. They had legal representation and recourse that could effect laws governing them. (In fact after the rebellion the whiskey tax issue is what helped form Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party, which promised to end it)The formers of the Whiskey Rebellion did not use up every justifiable legal means or any really. They did not appeal to local, state, or federal representatives or try any political action to get the tax withdrawn. They resorted to mob violence. Revolution is a last resort when all peaceful means have been exhausted. The Whiskey Rebellion did not do this. Therefore it was an unjust revolt.

And to drop a little history on you, the tax collectors were not the first to use force on anyone. They came around to collect an unpopular tax and the people who formed the Whiskey rebellion responded not just by refusing to pay but by assaulting them and driving them away. Then a US marshal arrived to serve legal writs telling them to pay their taxes or face legal action and the rebels gathered into a group of 500 men and assaulted the marshal and the home of the local tax inspector. it wasn't until this point that the federal government got involved. Washington's first step was to send peace commissioners to help settle the issue, and only when the rebels refused to do anything but rebel violently were militia troops called in. The Whiskey Rebellion formed a mob that threatened the lives and peace of the people of the state. The state asked the federal government for help. It responded and ended the rebellion peacefully ultimately. But it was the mob that initiated force.

As to Lincoln, you're laboring under a lack of understanding. Lincoln believed that revolution was only a right when you were rebelling for a just cause against an unjust government, an idea very inline with the Founding Fathers. His argument concerning the South was that it was not doing this at all. The South was rebelling for a wicked and immoral cause, to support and extend slavery, against a government that had bent over backwards to accommodate it. And that is pretty true. Because the cause of the South was to further slavery and not promulgate liberty, its revolution was unjust. All sound logic and morality I think. The irony of course is that he was a hypocrite because as he was teaching this he was simultaneously raping the Constitution.

PierzStyx

05-22-2012, 05:00 AM

I might be remembering wrong, but I thought JFK was trying to get us out of Vietnam?

Check out page 3 of this thread. They talk about JFK and Vietnam there.

invisible

05-22-2012, 08:19 AM

You might want to check out Recarving Rushmore (http://www.amazon.com/Recarving-Rushmore-Presidents-Prosperity-Independent/dp/1598130226?tag=duckduckgo-d-20) by Ivan Eland. He ranks the presidents based on their ability to maintain peace, prosperity, and liberty. I read it several years ago when I was first discovering Ron Paul and it's a good way to get some real information on the unsung hero presidents.

Edit - I found a video of the Author talking about his book and historical bias at the Independent Institute if you're interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u55UObKBD2k

Excellent post, this is exactly what I was going to mention. For any of you interested in this topic, this book is excellent, and an absolute must-read! I cannot recommend this book highly enough! The video of the author's presentation is from Jan or Feb 2009, in DC. I attended this event, and Ron Paul also spoke. Ron gave an interesting talk about how obomba had an excellent opportunity to make history and accomplish great things for our country, but that he was going to blow it by breaking every one of his campaign promises. He further stated that this would result in a huge amount of discontent among young first time voters, and that this voting bloc would be up for grabs in the next election. I did buy a copy of the book, and the author signed it. Ron hung out and mingled for a while, everyone there kept asking him if he was going to run again, and all but begged him to do so. His answer at the time was that he hadn't yet made up his mind, and that it would depend on how much support he had. This was really a wonderful event to attend, probably one of the more interesting Ron Paul appearances I've been to. I'm not sure if video of Ron speaking is available online, but I do know that the II was selling a DVD of this presentation (I shot my own video of this event). I do not know if the DVD or book are still being sold. For those of you who do not have the book, the author's conclusion was Tyler (IIRC) was the President that did the most to advance / maintain peace, prosperity, and liberty.

libertyjam

05-22-2012, 09:02 AM

JFK also planned Vietnam, he just got shot before he could carry it out.

Just where does all this fairy tale crap on JFK come from?

libertyjam

05-22-2012, 09:06 AM

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/198912--.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_United_States_in_the_Vietnam_War#John_ F._Kennedy_.281961.E2.80.931963.29

Man if that is what Chomsky wrote you seriously have to stop reading him. No wonder he has been called a Stalinist, rewriting history like that.

fisharmor

05-22-2012, 09:58 AM

Compared with the Presidents we've had this century Lincoln looks like Ron Paul, or at least Ronald Reagan.

Harry Truman decided to drop nuclear bombs on some Japanese citizens during a declared war which resulted in somewhere around 150,000 dead.
Lincoln started an aggressive, illegal, unnecessary, undeclared war against fellow Americans, which resulted in over 600,000 dead.
Sure, take your pick.

I think the bottom three is going to have to be FDR, Wilson, and Lincoln in some order. It's hard to figure out which is worst.
And I'm actually serious: first should be William Henry Harrison.

Sam I am

05-22-2012, 10:15 AM

Harry Truman decided to drop nuclear bombs on some Japanese citizens during a declared war which resulted in somewhere around 150,000 dead.
Lincoln started an aggressive, illegal, unnecessary, undeclared war against fellow Americans, which resulted in over 600,000 dead.
Sure, take your pick.

I think the bottom three is going to have to be FDR, Wilson, and Lincoln in some order. It's hard to figure out which is worst.
And I'm actually serious: first should be William Henry Harrison.

Nuclear weapons were responsible for less than 1% of the deaths in world war 2

Massachusetts

05-22-2012, 10:17 AM

I think when you talk about the US presidents you need to rank them on different scales: domestic policy and foreign policy. I would say it is rare that any President if any have ever completely nailed it on both domestic and foreign policy.

John F Kennedy III

05-22-2012, 12:54 PM

Just where does all this fairy tale crap on JFK come from?

Good question.

John F Kennedy III

05-22-2012, 12:56 PM

Ok why are people SERIOUS that the best is William Henry Harrison? He talked in the rain at his inauguration for two hours and got pneumonia and died from it a month later. What's so good about that?

The Gold Standard

05-22-2012, 12:57 PM

Ok why are people SERIOUS that the best is William Henry Harrison? He talked in the rain at his inauguration for two hours and got pneumonia and died from it a month later. What's so good about that?

He did the least amount of damage of any U.S. president.

John F Kennedy III

05-22-2012, 01:01 PM

He did the least amount of damage of any U.S. president.

Good answer. I was going to reply with the guy who served as President for a day, but upon further research he didn't. Though some people still give him credit for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rice_Atchison#.22President_for_One_Day.22

kill the banks

05-22-2012, 01:23 PM

Just where does all this fairy tale crap on JFK come from?

I should just shut up but geez people please read more ...

Lishy

05-22-2012, 01:27 PM

Just where does all this fairy tale crap on JFK come from?
I dunno. But I think JFK is glorified simply because of the assassination thing.

Why did he do nothing about MKUltra!? Did he not know about it, or what? What about Bay of Pigs!?

John F Kennedy III

05-22-2012, 01:30 PM

I dunno. But I think JFK is glorified simply because of the assassination thing.

Why did he do nothing about MKUltra!? Did he not know about it, or what? What about Bay of Pigs!?

I admittedly need to research the presidents more, including JFK. He did do bad things, but I also believe he genuinely cared about the American people. He is hands down the best president post 1930 (he is the only one that wasn't a puppet)

John F Kennedy III

05-22-2012, 03:35 PM

From an older thread discussing presidents:

Accomplishments of president James Madison, our greatest president:

1) the first president to establish limited exectuve and war powers. Madison set many precedents regarding what a president can do in a time of war:

a) no military draft needed to win
b) no central bank needed
3) no income tax needed
4) no significant standing army needed
5) no violations of civil liberties
6) no censorship of the press
7) no round up of ethnic minorities or enemies
8) declaration of war debated by public and duly voted upon by congress
9) declaration of war states specifically the causes for war and the goals for victory
10) no special executive wat powers claimed by president

2) War of 1812 the greatest victory in US history:

a) very low casualties, entire war had fewer deaths than single civil war battles or single battles in Napoleoin wars
b) lasting peace established with England
c) Victories at New Orleans, Baltimore, Plattsburgh/Lake Champlain, Horsehoe Bend, Chippewa, Lake Erie, the Thames, Tippacanoe, York, and the 2nd barbary War are among the greatest in US history
d) War of 1812 & 2nd barbary war established free trade on the Great Lakes, Mississippi Rvier, Gulf of Mexico, Carribean Sea, Mediterrenean Sea, and Atlantic ocean.
e) Madison retired as the most popular 2nd term president in all US history per many authorities including John Adams
f) Madison started the Era of Good Feelings
g) victories of the USS Constitution, aka Old Ioronsides, among the most accliamed in all US history.
h) Patriotic Uncle Sam icon created during Madison's term
i) famous people like Sam Houston and Davy Crockett got theoir careers started under Madison
j) War of 1812 veterans dominated congress and the presidency for almost 50 years.

3) Madison delivered 7 vetoes, compared to 0 by Jefferson and Adams and only 2 (minor ones) by Washington.

a) the principle of sepeartion of church and states was clearly established by James Madison, via vetoes.

4) Madison set limits on the powers of a central bank:

a) In January 1815, despite being in the middle for a war, Madison veotes a bill that would have expanded the powers of the central bank (Madison also let the 1st bank die in 1811, even though he knew war was coming).
b) In 1816, Madison signed a bank bill that had the exact sames powers as the bank already deemed Constitutional by George Washington.
c) Everybody knew exactly waht Madison was doing.
d) hence the Federal Reserve Act is not only blantantly unconstitutional, but bad policy as well, per other Madison principles (banks only needed to pay of debts from NECESSARY defensive wars).

5) Madison hand-picked his successor, one of the few to do so:

a) James Monroe went on to become one of our greatest presidents.

6) Madison was never involved in any scandals.

cityoflight

05-22-2012, 03:39 PM

Martin Van Buren was an a-hole who allowed for the legal extermination (I'm not even exaggerating. Look up "Missouri Extermination Order) of a people based on their religion to take place, for them to be driven from their homes, and for their property and civil rights to be taken away. Disgusting.

And Carter? He CREATED the Department of Education. That is why he gets a bad rap from conservatives. he created one of the single most intrusive government departments that is responsible for molding the minds of your children according to the Fedgov's dictates. The man deserves every bad word said about him.

Van Buren didn't issue that order; it was from the governor of Missouri, and came during a series of armed skirmishes between the Mormons and local militia in which both sides sustained casualties. The governor acted upon exaggerated rumors that a Mormon "invasion" was in the works. The order is indefensible, but I don't think it's exactly fair to saddle Van Buren with it. He could probably have been more proactive in containing the situation, but if he had ordered a massive federal response we'd probably be complaining about that too. I don't see how something he wasn't even responsible for wipes out everything on the positive side of his ledger.

And with Carter, the DOE is certainly a disaster... not disagreeing with you there. I'm not saying Carter was great or even good, just that he's not the Antichrist conservatives make him out to be. For many people Carter seems to be the automatic comparison for a historically bad president, but based on the facts there were many who were far, far worse. For all his mistakes, again: he deregulated more than Reagan, showed some restraint with defense spending, and took a big step in the right direction with monetary policy. There are a lot of Republican presidents who don't have that kind of resume.

John F Kennedy III

05-22-2012, 03:44 PM

Updated OP with something resembling a ranking. I'm looking for debate on that and more info on the presidents so I can do a summary for each, especially the presidents who haven't been mentioned yet.

MaxPower

05-22-2012, 05:00 PM

Here is the latest iteration of my presidential ratings list (first compiled a couple years ago, tweaked a few times since):

1. Grover Cleveland
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. James Monroe
4. George Washington
5. Warren G. Harding
6. Calvin Coolidge
7. James A. Garfield
8. Ulysses S. Grant
9. James Madison
10. John Tyler
11. Benjamin Harrison
12. Rutherford B. Hayes
13. John Q. Adams
14. Martin Van Buren
15. Zachary Taylor
16. Chester A. Arthur
17. John Adams
18. William H. Taft
19. Andrew Jackson
20. William Henry Harrison
21. Jimmy Carter
22. Gerald Ford
23. Ronald Reagan
24. Herbert Hoover
25. John F. Kennedy
26. Dwight Eisenhower
27. Andrew Johnson
28. Franklin Pierce
29. Millard Fillmore
30. James Buchanan
31. William McKinley
32. Abraham Lincoln
33. Theodore Roosevelt
34. George H.W. Bush
35. James K. Polk
36. Bill Clinton
37. Richard Nixon
38. Lyndon B. Johnson
39. George W. Bush
40. Harry Truman
41. Woodrow Wilson
42. Franklin Roosevelt

Obama will be included when his term is finished, at which time he is likely to appear near the bottom.

MaxPower

05-22-2012, 05:11 PM

Just curious, when was the last time we had a legitimately good president? Someone who was small government, low regulations, anti-war president?

I know every president in my life has been crap 31 years, but everything else I know about presidents before that came from my history books. Anyone who has ever read a history book knows that ALL U.S. presidents are considered great presidents. For example, FDR is considered a great president for getting us through the great depression. But anyone with a brain knows that if FDR was actually great he wouldn't have let the depression become great and there actually would have been a recovery.
Calvin Coolidge was generally a good president, aside from participating in the enforcement of brutal and draconian Prohibition policies. I consider his immediate predecessor, Harding, a little better, on the grounds that Harding (though he promised on the campaign trail to enforce it), in addition to being (like Coolidge) a largely libertarian president with a peaceful foreign policy and financially-conservative domestic agenda, was lax toward Prohibition.

tttppp

05-22-2012, 05:18 PM

Calvin Coolidge was generally a good president, aside from participating in the enforcement of brutal and draconian Prohibition policies. I consider his immediate predecessor, Harding, a little better, on the grounds that Harding (though he promised on the campaign trail to enforce it), in addition to being (like Coolidge) a largely libertarian president with a peaceful foreign policy and financially-conservative domestic agenda, was lax toward Prohibition.

What years was he president?

enoch150

05-22-2012, 05:50 PM

You misunderstand if you think the Founding Fathers revolted just because they didn't want to pay their taxes. Remember the whole "No Taxation without Representation!" thing? The problem there isn't taxation, it was the whole "no representation" thing. Americans had no voice for themselves in the British government and could not govern themselves. Finally the abuses got so great and so often, and the oppression so severe, without them having a say in their own governance (even their colonial governors were crown appointed in most cases, not locally chosen leaders) that revolution became justified. But if they had had legal recourse, and representation in Parliament it might have been a different story.

The Whiskey Rebellion was not on the same grounds. They had legal representation and recourse that could effect laws governing them. (In fact after the rebellion the whiskey tax issue is what helped form Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party, which promised to end it)The formers of the Whiskey Rebellion did not use up every justifiable legal means or any really. They did not appeal to local, state, or federal representatives or try any political action to get the tax withdrawn. They resorted to mob violence. Revolution is a last resort when all peaceful means have been exhausted. The Whiskey Rebellion did not do this. Therefore it was an unjust revolt.

And to drop a little history on you, the tax collectors were not the first to use force on anyone. They came around to collect an unpopular tax and the people who formed the Whiskey rebellion responded not just by refusing to pay but by assaulting them and driving them away. Then a US marshal arrived to serve legal writs telling them to pay their taxes or face legal action and the rebels gathered into a group of 500 men and assaulted the marshal and the home of the local tax inspector. it wasn't until this point that the federal government got involved. Washington's first step was to send peace commissioners to help settle the issue, and only when the rebels refused to do anything but rebel violently were militia troops called in. The Whiskey Rebellion formed a mob that threatened the lives and peace of the people of the state. The state asked the federal government for help. It responded and ended the rebellion peacefully ultimately. But it was the mob that initiated force.

As to Lincoln, you're laboring under a lack of understanding. Lincoln believed that revolution was only a right when you were rebelling for a just cause against an unjust government, an idea very inline with the Founding Fathers. His argument concerning the South was that it was not doing this at all. The South was rebelling for a wicked and immoral cause, to support and extend slavery, against a government that had bent over backwards to accommodate it. And that is pretty true. Because the cause of the South was to further slavery and not promulgate liberty, its revolution was unjust. All sound logic and morality I think. The irony of course is that he was a hypocrite because as he was teaching this he was simultaneously raping the Constitution.

No taxation without representation made for a good rallying cry, but it wasn't the primary cause of the revolution. Of the thirty or so points listed in the Declaration of Independence, taxes are only mentioned once "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent"

Taxation even with representation amounts to nothing more than mob rule. Those in revolt weren't the mob. The mob consisted of those imposing the tax. The tax collector initiated violence because he had the backing of the government: pay up or there will be 15,000 militia here to force you to pay and/or imprison you. Washington's peace commissioner's were a joke: they had no intention of not enforcing the tax, therefore, they were not there to resolve anything. Their purpose was to stall and intimidate. Those who initiated the Whiskey Rebellion should be applauded.

I've read the surrounding text in the Lincoln speech. You're just making stuff up. He makes no mention of revolution only being for just cause against unjust government. He states very clearly that any time a majority of some area wants to be independent, they may do so, and old laws are void.

...I propose to state my understanding of the true rule for ascertaining the boundary between Texas and Mexico. It is, that wherever Texas was exercising jurisdiction, was hers; and wherever Mexico was exercising jurisdiction, was hers; and that whatever separated the actual exercise of jurisdiction of the one, from that of the other, was the true boundary between them. If, as is probably true, Texas was exercising jurisdiction along the western bank of the Nueces, and Mexico was exercising it along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande, then neither river was the boundary; but the uninhabited country between the two, was. The extent of our teritory in that region depended, not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) but on revolution Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones. As to the country now in question, we bought it of France in 18O3, and sold it to Spain in 1819, according to the President's statements...

PreDeadMan

05-22-2012, 05:57 PM

Harrison is at number one.... and... that's it for the best presidents :)

cstarace

05-22-2012, 06:17 PM

Woodrow Wilson ftw

enoch150

05-22-2012, 06:19 PM

Man if that is what Chomsky wrote you seriously have to stop reading him. No wonder he has been called a Stalinist, rewriting history like that.

With regard to Kennedy, Chomsky mentions the Strategic Hamlet Program, begun in 1961. This consisted of rounding up rural villagers by the South Vietnamese government and placing them in camps surrounded by barbed wire, which the villagers were forced to construct themselves. The South Vietnamese government burned the homes of villagers to prevent their return, and executed those who refused to comply. The plan was designed by the US and all of the materials for constructing the camps were supplied by the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Hamlet_Program

That same year the US Air Force began dropping highly toxic chemical defoliants and herbicides on the South Vietnamese countryside. Agent Orange was used later, but during the Kennedy Administration they used similar substances dubbed Agent Pink, Agent Green, Agent Purple, and Agent Blue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ranch_Hand

TroySmith

05-22-2012, 06:56 PM

True but Coolidge and Harding both also expanded the money supply excessively which led to the Great Depression. They have to lose a few points for that. Coolidge in particular can't be blamed for the length and severity of the Depression but he can be partially faulted for creating the conditions that allowed it to begin.

Not really. Coolidge openly acknowledged he didn't agree with the Feds easy money, but said he had no Constitutional authority to stop it. It was Congress who was responsible.

John F Kennedy III

05-22-2012, 09:03 PM

MaxPower

05-24-2012, 01:19 AM

Thank you :) I think I'm going to paste this in the OP. Can you provide any info on the presidents?
Sure-- here are some comments:

1. Grover Cleveland-- the best example of genuine fealty to the presidential oath of office, manifested through strict construction and enforcement of the US Constitution's limits on the national government, in all of US history, as illustrated by his issuance of nearly 600 vetoes-- more than all the presidents before him combined. Equally important was his peaceful, non-interventionist foreign policy, best exemplified in his passionate opposition to the US take-over of Hawaii (which he managed, at the least, to delay for a time). He was an outspoken opponent of "paternalism" in government, fought for hard currency in the form of a Gold Standard, fought to decrease taxes and spending (against a Republican congress very eager to run up debt on the perceived credit card that was the American public), and could be relied on to stick to his guns regardless of perceived political advantage. He was the closest thing to a President Paul we've ever had. A story that can bring a tear to the eye: his last words were "I have tried so hard to do right."
2. Thomas Jefferson-- an utter genius, and one of the very greatest proto-libertarian thinkers and leaders. During his presidency, he oversaw the abolition of all internal taxes, the scaling back of the military and federal workforce, the repeal of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the banning of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and the reduction of the national debt by a third-- the government was operating on nothing but tariffs, land sales and postage stamps, and still running a surplus. On the downside, he did (by his own admission) ultimately break with strict constructionism in his actions relating to the Louisiana Purchase, and the Embargo Act of 1807 which he pushed as a means of pressuring Europe into meeting American demands was a disaster.
3. James Monroe-- cut taxes and spending, substantially reduced the national debt, took a primarily non-interventionist stance on foreign affairs. He did unleash a certain trigger-happy General Jackson on the Indians (grimly foreshadowing certain future developments) in one unfortunate incident.
4. George Washington-- not really a libertarian, unfortunately (he signed on to Hamilton's national bank and whiskey tax bills), but still a genuine believer in the rule of law and not of men, who had every opportunity to be a king or an emperor, but refused, set a powerful precedent against such usurpation, and in so doing gave the United States the opportunity to endure as the freest nation on Earth for many decades. He was also admirably non-interventionist in foreign affairs, and codified it in his farewell address, which has served as a rallying point against imperialism in the centuries since.
5. Warren G. Harding-- his brief stint in the presidency was a wonderful remedy to Woodrow Wilson's eight years. He overturned the oppressive Sedition Act of 1917, freed Wilson's political prisoners, finalized peace in the aftermath of World War I, didn't intervene in the economy when the stock market crashed, but instead cut taxes and spending (leading to a quick recovery), balanced the budget, and reduced the national debt. On the downside, he at least paid lip service to supporting alcohol prohibition (though he did very little to enforce it once he took office and was an alcoholic himself), raised tariffs to their highest level in US history up to that stage, and made some poor choices in cabinet members, leading to corruption (graft, patronage and whatnot) scandals within his administration.
6. Calvin Coolidge-- essentially continued Harding's agenda; he cut taxes and spending, kept the federal government out of the economy for the most part, stayed out of other countries' internal affairs, and cut the national debt. On the other hand, Coolidge was a more vigorous enforcer of Prohibition, to the point of assenting to some policies that were outright draconian, such as a scheme by the government to poison ingredients of alcoholic beverages in order to scare people out of drinking them.
7. James A. Garfield
8. Ulysses S. Grant-- I know some here hold a heavy grudge against Grant for his role in the Civil War, but the fact is, his administration cut taxes and spending, reduced the debt, reinstated hard currency, and generally had a respectably non-interventionist agenda (both domestically and abroad) throughout his presidency.
9. James Madison- he generally conducted himself in a manner befitting a strict constructionist, and was notable as about the only president ever to conduct a major war without engaging in any massive civil-liberties violations, massacring civilians, or instigating any major permanent expansions of the federal government. On the other hand, he oversaw tax increases and signed the Second Bank of the United States into law.
10. John Tyler-- did a good job antagonizing and obstructing the congress during his very brief presidency.
11. Benjamin Harrison
12. Rutherford B. Hayes
13. John Q. Adams-- pushed increased taxation and government intervention into the economy, but did at least tend toward foreign non-interventionism and substantially reduce the national debt.
14. Martin Van Buren
15. Zachary Taylor
16. Chester A. Arthur
17. John Adams
18. William H. Taft
19. Andrew Jackson-- I know Jackson is very popular with some libertarians for killing the second national bank and briefly extinguishing the national debt, and these are great accomplishments indeed, but his illegal and egregious atrocities toward the Indians and distinctly authoritarian use of presidential power (as when he bullied the states during the Nullification Crisis and ignored a Supreme Court ruling that he had to respect previous treaties with the Indians rather than evict them) knock him way down in my book.
20. William Henry Harrison-- it is, of course, a popular meme around these parts that Harrison was the best president for dying in 30 days, but if we're being serious, I don't think this holds water. When the president dies, someone else replaces him; theoretically, even if every president died in 30 days, the government could still grow. Harrison wanted to expand the federal government, although he admittedly barely got to actually do anything toward that end.
21. Jimmy Carter-- gets an excessively bad rap in some quarters these days; he actually oversaw moderately significant deregulation of the economy, and was one of the less authoritarian and warlike presidents of the last few decades.
22. Gerald Ford
23. Ronald Reagan-- a divisive figure in and out of libertarian circles, but I think this is largely because of his compelling and distinctive rhetoric and persona; his policies were generally fairly unremarkable. He did deregulate domestically, and was much less of a warmonger than any of the presidents who have followed in his wake (though still too much of one), but also allowed enormous increases in net spending and debt, expanded the drug war, and had the CIA meddling in foreign affairs in ways that would come back to bite us horribly, among other things.
24. Herbert Hoover-- not a good president, but the burden of blame for the Great Depression is shifted far too heavily onto him and away from his successor, who heavily ramped-up Hoover's bad government-expansionist policies with a fervor and audacious thirst for power which Hoover himself would never have dreamed of.
25. John F. Kennedy
26. Dwight Eisenhower
27. Andrew Johnson
28. Franklin Pierce
29. Millard Fillmore
30. James Buchanan
31. William McKinley
32. Abraham Lincoln-- his atrocities and usurpations are well-discussed in these parts, but I submit that his role in ending slavery is a major redeeming feature which puts him above the guys to follow.
33. Theodore Roosevelt
34. George H.W. Bush
35. James K. Polk-- the father of unconstitutional imperialistic presidential warmaking.
36. Bill Clinton
37. Richard Nixon
38. Lyndon B. Johnson
39. George W. Bush
40. Harry Truman-- responsible for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atrocities and illegal presidential war in Korea, put the first US troops in Vietnam, tried to illegally seize and nationalize the steel industry.
41. Woodrow Wilson-- a self-described socialist and eugenicist; a radical interventionist (in both domestic and foreign spheres), white supremacist (note that he publicly assented to the accuracy of the film "the Birth of a Nation," which depicted the Ku Klux Klan as a band of gallant knights) authoritarian who lied to the public about his intention to get the US into World War I (he actually campaigned on the slogan "he kept us out of war" while, as is well-documented, fully intending to get the US into the war after he was elected), resegregated integrated federal departments, jailed his political opponents under the Sedition Act of 1917, and was a driving force behind the creation of the Federal Reserve and the institution of the federal income tax.
42. Franklin Roosevelt-- an autocratic despot whose duplicitousness, brutality, and disregard for the rule of law were unmatched. He embarked on the biggest agenda of government regimentation of the economy in all of US history (which severely prolonged the Great Depression), underhandedly bullied the Supreme Court into accepting his illegal New Deal programs, initiated the worst racial persecution by a US president since the Trail of Tears in the form of Japanese internment, became the first and only president to ignore Washington's two-term precedent, lied through his teeth to the American public about his intention to get the US into World War II, undertook a campaign of vicious firebombing of civilian populations during World War II... the list goes on. All told, he did more to break down the Constitution's barriers against federal power, install a permanent big-government apparatus in the United States, set a standard of amoral Machiavellian policy-making that treats human beings like disposable objects of convenience, and put the country on an irreversible course toward financial insolvency than any other individual ever has.

John F Kennedy III

05-24-2012, 01:35 AM

Thank you Max :) I will definitely use this in the OP.

dillo

05-24-2012, 01:38 AM

Don't forget killing thousands of natives, denying them their property rights by seizing private Indian land for state and federal purposes, their civil rights, and ejecting them form the country. Also ignoring the rule of law by refusing the acknowledge the ruling and authority of the Supreme Court when it said his acts were unjust. Then there is threatening to hang every citizen of South Carolina when the state threatened to nullify his tariffs. He was not a good President, or even a good man as far as I am concerned.

how about a no

row333au

05-24-2012, 02:38 AM

If one had studied the history of the political family Kennedy and Fitzgerald, it will really show a lot of 'not a pretty picture' in terms of corruptions and secret societies within the family - ie: Kennedy's father (Joe) and grandfather (Patrick) intertwine with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and as the United States Ambassador to the Court of St. James, Pilgrim Society with Harvard University and Democratic Party.

And this is true pattern all the way to the preceding current Kennedys on how and why the demise of their influence and constant evil behaviours and corruptions.

And these are the real reason why a lot of skeptics or detractors against JFK and his brother Robert have real grounds on their negative side of them.

Note of how JFK moved through early his political and business career, his suppose to be heroic acts, and days in senate and his sexual liaisons.

In his first term within few months as president he did get in bed with the establishments, the 'TPTB' and the secret government and king makers. Note again how he was fully into Vietnam war, Cuban Invasion and several strong supporter of the establishment issues including their commercial colonization (Anglo-Brit -American Elite Economic) of the world financial empire.

However during the Cuban missile crisis along with his confidant and right hand brother Robert and with their apparent part of disclosure of things that are privy to the higher powers only, have seen him (and his brother Robert) to change a 180 degree turn in favour of humanity (circa Sept 1962 up to his November 1963 assassination).

He was quoted around January 1963 telling Robert McNamara "this period and the eminent so close Cuban Nuclear war with Russia have shaken my very foundation which made me change overnight to fight evil for what it is, specially what have woken in me of the real reality of the world... my faith and the power I have been given I will do everything right".

Note McNamara was the defence secretary chosen by Kennedy (but during Jonson and Nixon, he remain as the secretary of defence and as the head of world bank).

And in his memoirs, he told of being unable to do the right things but became a puppet or been turn to the higher power .... David Rockerfeller not invited and unannounced at a White House party only for the administration, he took the seat and diner table from Robert McNamara and was telling him what to do. If this is not power over the government what is?....Robert McNamara (including Edward Kennedy) through Rockerfeller was a sponsor of the Temple of Understanding, 'Spiritual UN' for the six major faiths ( the very wealthy in hundreds of billion fund) with its UN official mission with the Arcane School, the international 'group of New World Servers', who form 'Triangles' to work for UNESCO." These were established by occultist Alice Bailey's Lucis Trust, which is affiliated with the U.N. Meditation Room.

The JFK prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis was totally different from the one that made his righteous legacy of fighting the New World Order in favour of humanity.

Case Study in history:

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. It also decree a returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.

"United States Notes" were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury. We compared a "Federal Reserve Note" issued from the private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal Reserve System), with a "United States Note" from the U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy's Executive Order. They almost look alike, except one says "Federal Reserve Note" on the top while the other says "United States Note". Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number.

President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 after 2 days LBJ reverse this Executive Orders. Also President Johnson passed NSAM 273 on November 26, 1963. It reversed Kennedy's decision to withdraw US troops and exit Vietnam, and reaffirmed the policy of assistance to the South Vietnamese Government.

John F Kennedy III

05-24-2012, 04:00 AM

Thank you. It seems JFK started out as a puppet and then turned good after seeing the horror behind the curtain.

JohnM

05-24-2012, 05:23 AM

Off topic post . . .

Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei
Accomplishments of president James Madison, our greatest president:

2) War of 1812 the greatest victory in US history:

Greatest victory in US history is one way to describe it. According to Wikipedia, that is not quite how historians see it.

In recent decades the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. . . .

However, other scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. . . .

A second minority view is that both the US and Britain won the war—that is, both achieved their main objectives, while the Indians were the losing party. . . .

More recently, historians have begun to agree that the real losers of the War of 1812 were the American Indians. . . .

JohnM

05-24-2012, 06:10 AM

On topic post . . .

Thank you. It seems JFK started out as a puppet and then turned good after seeing the horror behind the curtain.

Quote from Ivan Eland:

Q: Who is the most undeserving of the presidents that we and our culture generally rate as "great."

A: I think John F. Kennedy. Even historians rate him as one of the most overrated people in American history. He almost incinerated the world in the Cuban Missile Crisis and he gets far too much credit for his behavior during that. He moderated his behavior -- if he had followed the advice of his generals we would have had a nuclear war.

JohnM

05-24-2012, 06:53 AM

And another on topic post!

Ron Paul interviews Ivan Eland about his book Recarving Rushmore here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx0qtQ7PeB4&feature=relmfu

I found the section from 7:57 to 10:04 ("What was your biggest surprise in this whole research that you have done?" particularly interesting.

Origanalist

05-24-2012, 07:03 AM

I know some of the people here are going to jump down my throat for saying this, but I believe that Theodore Roosevelt is the best president of all time.

I also think that Bill Clinton was a good president.

I also deeply respect Jimmy Carter despite the fact that he had a pretty bad term.

I will respectfully disagree. While you may deeply respect Jimmy Carter as a person, he was a horrible president. I know, I was there and actually voted for him. By the time he was done with his first term it was obvious to everyone in the country he was a disaster as a president.

Bill Clinton was not even close to being as bad as Carter, but the only reason he didn't grow government more than he did was the sheeples weren't quite as indoctrinated then as they are now. Close, but not quite.

ExPatPaki

05-24-2012, 07:55 AM

I had to do this back in high school. I'm too embarrassed to tell you who was #1. :o

For our history class, it was Polk because he accomplished all of his presidential goals in one term and didn't run for another.

JohnM

05-24-2012, 07:55 AM

And how is this for a ranking of the presidents during my lifetime?

1. Jimmy Carter
2. Dwight Eisenhower
3. Bill Clinton
4. Gerald Ford
5. Richard Nixon
6. Lyndon Johnson
7. George H. W. Bush
8. Ronald Reagan
9. John F. Kennedy
10. George W. Bush

John F Kennedy III

05-24-2012, 01:54 PM

On topic post . . .

Quote from Ivan Eland:

Yeah as I research this more JFK keeps going down on the list. I still have alot of respect for him though for waking up and trying to do good. He ended up giving his life trying to do good for us. I know it doesn't make up for all of what he did before and during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But he deserves to be ranked above all of the presidents who were just flat out evil or were puppets, which is every president FDR and forward, plus Wilson and I'd rank him ahead of Lincoln.

John F Kennedy III

05-24-2012, 02:02 PM

I would love to hear anything Dr. Paul has said about JFK if he has said anything :)

ronpaulfollower999

05-24-2012, 02:21 PM

My #2 and #3 used to be Bill Clinton and FDR. Now you can share your shame :p

FDR was #1 for me.

But I also had Jefferson and I think Cleveland in my top 10. It was right at my transition from a flaming socialist. I had Andrew Jackson ranked last because of the trail of tears fiasco. Didn't rank Bush, but I'm sure he would've been in my bottom 5.

My bottom 5 today:

40) LBJ
41) Barack Obama
42) George W. Bush
43) FDR
44) Woodrow Wilson

Don't think I can do a top 5. Too many imperfections.

John F Kennedy III

05-24-2012, 02:34 PM

FDR was #1 for me.

But I also had Jefferson and I think Cleveland in my top 10. It was right at my transition from a flaming socialist. I had Andrew Jackson ranked last because of the trail of tears fiasco. Didn't rank Bush, but I'm sure he would've been in my bottom 5.

My bottom 5 today:

40) LBJ
41) Barack Obama
42) George W. Bush
43) FDR
44) Woodrow Wilson

Don't think I can do a top 5. Too many imperfections.

Yeah the public school system teaches you to admire some TERRIBLE people.

I'm having a hard time myself with ranking Obama and George W. Bush. It's hard to weigh what they have done versus what I'm learning about some past presidents. Like Lincoln, FDR, Wilson and a few others have done some downright horrific things on a large scale.

I used to say W. was hands down the worst president. I don't think that anymore. But he is still near the bottom. And Obama I think is worse than him. At least Bush was open and in your face about what he was doing.

John F Kennedy III

05-24-2012, 02:44 PM

Maybe we could debate who is worse? Obama or W. Bush.

Origanalist

05-24-2012, 02:48 PM

Yeah as I research this more JFK keeps going down on the list. I still have alot of respect for him though for waking up and trying to do good. He ended up giving his life trying to do good for us. I know it doesn't make up for all of what he did before and during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But he deserves to be ranked above all of the presidents who were just flat out evil or were puppets, which is every president FDR and forward, plus Wilson and I'd rank him ahead of Lincoln.

If by that you mean you would rank JFK ahead of Lincoln I couldn't agree more. Lincoln ranks at the very bottom for me. JFK for all his baggage doesn't even come close.

Origanalist

05-24-2012, 02:53 PM

Maybe we could debate who is worse? Obama or W. Bush.

Hmmmmm, I would have to give that one to Obama. He's taken what Bush set him up for and run with it with a vengeance.

John F Kennedy III

05-24-2012, 02:53 PM

If by that you mean you would rank JFK ahead of Lincoln I couldn't agree more. Lincoln ranks at the very bottom for me. JFK for all his baggage doesn't even come close.

Yes I mean I would rank JFK ahead of Lincoln. I'm thinking Lincoln is going to end up in my bottom 5. It's hard to limbo under the bar he set. Lincoln goes down even more if what I have been reading on the subject of him and slavery is true. If anyone knows what I'm talking about please PM me. I trust RPF members alot more than random internet users because you guys are crazy obsessed with knowing what's going on with just about any subject :p But please PM me about it. I don't want this thread to get thrown into HT.

John F Kennedy III

05-24-2012, 02:55 PM

Hmmmmm, I would have to give that one to Obama. He's taken what Bush set him up for and run with it with a vengeance.

True. He has taking every Bush policy and expanded and accelerated it. He has moved this country much farther into socialism than Bush did. Bush taught us not to pay attention to the President, Obama is taking advantage of that.

JohnM

05-24-2012, 04:02 PM

Yeah as I research this more JFK keeps going down on the list. I still have alot of respect for him though for waking up and trying to do good. He ended up giving his life trying to do good for us. I know it doesn't make up for all of what he did before and during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But he deserves to be ranked above all of the presidents who were just flat out evil or were puppets, which is every president FDR and forward, plus Wilson and I'd rank him ahead of Lincoln.

You will have noticed that Ivan Eland gives him credit for moderating his behavior and being wise enough not to follow the advice of his generals.

I would love to hear anything Dr. Paul has said about JFK if he has said anything :)

Good question. I was wondering if he mentioned JFK in Liberty Defined, but I just looked at my copy, and there isn't an index!

John F Kennedy III

05-24-2012, 04:08 PM

You will have noticed that Ivan Eland gives him credit for moderating his behavior and being wise enough not to follow the advice of his generals.

Good question. I was wondering if he mentioned JFK in Liberty Defined, but I just looked at my copy, and there isn't an index!

I can't find anything, but someone can, please post it!

cityoflight

05-24-2012, 04:25 PM

3. James Monroe-- cut taxes and spending, substantially reduced the national debt, took a primarily non-interventionist stance on foreign affairs. He did unleash a certain trigger-happy General Jackson on the Indians (grimly foreshadowing certain future developments) in one unfortunate incident.

Non-interventionist? The Monroe Doctrine dominated U.S. foreign policy for over a century. Not only did it evolve into a blatant endorsement of intervention (asserted the right to resist European involvement throughout the hemisphere), Monroe also declared it without any accompanying legislation or approval. He also wanted to drastically expand the military including increased "defense" spending. It was quickly forgotten that we were supposed to stay out of European affairs as well. The doctrine was used as a basic justification all kinds of meddling in Latin America basically up until the present.

MaxPower

05-24-2012, 05:20 PM

Non-interventionist? The Monroe Doctrine dominated U.S. foreign policy for over a century. Not only did it evolve into a blatant endorsement of intervention (asserted the right to resist European involvement throughout the hemisphere), Monroe also declared it without any accompanying legislation or approval. He also wanted to drastically expand the military including increased "defense" spending. It was quickly forgotten that we were supposed to stay out of European affairs as well. The doctrine was used as a basic justification all kinds of meddling in Latin America basically up until the present.
The Monroe Doctrine did overstep its bounds in suggesting that any intervention by Europe in our hemisphere might be seen as tantamount to intervention in the affairs of the US itself (though it is somewhat understandable, in that, for example, the Spanish might be out intervening in land bordering the US such as to stir up the Seminoles to attack) but you have to look at the other side of the coin as well-- not what it "evolved" into, but how Monroe and his administration actually interpreted it and enforced it (keeping in mind, also, that the term "Monroe Doctrine" as some kind of formal standard didn't come into use until decades after Monroe's presidency). Monroe's formulation of his own doctrine explicitly maintained that the US would stay neutral regarding overseas internal affairs and would not interfere with European colonies already present in the Western hemisphere; I would say he was about 80-90% non-interventionist, and certainly anti-imperialist. He wasn't as non-interventionist as you or I might like, but as US presidents go, I would definitely put him toward that end.

John F Kennedy III

05-24-2012, 11:01 PM

Just did some research on Lincoln. It's hard to imagine someone worse than him.

KingNothing

05-25-2012, 05:00 AM

Van Buren, Cleveland, Coolidge, Harding, Tyler, JQA, and Taylor were good or better.

I think we'd be better off if none of the others were ever elected.

KingNothing

05-25-2012, 05:01 AM

Maybe we could debate who is worse? Obama or W. Bush.

Obama is worse because he's Bush, only more so.

John F Kennedy III

05-25-2012, 05:22 AM

Van Buren, Cleveland, Coolidge, Harding, Tyler, JQA, and Taylor were good or better.

I think we'd be better off if none of the others were ever elected.

Care to give info on Van Buren and JQA?

John F Kennedy III

05-26-2012, 01:36 PM

Bump

Galileo Galilei

05-26-2012, 01:52 PM

Off topic post . . .

Greatest victory in US history is one way to describe it. According to Wikipedia, that is not quite how historians see it.

The people at the time thought it was a great victory. Even greater than the Revolution if you judge by the benefits of service had on your chances for elected office.

Galileo Galilei

05-26-2012, 02:00 PM

Van Buren, Cleveland, Coolidge, Harding, Tyler, JQA, and Taylor were good or better.

I think we'd be better off if none of the others were ever elected.

What about Jefferson? When he was president, the federal government had only 300 employees in Washington and that included the congress.

The fact is, most people in the 1800s and virtually no contact whatsoever with the federal government. The feds took about 2% of the GNP out of the economy for operating expenses.

Galileo Galilei

05-26-2012, 02:05 PM

The fact is, most people in the 1800s and virtually no contact whatsoever with the federal government. The feds took about 2% of the GNP out of the economy for operating expenses.

Which is why idiots who bash 19th century presidents, ... are, .... idiots. (besides Lincoln)

TheTexan

05-26-2012, 02:10 PM

Just did some research on Lincoln. It's hard to imagine someone worse than him.

Yes, the Northern Aggressor is by far and indisputably the worst.

Massachusetts

05-26-2012, 02:20 PM

I think it's easier to start at the bottom of the list and go up. There have been a significantly larger pool of poor presidents to pick from compared to good presidents.

Origanalist

05-26-2012, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by John F Kennedy III

Just did some research on Lincoln. It's hard to imagine someone worse than him.
--------------------------
Yes, the Northern Aggressor is by far and indisputably the worst.
-----------------------

Lincoln the tyrant is the man we can thank for the monster called dc. If there had been no Lincoln, could there have been a FDR?

John F Kennedy III

05-26-2012, 02:22 PM

Yes, the Northern Aggressor is by far and indisputably the worst.

I haven't researched them yet, but I think Wilson and FDR at least come damn close.

John F Kennedy III

05-26-2012, 02:29 PM

TheTexan

05-26-2012, 02:29 PM

I haven't researched them yet, but I think Wilson and FDR at least come damn close.

Would there have even been a Wilson or FDR, if not for Lincoln?

edit: looks like I'm late with my post~

Galileo Galilei

05-26-2012, 02:31 PM

I think it's easier to start at the bottom of the list and go up. There have been a significantly larger pool of poor presidents to pick from compared to good presidents.

I guess I don't get it. The first 27 presidents, more than half, did little in office (besides Lincoln). The Federal government used up only about 2% of the GNP, and unlike today, most of it was used for a useful rather than wasteful purpose. Basically, the US had a very very small central government that most people never encountered. It operated a court system, kept people safe from Indians and pirates, and sent ambassadors to other nations. Not much else. Besides Lincoln and maybe TR, all the other presidents were pretty happy with this set up.

Galileo Galilei

05-26-2012, 02:33 PM

Would there have even been a Wilson or FDR, if not for Lincoln?

edit: looks like I'm late with my post~

Actually, the federal budget dropped to only 1.75% of the federal budget by 1912. This was actually a smaller central government than when the AoC were in operation. Lincoln's damage was temporary and was balanced by freeing slaves, while what Wilson did was not balanced by anything positive.

Massachusetts

05-26-2012, 02:37 PM

I think it would be fantastic if we could get a reading list for this project. I'm sure every President has a piece of literature regarding their policies. Maybe each person could read one or two of the books, then report back with a summary of the facts, accounts, etc. Then we can vote on which Presidents rank where from that.

TheTexan

05-26-2012, 02:45 PM

Actually, the federal budget dropped to only 1.75% of the federal budget by 1912. This was actually a smaller central government than when the AoC were in operation. Lincoln's damage was temporary and was balanced by freeing slaves, while what Wilson did was not balanced by anything positive.

No, Lincoln fought not to free the slaves, but to "preserve the union." What this in effect means, is that if your state believes the constitution is being ignored, and all political efforts to resolve this has failed, you are essentially without recourse. "Deal with it", Lincoln would say today.

Secession is the mechanism which keeps the Constitution to its word. Without the threat of secession, we get to, well.. where we are today.

This precedent of the inseverable union has done unimaginable damage to our country. This extends also to nullification, which has been repeatedly shot down by the supreme court. States will continue to try nullify, though, and it will continue to get shot down. At some point these states will say enough is enough, and simply try to secede again, and we're right back to where we started in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln essentially set us back 150 years.

Galileo Galilei

05-26-2012, 03:01 PM

No, Lincoln fought not to free the slaves, but to "preserve the union." What this in effect means, is that if your state believes the constitution is being ignored, and all political efforts to resolve this has failed, you are essentially without recourse. "Deal with it", Lincoln would say today.

Secession is the mechanism which keeps the Constitution to its word. Without the threat of secession, we get to, well.. where we are today.

This precedent of the inseverable union has done unimaginable damage to our country. This extends also to nullification, which has been repeatedly shot down by the supreme court. States will continue to try nullify, though, and it will continue to get shot down. At some point these states will say enough is enough, and simply try to secede again, and we're right back to where we started in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln essentially set us back 150 years.

Who cares what Lincoln fought for? The slaves got freed and it happened under Lincoln's watch. You think the black people gave a shit about your theories?

Origanalist

05-26-2012, 03:10 PM

Who cares what Lincoln fought for? The slaves got freed and it happened under Lincoln's watch. You think the black people gave a shit about your theories?

The slaves would have been freed regardless. The Western World in general was waking up to the crime that is slavery and new technologies were making slave labor obsolete.

I care what Lincoln fought for. He fought for complete control by a central authority.

TheTexan

05-26-2012, 03:12 PM

Who cares what Lincoln fought for? The slaves got freed and it happened under Lincoln's watch. You think the black people gave a shit about your theories?

The Constitution has since been trampled on, and for the past 150 years there has been no recourse, and that's why we now have a Federal Reserve printing trillions and giving it to the rich, why we have endless wars, why people are killed in their own homes over a plant, why we're told what we can eat, what we can drink, on, and on, and on...

His war may have incidentally freed the slaves, but in doing so he enslaved America. The slaves in the South would have been freed eventually, either migration to the North, or by other socioeconomic factors.

His war was not worth it. Not at all.

John F Kennedy III

05-26-2012, 03:24 PM

Galileo Galilei

05-26-2012, 03:30 PM

The slaves would have been freed regardless. The Western World in general was waking up to the crime that is slavery and new technologies were making slave labor obsolete.

I care what Lincoln fought for. He fought for complete control by a central authority.

Baloney. The South still had Jim Crow laws 100 years later, and they had to end those kicking and screaming.

Galileo Galilei

05-26-2012, 03:31 PM

The Constitution has since been trampled on, and for the past 150 years there has been no recourse, and that's why we now have a Federal Reserve printing trillions and giving it to the rich, why we have endless wars, why people are killed in their own homes over a plant, why we're told what we can eat, what we can drink, on, and on, and on...

His war may have incidentally freed the slaves, but in doing so he enslaved America. The slaves in the South would have been freed eventually, either migration to the North, or by other socioeconomic factors.

His war was not worth it. Not at all.

Totally wrong. There were no changes in the Constitution when Lincoln was president.

John F Kennedy III

05-26-2012, 03:35 PM

Who cares what Lincoln fought for? The slaves got freed and it happened under Lincoln's watch. You think the black people gave a shit about your theories?

What part of it is theory?

And you should research Lincoln more. He doesn't deserve any credit or praise.

TheTexan

05-26-2012, 03:36 PM

Totally wrong. There were no changes in the Constitution when Lincoln was president.

Well, seeing how you won't even read what I write this is clearly a waste of my time

LibertyEagle

05-26-2012, 03:41 PM

Case Study in history:

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. It also decree a returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.

"United States Notes" were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury. We compared a "Federal Reserve Note" issued from the private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal Reserve System), with a "United States Note" from the U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy's Executive Order. They almost look alike, except one says "Federal Reserve Note" on the top while the other says "United States Note". Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number.

President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 after 2 days LBJ reverse this Executive Orders. Also President Johnson passed NSAM 273 on November 26, 1963. It reversed Kennedy's decision to withdraw US troops and exit Vietnam, and reaffirmed the policy of assistance to the South Vietnamese Government.

This is a fallacy. Please read this: http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=jfkmyth&refpage=issues

Origanalist

05-26-2012, 03:47 PM

Baloney. The South still had Jim Crow laws 100 years later, and they had to end those kicking and screaming.

"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."

Abraham Lincoln

Galileo Galilei

05-26-2012, 03:57 PM

"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."

Abraham Lincoln

you actually believe what Lincoln says? I don't.

Origanalist

05-26-2012, 04:09 PM

you actually believe what Lincoln says? I don't.

Why wouldn't I?

John F Kennedy III

05-26-2012, 04:14 PM

Why wouldn't I?

That.

Origanalist

05-26-2012, 04:19 PM

That.

Confront the Lincoln apologist with Lincolns own words and that's the best he can come up with. Pretty lame.

John F Kennedy III

05-26-2012, 04:20 PM

Confront the Lincoln apologist with Lincolns own words and that's the best he can come up with. Pretty lame.

Lol yep. That's what all apologists do.

John F Kennedy III

05-26-2012, 04:22 PM

At least he didn't try to claim Lincoln didn't say it.

Massachusetts

05-26-2012, 04:41 PM

Great idea. Are there any websites that would be good resources for studying the presidents?

I found a website with all the State of the Union speeches. I'm not so sure that every one of these speeches reflects their actual actions as POTUS and certainly puts a bit of a spin on things, but I think it is a nice place to start.

hxxp://stateoftheunion.onetwothree.net/texts/index.html

Replace xx with tt in the URL.

John F Kennedy III

05-26-2012, 11:00 PM

I found a website with all the State of the Union speeches. I'm not so sure that every one of these speeches reflects their actual actions as POTUS and certainly puts a bit of a spin on things, but I think it is a nice place to start.

hxxp://stateoftheunion.onetwothree.net/texts/index.html

Replace xx with tt in the URL.

Thanks.

enoch150

05-27-2012, 02:45 AM

John F Kennedy III

05-27-2012, 03:06 AM

Pauling

05-27-2012, 03:44 AM

What if we grouped them rather than argue over a definitive ranking?

Perfect score: William Henry Harrison
God tier: Cleveland, Van Buren, Harding
Good tier: Coolidge,

And so on...

Dirt tier: Bush 1,
Slime tier: Bush 2, Obama, Carter
Shit tier: Nixon, LBJ, Truman
Satanic tier: FDR, Wilson, Lincoln

This, please. I'm not very educated on our past presidents. This would give me a great jumping off point to better inform myself. I only recently became aware that Lincoln wasn't too good a dude.

Pauling

05-27-2012, 03:45 AM

double post

John F Kennedy III

05-27-2012, 03:58 AM

Ok let's do groupings. I'm going to post MaxPower's list in the OP and the Recarving Rushmore list plus slowly work on my own.

CaptainAmerica

05-27-2012, 04:01 AM

John F Kennedy III

05-27-2012, 04:41 AM

Galileo Galilei

05-27-2012, 08:20 AM

What if we grouped them rather than argue over a definitive ranking?

Perfect score: William Henry Harrison
God tier: Cleveland, Van Buren, Harding
Good tier: Coolidge,

And so on...

Dirt tier: Bush 1,
Slime tier: Bush 2, Obama, Carter
Shit tier: Nixon, LBJ, Truman
Satanic tier: FDR, Wilson, Lincoln

WH Harrison was one of the biggest government presidents prior to Wilson. He appointed a big government cabinet. The joke that he did not do anything is BS. Then you can factor in his election rhetoric and inaugural speech agenda. This really needs to stop.

Galileo Galilei

05-27-2012, 08:28 AM

thomas jefferson belongs near the bottom as a very corrupted president.Jefferson fell very far from his original ideologies when he decided to invent the idea of sending native americans to reservations.....

The Indians, a warlike barbaric people, had been scalping Americans for almost 200 years. They also got the white man hooked on tobacco and gave them syphilis. Not only that, Indians were wealthy landowners hogging vast tracts of land while poor people in Europe were starving to death.

Origanalist

05-27-2012, 08:31 AM

Origanalist

05-27-2012, 08:33 AM

The Indians, a warlike barbaric people, had been scalping Americans for almost 200 years. They also got the white man hooked on tobacco and gave them syphilis. Not only that, Indians were wealthy landowners hogging vast tracts of land while poor people in Europe were starving to death.

Oh boy, that one made me laugh. Pot, meet stir stick.

Galileo Galilei

05-27-2012, 08:44 AM

Oh boy, that one made me laugh. Pot, meet stir stick.

You might think its funny, but 200 years ago it was the accurate consensus view. Indians were not peaceful libertarians. The concept of freedom and individual liberty developed historically almost exclusively via Western culture. The enemies of freedom will use any method possible, including historical revisionism, and a prime example today is to portray Indians as libertarians, and those of European stock as savages. The truth is that it is the other way around.

Origanalist

05-27-2012, 09:16 AM

You might think its funny, but 200 years ago it was the accurate consensus view. Indians were not peaceful libertarians. The concept of freedom and individual liberty developed historically almost exclusively via Western culture. The enemies of freedom will use any method possible, including historical revisionism, and a prime example today is to portray Indians as libertarians, and those of European stock as savages. The truth is that it is the other way around.

I'm not disputing what you posted, and I'm aware that Western culture is responsible for our being here on this forum at all.

I'm just laughing in advance at the reaction. But then again, this IS RPF and I might be surprised.

dillo

05-27-2012, 12:13 PM

Why all the hate on Lincoln?

TheTexan

05-27-2012, 12:17 PM

Why all the hate on Lincoln?

Not sure, but it may have something to do with the fact that he started a war that cost 750,000 Americans their lives, all because he didn't want the South to take their ball and go home.

Galileo Galilei

05-27-2012, 12:37 PM

Not sure, but it may have something to do with the fact that he started a war that cost 750,000 Americans their lives, all because he didn't want the South to take their ball and go home.

The Federalists warned that if separate confederacies were formed, then it would lead to civil war and a culture of warring states each competing for resources. The civil war proved the Federalists correct. After secession, war was inevitable whether Lincoln started it or not.

PS - It actually benefited the South that Lincoln was a lenient conqueror who allowed the southern states back into the Union. Historically speaking, conquered states are not given any voice in the new government, they are systematically raped and pillaged for wealth, with their people sold into slavery. Conquered states are almost always made in provinces.

Origanalist

05-27-2012, 12:41 PM

The Federalists warned that if separate confederacies were formed, then it would lead to civil war and a culture of warring states each competing for resources. The civil war proved the Federalists correct. After secession, war was inevitable whether Lincoln started it or not.

PS - It actually benefited the South that Lincoln was a lenient conqueror who allowed the southern states back into the Union. Historically speaking, conquered states are not given any voice in the new government, they are systematically raped and pillaged for wealth, with their people sold into slavery. Conquered states are almost always made in provinces.

I'm sure the South is tickled pink over their benefactors largesse.

TheTexan

05-27-2012, 12:46 PM

After secession, war was inevitable whether Lincoln started it or not.

Horseshit. That's like saying a war between the US and Mexico is inevitable.

Galileo Galilei

05-27-2012, 12:48 PM

I'm sure the South is tickled pink over their benefactors largesse.

They should be. It was a lot worse if you fell under the yoke of the Assyrian empire.

Galileo Galilei

05-27-2012, 12:50 PM

Horseshit. That's like saying a war between the US and Mexico is inevitable.

The facts stand; the Federalists made a specified prediction, and it came true in less than a few months. The anti-Federalists were WRONG.

I stand with the US Constitution and our Founding Fathers. You stand with Obama.

TheTexan

05-27-2012, 12:51 PM

The facts stand; the Federalists made a specified prediction, and it came true in less than a few months. The anti-Federalists were WRONG.

I stand with the US Constitution and our Founding Fathers. You stand with Obama.

You're a funny guy, I'll give you that

Origanalist

05-27-2012, 01:07 PM

You're a funny guy, I'll give you that

He sounds just like myself and the rest of the neo-cons I used to associate with before I was shown I had been swallowing a line of bs I had been fed all my life.

I feel like I'm debating someone on Townhall.

John F Kennedy III

05-27-2012, 01:51 PM

Galileo Galilei

05-27-2012, 02:01 PM

He sounds just like myself and the rest of the neo-cons I used to associate with before I was shown I had been swallowing a line of bs I had been fed all my life.

I feel like I'm debating someone on Townhall.

I feel like I am on the Huffington Puffington Post or the Daily Kos. If you do not like the US Constitution or Founding Fathers, that is a good place to go. Perhaps you can befriend Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

dillo

05-27-2012, 02:06 PM

John F Kennedy III

05-27-2012, 02:10 PM

Are there any websites that list what JFK did as president? I don't have time to read books on the subject and the lack of detail I'm finding is frustrating.

TheTexan

05-27-2012, 02:44 PM

What would Ron Paul have done if he was President during that time? In your opinion

The South was peacefully seceding. He would have minded his own business in the North.

Origanalist

05-27-2012, 03:25 PM

The South was peacefully seceding. He would have minded his own business in the North.

We can be as certain as humanly possible he wouldn't have become a tyrant of historic proportions like Lincoln.

Origanalist

05-27-2012, 03:26 PM

The American Lenin
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org

It's harder and harder these days to tell a liberal from a conservative -- given the former category's increasingly blatant hostility toward the First Amendment, and the latter's prissy new disdain for the Second Amendment -- but it's still easy to tell a liberal from a libertarian.

Just ask about either Amendment.

If what you get back is a spirited defense of the ideas of this country's Founding Fathers, what you've got is a libertarian. By shameful default, libertarians have become America's last and only reliable stewards of the Bill of Rights.

But if -- and this usually seems a bit more difficult to most people -- you'd like to know whether an individual is a libertarian or a conservative, ask about Abraham Lincoln.

Suppose a woman -- with plenty of personal faults herself, let that be stipulated -- desired to leave her husband: partly because he made a regular practice, in order to go out and get drunk, of stealing money she had earned herself by raising chickens or taking in laundry; and partly because he'd already demonstrated a proclivity for domestic violence the first time she'd complained about his stealing.

Now, when he stood in the doorway and beat her to a bloody pulp to keep her home, would we memorialize him as a hero? Or would we treat him like a dangerous lunatic who should be locked up, if for no other reason, then for trying to maintain the appearance of a relationship where there wasn't a relationship any more? What value, we would ask, does he find in continuing to possess her in an involuntary association, when her heart and mind had left him long ago?

History tells us that Lincoln was a politically ambitious lawyer who eagerly prostituted himself to northern industrialists who were unwilling to pay world prices for their raw materials and who, rather than practice real capitalism, enlisted brute government force -- "sell to us at our price or pay a fine that'll put you out of business" -- for dealing with uncooperative southern suppliers. That's what a tariff's all about. In support of this "noble principle", when southerners demonstrated what amounted to no more than token resistance, Lincoln permitted an internal war to begin that butchered more Americans than all of this country's foreign wars -- before or afterward -- rolled into one.

Lincoln saw the introduction of total war on the American continent -- indiscriminate mass slaughter and destruction without regard to age, gender, or combat status of the victims -- and oversaw the systematic shelling and burning of entire cities for strategic and tactical purposes. For the same purposes, Lincoln declared, rather late in the war, that black slaves were now free in the south -- where he had no effective jurisdiction -- while declaring at the same time, somewhat more quietly but for the record nonetheless, that if maintaining slavery could have won his war for him, he'd have done that, instead.

The fact is, Lincoln didn't abolish slavery at all, he nationalized it, imposing income taxation and military conscription upon what had been a free country before he took over -- income taxation and military conscription to which newly "freed" blacks soon found themselves subjected right alongside newly-enslaved whites. If the civil war was truly fought against slavery -- a dubious, "politically correct" assertion with no historical evidence to back it up -- then clearly, slavery won.

Lincoln brought secret police to America, along with the traditional midnight "knock on the door", illegally suspending the Bill of Rights and, like the Latin America dictators he anticipated, "disappearing" thousands in the north whose only crime was that they disagreed with him. To finance his crimes against humanity, Lincoln allowed the printing of worthless paper money in unprecedented volumes, ultimately plunging America into a long, grim depression -- in the south, it lasted half a century -- he didn't have to live through, himself.

In the end, Lincoln didn't unite this country -- that can't be done by force -- he divided it along lines of an unspeakably ugly hatred and resentment that continue to exist almost a century and a half after they were drawn. If Lincoln could have been put on trial in Nuremburg for war crimes, he'd have received the same sentence as the highest-ranking Nazis.

If libertarians ran things, they'd melt all the Lincoln pennies, shred all the Lincoln fives, take a wrecking ball to the Lincoln Memorial, and consider erecting monuments to John Wilkes Booth. Libertarians know Lincoln as the worst President America has ever had to suffer, with Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson running a distant second, third, and fourth.

Conservatives, on the other hand, adore Lincoln, publicly admire his methods, and revere him as the best President America ever had. One wonders: is this because they'd like to do, all over again, all of the things Lincoln did to the American people? Judging from their taste for executions as a substitute for individual self-defense, their penchant for putting people behind bars -- more than any other country in the world, per capita, no matter how poorly it works to reduce crime -- and the bitter distaste they display for Constitutional "technicalities" like the exclusionary rule, which are all that keep America from becoming the world's largest banana republic, one is well-justified in wondering.

The troubling truth is that, more than anybody else's, Abraham Lincoln's career resembles and foreshadows that of V.I. Lenin, who, with somewhat better technology at his disposal, slaughtered millions of innocents -- rather than mere hundreds of thousands -- to enforce an impossibly stupid idea which, in the end, like forced association, was proven by history to be a resounding failure. Abraham Lincoln was America's Lenin, and when America has finally absorbed that painful but illuminating truth, it will finally have begun to recover from the War between the States.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of 19 books including The Probability Broach, The Crystal Empire, Henry Martyn, The Lando Calrissian Adventures, Pallas, and (forthcoming) Bretta Martyn. An NRA Life Member and founder of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus, he has been active in the Libertarian movement for 34 years and is its most prolific and widely-published living novelist.

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.
---------------------------------------------------

I guess maybe I'm more of a libertarian than I thought I was, because I think Lincoln was a total tyrant.

Origanalist

05-27-2012, 03:27 PM

Additional Reading

Lincoln's Tariff War, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

The American Anti-Civil Liberties Union, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

The Real Abraham Lincoln, by Tibor R. Machan

Beheading the "Great Messiah", by Karen De Coster

A Guide for the Perplexed: What’s the Matter With Abe Lincoln, by David Dieteman

Note on the Gettysburg Address, by H.L. Mencken

Book tells of Jews in Civil War, By Bill Hendrick, an article about the book The Jewish Confederates, by Robert N. Rosen

Lincoln's Economic Legacy, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.

Abraham Lincoln's Pyrrhic Victory, Ilana Mercer

Freeing Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by Jeffrey Rodgers Hummell,

The Real Lincoln, by Charles L. C. minor.

War for What?, by Francis W. Springer.

Freeing Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by Jeffrey Rodgers Hummell.

The Real Lincoln, by Charles L. C. Minor.

Origanalist

05-27-2012, 03:36 PM

I feel like I am on the Huffington Puffington Post or the Daily Kos. If you do not like the US Constitution or Founding Fathers, that is a good place to go. Perhaps you can befriend Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Do some independent research, then get back to me.

"A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
Most Americans consider Abraham Lincoln to be the greatest president in history. His legend as the Great Emancipator has grown to mythic proportions as hundreds of books, a national holiday, and a monument in Washington, D.C., extol his heroism and martyrdom. But what if most everything you knew about Lincoln were false? What if, instead of an American hero who sought to free the slaves, Lincoln were in fact a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in american history in order to build an empire that rivaled Great Britain's? In The Real Lincoln, author Thomas J. DiLorenzo uncovers a side of Lincoln not told in many history books and overshadowed by the immense Lincoln legend.
Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized—as the Founding Fathers intended—to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provacative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.
You will discover a side of Lincoln that you were probably never taught in school—a side that calls into question the very myths that surround him and helps explain the true origins of a bloody, and perhaps, unnecessary war.
-------------------------

http://www.amazon.com/The-Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Unnecessary/dp/0761536418

Galileo Galilei

05-27-2012, 04:25 PM

Do some independent research, then get back to me.

"A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
Most Americans consider Abraham Lincoln to be the greatest president in history. His legend as the Great Emancipator has grown to mythic proportions as hundreds of books, a national holiday, and a monument in Washington, D.C., extol his heroism and martyrdom. But what if most everything you knew about Lincoln were false? What if, instead of an American hero who sought to free the slaves, Lincoln were in fact a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in american history in order to build an empire that rivaled Great Britain's? In The Real Lincoln, author Thomas J. DiLorenzo uncovers a side of Lincoln not told in many history books and overshadowed by the immense Lincoln legend.
Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized—as the Founding Fathers intended—to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provacative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.
You will discover a side of Lincoln that you were probably never taught in school—a side that calls into question the very myths that surround him and helps explain the true origins of a bloody, and perhaps, unnecessary war.
-------------------------

http://www.amazon.com/The-Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Unnecessary/dp/0761536418

I've already got that book and read it years ago.

enoch150

05-28-2012, 12:11 AM

WH Harrison was one of the biggest government presidents prior to Wilson. He appointed a big government cabinet. The joke that he did not do anything is BS. Then you can factor in his election rhetoric and inaugural speech agenda. This really needs to stop.

You can't factor in campaign rhetoric, only actions. If you could count rhetoric, you could count George HW Bush's "Read my lips: no new taxes". Similarly, you can't count anything his cabinet appointments may have done while they worked under Tyler because they answered to Tyler, not to him. You can't guess that they would have done the same things. The fact is, Harrison didn't actually get anything done due to only being in office a month and sick for much of the time. The first rule is: Do no harm. Harrison did none. What he would have liked to have done is irrelevant.

The only knock on Harrison is that he didn't reduce the power of government.

dillo

05-28-2012, 12:25 AM

Wouldn't constitutionalists recognize that slavery was a violation of the Bill of Rights, and in spite of how decentralized they wanted the government all states had to abide to the bill of rights?

enoch150

05-28-2012, 12:35 AM

Wouldn't constitutionalists recognize that slavery was a violation of the Bill of Rights, and in spite of how decentralized they wanted the government all states had to abide to the bill of rights?

The bill of rights only applied to the federal government at the time. It didn't apply to the states until the 14th amendment, which was proposed in 1866 and ratified in 1868.

That being said, even federal law violated the Bill of Rights on the issue of slavery. Just see the Fugitive Slave Act. Even the Constitution violated the Bill of Rights on the slave issue.

Galileo Galilei

05-28-2012, 12:42 AM

The only knock on Harrison is that he didn't reduce the power of government.

The federal government in the 1800s was so small that increasing or decreasing it by minute amounts is largely irrelevant. Most people in the 1800s had absolutely no contact whatsoever with the federal government.

enoch150

05-28-2012, 01:25 AM

The federal government in the 1800s was so small that increasing or decreasing it by minute amounts is largely irrelevant. Most people in the 1800s had absolutely no contact whatsoever with the federal government.

Small relative to now. But there has always been a time when something could have been improved, whether that was repealing the Fugitive Slave Act or reducing tariffs.

Galileo Galilei

05-28-2012, 01:51 AM

Small relative to now. But there has always been a time when something could have been improved, whether that was repealing the Fugitive Slave Act or reducing tariffs.

Abraham Lincoln got rid of the Fugitive Slave Act.

enoch150

05-28-2012, 03:03 AM

Abraham Lincoln got rid of the Fugitive Slave Act.

William Henry Harrison was President in 1841...

Galileo Galilei

05-28-2012, 08:37 AM

William Henry Harrison was President in 1841...

OK?

nano1895

05-28-2012, 09:16 AM

OK?

He meant that William Henry Harrison could've done it sooner.

Galileo Galilei

05-28-2012, 10:55 AM

He meant that William Henry Harrison could've done it sooner.

Actually, the fugitive slave law in 1841 was well written and fair. It was not until 1850 that the new fugitive slave act became an anti-liberty document. This was rammed through shortly after Zachery Taylor was poisoned to death and Millard Fillmore took the helm.

cheapseats

05-28-2012, 11:12 AM

Group Project: Let's Rank The Presidents and Summarize Their Presidencies

Replies: 188
Views: 3,041
19 pages

It is NOT Third Party talk or Plan B talk, rather, THIS sort of Mental Masturbation that could and should wait until after November.

I'm sorry there is not a pleasing-to-the-Board way to articulate that TRUTH.

I mean, of ALL the "group projects" that this non-collective might undertake...

Origanalist

05-28-2012, 12:34 PM

John F Kennedy III

05-28-2012, 12:38 PM

Made big changes to OP. Check it out.

Still making more as I do other things...

Shane Harris

05-28-2012, 12:47 PM

John F Kennedy III

05-28-2012, 01:07 PM

This is very subjective as different aspects of liberty are more important to certain people. I think the best solution is grouping, since there are so many different factors and controversial issues. Maybe anything from 3 presidents per group to 5 total groups?

5 total groups makes 8-9 per group. 3 per is 14 groups with 1 president left over.

How about we start with 5 groups and go from there?

John F Kennedy III

05-28-2012, 01:43 PM

Updated OP more. Still need to add in the summaries we have so far and need someone to help make more summaries for the ones we don't have. Anyway check it out and let me know what you think.

Danan

05-28-2012, 03:44 PM

What would Ron Paul have done if he was President during that time? In your opinion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbOE4Ip7In0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DmhRBHZrKc

106459

05-28-2012, 04:25 PM

Baloney. The South still had Jim Crow laws 100 years later, and they had to end those kicking and screaming.

This is what I consider to be an extremely flawed argument. In essence, Lincoln created the Jim Crow laws because of the forced end to slavery. If it had been ended peacefully like in Great Britain and countless other countries, there would have been far less resentment from the white southerner to the newly freed black. There wouldn't have been punitive measures to counteract the forced freedom that would've never happened.
Yes, because of Lincoln there is still a great deal of resentment today from all the punitive measures. Ask about people's feelings on Affirmative Action. I certainly don't like it.

The Constitution has since been trampled on, and for the past 150 years there has been no recourse, and that's why we now have a Federal Reserve printing trillions and giving it to the rich, why we have endless wars, why people are killed in their own homes over a plant, why we're told what we can eat, what we can drink, on, and on, and on...

His war may have incidentally freed the slaves, but in doing so he enslaved America. The slaves in the South would have been freed eventually, either migration to the North, or by other socioeconomic factors.

His war was not worth it. Not at all.

Totally wrong. There were no changes in the Constitution when Lincoln was president.

Surely you jest. If Lincoln HAD made changes to the Constitution, THEN he wouldn't have violated it. That's because since it would've been changed to be a total piece of crap, all his previous violations would have been then acceptable. I don't even know what else to say. You seriously think the Constitution has to be changed to be violated? They're called amendments; to amend something changes it. Change is an integral part of the Constitution.
Now: If you're arguing Lincoln can't be to blame for things such as the Federal Reserve (which you might've been doing), that's wrong as well. Lincoln played an integral role in violating the Constitution and setting the precedent for future presidents to have such massive usurpation of power.

Lincoln: One of the worst presidents, if not THE worst.

Galileo Galilei

05-28-2012, 04:28 PM

This is what I consider to be an extremely flawed argument. In essence, Lincoln created the Jim Crow laws because of the forced end to slavery. If it had been ended peacefully like in Great Britain and countless other countries, there would have been far less resentment from the white southerner to the newly freed black. There wouldn't have been punitive measures to counteract the forced freedom that would've never happened.
Yes, because of Lincoln there is still a great deal of resentment today from all the punitive measures. Ask about people's feelings on Affirmative Action. I certainly don't like it.

Slavery is worse then Jim Crow laws.

Surely you jest. If Lincoln HAD made changes to the Constitution, THEN he wouldn't have violated it. That's because since it would've been changed to be a total piece of crap, all his previous violations would have been then acceptable. I don't even know what else to say. You seriously think the Constitution has to be changed to be violated? They're called amendments; to amend something changes it. Change is an integral part of the Constitution.
Now: If you're arguing Lincoln can't be to blame for things such as the Federal Reserve (which you might've been doing), that's wrong as well. Lincoln played an integral role in violating the Constitution and setting the precedent for future presidents to have such massive usurpation of power.

Lincoln: One of the worst presidents, if not THE worst.

The Constitution was not amended while Lincoln was president. That's why Wilson was worse than Lincoln.

John F Kennedy III

05-28-2012, 05:55 PM

Slavery is worse then Jim Crow laws.

The Constitution was not amended while Lincoln was president. That's why Wilson was worse than Lincoln.

And Lincoln wasn't against slavery.

P.S. 6,000th post :D

Origanalist

05-28-2012, 06:12 PM

And Lincoln wasn't against slavery.

Or causing hundreds of thousands of violent deaths, untold amounts of maimed, destroying whole cities and burning farms, etc. etc.

Origanalist

05-28-2012, 06:17 PM

P.S. 6,000th post

Didn't take too long, Me either at the rate I'm going.

John F Kennedy III

05-28-2012, 06:20 PM

Or causing hundreds of thousands of violent deaths, untold amounts of maimed, destroying whole cities and burning farms, etc. etc.

Just scratching the surface, sadly.

John F Kennedy III

05-28-2012, 06:22 PM

Didn't take too long, Me either at the rate I'm going.

Yeah my rate is about 25 a day. But sometimes I post 50-100 in a day.

TheTexan

05-28-2012, 06:25 PM

Just scratching the surface, sadly.

Aside from the apologists, I think we can all safely agree that Lincoln is the worst.

We should move on to second worst IMO. Seems to be a toss up between Wilson & FDR?

Origanalist

05-28-2012, 06:26 PM

Yeah my rate is about 25 a day. But sometimes I post 50-100 in a day.

You definitely have me beat. But I was pretty surprised I got to 500 as fast as I did.

Origanalist

05-28-2012, 06:28 PM

Aside from the apologists, I think we can all safely agree that Lincoln is the worst.

We should move on to second worst IMO. Seems to be a toss up between Wilson & FDR?

Yep, the real contest is definitely for second.

Origanalist

05-28-2012, 06:29 PM

I don't think I can come up with a "best" group.

Origanalist

05-28-2012, 06:31 PM

The truth is that I need to look into Wilson more.

The Gold Standard

05-28-2012, 06:52 PM

Lincoln did nothing to end slavery, only expanded it. He didn't free the northern slaves, and he had no authority to free southern slaves. He did enslave northern whites and blacks and ordered them to slaughter their fellow Americans from southern states. He also enslaved the north by forcing them to fund the growing federal government with a portion of their income.

John F Kennedy III

05-28-2012, 07:22 PM

The truth is that I need to look into Wilson more.

Please do. I need alot more info on him.

I'm currently researching FDR so if anyone can help with info on him I'd appreciate it.

John F Kennedy III

05-28-2012, 07:24 PM

Lincoln is worst. I'm not sure if Wilson can top FDR for 2nd, but we shall see.

John F Kennedy III

05-28-2012, 08:12 PM

Cliff notes on what I wrote down for FDR. Feel free to add to it.

-Largely responsible for the gigantic government we have today

-gold seizure

-paid farmers not to grow crops

-established fascism in America

-social security

-japanese internment

Galileo Galilei

05-28-2012, 09:16 PM

And Lincoln wasn't against slavery.

P.S. 6,000th post :D

Lincoln was against slavery, but pretended to support it because that is what the voters wanted. I find it amazing that even people here believe what double talking politicians say, not what they do.

Galileo Galilei

05-28-2012, 09:31 PM

Aside from the apologists, I think we can all safely agree that Lincoln is the worst.

We should move on to second worst IMO. Seems to be a toss up between Wilson & FDR?

You sound like a Wilson apologist. Wilson was easily the worst president. No one else is even close.

The Wilson legacy:

* sinking of Lusitania (orchestrated event)

* The bogus Zimmerman Telegram (another orchestrated event)

* creation of ADL in 1913

* "lone nut" near assassination against Teddy Roosevelt in October 1912, throwing the election to Wilson

* income tax

* Espionage Act act of 1917, followed by arbitrary arrests of newspaper publishers

* Federal Reserve

* WWI

* Harrison Act of 1914 (war on drugs)

* allowing women to vote without making congressional districts smaller to balance increased number of voters

* League of Nations

* mass murder of over 70 labor unionists in Michigan (Italian Hall fire of 1913, orchestrated event)

* direct election of Senators (worst event on this list)

* alcohol prohibition

* resurgent racism (Wilson set an example for the nation by kicking all the blacks out of the federal government)

* Wilson set a precedent by lying about his health to the people; he should have resigned, his last two years in office he could not function; basically, his unelected wife took over, rather than the Vice President as the Founders intended

* In 1913, Charles Beard, cheered by Wilson, published the most horrific "scholarly" attack upon the Founding Fathers, a bogus book called 'An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution'

* In 1915, Beard published another horrible attack upon Thomas Jefferson

* Wilson was responsible for the massive spread of influenza, he intentionally moved sick soldiers all over the world and then failed to tell local leaders who could have taken some precautions; this alone led to the deaths of 50 million people, making Wilson the greatest mass murdered in human history, beating out Lincoln, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined

###

John F Kennedy III

05-28-2012, 09:46 PM

You sound like a Wilson apologist. Wilson was easily the worst president. No one else is even close.

The Wilson legacy:

* sinking of Lusitania (orchestrated event)

* The bogus Zimmerman Telegram (another orchestrated event)

* creation of ADL in 1913

* "lone nut" near assassination against Teddy Roosevelt in October 1912, throwing the election to Wilson

* income tax

* Espionage Act act of 1917, followed by arbitrary arrests of newspaper publishers

* Federal Reserve

* WWI

* Harrison Act of 1914 (war on drugs)

* allowing women to vote without making congressional districts smaller to balance increased number of voters

* League of Nations

* mass murder of over 70 labor unionists in Michigan (Italian Hall fire of 1913, orchestrated event)

* direct election of Senators (worst event on this list)

* alcohol prohibition

* resurgent racism (Wilson set an example for the nation by kicking all the blacks out of the federal government)

* Wilson set a precedent by lying about his health to the people; he should have resigned, his last two years in office he could not function; basically, his unelected wife took over, rather than the Vice President as the Founders intended

* In 1913, Charles Beard, cheered by Wilson, published the most horrific "scholarly" attack upon the Founding Fathers, a bogus book called 'An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution'

* In 1915, Beard published another horrible attack upon Thomas Jefferson

* Wilson was responsible for the massive spread of influenza, he intentionally moved sick soldiers all over the world and then failed to tell local leaders who could have taken some precautions; this alone led to the deaths of 50 million people, making Wilson the greatest mass murdered in human history, beating out Lincoln, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined

###

I think those mentioned combined would equal more than 50 million.

Can you provide more info on how he caused this flu epidemic? And how he was responsible for WWI?

heavenlyboy34

05-28-2012, 10:00 PM

Lincoln was against slavery, but pretended to support it because that is what the voters wanted. I find it amazing that even people here believe what double talking politicians say, not what they do.
Yet he married a woman from a major slaver family...hmmm... might want to be suspicious of that. ;)

Origanalist

05-28-2012, 10:12 PM

You sound like a Wilson apologist. Wilson was easily the worst president. No one else is even close.

The Wilson legacy:

* sinking of Lusitania (orchestrated event)

* The bogus Zimmerman Telegram (another orchestrated event)

* creation of ADL in 1913

* "lone nut" near assassination against Teddy Roosevelt in October 1912, throwing the election to Wilson

* income tax

* Espionage Act act of 1917, followed by arbitrary arrests of newspaper publishers

* Federal Reserve

* WWI

* Harrison Act of 1914 (war on drugs)

* allowing women to vote without making congressional districts smaller to balance increased number of voters

* League of Nations

* mass murder of over 70 labor unionists in Michigan (Italian Hall fire of 1913, orchestrated event)

* direct election of Senators (worst event on this list)

* alcohol prohibition

* resurgent racism (Wilson set an example for the nation by kicking all the blacks out of the federal government)

* Wilson set a precedent by lying about his health to the people; he should have resigned, his last two years in office he could not function; basically, his unelected wife took over, rather than the Vice President as the Founders intended

* In 1913, Charles Beard, cheered by Wilson, published the most horrific "scholarly" attack upon the Founding Fathers, a bogus book called 'An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution'

* In 1915, Beard published another horrible attack upon Thomas Jefferson

* Wilson was responsible for the massive spread of influenza, he intentionally moved sick soldiers all over the world and then failed to tell local leaders who could have taken some precautions; this alone led to the deaths of 50 million people, making Wilson the greatest mass murdered in human history, beating out Lincoln, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined

###

I'm not going to argue with anything you say about Wilson except the last point. I need some verification on that. And most of what he did would not have been possible without Lincoln.

Galileo Galilei

05-28-2012, 10:31 PM

I'm not going to argue with anything you say about Wilson except the last point. I need some verification on that. And most of what he did would not have been possible without Lincoln.

The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History [Hardcover]
John M. Barry (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Influenza-Deadliest-History/dp/0670894737

tttppp

05-28-2012, 10:34 PM

I think those mentioned combined would equal more than 50 million.

Can you provide more info on how he caused this flu epidemic? And how he was responsible for WWI?

Was there any point to being involved in WWI? Based on the bs reasons WWI started they teach us in school, there really seemed to be no point at all to entering in this war.

Galileo Galilei

05-28-2012, 10:38 PM

I think those mentioned combined would equal more than 50 million.

Can you provide more info on how he caused this flu epidemic? And how he was responsible for WWI?

The numbers of deaths found here:

The pandemic lasted from January 1918 to December 1920,[3] spreading even to the Arctic and remote Pacific islands. Between 50 and 130 million died, making it one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history.[4][1][5][6][7] Even using the lower estimate of 50 million people, 3% of the world's population (which was 1.86 billion at the time[8]) died of the disease. Some 500 million, or 27%, were infected.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

Wilson's role explained in this book:

The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History [Hardcover]
John M. Barry (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Influenza-Deadliest-History/dp/0670894737

With respect to WWI:

World War I (Zeitgeist) | FlipThePyramid.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4tWlVZ0ZXA

Galileo Galilei

05-28-2012, 10:39 PM

Was there any point to being involved in WWI? Based on the bs reasons WWI started they teach us in school, there really seemed to be no point at all to entering in this war.

Wilson said he wanted to save the world for democracy. Total bunk of course.

Galileo Galilei

05-28-2012, 10:40 PM

Yet he married a woman from a major slaver family...hmmm... might want to be suspicious of that. ;)

smart political move, good way to appeal top slave-owning voters.

tttppp

05-28-2012, 10:44 PM

Wilson said he wanted to save the world for democracy. Total bunk of course.

How was it initially started though? I was told that some dumb fuck was assassinated then a bunch of countries went crazy and started going to war over it. That sounds stupid, but thats how it was explained to me. This doesn't seem like a rational cause for a war.

John F Kennedy III

05-28-2012, 11:05 PM

The numbers of deaths found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

Wilson's role explained in this book:

The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History [Hardcover]
John M. Barry (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Influenza-Deadliest-History/dp/0670894737

With respect to WWI:

World War I (Zeitgeist) | FlipThePyramid.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4tWlVZ0ZXA

I'll watch the video, but can you summarize the book for me? The part where Wilson is at fault?

Galileo Galilei

05-28-2012, 11:11 PM

How was it initially started though? I was told that some dumb fuck was assassinated then a bunch of countries went crazy and started going to war over it. That sounds stupid, but thats how it was explained to me. This doesn't seem like a rational cause for a war.

Read the Guns of August:

The Guns of August [Paperback]
Barbara W. Tuchman (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Guns-August-Barbara-Tuchman/dp/034538623X

Lucky for us, JFK read this book prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis. It helped JFK navigate his way to peace and avoid mistakes made in the past (per RFK).

Galileo Galilei

05-28-2012, 11:18 PM

I'll watch the video, but can you summarize the book for me? The part where Wilson is at fault?

Wilson had information about the virus, which broke out in US military camps in Kansas at first. Wilson started sending the sick soldiers all over the place because he wanted us in WWI. He sent them all over the US and then all over the place in Europe including Spain (hence the name Spanish flu). He withheld info he had about the sickness to the people in the places he was sending them too, so they mixed even more. Like he sent a bunch of troops to Philadelphia and did not tell the mayor, and then the troops marched in a parade and then thousands more got sick.

The sickness was tricky because at first most people thought they just had the flu.

If Wilson had quarantined the sick soldiers, called back sick soldiers, and warned leaders in other places about it, the people working on vaccines would have gotten out in front of the outbreak. The virus would have started to mutate to a weaker form before it hit fresh populations.

John F Kennedy III

05-28-2012, 11:33 PM

Wilson had information about the virus, which broke out in US military camps in Kansas at first. Wilson started sending the sick soldiers all over the place because he wanted us in WWI. He sent them all over the US and then all over the place in Europe including Spain (hence the name Spanish flu). He withheld info he had about the sickness to the people in the places he was sending them too, so they mixed even more. Like he sent a bunch of troops to Philadelphia and did not tell the mayor, and then the troops marched in a parade and then thousands more got sick.

The sickness was tricky because at first most people thought they just had the flu.

If Wilson had quarantined the sick soldiers, called back sick soldiers, and warned leaders in other places about it, the people working on vaccines would have gotten out in front of the outbreak. The virus would have started to mutate to a weaker form before it hit fresh populations.

Holy fuck. That's some evil shit.

enoch150

05-28-2012, 11:34 PM

Actually, the fugitive slave law in 1841 was well written and fair. It was not until 1850 that the new fugitive slave act became an anti-liberty document.

That's one of the most bizarre statements ever posted on these forums. It isn't possible to have a pro-liberty law requiring the return of a person to slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1793

Signed into law by George Washington.

John F Kennedy III

05-28-2012, 11:37 PM

smart political move, good way to appeal top slave-owning voters.

I really don't understand why you back Lincoln so much but you hate Wilson.

John F Kennedy III

05-28-2012, 11:41 PM

Today I was researching FDR and found this blog where the guy starts it off saying Lincoln was probably our greatest president and then he goes into this SUPER LONG, SUPER DETAILED explanation of why FDR was the worst president ever.

Galileo Galilei

05-28-2012, 11:45 PM

That's one of the most bizarre statements ever posted on these forums. It isn't possible to have a pro-liberty law requiring the return of a person to slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1793

Signed into law by George Washington.

not really, because fugitive slave laws do not create slavery. Take away the slave laws, and fugitive slave laws mean nothing.

And also, the new law of 1850 was much harsher than the old one.

Galileo Galilei

05-28-2012, 11:46 PM

I really don't understand why you back Lincoln so much but you hate Wilson.

I don't really like Lincoln, but I like to argue with the anti-Lincoln fanatics. Its fun.

John F Kennedy III

05-28-2012, 11:50 PM

I don't really like Lincoln, but I like to argue with the anti-Lincoln fanatics. Its fun.

Lol alritey. You make more sense now. Carry on.

Did I miss anything big on FDR? I'm trying to get it ready to start pasting summaries in the OP.

BattleFlag1776

05-28-2012, 11:51 PM

How was it initially started though? I was told that some dumb fuck was assassinated then a bunch of countries went crazy and started going to war over it. That sounds stupid, but thats how it was explained to me. This doesn't seem like a rational cause for a war.

This should help you get started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis

As stated earlier, The Guns of August is a good read.

Galileo Galilei

05-28-2012, 11:59 PM

Lol alritey. You make more sense now. Carry on.

Did I miss anything big on FDR? I'm trying to get it ready to start pasting summaries in the OP.

here are some good books on FDR that I have read:

FDR: The Other Side of the Coin [Paperback]
Hamilton Fish (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/FDR-The-Other-Side-Coin/dp/0977326829

FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression [Paperback]
Jim Powell (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Folly-Roosevelt-Prolonged-Depression/dp/140005477X

The Roosevelt Myth [Paperback]
John T. Flynn (Author), Ralph Raico (Introduction)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Roosevelt-Myth-John-Flynn/dp/0930073274

The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable (Potomac's Military Controversies) [Paperback]
George Victor (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Pearl-Harbor-Myth-Controversies/dp/1597971618/ref=pd_sim_b_9

Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor [Paperback]
Robert Stinnett (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Day-Of-Deceit-Truth-Harbor/dp/0743201299

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal (The Politically Incorrect Guides) [Paperback]
Robert Murphy (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Depression-Guides/dp/1596980966

There might be a couple more I have overlooked.

Galileo Galilei

05-29-2012, 12:05 AM

here are some good books on FDR that I have read:

FDR: The Other Side of the Coin [Paperback]
Hamilton Fish (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/FDR-The-Other-Side-Coin/dp/0977326829

FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression [Paperback]
Jim Powell (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Folly-Roosevelt-Prolonged-Depression/dp/140005477X

The Roosevelt Myth [Paperback]
John T. Flynn (Author), Ralph Raico (Introduction)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Roosevelt-Myth-John-Flynn/dp/0930073274

The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable (Potomac's Military Controversies) [Paperback]
George Victor (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Pearl-Harbor-Myth-Controversies/dp/1597971618/ref=pd_sim_b_9

Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor [Paperback]
Robert Stinnett (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Day-Of-Deceit-Truth-Harbor/dp/0743201299

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal (The Politically Incorrect Guides) [Paperback]
Robert Murphy (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Depression-Guides/dp/1596980966

There might be a couple more I have overlooked.

Here's one more good one, mostly overlooked:

FDR's Deadly Secret [Hardcover]
Eric Fettmann (Author), Steven Lomazow (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Deadly-Secret-Eric-Fettmann/dp/1586487442

tttppp

05-29-2012, 12:08 AM

This should help you get started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis

As stated earlier, The Guns of August is a good read.

Yeah. Just as I remembered. A completely pointless war. The cause was completely idiotic. The way the war was fought was idiotic. Both sides sitting in trenches, taking turns on who gets killed. No progress made by either side. Was there a reason at all for the U.S. to be in this war? Regardless of who won, how would that effect the U.S.?

Galileo Galilei

05-29-2012, 12:08 AM

We also need to give some kudos to Truman, another really really bad president, the guy who nuked people.

This book is overlooked by most people I know:

Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb: And the Architecture of an American Myth [Hardcover]
Gar Alperovitz (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb-Architecture/dp/0679443312

Galileo Galilei

05-29-2012, 12:11 AM

enoch150

05-29-2012, 12:23 AM

Here's some background on a few President's with regard to energy policy:

1971: Nixon severs ties to gold
1973: Nixon backs Israel in Yom Kippur War. In retaliation, OPEC declares embargo on US (it lasted 6 months). Nixon rations oil to the states based on 1972 usage rates. States with increased populations had shortages. To encourage new exploration, Nixon fixed the price of oil from existing domestic fields. Prices from newly developed fields are allowed to float at market rates. Because inflation was already picking up from the fiat money switch, existing oil fields became unprofitable. "Old oil" fields were shut down. Shortages increased. This was the beginning of the huge spike in oil that peaked in 1980.

Ford does nothing to change the situation.

1977: Carter creates Department of Energy
1979: Carter bans oil imports from Iran, imposes import quotas, and tells Americans to install solar panels, lower the temperature in their houses, and to stop driving so damn much.
1980: Carter imposes windfall profits tax on oil companies.

1981: Eight days after taking office, Reagan issues executive order 12287, which eliminated Nixon's oil price controls, effective immediately. "Old oil" comes back online. The inflation adjusted price of oil begins falling immediately and continues to fall (except for a bump during Gulf War 1), until 1998. Reagan also removed Carter's windfall profits tax.

enoch150

05-29-2012, 12:32 AM

not really, because fugitive slave laws do not create slavery. Take away the slave laws, and fugitive slave laws mean nothing.

And also, the new law of 1850 was much harsher than the old one.

The Federal Fugitive Slave laws made it so that slaves were in danger of being forced back into slavery even if they escaped into a non-slave state. They were evil. All of them.

Galileo Galilei

05-29-2012, 12:32 AM

A shout out to an overlooked bad president, Gerald Ford!

Our Short National Nightmare
How President Ford managed to go soft on Iraqi Baathists, Indonesian fascists, Soviet Communists, and the shah … in just two years.

A few tidbits:

In December 1975, Ford was actually in the same room as Gen. Suharto of Indonesia when the latter asked for American permission to impose Indonesian military occupation on East Timor.

Ford's refusal to meet with Solzhenitsyn, when the great dissident historian came to America, was consistent with his general style of making excuses for power.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/12/our_short_national_nightmare.html

BattleFlag1776

05-29-2012, 12:35 AM

Yeah. Just as I remembered. A completely pointless war. The cause was completely idiotic. The way the war was fought was idiotic. Both sides sitting in trenches, taking turns on who gets killed. No progress made by either side. Was there a reason at all for the U.S. to be in this war? Regardless of who won, how would that effect the U.S.?

Germany’s pledge to Mexico to back it in a war against the US as stated in the Zimmerman telegram is what pissed most off:

"We intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement in detail is left to you. You will inform the President of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves. Please call the President's attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace." Signed, ZIMMERMANN

Mexico knew they couldn't pull it off though. In the end, money & power had a lot to do with it then just as it does today.

Galileo Galilei

05-29-2012, 12:37 AM

The Federal Fugitive Slave laws made it so that slaves were in danger of being forced back into slavery even if they escaped into a non-slave state. They were evil. All of them.

Not true. Under the Articles of Confederation, deals between states were already returning runaway slaves. These deals predate the Revolution and are in fact the fault of the British, not the Americans. The British dumped the problem on the Americans.

Galileo Galilei

05-29-2012, 12:38 AM

Germany’s pledge to Mexico to back it in a war against the US as stated in the Zimmerman telegram is what pissed most off:

Mexico knew they couldn't pull it off though. In the end, money & power had a lot to do with it then just as it does today.

The Zimmerman telegram was faked.

BattleFlag1776

05-29-2012, 12:41 AM

The Zimmerman telegram was faked.

I've got my suspicions too but cite your source.

enoch150

05-29-2012, 12:46 AM

Not true. Under the Articles of Confederation, deals between states were already returning runaway slaves. These deals predate the Revolution and are in fact the fault of the British, not the Americans. The British dumped the problem on the Americans.

Americans continued the policy. I don't see how this comment helps your argument that the earlier version was fair and that the law didn't become anti-liberty until 1850.

Also, which part of "The Federal Fugitive Slave laws made it so that slaves were in danger of being forced back into slavery even if they escaped into a non-slave state. They were evil. All of them." is not true?

Galileo Galilei

05-29-2012, 12:46 AM

I've got my suspicions too but cite your source.

Zimmerman said it was a fake. Who would know better than him?

Additionally, documents released from the British secrets act have shown the event to be concocted.

John F Kennedy III

05-29-2012, 12:55 AM

here are some good books on FDR that I have read:

FDR: The Other Side of the Coin [Paperback]
Hamilton Fish (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/FDR-The-Other-Side-Coin/dp/0977326829

FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression [Paperback]
Jim Powell (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Folly-Roosevelt-Prolonged-Depression/dp/140005477X

The Roosevelt Myth [Paperback]
John T. Flynn (Author), Ralph Raico (Introduction)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Roosevelt-Myth-John-Flynn/dp/0930073274

The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable (Potomac's Military Controversies) [Paperback]
George Victor (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Pearl-Harbor-Myth-Controversies/dp/1597971618/ref=pd_sim_b_9

Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor [Paperback]
Robert Stinnett (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Day-Of-Deceit-Truth-Harbor/dp/0743201299

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal (The Politically Incorrect Guides) [Paperback]
Robert Murphy (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Depression-Guides/dp/1596980966

There might be a couple more I have overlooked.

Thanks. I was skimming through Roosevelt Myth online earlier. It's where I got most of my info from :)

BattleFlag1776

05-29-2012, 12:58 AM

Zimmerman said it was a fake. Who would know better than him?

Additionally, documents released from the British secrets act have shown the event to be concocted.

Zimmerman would deny as it was essentially a declaration of war so I've always discounted him. As for the British secret acts, I thought that produced the actual document the Brits intercepted and led to credibility. Could be wrong though. In any case it is one of the "whys" that got the ball rolling.

I've always been highly suspicious, as I have said, but have never been able to convince myself wholly as Germany was all over the Americas (including Mexico) at that time and the US prized the Monroe Doctrine and the hegemony over the Americas it provided.