RoR: Forum

Dear James,

Great stuff, as usual.

I've heard many libertarians argue that Grover Cleveland was the president friendliest to the free market. But his impact wasn't big -- and not philosophical.

That's what you seem to be focusing on and -- I think -- rightly so.

Garin

Post 1

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 4:55am

Nice List, but one could muse whether there could be a distinction between domestic and foreign liberty or whether words prove to be followed by deeds.

So, I am highly sceptical on every president, but I grant that the first three stepped in to defend Liberty in the world and for their country. The latter shall remain to be proven by the events that occur during his second term and its consequences..

Post 2

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 5:32am

James,

I agree with the first three, but to put George W Bush ahead of Thomas Jefferson is a travesty of justice. The man who wrote the Delaration of Independence and completed the Louisiana Purchase should be number 4. The fiscal disaster perpetrated by George W Bush and his cronies in Congress has no long term objective other than further perpetuation of the welfare state.

Post 3

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 8:59am

Garin- there are a number of men who might have been closer to a libertarian view than Lincoln or Bush, but didn't, as you suggest, have as big an impact in areas that advanced freedom.
Max- my definition of the advancement of the concept of freedom covers foreign and domestic actions. If Bush were to be hit by a bus today, he would still be on it.
James- The writing of the Declaration of Independence by Jefferson ( with Adams) occurred well before either man was president. As to his effectiveness as president, even Jefferson agreed with me. He didn't have his presidency mentioned on his tombstone. The Louisiana Purchase was the right decision, I agree, and a very difficult one for him to make, but I would call Jefferson a great thinker and a great man. I would not call him a great president.

Post 4

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 9:34am

Yeah, but can you take someone like this seriously?

http://www.borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=1092&srch=

I mean it hits in your face, when someone who thinks about bringing peace, prosperty and liberty on the way in the world, has ideas like such.
I still tend to believe that you should have picked someone else as the forth greatest president of the US.

Post 5

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 10:08am

James:

Have you read the book, "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" by Jeffrey Rogers Hummell? He presents evidence to support the notion that slavery would have ended in the United States without war at the end of the 19th century.

Lincoln only turned to emancipation in 1862 as a political ploy to keep England and France from helping the South.

I do think the wrong side won the War Between the States and that Lincoln made the same mistake that George Bush is making. It is a mistake to ignore the constitution of the Republic in order to save the Republic.

Lincoln oversaw the end of the democratic republic of the Founding Fathers and the birth of the American Empire. I place Lincoln as the worst President.

Post 6

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 11:30am

Robert K. Stock wrote:

"He presents evidence to support the notion that slavery would have ended in the United States without war at the end of the 19th century"

(1) Maybes and possibilities amount to nothing against the fact that - pragmatic arsehole or not - Lincoln actually *enacted* the law that *ended* slavery.

(2) The civil war ended in 1865. The 19th century ended 35 years later. Adding *another* generation of slaves to the list of victims of the policy...

The fact of the matter was that there were those in the South who believed that they had the their god-given right to own and dispose of black-human beings as property. You can measure of their resolve to defend those rights by the fact that they raised an army and fought a numerically and industrially superior foe for four years.

Then, out of pure spite, for the next 85-odd years they took their revenge on the former slaves by enacting racist laws and turning a blind eye to public lynchings etc.

Jeffrey Rogers Hummell can theorise all he likes. When someone is willing to kill to defend slavery, the only argument left to those who oppose him is to use a gun.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 4/02, 12:40pm)

Post 7

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 11:50am

Robert Winefield:

Lincoln did not free a single slave. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in Confederate territory. The slaves in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, Union States and Union occupied areas of the Confederacy were exempt.

Early in the War John C. Fremont became military Governor of Missouri and proclaimed all slaves free. Lincoln was outraged, removed Fremont as Governor and rescinded Fremont's order.

Linclon, as the vast majority of white Northerners, held the same views as white Southerners that we would call White Supremacist today. That is why the Underground Railroad ended in Canada and not the Ohio River.

In the South free blacks could own property and businesses. The number of free blacks in the South grew as each census documents. Several Northern states did not allow free blacks to own property, own a business or even live in their State. For example, Oregon became a State in 1859. It's constitution forbade slavery AND free blacks from living in Oregon.

I think that 25 more years of slavery would have been preferable to 600,000 American dead. Blacks, Whites and everyone else would have been much better off.

(Edited by Robert K Stock on 4/02, 11:52am)

Post 8

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 12:00pm

Um, Robert, exactly why did the South want to secede in the first place?

Oh, that's right. Because Lincoln was an abolitionist.

At important political periods, he wasn't vocal about it because abolitionism was not overwhelmingly popular and he needed to keep the country together. (This is the same reason slavery wasn't outlawed in the Constitution upon the founding.)

Post 9

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 12:18pm

Alec:

Lincoln was not an abolitionist. Lincoln said that he wanted to preserve the Union and if he could do that by freeing all the slaves, some of the slaves or none of the slaves he would do it.

The only real abolitionist party was the Liberty party. They never received more then 5% of the vote in any election in the North.

The Republicans intended to not allow the possibility of slavery in the new territories of the Southwest when they became ready for Statehood. They had no intention of ending slavery in the States where it existed. The Deep South thought that if the Federal government would negate the will of the people in the Territories it would not be long before they tried the same thing with the States.

After the seven States of the Deep South seceded, Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to force their return. This proposed armed invasion was the reason that North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas seceded.

Today we have a similar situation with Oregon's Doctor Assisted Suicide law. The Federal government is trying to run roughshod over the rights of the people of Oregon. You can think that Doctor Assisted Suicide is wrong and also think the Federal government has no right to interfere in Oregon.

Slavery was wrong, but legal and would have ended by legal means

(Edited by Robert K Stock on 4/02, 12:19pm)

Post 10

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 12:37pm

Robert, you clouded the essential answer to my question with a whole compost of irrelevant words.

The reason the South wanted to secede was because of slavery. The whole "saving the union" issue came up because of slavery!!! There would have been no need to save the union otherwise.

Exactly why did Lincoln want to disallow slavery in the new territories, if he wasn't an abolitionist?

One may believe that there could've been other, better ways to end slavery -- but you can't go around lying to support your ideas.

Alec

Post 11

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 12:39pm

Robert K Stock wrote:

"Lincoln did not free a single slave. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in Confederate territory. The slaves in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, Union States and Union occupied areas of the Confederacy were exempt."

Granted, which is why I called him a pragmatic arsehole. *BUT* to have freed the slaves in the confederacy is still better than freeing none at all. That act laid the ground work for the complete abolition of slavery.

I can't see how slavery in the USA would have ended by the end of the 19th Century without a fight. Philosophical revolutions take a hell of a long time. Witness the one we are trying to ferment at the moment.

"I think that 25 more years of slavery would have been preferable to 600,000 American dead. Blacks, Whites and everyone else would have been much better off."

How would you know? Ever been a slave? Ever had a boss that has beaten, chained, imprisoned and starved you. Ever had to sit there while that same boss did the same to your wife and your children?

Did you ever consult those dead Union soldiers (including the Black soldiers) before you condemned every one of their deaths as futile?

This statement that "the vast majority of white Northerners, held the same views as white Southerners" is crap. Certainly there were many Northerners that didn't like blacks, didn't want them as neighbours, wouldn't employ them, wouldn't allow them to marry into their family, wouldn't invite them to dinner etc. Ignoring blacks and wishing they would go home (foolish and irrational in all that it might be) is not the same as supporting slavery - the *act* of subjugating another human being.

Post 12

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 12:44pm

Alec:
.
I am not lying.

It was not Lincoln but members of the Republican party that had been staunch members of the Liberty party that wanted to restrict the expansion of slavery.

Slavery was not the reason the South seceded.

(Edited by Robert K Stock on 4/02, 12:47pm)

(Edited by Robert K Stock on 4/02, 12:53pm)

Post 13

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 12:45pm

Robert Winefield:

Slavery ended in Brazil in 1888. It had the same free state slave state system as the United States. The economies were similar, the laws were similar and the ending of slavery would have been similar.

I understand your emotional response because the schools have not taught the truth about the War Between the States.

(Edited by Robert K Stock on 4/02, 12:50pm)

Post 14

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 12:40pm

� http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese169.html

"Oh, that's right. Because Lincoln was an abolitionist."

WHAT?!? That's the same ol' tripe that the government and media push on the masses that are too lazy to do their own work to find out the truth. Before I continue, here's an applicable George Orwell quote:

"Do you realize that the past, starting from yesterday, has been actually abolished? If it survives anywhere, it's in a few solid objects with no words attached to them, like that lump of glass there. Already we know almost literally nothing about the Revolution and the years before the Revolution. Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right. I know, of course, that the past is falsified, but it would never be possible for me to prove it, even when I did the falsification myself. After the thing is done, no evidence ever remains." (Winston Smith, 1984)

Might I suggest a few sources to START learning about who the TRAITOR Lincoln really was?

� The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War: A fascinating book about everything that your teachers and the government don�t want you to know� like Lincoln was not interested in the emancipation of the slaves at all. His main objective was to force the secessionists to remain in the Union. Just as a �taste,� here�s a quote from Lincoln in a famous public letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley in 1862: �My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.� You�ll also learn that Lincoln�s Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave, as the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to Rebel territory.

� If you have a desire to understand what the soldiers in the Civil War thought they were really fighting for (which, by the way, is in completely agreement with the premise of The Real Lincoln and against everything we learned in history class), check out What They Fought For 1861-1865. The author writes from the journals and diaries of the Rebel and Yankee soldiers. Unfortunately, the revisionists have completely �destroyed� the real truth about history, as George Orwell so correctly predicted in 1984.

- B.

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

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL: brilovett, MSN: blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo: bm_lovett

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

Post 15

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 12:52pm

�It takes a big man to admit when he�s wrong. I am not a big man.� (Fletch)

�Exactly why did Lincoln want to disallow slavery in the new territories, if he wasn't an abolitionist?�

Alec, I mean no disrespect or insult here, but you are sorely misinformed. Unfortunately, it appears you believe something based on the faith of your childhood history teachers and books (most likely who were government-owned and operated), rather than facts and reason.

There are a tremendous amount of FACTS out there for your consumption but, as with anything, you'll have to do the work to find out the TRUTH.

- B.

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

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL: brilovett, MSN: blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo: bm_lovett

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

Post 16

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 1:04pm

Robert K Stock,

"All I can say is that you are mistaken."

About the measure of Lincoln's greatness? Perhaps. However, you cannot deny the fact that slaves were freed under his watch. This was a good thing!

Lincoln did and thought many bad things but, IMHO, this good deed out-shines most of his bad thoughts & actions.

I also think that you are mistaken in believing that you can turn a blind eye to 35 years of slavery to avoid a war. There are some things that *have* to be defended with blood and steel. Liberty is one of those things.

Post 17

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 1:07pm

Alec:

The States created the Union and the States can disolve it if they wish. The South seceded because the States were sovereign and not the Federal government.

(Edited by Robert K Stock on 4/02, 1:11pm)

Post 18

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 1:08pm

I should have said this to start with but better late than never: an excellent & thought provoking article James.

You were always going to catch flak with Lincoln on your list. I'm not entirely sure that he deserves top four billing but I don't think he was the worst either. Looks like I'm catching flak for that too.

Cheers

Robert

Post 19

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 1:09pm