The Best and Worst of the Presidency

[TolkienFan]

Who do you think has been our greatest president so far? Who do you think has been our worst president so far?

To me, the best one would have to be Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The man came into office at the worst part of the Great Depression and he led us out of it. The man's courageous, perceptive, action-oriented, and durable character made him the perfect president for the time.

The worst one would probably be James Buchanan. Why him? He was the one that came in right before Lincoln and he did nothing to stem the tide. It was probably inevitable that our country would eventually divide itself and fight, but at least Buchanan could have tried to do something. He was an impotent president at a time when we couldn't afford to have such.

[NeilUnreal]

I would have to vote for Lincoln as the best. He has been a bit lionized by the lens of popular history, but still, he managed to pull the country back together at a time when we very nearly became two countries. In a sense, he took a confederation and made it a nation (no pun intended).

Jefferson is a close second. He provided much of the guiding wisdom that still keeps our country great today.

Nixon, for all his faults, was a very effective modern president. True, the paranoid actions of his adminstration did damage our country that is still being felt, but he was also much more progressive and liberal president than populary history remembers him as being. I think had it not been for the Vietnam conflict (though not of his genesis, he didn't handle it well during his terms), he would be remembered as a much greater president.

I don't really have an opinion on the worst.

-Neil

[TolkienFan]

Just curious, shouldn't this be in the Political History forum? If so, how do I move it?

[historic salve]

Nixon, for all his faults, was a very effective modern president. True, the paranoid actions of his adminstration did damage our country that is still being felt, but he was also much more progressive and liberal president than populary history remembers him as being. I think had it not been for the Vietnam conflict (though not of his genesis, he didn't handle it well during his terms), he would be remembered as a much greater president.
I agree. Apart from Vietnam and Watergate, Nixon was a very good president. I'm not sure how he was liberal, though.

[NeilUnreal]

I agree. Apart from Vietnam and Watergate, Nixon was a very good president. I'm not sure how he was liberal, though.

Among other things:

He saw past the cold war and opened up America's relations with China and tried to improve relations with the Soviet Union.

He sought to find a middle ground in integration that would be acceptable to Southern conservatives. (It turns out more was possible than he thought.)

Worked towards achieving universal health insurance through employer mandates.

Wanted to revise welfare by assuring a living wage for working class people.

-Neil

[Jimmy Higgins]

Among other things:

He saw past the cold war and opened up America's relations with China and tried to improve relations with the Soviet Union.Saw past the Cold War? Meeting with China was a calculated Cold War move to keep the Soviet Union paranoid about China. [/quote]
Lyndon Johnson launched the Civil Rights movement in Congress. Sure, he does have that whole Vietnam thing though.

And George W. Bush united the world... against us, but he did unite the world. :wink:

[Philosophickle]

I think Jefferson was the best, and I lean towards Lincoln being the worst.

[norwegen]

I like Ronald Reagan best. His belief in individualism, limited government, and strong defense embodied historic American values. Under Reagan, conservatism – essentially the classic liberalism of the founding fathers – revisited on the American spirit the concepts of self-reliance and hard work and also of courage and strength in the face of a communist threat. With Reagan in office, the country prospered. Substantial tax cuts and an economic laissez-faire philosophy - no wonder a landslide victory his second term.

Contrast this with FDR, who implemented government work programs, many of which were ruled unconstitutional. His ideas that “direct recruiting by the Government itself”* for a workforce and of “national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities”* were socialistic. With him and a Democratic Congress in control of such a large part of the workforce, the Great Depression lasted ten years. Ten long years of businesses closing and of people losing their jobs and homes and begging for food. No thanks, Franklin.


* From FDR's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933

[historic salve]

Among other things:

He saw past the cold war and opened up America's relations with China and tried to improve relations with the Soviet Union.
Hmm, liberals are usually protectionist. This was not a liberal thing to do, although at the time it was unprecedented.


He sought to find a middle ground in integration that would be acceptable to Southern conservatives. (It turns out more was possible than he thought.)
Since everybody is pro-integration now... I don't think this is liberal...


Worked towards achieving universal health insurance through employer mandates.

Wanted to revise welfare by assuring a living wage for working class people.
This is liberal. I think revising welfare is better than using employer mandates, but at least Nixon had the right idea.

[NeilUnreal]

Hmmm, good points. Nevertheless, I didn't say Richard Nixon was a liberal, I said: "...but he was also much more progressive and liberal president than populary history remembers him as being."

-Neil

[Zeluvia]

hmm even though I am old, and lived through many presidencies, I don't feel qualified to judge this...

Also, the effectiveness of a president depended alot on Congress and the rest of the world, and our economy.

Certainly, Lincoln made one of the hardest decsions....I think Reagen gets too much credit....Roosevelt too....

Better questions: What were some of our best Congresses and Supreme Courts?

[Augustine2004]

Grover Cleveland: best.
Worst - not decided yet. Lincoln, FDR, Bush 2. Probably the latter.

Grover wasn't perfect, but came closer to the ideal of Liberty and Justice for All than even Jefferson.

FDR didn't lead us out of the Great Depression. It continued through World War II and ended only when we finally went against his policies. He made America somewhat fascistic (ironically), and destroyed a good deal of the free market. That's why the Great Depression lasted so long - all through the duration of his 'rule.'

[Ryokan]

Lincoln best, Andrew Jackson the worst, imo. I am shocked people have picked Lincoln as the worst, honestly.

[Augustine2004]

Lincoln best, Andrew Jackson the worst, imo. I am shocked people have picked Lincoln as the worst, honestly.I'm shocked that a president that started a war costing the most American lives ever, all time, over 600,000 lives . . . Slaves freed, yes, but they were third-class citizens until the Civil Rights Revolution. Not only was the South enslaved, but all of USA also. Why was Andrew Jackson the worst? In any case it's clear Ryokan is not really libertarian.

[Tfbandie]

I'm shocked that a president that started a war costing the most American lives ever, all time, over 600,000 lives . . . Slaves freed, yes, but they were third-class citizens until the Civil Rights Revolution. Not only was the South enslaved, but all of USA also. Why was Andrew Jackson the worst? In any case it's clear Ryokan is not really libertarian.
You're blaming Lincoln for the civil war?

[historic salve]

Why was Andrew Jackson the worst?
Trail of Tears.

[Philosophickle]

The reason many libertarians dislike Lincoln so much is his strengthening of the fed. versus the states.

[Tfbandie]

You're blaming Lincoln for the civil war?

I think this is the sort of argument you use

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/lights97.htm

From the ultra-libertarian/anarchist view, I guess Lincoln would be the worst



Edit to add
Here's the wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

With multiple surveys over the last 50 years and various methodologies for rating presidents.
I paid particular interest to the libertarian section.
the three best presidents according to libertarian ideals:
1 Warren Harding
2 Andrew Johnson
3 Ulysses S Grant

i think that just persuaded me to never ever vote for a libertarian, ever.

[Tfbandie]

The reason many libertarians dislike Lincoln so much is his strengthening of the fed. versus the states.

When half the states declare war on the other half, it kinda seems like a good idea to strengthen the Fed. it'd be like living in yugoslavia if we hadn't

[Augustine2004]

You're blaming Lincoln for the civil war?Sure. He could have let the South go. The South did fire the first shot, and should not have. However, Lincoln chicaned that (not right term, but you get the idea).

[historic salve]

Sure. He could have let the South go. The South did fire the first shot, and should not have. However, Lincoln chicaned that (not right term, but you get the idea).
With the Monroe Doctrine alive and well, do you really think the North would have tolerated a powerful enemy right next door?

Splitting peacefully wouldn't have solved any problems. The North would have lost the Mississippi River and other important ports, meaning that they would have been cut off from Europe and they would have had no way to export their own goods. What's more, if the North and South moved West (as they certainly would have -- at the time you have to remember that areas to the West were still unclaimed) and carved out their own states, border disputes would have erupted in warfare.

[Augustine2004]

I think this is the sort of argument you use

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/lights97.htmNot really.


3 Ulysses S Grant

i think that just persuaded me to never ever vote for a libertarian, ever.I would not rate Grant that high because of his shameful treatement of the Indians. I'm not sure, but I guess he was worse than Andrew Jackson in that area.

[Paintbucket]

The #1 on my list is Washington. Lincoln is 1a. FDR and Reagan will tie for 3rd. JFK takes 5th.

[Augustine2004]

The #1 on my list is Washington. Lincoln is 1a. FDR and Reagan will tie for 3rd. JFK takes 5th.I just can't believe so many people call themselves libertarian. I would not rate Washington, Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Reagan that high. Reagan, Washington, JFK. Lincoln and FDR in the trash heap.

[Paintbucket]

I am a libertarian because that is what my political beliefs fall under. Just because I am a libertarian doesn't mean that the president I pick to be the best would fit my ideals. Very few of the presidents would match my beliefs within 2/3rds.

Trash heap? I need to get some of what you're smoking. Grover Cleveland wasn't bad, but not the best. Washington was a brilliant man. Lincoln had the toughest crisis to manage in American history. FDR I disagree on with a lot of issues, but what he did for his time was good. Of course, we should cut most of that for now. Reagan was a good president, and JFK would be higher if the CIA hadn't killed him.

[Augustine2004]

I am a libertarian because that is what my political beliefs fall under. Just because I am a libertarian doesn't mean that the president I pick to be the best would fit my ideals. Very few of the presidents would match my beliefs within 2/3rds.Unjustified aggression or chicanery?


Trash heap? [snip] Washington was a brilliant man.Phooey! The Revolution wouldn't have lasted so long. And he became President of a government that was much more national than the last. As far as I know, not a peep of protest.
Lincoln had the toughest crisis to manage in American history.Aw, what was so tough about letting the South go? Besides starting a war that killed the most Americans ever, more than 600,000, does not rate highly in my book.
FDR I disagree on with a lot of issues, but what he did for his time was good. Of course, we should cut most of that for now.What was good? What should be cut out?

[Paintbucket]

How would the Revolution gone quicker?

Abe Lincoln didn't start the war. The South did. Abe Lincoln just happened to be elected, and the South broke away.

The government programs lulled people to think they were taken care of. People were pretty bad off, and so he did something to amke them feel like something good was going on. Personally, I'd kill social security, medicaid, subsidies and the like.

[Augustine2004]

How would the Revolution gone quicker?Charles Lee (not related to Robert E. Lee) would have been the better general.


Abe Lincoln didn't start the war. The South did. Abe Lincoln just happened to be elected, and the South broke away.The South did fire the first shot, true. However, Lincoln manuvered that. He wanted to force the South back into the Union but he didn't want to be seen as starting the war. I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. It's true, but somewhat misleading. The South wanted to break away for many years, and Lincoln's First Inaugural Address was about the last straw.


The government programs lulled people to think they were taken care of. People were pretty bad off, and so he did something to amke them feel like something good was going on. Personally, I'd kill social security, medicaid, subsidies and the like.Yes. Correct as far as that goes, but FDR introduced many policies that prolonged the Great Depression. He also changed policy so frequently that businesses were paralyzed waiting for things to stay the same. An indication of that was the collapse of the money supply. The Federal Reserve desperately tried to pump the money out, but the economy just wouldn't take it, because it was waiting for FDR to finally settle on a steady course. Moreover, he chicaned and forced the entry of the USA into World War II. A later entry might have been better or one might have turned out to be unnecessary at all. You can cite the Holocaust, but it did happen nonetheless.

[Paintbucket]

How do we know Lee would be better?

The South wanted to break away only as a last resort. The many compromises were designed to hold the union together, not dissolve it.

People are fickle. They want to see progress, and don't care how. The Federal Reserve should not exist. I will go along with the forced entry into WWII, that's true.

[Augustine2004]

How do we know Lee would be better?

The South wanted to break away only as a last resort. The many compromises were designed to hold the union together, not dissolve it.

People are fickle. They want to see progress, and don't care how.
The strategy that Lee was advocating was working, and in fact was probably the one that won the war. Washington, however, did it the European (mainly Prussian) way. Needless loss of lives and probable prolongation of the war. You’re right, however, we can’t really know.

The South was not threatening to break away just to lord over the North. It was much more the case that the North, having more people, was lording it over the South.

World War II history revised. http://www.latimes.com/features/books/la-bk-kurlansky9mar09,0,6763134.story The author of the book clearly thinks the USA should have kept out of it and the reviewer clearly thinks so also.

[Augustine2004]

In the previous post, I cited an enthusiatic review of a World War II history book. However, I just learned of a much less entusiastic review http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/48181.html.

[Ryokan]

The author of the book wrote Checkpoint, Augustine, which in my mind makes it hard for me to believe it is not more sensationalist goofiness.

[Augustine2004]

The author of the book wrote Checkpoint, Augustine, which in my mind makes it hard for me to believe it is not more sensationalist goofiness.I looked at the Amazon.com page for the book. 16 customer reviews below the 3-star reviews versus 13 above, so I'll not order the book. Also, the mention of obscenity is a put-off. Actually, I haven't ordered any book yet. Why goofy, though? You're still pro-war, right?

[Ryokan]

I looked at the Amazon.com page for the book. 16 customer reviews below the 3-star reviews versus 13 above, so I'll not order the book. Also, the mention of obscenity is a put-off. Actually, I haven't ordered any book yet. Why goofy, though? You're still pro-war, right?

Yes. If by pro-war you mean I think we should keep troops in Iraq.

[Augustine2004]

Robert Higgs’ essay on the history of the USA’s early involvement in World War II surprised me. I thought I knew something about it, but I didn’t realize, assuming Higgs is accurate, that the USA did so much that both Japan and Germany had cause to declare war long before December 1941. http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs77.html


Expecting to lose a war with the United States – and lose it disastrously – Japan's leaders had tried with growing desperation to negotiate. On this point, most historians have long agreed. Meanwhile, evidence has come out that Roosevelt and Hull persistently refused to negotiate. . . . Japan . . . offered compromises and concessions, which the United States countered with increasing demands. . . . It was after learning of Japan's decision to go to war with the United States if the talks "break down" that Roosevelt decided to break them off. .

. . .

As Secretary of War Henry Stimson testified after the war, "we needed the Japanese to commit the first overt act" (qtd. in Victor, Pearl Harbor Myth, p. 105).

. . .

The fate of the European Jews also requires mention, inasmuch as after the war many people professed to believe that saving the Jews was the war's prime justification. Aside from the fact that none of the Allied leaders held that view – Roosevelt himself was a genteel anti-Semite of the sort typical in his time, place, and class – the undeniable truth is that the Jews were not saved: approximately 80 percent of them had perished by the end of the war. Little wonder, too, because U.S. and British war plans did not give high priority to saving them; as a rule, those plans completely disregarded the urgent need to rescue the surviving Jews.



We had Mao and Stalin. Moreover, Nazi Germany rather likely didn’t have the ability ever to conquer the world, even if the USA had entered the war far later than December 1941, without FDR’s machinations.

[JonLanceBarker]

when will this nut read anything other than Lew Rockwell? :no:

[Augustine2004]

when will this nut read anything other than Lew Rockwell? :no:Can you refute Higgs?

[JonLanceBarker]

Can you refute Higgs?

I don't care about Higgs. I have better things to do than argue with you about economics, history, ethics, or anything else you clearly have so little knowledge of.

The only sources you ever seem to quote are Lew Rockwell, mises.org, and whatever stinky site you pulled your Iraq death stats from. (If I recall correctly, that was Lew Rockwell too!)

Ever wonder if the views you get from those sites make your thinking a bit one-sided and skewed? :eh:

[Augustine2004]

I don't care about Higgs. I have better things to do than argue with you about economics, history, ethics, or anything else you clearly have so little knowledge of.Show me what I don't know.


The only sources you ever seem to quote are Lew Rockwell, mises.org, and whatever stinky site you pulled your Iraq death stats from. (If I recall correctly, that was Lew Rockwell too!)I wasn't always a libertarian. As for the Iraq death stats, what do you know that I don't know? You got things wrong anyway. I didn't find that site through Lew Rockwell nor his group of authors! It was through Whatcom Peace & Justice.


Ever wonder if the views you get from those sites make your thinking a bit one-sided and skewed? :eh:Oh, yes, I'm biased. So, you're not? Frankly, I don't think you're really Christian.

[JonLanceBarker]

Show me what I don't know.

I'm sorry, just how did you define a free market again? :ahem:


I wasn't always a libertarian.

I'll bet you didn't argue any better for your previous position. :ahem:


As for the Iraq death stats, what do you know that I don't know?

That Arminius_Wesley probably knows more about it than both of us? Given that he's a lawyer and works in the military... :whistle:

Oh wait...that makes him a BIG GOVT. propaganda puppet...


You got things wrong anyway. I didn't find that site through Lew Rockwell nor his group of authors! It was through Whatcom Peace & Justice.

:shrug: I stand corrected. Your source still reeks of unreliability. :eww:


Oh, yes, I'm biased. So, you're not?

Of course I am. However, being biased in favor of the truth, I am willing to change my mind given sufficient evidence, whereas you, being biased in favor of your unreliably skewed sources, simply jabber on and on without listening to facts.


Frankly, I don't think you're really Christian.

:glare: Such accusations are not lightly made. :glare:

I await your apology.

[Augustine2004]

Of course I am. However, being biased in favor of the truth, I am willing to change my mind given sufficient evidence, whereas you, being biased in favor of your unreliably skewed sources, simply jabber on and on without listening to facts.Such as?

Inveterate liars aside, who is not biased in favor of the truth? Are you saying that I'm an inveterate liar? Ah, don't bother answering. You're a moron anyway.

[JonLanceBarker]

Such as?

Inveterate liars aside, who is not biased in favor of the truth? Are you saying that I'm an inveterate liar? Ah, don't bother answering. You're a moron anyway.

I don't think you're trying to be a liar...you're just unduly biased against the government and mainstream views of economics, to the point where it affects your acceptance of fact, IMHO.

I'm still waiting for your apology, by the way.

[TolkienFan]

Hate to interrupt JLB. But do you have anyone in mind for the best and worst of presidents?

[JonLanceBarker]

Best? Teddy Roosevelt.

Worst? Herbert Hoover.

Personal opinion, mind.

[Meta Knight]

Best? Teddy Roosevelt.

Worst? Herbert Hoover.

Personal opinion, mind.
What'd Herbert Hoover do besides be inaugurated at a very inconvenient time?

[JonLanceBarker]

What'd Herbert Hoover do besides be inaugurated at a very inconvenient time?

Could you tell me what he did to combat the Depression...besides nothing that worked? :shrug:

[TolkienFan]

Good choices JLB.

[Meta Knight]

Could you tell me what he did to combat the Depression...besides nothing that worked? :shrug:
So because he was unsuccessful in ending the Depression, you call him the worst?

By that standard, FDR was much, much worse.

[JonLanceBarker]

So because he was unsuccessful in ending the Depression, you call him the worst?

By that standard, FDR was much, much worse.

I'm sorry, but you misunderstood me. I said combat the Depression. From what I understand, Hoover sat on his hands waiting for the failed market to do something. At least FDR made a huge effort to help people when the market failed.

Granted, now we've got a precedent set for tremendous national debt figures...but I doubt someone could think of a better way to spend the money. :shrug:

[Meta Knight]

I'm sorry, but you misunderstood me.Alright, my mistake, I did.

I said combat the Depression. From what I understand, Hoover sat on his hands waiting for the failed market to do something. It seems to me he just went the free-market route. Have the government do as little as possible. It failed, but it's not like his attitude was "Pfeh, who cares?"


At least FDR made a huge effort to help people when the market failed.
Yes, and it resulted in 9 more years of Depression and a huge national debt.

For the record, I don't think Hoover was the best, or even necessarily one of the greats, but I think he ends up taking a lot of undeserved flak for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.


Granted, now we've got a precedent set for tremendous national debt figures...but I doubt someone could think of a better way to spend the money. :shrug:
They could just not spend the money at all.


And anyway, my choices would be Lincoln for the best, and probably Harding or Grant for the worst (not exactly original, but hey, what can I say?).

[Augustine2004]

I’m appalled that nobody jumped on JLB’s choice of TR as best. He was among the worst in fact. I’m also appalled that anyone would think Hoover was pro free-market. He wasn’t that at all. In fact his efforts helped turned what was an ordinary recession into the Great Depression.

[historic salve]

I’m appalled that nobody jumped on JLB’s choice of TR as best. He was among the worst in fact. I’m also appalled that anyone would think Hoover was pro free-market. He wasn’t that at all. In fact his efforts helped turned what was an ordinary recession into the Great Depression.
He was definitely pro-free market. He didn't want the federal government "interfering" in what he saw as a state issue.

[Augustine2004]

He was definitely pro-free market. He didn't want the federal government "interfering" in what he saw as a state issue.You surely got things wrong. If you want I can suggest history books.

[historic salve]

You surely got things wrong. If you want I can suggest history books.
How about you just tell me why I'm wrong, or do you enjoy being obtuse?

[Augustine2004]

How about you just tell me why I'm wrong, or do you enjoy being obtuse?First of all, Hoover got himself elected just when the Roaring 20s were finally ready to end. Joking aside, here’s a list, perhaps partial, of what he did:

* He failed to jack down the tariffs.

* He failed to make wages more flexible, especially downwards. Instead he strenuously made them higher or at least held them high.

* To keep the farm bloc pacified, he allowed foreign loans be made to encourage foreign purchases of American farm products.

* He established the Federal Farm Board (note: he was actually a proto New Dealer) to raise farm prices.

* He allowed the Federal Reserve Board to run rampart (at least he should have denounced it).

* “Before he assumed office, Hoover determined that should a depression strike during his term of office, he would use the massive powers of the federal government to combat it. No more would the government, as in the past, pursue a hands-off policy.
As Hoover himself recalled the crash and its aftermath:

The primary question at once arose as to whether the President and the federal government should undertake to investigate and remedy the evils… No President before had ever believed that there was a governmental responsibility in such cases… Presidents steadfastly had maintained that the federal government was apart from such eruptions… therefore, we had to pioneer a new field.
In his acceptance speech for the Presidential renomination in 1932, Herbert Hoover summed it up:

We might have done nothing… Instead, we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action… No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times.
The massive Hoover program was, indeed, a characteristically New Deal one: vigorous action to keep up wage rates and prices, to expand public works and government deficits, to lend money to failing businesses to try to keep them afloat, and to inflate the supply of money and credit to try to stimulate purchasing power and recovery. Herbert Hoover during the 1920s had pioneered in the proto-Keynesian idea that high wages are necessary to assure sufficient purchasing power and a healthy economy. The notion led him to artificial wage-raising – and consequently to aggravating the unemployment problem – during the depression.

As soon as the stock market crashed, Hoover called in all the leading industrialists in the country for a series of White House conferences in which he successfully bludgeoned the industrialists, under the threat of coercive government action, into propping up wage rates – and hence causing massive unemployment – while prices were falling sharply. After Hoover’s term, Franklin D. Roosevelt simply continued and expanded Hoover’s policies across the board, adding considerably more coercion along the way. Between them, the two New Deal Presidents managed the unprecedented feat of making the depression last a decade, . . . .”


To sum it up Hoover most certainly was not laissez faire.

Augustine, either you are Murry Rothbard reincarnated, or you are plagiarizing, and the odds of you being Rothbard risen from the grave are slim to none.

[historic salve]

More Lew Rockwell crap, and this time you can't even CITE your source?

[Augustine2004]

More Lew Rockwell crap, and this time you can't even CITE your source?Aren't you even going to check the primary historical sources such as speeches made by Hoover!?ETA I did fail to attribute the quotation to Murray Rothbard. AFAIK, he has yet to be REALLY refuted.

This speech by Hoover http://millercenter.org/scripps/digitalarchive/speeches/spe_1929_0304_hoover was made well before the October 1929 crash, but let me list some sentences that are not laissez faire.
*While the authority of the Federal Government extends to but part of our vast system of national, State, and local justice, yet the standards which the Federal Government establishes have the most profound influence upon the whole structure.
*Enforcement of the Eighteenth Amendment [prohibition]
*I propose to appoint a national commission for a searching investigation of the whole structure of our Federal system of jurisprudence, to include the method of enforcement of the eighteenth amendment and the causes of abuse under it.
*The election has again confirmed the determination of the American people that regulation of private enterprise . . .
*The Government should assist and encourage these movements of collective self- help by itself cooperating with them. [I'm not sure, but that sounds like what a fascist would say about businesses.]
*Education [vague, but why mention this - should not at all be the business of the Federal Government]
*Public health service should be as fully organized and as universally incorporated into our governmental system as is public education.[Wow, that surely doesn't look like laissez faire.]
*. . . particularly further agricultural relief and limited changes in the tariff, cannot in justice to our farmers, our labor, and our manufacturers be postponed.[I think that confirms what Rothbard said about the tariff and aid to the farm Bloc]

I could cite more speeches, if you wish.

Another addition. It's highly significant that Hoover did not call for a return to the gold standard and the abolition of the Federal Reserve System, whose policy caused the crash in the first place. Do you understand how the FRS causes the business cycle? How the Roaring20s, well, roared?

[Mr Arkadin]

More Lew Rockwell crap, and this time you can't even CITE your source?

Why does everyone hate Lew Rockwell? If you disagree with his market anarchism then do so. However questioning the veracity of every, forwarded, fact (they may be in error) on Lew Rockwell.dom or the Mises Institute without citing any previous errors on the site shows it is not Augustine, or myself, as I identify closely with him, who are the implacable biased individuals but you, the statists.

[historic salve]

Why does everyone hate Lew Rockwell? If you disagree with his market anarchism then do so. However questioning the veracity of every, forwarded, fact (they may be in error) on Lew Rockwell.dom or the Mises Institute without citing any previous errors on the site shows it is not Augustine, or myself, as I identify closely with him, who are the implacable biased individuals but you, the statists.
I am not a statist, but I responded the way I did because he was plagiarizing from lewrockwell dot com.

[Mr Arkadin]

I am not a statist, but I responded the way I did because he was plagiarizing from lewrockwell dot com.

By plagiarizing what do you mean? Recapitulating the arguments on there? Even if he does that has nothing to do with the veracity, surely the most important thing, of the statement. Plagiarizing scriptural arguments isn' wrong, is it? Note well I am not in any way shape or form equating scripture to Lew Rockwell.

If you aren't a statist then you must be anarchist, which I am highly doubtful of.

[historic salve]

By plagiarizing what do you mean?
Copy and pasting without quotation marks or a link... which is a big problem.


If you aren't a statist then you must be anarchist, which I am highly doubtful of.
I'm neither one. I don't see the world divided between statists and anarchists.

[slaveofone]

I think Jefferson was the best, and I lean towards Lincoln being the worst.

Ditto. Jefferson can't be beat.

Lincoln...I hope him and Bush share a stall in hell. Anyone who thinks the Civil War was about slavery is as clueless as those who think Iraq was about WMDs.

[Mr Arkadin]

Copy and pasting without quotation marks or a link... which is a big problem.


Fair enough.



I'm neither one. I don't see the world divided between statists and anarchists.
[/QUOTE]

Definition of a statist- one who believes that a territorial monopolist over arbitration should exist.
Definition of an anarchist- one who believes that a territorial monopolist over arbitration should NOT exist.

They are mutually exclusive positions: to declare one to be neither is to inconsistent.

[Augustine2004]

Historic salve, I don't know what you saw, but I did use quotation marks. Unfortunately, the moderator edited them out.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Anyone who thinks the Civil War was about slavery is as clueless as those who think Iraq was about WMDs.

Let's see, that would include the Georgia state government in 1861:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government....

And the Mississippi state government in 1861:
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

....Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

And the South Carolina government in 1861:
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

....And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

....Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

And the Texas state government in 1861:
A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

....Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

.....When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

....And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

The (yep, you're right -- nothing about slavery there) Curtmudgeon

[nomad]

That's true, but the civil war did not start when the southern states seceded. As far as I understand it, the civil war started when the north invaded the south. And also as far as I understand it, it was not a stated goal of the north at the beginning of the war to ensure all slaves were freed.

That doesn't imply that there were strong anti-slavery sentiments in the north, and that the south didn't feel pressure of encroachment because the number of non-slave states was increasing faster than slave states (and therefore the influence of the non-slave states), and that many elements in northern states actively attempted to undermine slavery in slave states (through helping the escape of slaves to more amenable territories).

But the Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until 1863 - a full two years after the war began - and the 13th-15th amendment, not until 1865.

Why did the north invade the south? That's when the civil war started, and I am curious if you have some evidence that ending slavery was the primary goal of that.

[historic salve]

But the Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until 1863 - a full two years after the war began - and the 13th-15th amendment, not until 1865.

Why did the north invade the south? That's when the civil war started, and I am curious if you have some evidence that ending slavery was the primary goal of that.
Most historians would say that it wasn't the primary goal at first, but it definitely was part way through the war. And we know that tension was building around the issue of slavery in the border states before the war began. Bleeding Kansas is one visible example.

[The Curtmudgeon]

That's true, but the civil war did not start when the southern states seceded. As far as I understand it, the civil war started when the north invaded the south. And also as far as I understand it, it was not a stated goal of the north at the beginning of the war to ensure all slaves were freed.

First, the beginning of the war is generally conceded to be the firing on Fort Sumter. Those Federal soldiers had been in that fort, or other forts in the Charleston vicinity, for months before the assault on them began. It was no invasion.

Second, the North couldn't invade the South immediately, because there was almost no effective standing army at the time. The government had to call for volunteers, wait for them to be assembled, trained (at least a little bit) and supplied before it could send them on an invasion of any kind. So the gap in time between "secession" and "the start of the war" most assuredly does not mean that the two events were not cause-and-effect.

And when you say "it was not a stated goal of the north at the beginning of the war to ensure all slaves were freed," you miss a very important point: No, it was not a stated goal, and in fact Lincoln had stated that he would not free the slaves at that time, but the slave-holding states chose to assume that that was all a lie and that the Lincoln administration was going to liberate all their slaves. That comes through time and again in the documents of the time. In other words, the South precipated the War by assuming that it was an unstated goal of the North to free all the slaves, in spite of Lincoln saying otherwise.


That doesn't imply that there were strong anti-slavery sentiments in the north, and that the south didn't feel pressure of encroachment because the number of non-slave states was increasing faster than slave states (and therefore the influence of the non-slave states), and that many elements in northern states actively attempted to undermine slavery in slave states (through helping the escape of slaves to more amenable territories).

There were strong anti-slavery sentiments in the North, but that doesn't imply that every Northerner was strongly anti-slavery. In fact, several of the northern states had only recently (in historic terms) passed their own anti-slavery laws, and of course the Border states which stayed in the Union were slave states at the time. But it was also possible to find strong anti-secession sentiments in parts of the South (northern Arkansas as well as western Tennessee were prime examples), but no-one claims that the South didn't want to secede.


But the Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until 1863 - a full two years after the war began - and the 13th-15th amendment, not until 1865.

First, Lincoln had been mulling over some sort of EP at least a year before he finally issued it, in part because he was waiting for "the opportune moment" to issue it. Second, even before he began to think it necessary and/or advantageous, more radical elements within his administration and Congress had been pressing for it from the very beginning.

And third, again it's not only about what the North did or did not do about slavery at any particular point in time; it's also about what the South thought the North was going to do about it. The South, not the North, made slavery the point of the exercise, as I've shown by the excerts above. You'll never find a Lincoln quote, prior to Fort Sumter, claiming that he was going to fight to free the slaves -- in fact he said just the opposite, that the only thing he would fight for was to preserve the Union. But the South broke the Union because of slavery, and that's a simple documented fact.


Why did the north invade the south? That's when the civil war started, and I am curious if you have some evidence that ending slavery was the primary goal of that.

As stated above, you're incorrect about the war starting because of any invasion. Federal troops were already present in the Southern states before secession, just as they were in all the states and territories, and the South insisted that they be removed from Federal property. I don't need to show evidence that "ending slavery" was the primary goal of the North, since I have presented evidence that "preserving slavery" was the primary goal of the South and the one thing over which they were willing to break the Union.

The (you have to get over this wacky idea that the South was just sitting there, minding their own business, when suddenly the roof fell in on them -- they were the primary actors in the event) Curtmudgeon

[Ryokan]

That's true, but the civil war did not start when the southern states seceded. As far as I understand it, the civil war started when the north invaded the south. And also as far as I understand it, it was not a stated goal of the north at the beginning of the war to ensure all slaves were freed.

That doesn't imply that there were strong anti-slavery sentiments in the north, and that the south didn't feel pressure of encroachment because the number of non-slave states was increasing faster than slave states (and therefore the influence of the non-slave states), and that many elements in northern states actively attempted to undermine slavery in slave states (through helping the escape of slaves to more amenable territories).

But the Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until 1863 - a full two years after the war began - and the 13th-15th amendment, not until 1865.

Why did the north invade the south? That's when the civil war started, and I am curious if you have some evidence that ending slavery was the primary goal of that.
Basically, Lincoln's plan, pre war, was to slowly phase out slavery (ending it in new states, all slaves kids born free, then no more slavery iirc) and send as many freed slaves as possible out to liberia. THis was unacceptable and radical to the south, and a violation of their rights. So they secede and this led to the war. In the beginning of the war Lincoln had hoped it would end quickly and freeing all the slaves would have made reconciliation hard. After that the North kept losing and so it would have been a sign of weakness and desperation to free slaves while the South was winning. After the victory at Antietam gave him a rational to declare it in September 1862, and then he declared the states affected in Jan 1863.

[nomad]

First, the beginning of the war is generally conceded to be the firing on Fort Sumter. Those Federal soldiers had been in that fort, or other forts in the Charleston vicinity, for months before the assault on them began. It was no invasion.


OK, my civil war history is definitely rusty (for some reason, I never got into american history much; much prefer medieval and ancient history). So the south did fire first, though the north was 'squatting'.



Second, the North couldn't invade the South immediately, because there was almost no effective standing army at the time. The government had to call for volunteers, wait for them to be assembled, trained (at least a little bit) and supplied before it could send them on an invasion of any kind. So the gap in time between "secession" and "the start of the war" most assuredly does not mean that the two events were not cause-and-effect.


Are you claiming that secession was an act of war? That is what I am curious about.

And was the south's firing on Fort Sumter a response to the buildup of northern munitions and other military capabilities? Why didn't they just starve them out until they decided to leave?

And even in your own text, you admit that Lincoln's stated goal was to preserve the union.

I guess I am thinking, that it is not automatic that secession has to lead to war. There are other possibilities. Even if slavery was the primary goal of secession, and the slave states were paranoid about northern intentions (perhaps not unjustified, in this case).



You'll never find a Lincoln quote, prior to Fort Sumter, claiming that he was going to fight to free the slaves -- in fact he said just the opposite, that the only thing he would fight for was to preserve the Union. But the South broke the Union because of slavery, and that's a simple documented fact.


I think this is an A->B->C logical train, and I think I get it now.




Basically, Lincoln's plan, pre war, was to slowly phase out slavery (ending it in new states, all slaves kids born free, then no more slavery iirc) and send as many freed slaves as possible out to liberia. THis was unacceptable and radical to the south, and a violation of their rights. So they secede and this led to the war.

I knew about this part. Except like I said, I wasn't sure about why secession had to lead directly to war. As some have said, in the first place the goal was to reinstate the southern states in the Union, exactly as they had been - i.e. retaining their 'slave state' status.

If the south had lost quickly, what do you think would have happened? And if the north didn't abolish slavery, would we still say it was a war over slavery?



In the beginning of the war Lincoln had hoped it would end quickly and freeing all the slaves would have made reconciliation hard. After that the North kept losing and so it would have been a sign of weakness and desperation to free slaves while the South was winning. After the victory at Antietam gave him a rational to declare it in September 1862, and then he declared the states affected in Jan 1863.

I am beginning to be convinced. This seems like a rational train of events.

[Ryokan]

OK, my civil war history is definitely rusty (for some reason, I never got into american history much; much prefer medieval and ancient history). So the south did fire first, though the north was 'squatting'. The north refused to recognize their seccession. Frankly, the South wanted a war to make their point once and for all and the north didn't mind one because they were convinced they had the meaningful advantages.




Are you claiming that secession was an act of war? That is what I am curious about.
I would consider it as such. Different people have different views.

And was the south's firing on Fort Sumter a response to the buildup of northern munitions and other military capabilities? Why didn't they just starve them out until they decided to leave? It was an attempt to start a conflict.


And even in your own text, you admit that Lincoln's stated goal was to preserve the union.
Yes. Lincoln intended to end slavery over time. The South left because that was unacceptable to them. The aim of the war for the north was to bring them back in. Slavery was still to end, but gradually still.

I guess I am thinking, that it is not automatic that secession has to lead to war. There are other possibilities. Even if slavery was the primary goal of secession, and the slave states were paranoid about northern intentions (perhaps not unjustified, in this case). It depends on whether or not you see the Federal government or the states as having soveriegnity over the issue of the nations territorial. I would say the federal government has that right, in which case it is in fact an act of war. But the South wanted to decide the issue by force not courts, so it had to be war no matter what.




I think this is an A->B->C logical train, and I think I get it now.





I knew about this part. Except like I said, I wasn't sure about why secession had to lead directly to war. As some have said, in the first place the goal was to reinstate the southern states in the Union, exactly as they had been - i.e. retaining their 'slave state' status. Yes.


If the south had lost quickly, what do you think would have happened? And if the north didn't abolish slavery, would we still say it was a war over slavery? I think slavery wouldn't have ended slowly, over a 20 year period or so. Outside of that I've got nothing. yes, the war still would have been about slavery though, because that is why the South seceded.




I am beginning to be convinced. This seems like a rational train of events.

Good!

[Augustine2004]

Curtmudgeon, can you show that Lincoln did want to free the slaves, i.e., he was really an abolitionist? That’s contrary to what I know. Moreover, I still think his primary goal was to repair the Union. I still think he did things to maneuver the South into firing the first shot. Do you know that the EP did NOT free a slave, not a single one? The justification for the EP was to keep Europe from helping the South; IIRC that’s what the Secretary of State frankly admitted.

The phrases ‘slaving-owning’ and ‘non-slave’ may be a more or less compendious way of distinguishing the South from the North. You know those lawyers, they won’t say ‘North’ or ‘South’, they’d rather use those earlier phrases.

I admit to being puzzled. The proportions of abolitionists in the North and the slave owners in the South were small. How could they have so big an effect on the history of the country? I do think you rather neglect the economic effect of the ante-bellum North hegemony over the South and the natural inclination of people to rebel against tyranny.

I do not favor either side, but I still regard Lincoln as a tyrant with lots of blood on his hands.

[The Curtmudgeon]

OK, my civil war history is definitely rusty (for some reason, I never got into american history much; much prefer medieval and ancient history). So the south did fire first, though the north was 'squatting'.

Again, that's not quite it. The Federal troops were sitting on Federal territory. Even before the secession crisis, the Federal government directly owned such places as forts and naval depots. Example: If a soldier had killed someone outside Fort Sumter, he would have been tried for murder under South Carolina law; if he had killed someone inside the fort, he would have been tried under Federal law. I'm using Fort Sumter in this case merely as an example -- the same was true no matter what Federal installation you picked and no matter what state it was "in": any installation of the US Army or Navy (and today including Air Force, naturally) belongs not to the state within whose borders it is located, but to the Federal government itself. And this was true even before the ACW. (The state could also have its own forts and such, for the use of state troops and militia. But Fort Sumter was Federal property, and everybody at the time knew it.)

So what South Carolina was objecting to was Federal soldiers on Federal property. The fact that SC wanted that property to change hands is beside the point; it was not SC property at the time the SCians fired on it, and the Federal soldiers had every legal right to be there.

And Lincoln had every legal right, as head of the Federal government and Commander-in-Chief of all government forces, to send more troops there (although he actually only sent supplies). Whether or not it was wise to do so was the only question, since Charleston was definitely a powder-keg looking for a spark. But legally, there was no question: Lincoln had the right to send more troops or supplies for the ones already there, and acceeding to the SC demands that he not do so could be seen, and certainly was seen in some quarters, as knuckling under to thugs and brigands.


Are you claiming that secession was an act of war? That is what I am curious about.

Yes, because without secession there would have been no war, and with secession war was unavoidable. An act of war does not necessarily have to involve killing anyone, or even shedding blood.


And was the south's firing on Fort Sumter a response to the buildup of northern munitions and other military capabilities? Why didn't they just starve them out until they decided to leave?

Actually, that was the initial plan put into effect, although quite a few hotheads were against it and wanted to take the fort from the very first. But as I alluded to above, Lincoln decided to send supplies to the Federal fort, legally his right, and the Charlestonians decided to block the supply ship and fire on the fort.


And even in your own text, you admit that Lincoln's stated goal was to preserve the union.

I guess I am thinking, that it is not automatic that secession has to lead to war.

Only if the US government was willing to self-destruct. The US government was a government of all the people in the US, and to allow the slave states to unilaterally withdraw from it was suicidal. And can you give any case from history where a national government accepted a secession of part of its national territory without fighting to preserve its national integrity? I'm not saying that might makes right, but rather what do you think a government's purpose is, if it can willingly allow its citizens to pick and choose which laws and conditions they are willing to obey or not obey?

The South was not originally interested in "States' Rights". For decades their representatives had fought in the US Congress and before the Supreme Court to force the non-slave states to co-operate with their slave laws. It was only when, with the passage of time, the majority turned against their wishes (through the admission of new states, primarily, but also with the increase in the number of states that abolished slavery) that secession became their choice. Always, it was slavery -- without secession for as long as that worked, with secession when that became necessary, but always slavery.


There are other possibilities. Even if slavery was the primary goal of secession, and the slave states were paranoid about northern intentions (perhaps not unjustified, in this case).

Yes, the dissolution of the United States of America into several (perhaps more than merely two, since the Western and Northern states had other differences that could have become divisive). Think of the precedent set: Anytime the national government passed a law that some state or another didn't like, there'd be another secession. You'd eventually have every individual state a sovereign nation -- and before you start thinking that's a good thing, consider how many states are really self-sufficient? How would they have been able to play with "the big boys" at the international level, without becoming mere adjuncts to some major power or another? We'd be a continent of Kosovos and Albanias and such, always at the whim of the larger players, even those who say that they're "helping" us.

The interesting thing is that the Confederacy, in one of its first acts, made its own creation illegal. That's right -- after arguing that secession from the USA was legitimate because the US Constitution never said that it wasn't, they immediately put an anti-secession clause into their own Constitution! That's how commited to "states' rights" the CSA was. (Remember how upset they became when the western counties of Virginia decided to re-secede and go back to the USA. That secession, unlike their own, wasn't legal, the way they played the game.)


I think this is an A->B->C logical train, and I think I get it now.

:thumb:


I knew about this part. Except like I said, I wasn't sure about why secession had to lead directly to war. As some have said, in the first place the goal was to reinstate the southern states in the Union, exactly as they had been - i.e. retaining their 'slave state' status.

Yes, that was Lincoln's stated objective all along: get them back into the Union, and then address the slavery question through the laws, not the military. The problem was, even the South could see where the legal route would eventually lead, and they didn't want to go there.


If the south had lost quickly, what do you think would have happened? And if the north didn't abolish slavery, would we still say it was a war over slavery?

For one thing, if the war had ended quickly, the terrible injustices (yes, I said injustices) perpetrated under Reconstruction would not have happened (there might have been other injustices done, of course). There was at least the hope that the rule of law would again have taken hold, rather than people saying "I'm taking my ball and going home" just because they didn't agree with some law or another.

Slavery would have continued in that case, for some time. But its end was already foreseen, and if the slave states agreed to stay in the Union, eventually there would have been no slave states. How easily or quickly the transition would have occurred, it's hard to say; some anti-slavery writers before the war were already predicting that slavery wouldn't end before 1900 or even 1950 (yes, a century or so into the future for them). And some anti-slavery writers were even willing to let it take that long, if it proved necessary. But I tend to think that more and more pressure would have been brought to bear (remember, the US was among very few nations in the West to still allow slavery; we were already being looked askance at because of it), and slavery would have been ended before 1900. How quickly or slowly inter-racial relations could have progressed from that point, I just don't know.

But yes, it still would have been seen as a war over slavery -- perhaps even more clearly, if the war was ended more quickly. It was really only in the aftermath of the war, during the decades of writing "The Great Apologias" :lol: that the reasons started getting all muddied up, as this or that ex-Southern leader (political, military and otherwise) tried to excuse the South and shift the blame. Up to and through the War itself, nobody minded admitting that the South was fighting over slavery, whether or not the North was.


I am beginning to be convinced. This seems like a rational train of events.

Thanx. I will admit that I do tend to get a bit hot sometimes about the topic, as I do whenever someone takes a strong stand against documented history. When we start playing games with the documented facts, we lose.

The (and the current generation, and even the one before for the most part, has been taught to be more interested in "would of, could of, should of" instead of "did") Curtmudgeon

[The Curtmudgeon]

Curtmudgeon, can you show that Lincoln did want to free the slaves, i.e., he was really an abolitionist?

NO! You're misreading what I'm saying. Lincoln was only a theoretical abolitionist, at best, and certainly he said time and again that preserving the Union was his only goal. The problem wasn't Lincoln's beliefs, it was the South's beliefs, and actions based on those beliefs, that made it a war over slavery.

Lincoln was against slavery, per se, but was perfectly willing to let it die a gradual death. It's agreed that he was more interested in an EP for its effect on the war than for how ever many slaves -- if any! -- that it might free. But part of that effect on the war was from freeing the slaves: the South was using slaves for non-combat duties that normally would have been the tasks of soldiers (digging trenches, building up fortifications, moving supplies, etc.). Freeing the slaves meant that (a) the South lost their services, and had to make do with a much smaller population to draw from, and (b) the North gained their services, by paying ex-slaves to do for them what they had been forced to do for the South as a part of their servitude. So each slave freed in the war zone was a double asset to the Northern war effort.


That’s contrary to what I know. Moreover, I still think his primary goal was to repair the Union. I still think he did things to maneuver the South into firing the first shot.

Since the South had already vehemently announced their intention to fire the first shot when its "necessity" (as they saw it) arose, it didn't take any maneuvering. SC leaders had already announced that they wanted to take Fort Sumter, but agreed under pressure from moderates to let it go as long as Lincoln didn't send any supplies -- as if Lincoln was going to agree to starve US soldiers.


Do you know that the EP did NOT free a slave, not a single one?

Okay, then you explain what it says:
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.


The justification for the EP was to keep Europe from helping the South; IIRC that’s what the Secretary of State frankly admitted.

Certainly, there were political aspects, including international ones, to the EP. It was believed in many quarters that the UK and/or France might recognise the CSA as an independant nation, and that would have complicated things. As it turns out, post-war analysis of debates in the British Parliament (which were not immediately available on this side the Pond, in those days) makes it pretty clear that the UK would not intervene militarily, and only go so far in support of the CSA as suited British, not Confederate, purposes. And it was always clear that Napoleon III of France would not act without British support.

But to say that those were the only reasons for the EP is to wear a very narrow set of blinders, indeed.


The phrases ‘slaving-owning’ and ‘non-slave’ may be a more or less compendious way of distinguishing the South from the North. You know those lawyers, they won’t say ‘North’ or ‘South’, they’d rather use those earlier phrases.

Are you trying to claim that the phrase "slave-owing states" included any states that were not slave owning, or that "non-slave" states included any states that were? If you are, you're simply wrong. If you aren't, then you're throwing in a red herring.


I admit to being puzzled. The proportions of abolitionists in the North and the slave owners in the South were small. How could they have so big an effect on the history of the country? I do think you rather neglect the economic effect of the ante-bellum North hegemony over the South and the natural inclination of people to rebel against tyranny.

I'm not neglecting anything (of importance) -- you are neglecting to demonstrate that any of the CSA states ever (prior to the late phases of the war itself) claimed that it was seceding for solely non-slavery issues. (I'll grant that some, especially Texas, listed some other reasons in addition to the slavery issue, but even in their secession documents, slavery is the "big" reason.) As I've shown above, they had absolutely no problem with declaring to the world that the whole thing was over slavery, and the North's refusal to allow them to continue and expand it.

All of these non-slavery economic reasons have been proposed ex post facto -- and almost all of them have their origin in the writings of some ex-Southern leader or another, trying to shift the blame for the War away from the point where they themselves had set it before the War.


I do not favor either side, but I still regard Lincoln as a tyrant with lots of blood on his hands.

You're allowed to be mistaken, and even a fool, if you desire. Personally, I've found reading the actual histories to be more rewarding, but suit yourself.

The (I certainly can't stop you) Curtmudgeon

[Augustine2004]

Curtmudgeon,

First you listed reasons why the North would want to free slaves, in addition to ending the slavery evil. Second, you agree that the EP had political aspects, such as keeping Europe from coming to the South’s aid.

Hence, I’m baffled why you challenged me to explain the EP itself, especially that clause. Again, I assert it did not free any slaves when it was proclaimed. In a legal sense perhaps. Practically, no. The North first had to conquer the South. Moreover, if it means anything, the blacks in the South remained third class citizens until recently. (I’m a second-class citizen even though I’m nearly 100% a WASP male.)

I agree that New York and other states of the North may have had slaves themselves. Another reason why Lincoln didn’t want to try to end the slavery evil.

The slave owners were powerful and wealthy, so naturally had a tremendous influence on the governments of the South. I doubt the abolitionists had that much influence on the Federal government. I still doubt Lincoln really wanted to end the slavery evil, as you yourself seem to agree. Look, when a government is maneuvering for war (see below), you have to expect war.

I don’t think you understand the Fort Sumter situation. Once South Carolina seceded, the fort became useless for military purposes - except for the North to conquer the South. The Carolinian were no dummies, they knew the purpose of the supplies. Sure, the South had some hot-heads, unfortunately, but Lincoln could have withdrawn the soldiers. Either he didn’t understand the situation in which case he was a fool or he did understand the situation and deliberately provoked the Carolinians.

You insisted that you are not neglecting the economic aspect, but I could not help but wonder. I think I told you that Lincoln said forcefully in his First Inaugural Address that he was going to enforce the laws including high tariffs against Southern wishes.

[Augustine2004]

I just read a rather interesting essay by Rothbard. If I understand him correctly, the ‘slavocracy’ attempted to expand their system to the Western States. The North rightly objected to what was after all an evil aim. Ironically, that aim was itself a violation of states’ rights. For example, the Fugitive Slave Law violated Northern state rights. These had consequences that are too numerous and complicated to list here. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard175.html

However, one will be mentioned here: secession. Maybe Curtmudgeon was right after all. And yet the North should have let the South depart in peace. 600,000 lives lost, and loss of liberty and justice for all, including the establishment of the doctrine of barbarity against the civilians.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Curtmudgeon,

First you listed reasons why the North would want to free slaves, in addition to ending the slavery evil. Second, you agree that the EP had political aspects, such as keeping Europe from coming to the South’s aid.

Hence, I’m baffled why you challenged me to explain the EP itself, especially that clause. Again, I assert it did not free any slaves when it was proclaimed. In a legal sense perhaps. Practically, no. The North first had to conquer the South. Moreover, if it means anything, the blacks in the South remained third class citizens until recently. (I’m a second-class citizen even though I’m nearly 100% a WASP male.)

What I challenged you on was (a) the statement that the EP didn't free a single slave, and (2) the claim that "the justification" (your word, my emphasis) -- implying "the only justification" -- was the European impact. My challenge was that (1) the EP most certainly did free the slaves, in the areas in which it was stated to apply and that the Union had a military and/or political presence to enforce it; and (b) the European aspect was only an aspect of when it was issued, not the idea to issue it at all. Perhaps I could have been clearer on bringing those details out.

Again, your statement "Again, I assert it did not free any slaves when it was proclaimed. In a legal sense perhaps. Practically, no. The North first had to conquer the South." is overly simplistic. The Union Army didn't have to conquer the whole South; it merely had to enforce the EP in the areas in which it was in command, expanding the area of the effective use of the EP as it expanded the area under its military control. Bit by bit, as more and more of the South was brought within the power of the Union Army, slaves were freed from their masters, and put to work as hired free persons paid a wage at such tasks as driving supply wagons, digging trenches and building fortifications. These freed slaves, freed while the War was still in progress, were guaranteed their freedom -- even if future events should have caused the North to negotiate a peace treaty that would have left the CSA in existence, those particular slaves, including in most cases their families, would never have been returned to their erstwhile masters; they would have been brought back to free soil USA along with the Army.

Those slaves -- and there were literally hundreds of thousands of them -- were freed by the EP during the course of the War, as their particular locale was liberated by the Union Army, and were guaranteed their freedom by right of the EP. The implementation of the EP was not reserved until the War was completely over -- it was immediately implemented, in an admittedly piece-meal fashion, battlefield by battlefield, region by region, state by state, with guaranteed freedom both in the instant and in the future for the slaves who were able (and many were able) to take advantage of it. And even in regions where the Army had not yet penetrated, word of the EP meant that those slaves who were able to become runaways headed for the front lines, to put themselves under the protection of the Army and claim the benefits of the EP.

There had been runaway slaves trying to get into Union-controlled regions even before the EP, of course. But because before the EP there was no consistent government policy concerning "contrabands", as they were generally called, they were not guaranteed anything at all -- not even immediate freedom. In some areas, Union generals in local command would not accept runaway slaves within the army lines, and basically sent them back to be captured by their masters or die. Some generals, indeed, implemented a version of emancipation before the EP, and were actually officially reprimanded by Commander of the Armies Halleck. But once the EP had been issued, then it immediately became official Army policy, and all Union generals were instructed to make use of it to free such slaves as their forces came across, and if they were willing to hire them and put them to non-fighting roles (i.e., the generals were never given authority to conscript the slaves or force them to work, although of course there were some few that overstepped their authority just as there always are -- but when found out, they were repremanded and such forced slaves were given their right to refuse work and still remain free). Late in the war, freedmen would also be given the opportunity to fight, but not at first.

So your claim that the EP freed no slaves is palpably wrong. Slaves were freed, and were guaranteed their freedom, long before the War was ended, although of course not all slaves were that lucky. It's true that many slaves in the Deep South never saw a chance to take advantage of the EP, but it's also true that many others did both see and take that opportunity.

As for the European question, it had some small impact on the timing of the EP, but not the idea of writing or issuing it. As I mentioned, the idea of the EP had been prevalent in some quarters of the US government even from the very beginning (when the South characterised the Republican government as being Abolitionist, they were wrong in general but not completely wrong in detail -- Sec'y of State Seward, for example, was a strong Abolitionist). And even though Lincoln himself was slow to agree that it was necessary or even useful, he did come around to giving it serious consideration a year or so before he actually issued it. Lincoln's main reason for hesitation, after he had decided that an EP was the right thing to do, was because he didn't want it to look like an act of desperation, hence the delay until after the Battle of Antietam. "Look like" -- to whom? Well, of course, the European powers are included in that; if the US was seen to be desperate to win the war, then the UK and/or France might see that as a good enough reason to go ahead and acknowledge the CSA. But mainly, Lincoln was concerned about the appearance in the North itself. He didn't want resistance to continuing the war to increase, he especially didn't want to give Northern Democrats (Copperheads) any more ammunition in their election campaigns in states like Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. So while he was admittedly aware of the international attention being paid to the ACW, his main concern was not with them but with the Union home front.


I agree that New York and other states of the North may have had slaves themselves. Another reason why Lincoln didn’t want to try to end the slavery evil.

New York had passed an abolition law at least a generation before the ACW; New Jersey was, I think, the last Northern state to pass such a law before the War, and even that was 10 or 20 years before. The Border States -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri -- were the only slave states in the Union at the time of the War.

However, in the Dred Scott case of 1856, the US Supreme Court had ruled that a slave-holder, having rights in his slave property in his home state, could retain such property even if he took the slaves to a free state. So although the Northern states were technically free, they could not free slaves within their borders which belonged to Southern slave-holders who were temporarily in residence there. Not that this stopped some of them; many of the free state governments simply refused to enforce such laws on slaves who escaped from their masters while resident or even just visiting the North, and the slave states had to repeatedly appeal in Congress for Federal forces to enforce the law. NOTE: That's another aspect of how the South, prior to the Secession crisis itself in late '60 and '61, was more interested in Federal authority over the States, than they were concerned with "States' rights". The only "States' right" that they insisted on was slavery, and then they wanted the Federal government to enforce it on and in non-slave-holding states against those states' right to declare any resident within their borders free.

That's one of the main reasons I get so hot about this whole "States' Rights" claim for the Confederacy: It's completely contrary to the historical facts of their own actions. It's not just that it's not right, it's 100% wrong and 180o degrees out of line. The Southern states insisted on Federal power over the Northern states whenever the question concerned slavery. The Northern states were not to be allowed any "right" to decide who was or was not free within their own borders.

Even the question about the territories was a very skewed version of "States' rights": territories were, by definition, "not States", so people in those territories, and the Federal government itself, didn't have a right to block the introduction of slavery, according to Southern doctrine. Any territory under Federal control had to be open to settlement by slave-holders as slave-holders, complete with slave property, so that when the time came for them to "graduate" and become states, the slave-holders could (theoretically) outvote the non-slave-holders and make the new state a new slave state. That's what started the whole Bleeding Kansas debacle.


The slave owners were powerful and wealthy, so naturally had a tremendous influence on the governments of the South. I doubt the abolitionists had that much influence on the Federal government. I still doubt Lincoln really wanted to end the slavery evil, as you yourself seem to agree. Look, when a government is maneuvering for war (see below), you have to expect war.

I don’t think you understand the Fort Sumter situation. Once South Carolina seceded, the fort became useless for military purposes - except for the North to conquer the South.

Useless or not, it was still Federal property. Just because the SC argument was that the Federals couldn't make any other use of it, didn't automagically make it right for them to take it. Even they themselves effectively accepted this argument, since they agreed not to try to force it unless it was re-supplied.

And, in fact, it did serve a useful purpose: to enforce the collection of import duties, and protect those legally tasked with carrying it out. Import duties were a Federal law, and as such accrued to the Federal government, SC's decision to unilaterally ignore the law notwithstanding. You may not like, f'rinstance, the laws about highway speeds, but that doesn't give you the right to argue back when the policeman or state trooper pulls you over.


The Carolinian were no dummies, they knew the purpose of the supplies. Sure, the South had some hot-heads, unfortunately, but Lincoln could have withdrawn the soldiers.

Sure, and if I come up to you on a dark street and stick a gun in your ribs and demand your wallet, you could agree to give it to me. Sometimes that may be the smart action to choose, but it never gives the thief the right to be a thief. When he's finally brought to court on charges, he can't say, "Well, he agreed to give it to me, so no harm, no foul."


Either he didn’t understand the situation in which case he was a fool or he did understand the situation and deliberately provoked the Carolinians.

So you believe that sticking up for the legal right against bullies and thieves constitutes provocation? Interesting, but wrong.


You insisted that you are not neglecting the economic aspect, but I could not help but wonder. I think I told you that Lincoln said forcefully in his First Inaugural Address that he was going to enforce the laws including high tariffs against Southern wishes.

Have you ever tried reading what the US Constitution says about duties of the Executive Branch? You might find it interesting -- I do think that I recall the words "the Laws be faithfully Executed" are in there, somewhere.

Here (http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html) is the full text of Lincoln's First Inaugural Address. Will you please point out the word 'tariff', please? :drum: Waiting ....

Oh, and 'enforce' -- I'll grant that that word does show up. Let's look at all the places it does:
....There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one....

Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional....

Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices....

Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you....

No, I don't see anything about enforcing tariffs -- only enforcing the duly-passed laws by the US Congress. And that, as I said before, was only stating his duty as prescribed by the US Constitution. You can't tell a man that his duty is to enforce the laws, and then castigate him when he does it.

The (and there's nothing in the Constitution that gives the individual States the right to ignore Federal laws) Curtmudgeon

[Augustine2004]

Curtmudgeon you make what appears to be a good case. I'm going to ask Lew Rockwell to look at it.

However, I do see Lincoln's saying that the South had no right to secede. I guess, though, you think so too, that no secession right exist.

[JonLanceBarker]

So this is the way to combat Aug...hit him over the head with an enormous, logically sound post. :whack:

I like it. :grin:

[Augustine2004]

So this is the way to combat Aug...hit him over the head with an enormous, logically sound post.All you need are premises that appear good and an argument based on them that appears sound to me. The argument does not have to be enormous.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Curtmudgeon you make what appears to be a good case. I'm going to ask Lew Rockwell to look at it.

:thumb: The more, the merrier.


However, I do see Lincoln's saying that the South had no right to secede. I guess, though, you think so too, that no secession right exist.

I do accept Lincoln's argument that, the whole collection of States having entered into a Union together, the only way to dissolve such Union was by the concensus of the whole collection of States. In other words, if the SC (f'rinstance) Representatives or Senators in the US Congress had presented a bill to allow SC to withdraw from the Union, and Congress somehow voted to pass such a bill into law, then SC's secession would have been legitimate because it was recognised by the legal process in Congress. However, SC's unilateral decision to "take their marbles and go home" was not legal, since they neither sought nor were granted the approval of the majority of Congress.

No, it's not very likely that it would ever have happened that way -- I cannot imagine the majority of Congress ever agreeing that any state, or group of states acting in concert, could peaceably withdraw from the Union. But it's the only way that was legal under the Constitution.

It can be argued that the Founding Fathers were deficient in not recognising the need to address the question in the first place, either to put a specific ban on it or else provide a specific means to allow it or recognise it. But in the 1780s, the Founding Fathers were looking for a way to strengthen the Federal Government (yes, it wasn't just an idea of the 1860s), since the former Articles of Confederation had proved to be so unworkable and useless. Under the Articles, unilateral secession was a right of each of the sovereign States.

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

(Also, the AoC referred to the USA as a "confederacy" and a "league of friendship", not a nation in its own right. Under the AoC, the USA was nothing more than an international organisation of separate sovereign nations, such as NATO or the OAS. That completely changed with the signing of the Constitution.)

Lincoln, and many others before, contemporary, and since, have argued that if the Founding Fathers wanted the option of secession they would have certainly carried it over from the Articles to the Constitution. They didn't, so it must be argued that the Constitution was never intended to allow secession.

Is it a water-tight argument? No, I'll admit that it is not. Since the Constitution never says, in so many words, either "no secession" or "yes, secession", there can be no water-tight argument on either side. But having the example of the AoC right there in front of them, and some few of them personally involved in drafting both documents, the argument carries a lot of weight.

The (the States had given up their sovereignity when they ratified the Constitution) Curtmudgeon

[Augustine2004]

Curtmudgeon, I was tempted to challenge your assertion that the Articles of Confederacy was unworkable and useless, but they were before President Washington.

Let me point out, however, that the Constitution's legal basis is challegeable from a natural law standpoint. John Locke (no, not that Lost guy) would have disapproved.

Have you read Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty? Or at least know of it?

[The Curtmudgeon]

Curtmudgeon, I was tempted to challenge your assertion that the Articles of Confederacy was unworkable and useless, but they were before President Washington.

You can challenge the assertion, but the fact remains that the Founding Fathers themselves, rather than trying to amend the AoC, scrapped them entirely and started over with the Constitution, which lays down a completely different concept of how the USA is formed from the individual states. To me, that shows that they believed the AoC to be unworkable and useless.


Let me point out, however, that the Constitution's legal basis is challegeable from a natural law standpoint. John Locke (no, not that Lost guy) would have disapproved.

While freely admitting Locke's prominence in his day and time, I don't necessarily hold him to be the be-all-and-end-all on the subject. Not that I disregard or disagree with everything he wrote -- I certainly don't -- but I would have to address his points one by one, not merely say, "Oh, well, if you're going to bring Locke into the conversation, I throw in the towel." :smile:

No, I really don't want to discuss Locke point by point. And I do agree that there is a "natural law" (although I might quibble over details) that can, under the proper circumstances, be used as a valid challenge to men's laws. After all, that's one of the bases for the Declaration of Independence: The Founding Fathers, and a majority of American citizens at the time, felt that the laws of Britain were being written and implemented in a way that violated their natural rights.

But are you prepared to show me that anyone at the time in question did mount a challenge to the Constitution on that basis?


Have you read Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty? Or at least know of it?

No, not before you mentioned it (I mean, really know it -- the title sounds like something I've heard about, but nothing more than the mere mention); my reading in the Revolutionary time period is not as deep as in, f'rinstance, the ACW period. I've just checked on it over at Amazon. Based on the description and reviews there, it certainly sounds like an interesting read. But (also based solely on what I see at Amazon) it appears that he stops short of discussing the period of the AoC and the conversion over to the Constitution.

One reviewer mentions that "He proves that the opposition to strong central government started not in the Civil War, or in Jefferson's masterful Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, but during the American Revolution. He proves that opposition to centralized government is as American as hot dogs and apple pie." Fair enough; I wouldn't claim that there wasn't opposition to strong central government at the time. But, from the obvious facts, they were not so opposed to it (or at least, enough of them weren't sufficiently opposed) to keep the AoC. Anyone reading the AoC and then reading the Constitution (plus Bill of Rights) can immediately see how the latter makes a stronger Federal government than the former did. The whole purpose of writing and ratifying the Constitution was to make a stronger Federal government. To carry out Rothbard's thesis, if indeed his purpose is to show that "opposition to centralized government is as American as hot dogs and apple pie," he would have to address that fact. And (again, based solely on what I see at Amazon), he appears to avoid doing so: "Rothbard brings us to the end of the war and deliniates the 'liberating' effects of the Revolution." He stops when the AoC came into place, and appears not to address its ramifications and ultimate rejection.

I'll grant that the description and reviews make it sound like a worthwhile read. Right now, it's just not a priority for me (I've just completely scuppered my reading time at home by other commitments, and I've got twenty or so books still on the to-be-read shelf). If you have read it, and can show that my assumptions about it, above, are misled, please do.

The (otherwise, I'm going to consider that I've made my case, and the prosecution (or am I the defense this time? :huh: I forget :shrug:) rests) Curtmudgeon

[Augustine2004]

You can challenge the assertion, but the fact remains that the Founding Fathers themselves, rather than trying to amend the AoC, scrapped them entirely and started over with the Constitution, which lays down a completely different concept of how the USA is formed from the individual states. ....

To me, that shows that they believed the AoC to be unworkable and useless.[snip]
But are you prepared to show me that anyone at the time in question did mount a challenge to the Constitution on that basis?
The Anti-Federalists would be angry with you!

[Augustine2004]

If this article is correct

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo140.html

Lincoln has got to be one of our worst presidents.

[The Curtmudgeon]

If this article is correct

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo140.html

Lincoln has got to be one of our worst presidents.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo ... professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland

:lol:

The (what? you couldn't find an article written by, oh I don' t know ... a professor of history, maybe?) Curtmudgeon

[Augustine2004]

The (what? you couldn't find an article written by, oh I don' t know ... a professor of history, maybe?) CurtmudgeonWhat! You can prove him wrong!? Go ahead, please! Oh, and have you read The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli yet? Might be good preparation.

[Augustine2004]

Just saw this: Nothing new under the sun. Presidents above the law.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/020362.html

[Augustine2004]

Curtmudgeon: could you check out this essay and see if you disagree with any part of it? Lincoln, Wilson, T. Roosevelt on Gettysburg. Note especially how much the unionists exalt Lincoln, as though union is worth Amazons of blood.

[sj48182]

Grover Cleveland was the best. He was for sound money, was opposed to imperialism, and actually regarded himself as bound by the Constitution, which is rare among presidents.

All the warmonger/imperial presidents were the worst: Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, both Roosevelts, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, and both Bushes.

[themuzicman]

Best:
Washington
Lincoln
Jefferson
Reagan
T Roosevelt

Worst:
Taft
Harding
Carter
(Too many tied for 4th worst)

FDR is a mixed bag. He prolonged the Great Depression, but did conduct the war very well.

I put both Bushes and Clinton in about the same spot, a little below average.

Michael

[Augustine2004]

Best:
Washington
Lincoln - why so high?
Jefferson
Reagan
T Roosevelt - why so high?

Worst:
Taft
Harding
Carter
(Too many tied for 4th worst)

FDR is a mixed bag. He prolonged the Great Depression, but did conduct the war very well. - why 'very well'? His unconditional surrender policy prolonged the war in Europe, did it not?
see above red comments.

[themuzicman]

see above red comments.

Best:
Washington
Lincoln - why so high?

He preserved the union, something that is very hard to do in a civil war.



Jefferson
Reagan
T Roosevelt - why so high?

His persona and the way he conducted himself provide the nation with a self-image upgrade.


Worst:
Taft
Harding
Carter
(Too many tied for 4th worst)

FDR is a mixed bag. He prolonged the Great Depression, but did conduct the war very well. - why 'very well'? His unconditional surrender policy prolonged the war in Europe, did it not?

Possibly some,but given the nature of the Nazis, negotiating with them was simply not an option, since the destruction of that governmental system was the only way to really deal with it. He knew that if we left that government in power, we'd be back in a few years to clean it up again.

Michael

[Augustine2004]

He preserved the union, something that is very hard to do in a civil war.However hard that may have been, was union worth 620,000 lives lost and countless other lives ruined (rape, for example)?





His persona and the way he conducted himself provide the nation with a self-image upgrade.Ha, bully.




Possibly some,but given the nature of the Nazis, negotiating with them was simply not an option, since the destruction of that governmental system was the only way to really deal with it. He knew that if we left that government in power, we'd be back in a few years to clean it up again.Hitler fought on until the Soviets were about to capture him. When military people tried to surrender to the Allies without Hitler's express permission they were rebuffed. "Unconditional surrender to ALL the Allied powers" they were told, IIRC (emphasis mine).

[sj48182]

There was never a good reason for F.D. Roosevelt to drag us into that horror in the first place--especially after the Battle of Britain was won and Hitler failed to take out the Soviets. He was a duplicitous warmonger and barbarian, as were his buddies Churchill, Stalin and Chiang.

[Augustine2004]

I wonder how much FDR knew about all the rapes that the Soviet armed forces committed as they fought their way to Berlin? Shoot, if I were President, I'd let Patton loose. I'd not order him to take out his best men just to guard railroad cars. I'd see to that he got good maps (he either didn't get any maps or got poor ones in actuality).

[sj48182]

FDR and Churchill burned whole cities off the map, for crying out loud. If there was anyone with less moral credibility vis a vis preventing Soviet rape, it was them.

[Augustine2004]

FDR and Churchill burned whole cities off the map, for crying out loud. If there was anyone with less moral credibility vis a vis preventing Soviet rape, it was them.I'm not sure what you're saying. I agree that those folks murdered plenty of people. However it seems as though you're saying that because they did so, they therefore had no moral standing to prevent the Soviet rapes.

[sj48182]

I'm not sure what you're saying. I agree that those folks murdered plenty of people. However it seems as though you're saying that because they did so, they therefore had no moral standing to prevent the Soviet rapes.

I'm saying that starting a war with the USSR (I assume that's what you meant by "let Patton loose") would've had considerably worse consequences than not doing so, including more cities burned off the map. I'm also saying that whatever deference or benefit of the doubt as to motives in making such a decision, that one might be willing to allow leaders with clean hands, could not be given to brutes and hypocrites like Roosevelt and Churchill.

[Augustine2004]

sj48182, FDR actually took measures to slow down Patton, such as ordering his best men to guard railroad trains, and giving him no or poor maps. Also, when German military people offered to surrender without Hitler's express permission, they were told, unconditional surrender to ALL the allied powers, including Russia.

[sj48182]

OK, I see where you're coming from. And yes, I agree.

[themuzicman]

However hard that may have been, was union worth 620,000 lives lost and countless other lives ruined (rape, for example)?

Well, had the south not started the war, there might have been another way. But there wasn't.


Ha, bully.

Depends on your POV.


Hitler fought on until the Soviets were about to capture him. When military people tried to surrender to the Allies without Hitler's express permission they were rebuffed. "Unconditional surrender to ALL the Allied powers" they were told, IIRC (emphasis mine).

And that's as it should be. If they wanted to surrender, they needed to arrest Hitler and his gang of thugs, and put them in a paddy wagon headed for the front lines.

Michael

[Augustine2004]

Well, had the south not started the war, there might have been another way. But there wasn't.The South did fire the first shot, yes. However, the North could have left the South alone. The South never meant to invade and capture the North. Do you really think so? Consider the aftermath of the first Bull Run battle.
And that's as [something about unconditional surrender to all the allied powers] should be. If they wanted to surrender, they needed to arrest Hitler and his gang of thugs, and put them in a paddy wagon headed for the front lines.But we could have accepted the 'unofficial' surrenders and continued to drive on to Berlin to arrest Hitler, could we?

[Augustine2004]

Human Smoke by Nicholson Baker offers documentation gleaned through voluminous research of FDR’s anti-Semitism, willingness to sacrifice American lives, and manipulativeness. Here’s a review that provides some of the book’s details: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo142.html

I’m told that the Amazon.com interview
http://www.amazon.com/Human-Smoke-Beginnings-World-Civilization/dp/1416567844/lewrockwell/
contains the following paragraph:


I've [the author of the book] had interesting reactions from historians, who seem to understand (for the most part) that I'm not trying to write a comprehensive history of the beginnings of the war. I've had some very good reviews and some very bad ones. The bad ones seem to follow the teeter-totter school: that if a dictator and the nation he controls is evil, then the leader of the nation who opposes the evil dictator must be good. Life isn't that way, of course. There is in fact no "moral equivalence" created by examining coterminous violent and repulsive acts. The notion of moral equivalence is a mistake, because it undermines our notions of personal responsibility and law. Each act of killing is its own act, not something to be heaped like produce on a balancing scale. One person, as Roosevelt said, must not be punished for the deed of another--though he didn't follow his own precept.

[themuzicman]

The South did fire the first shot, yes. However, the North could have left the South alone.

After being fired upon? Are you serious?



The South never meant to invade and capture the North. Do you really think so?

No, I suspect that they wanted to ensure that the rest of the territories added to the US would have slavery, and Lincoln made sure that would not happen. That ticked them off, so they came out shooting.


Consider the aftermath of the first Bull Run battle.But we could have accepted the 'unofficial' surrenders and continued to drive on to Berlin to arrest Hitler, could we?

Dunno. I'm guessing that the political cost of doing do wouldn't have justified doing that.

Michael

[Augustine2004]

After being fired upon? Are you serious?When the South seceded, Lincoln wanted to restore the Union, but he didn't want to be seen as the aggressor. He decided to manuever the South into firing the first shot.





No, I suspect that they wanted to ensure that the rest of the territories added to the US would have slavery, and Lincoln made sure that would not happen. That ticked them off, so they came out shooting.The first sentence may be correct, but I disagree with the second sentence.

[Augustine2004]

Ordinarily I would not mention yet another review of Human Smoke, but this one is by David Gordon, who as usual wrote a masterly review afaIct. http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=332 ‘One would like to think, though, that in view of the appalling massacres and destruction of the war, some better choices than the ones Churchill and Roosevelt made were possible.’

[Nonobviousness]

You think the two best presidents were republicans but you are for the worst democrat candidate in US history. Only a liberal could be so contrary. Lincoln did not take a confederacy and make a nation. Where does that come from?

[Ryokan]

Ordinarily I would not mention yet another review of Human Smoke, but this one is by David Gordon, who as usual wrote a masterly review afaIct. http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=332 ‘One would like to think, though, that in view of the appalling massacres and destruction of the war, some better choices than the ones Churchill and Roosevelt made were possible.’
A better choice would have been confronting Hitler or Japan in '36 or '38.

[Augustine2004]

A better choice would have been confronting Hitler or Japan in '36 or '38.Please explain the situation in '36-'38. Please keep in mind the saying that hindsight is easy.

[Ryokan]

Please explain the situation in '36-'38. Please keep in mind the saying that hindsight is easy.

In '36, I believe, Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland. A justifiable act of war under the old peace treaty for France and Britain, and he was in a much weaker place then. In '38 he gobbled up Czechloslovakia. Again, a good moment to stop him because his airforce was not up to par and the Czechs could have opened a difficult front for him. Japan continued to abuse China throughout this period, and fought a division sized battle with the Soviets.

[Augustine2004]

In '36, I believe, Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland. A justifiable act of war under the old peace treaty for France and Britain, and he was in a much weaker place then. In '38 he gobbled up Czechloslovakia. Again, a good moment to stop him because his airforce was not up to par and the Czechs could have opened a difficult front for him. Japan continued to abuse China throughout this period, and fought a division sized battle with the Soviets.I think you have to go back all the way to the beginnings of World War I - the years before the start of hostilities. You appear to think the British were good guys.

[Ryokan]

I think you have to go back all the way to the beginnings of World War I - the years before the start of hostilities. You appear to think the British were good guys.

WW1 didn't have any good guys. It had a bucnh of victims of a treaty system and mobilization timetables. But, as I said, my solution is better than the one proposed. Maybe we should go all the way back and stop Bismarck from uniting Germany. It gets silly Aug.

[Augustine2004]

Oh, I'm the silly one and you're not? You agree that WWI had no good guys. So, we don't know which side to take and should have stayed out. Ditto WWII.

A guy said that going to war with Hitler actually pushed him to do the Holocaust. I'm not sure, but he did make a good case. He pointed out that until WWII broke out, nothing like the Holocaust was Nazi policy. 'Encouraging' Jewish emigration was about the worst of it then, IIRC.

[Ryokan]

Oh, I'm the silly one and you're not? You agree that WWI had no good guys. So, we don't know which side to take and should have stayed out. Ditto WWII. The war got out of control and our strategic interest lined up with the west, so we had to sign up with them. I think an arguement could be made we should have gotten involved in 1915 or not at all. But the war was a stupid accident. That's what I meant by no good guys. WW2 had clear bad guys, and even then we got involved because WE WERE ATTACKED! And then Hitler declared war ON US! Jeez, Aug.


A guy said that going to war with Hitler actually pushed him to do the Holocaust. I'm not sure, but he did make a good case. He pointed out that until WWII broke out, nothing like the Holocaust was Nazi policy. 'Encouraging' Jewish emigration was about the worst of it then, IIRC.
Hitler started the war. He started the Holocaust as part of his grand scheme to fix Europe, which he believed he'd soon control. So in a way, yes, the war Hitler started started the holocaust. TO suggest the US caused it by trying to allow beleaguered jews to escape is rank anti-semetism and I wonder when you are going to get embarassed by the wacko ideas you give credit too.

[Augustine2004]

The war got out of control and our strategic interest lined up with the west, so we had to sign up with them. I think an arguement could be made we should have gotten involved in 1915 or not at all. But the war was a stupid accident. That's what I meant by no good guys. WW2 had clear bad guys, and even then we got involved because WE WERE ATTACKED! And then Hitler declared war ON US! Jeez, Aug.So, you give no credence to the assertions that FDR and Churchill schemed to manuever the USA into war with Japan and Germany. Why?


Hitler started the war. He started the Holocaust as part of his grand scheme to fix Europe, which he believed he'd soon control. So in a way, yes, the war Hitler started started the holocaust. You think of WWII as being separate from WWI and its aftermath, yes?
TO suggest the US caused it by trying to allow beleaguered jews to escape is rank anti-semetism and I wonder when you are going to get embarassed by the wacko ideas you give credit too.Good grief, however did you come up with such a reading of my post? On the contrary, I believe FDR didn't want to help the Jews. He was anti-semetic. Look at Human Smoke for documentation.

[Ryokan]

So, you give no credence to the assertions that FDR and Churchill schemed to manuever the USA into war with Japan and Germany. Why? The msot obvious reason would be the fact Churchill was not PM until after the war started.


You think of WWII as being separate from WWI and its aftermath, yes? Good grief, however did you come up with such a reading of my post? On the contrary, I believe FDR didn't want to help the Jews. He was anti-semetic. Look at Human Smoke for documentation.

I don't see what FDR's relationship to the Jews has to do with this or how you can see WW1 and WW2 as a continuous conflict.

[Augustine2004]

Pat Buchanan’s ‘important new’ book Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How the British Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World is a book Ryokan might never read on the grounds that I mentioned it. Too bad, he’d still espouse bad history opinions. I don’t know how good the book is, but it’s said to be well documented, like Human Smoke. Stalin and Hitler were indeed bad joes, but they weren’t the only ones among the leaders of the Western World.

[Ryokan]

Pat Buchanan’s ‘important new’ book Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How the British Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World is a book Ryokan might never read on the grounds that I mentioned it. Too bad, he’d still espouse bad history opinions. I am familiar with it. I find Buchanan a liar and a bore, so your right, I won't be reading it soon.
I don’t know how good the book is, but it’s said to be well documented, like Human Smoke. Stalin and Hitler were indeed bad joes, but they weren’t the only ones among the leaders of the Western World. Augustine, I think you should get a handle on the history before you explore the revisionist fringe.

[Augustine2004]

Ryokan, YOU get your history right. Start with the correct economics.

[Ryokan]

Ryokan, YOU get your history right. Start with the correct economics.

I am well within the mainstream economic wise. You are the fringe Austrian schooler.

[Augustine2004]

I am well within the mainstream economic wise. You are the fringe Austrian schooler.I asked you to explain specifically what is wrong with it.

As for Buchanan being a liar, please, a list of his worst lies.

[Augustine2004]

I am familiar with it. I find Buchanan a liar and a bore, so your right, I won't be reading it soon. Ryokan, Pat Buchanan is doing surprisingly well for a boring liar. He was on the Colbert Report, discussing his book. It’s coming out at #15 on the NY Times bestseller list for June 15.

[Augustine2004]

I don't understand what happened. I posted a link to a defense by Pat Buchanan of his book, and I don't see it here. Anyway, here's another defense.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan87.html

[Augustine2004]

While this review of a Christopher Hitchens review of Pat Buchanan’s ‘unnecessary war’ is much more about Churchill than about FDR, it is nonetheless relevant here, because surely he knew what kind of person Churchill was and worked with him to achieve common goals.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried109.html

[Augustine2004]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2282117#post2282117

I asked LPO Terror to come here and make a more detailed case, but she is too busy apparently. I ask you to stop making her so busy that she can't come here . . .

[Kelp]

That probably has more to do with her offline duties. Besides, I doubt she considers your arguments worthy of response by now.

[Augustine2004]

That probably has more to do with her offline duties. Besides, I doubt she considers your arguments worthy of response by now.Why, please explain?

[Kelp]

Because she thinks you refuse to listen to reason and just ignore the arguments she's already presented. Just a guess :shrug:

[Augustine2004]

Yet another review of Pat Buchanan's 'unnecessary war'

http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis128.html

[Augustine2004]

'Rethinking Churchill' by Ralph Raico seems similar to Buchanan's book, like a summary for the most part. http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico26.html

[Augustine2004]

Can Lincoln be vindicated? David Gordon disagrees in a book review http://mises.org/story/3224

[Augustine2004]

Fresh evidence that most of our POTUS men are creeps. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/024259.html Nixon was not just the only crook, he was one among many.

[FaithThruDoubt]

Greatest? Abraham Lincoln - for awesome leadership in a time of profound national crisis. Plain and simple there. He held the United States together and guided it back to unified strength in spite of heavy odds and stiff opposition from many sides. He was a strong and principled man who stayed the course in the darkest hour.

Poorest? Several fit the bill. I would have to say Jimmy Carter. He basically pulled down the pants of the United States and begged Iran to paddle its (US's) behind. And he inspired no economic/personal confidence by his infamous television address where he told Americans that their expectations were too high.

[FaithThruDoubt]

More accurately, here's a pool:

Greatest (in alph. order): Jefferson, Lincoln, Reagan, FDR, Washington

Poorest (IAO): Buchanan, Carter, Grant, A. Johnson, Pierce

Basically, I believe acters and persisters are generally the best leaders. Appeasers, corruptive people, and do-nothings are the worst.

[Augustine2004]

How could you put Washington, Reagan and Jefferson in the same pool as Lincoln and FDR!? You don’t know history or what you think you know about history just isn’t so. How could you think FDR wasn’t a corruptive person!?

Just what is wrong with a do-nothing POTUS? Didn’t Reagan say, government is part of the problem, it’s not the solution? Also, get government out of our way.

Please let us know which of the POTUS men you consider to be appeasers.

[Augustine2004]

back to unified strengthYea, the South was a prosperous bastion, a very rock of luxury, right after the war.
a strong and principled man who stayed the course in the darkest hour.Strong, yes. Too strong. Principled, ha, unless you consider murdering opponents a good principle.

.
Poorest? Several fit the bill. I would have to say Jimmy Carter. He basically pulled down the pants of the United States and begged Iran to paddle its (US's) behind. And he inspired no economic/personal confidence by his infamous television address where he told Americans that their expectations were too high.I have no high regard for Carter, but surely Lincoln and FDR were worse. Look at all the deaths they've caused.

[FaithThruDoubt]

How could you put Washington, Reagan and Jefferson in the same pool as Lincoln and FDR!? You don’t know history or what you think you know about history just isn’t so. How could you think FDR wasn’t a corruptive person!?

Just what is wrong with a do-nothing POTUS? Didn’t Reagan say, government is part of the problem, it’s not the solution? Also, get government out of our way.

Please let us know which of the POTUS men you consider to be appeasers.

Okay...calm down before you sprain something. Take a drink, then come back and read my response.

Okay.

1. I obviously wasn't implying that every leader I picked as "good" wasn't corrupt or fully embodied virtues or vices I cited. I merely picked what I felt (and many others feel) are some particularly strong and particularly weak leaders given the situations they were dealt and how they fared. If you disagree with my list, fine. But you'll find my names in both categories in the lists of other informed people as well.

2. Washington and Jefferson I included because of their skill at keeping the U.S. safe and on the path to prosperity in the vulnerable early years. Did other people do this? Yes, but I felt that both these men were adept at it...Washington in foreign policy, and Jefferson in foreign policy, education, and economic policies.

3. Reagan said that government was a part of the problem in that government shouldn't interfere with citizens ability to choose goods/services/moral choices for themselves and their families. Reagan presided over and facilitated a huge economic growth and made sure the government was kept to a minimum in meddling with the free market, etc. He did feel, and I agree, that it is the government's responsibility to protect America from outside harm. And I do believe he was instrumental in the USSR's demise. Those reasons are why I chose him in my group - strong leadership from mutiple aspects.

3. And so I believe it is a president's duty to protect the U.S. and enact policies that promote personal prosperity and freedom. Those I felt showed this I recognized as some of (not the only ones who were) the best.



Yea, the South was a prosperous bastion, a very rock of luxury, right after the war.

At least we had a South after the war. We nearly didn't, and thanks in large part to Lincoln we kept the Southern States. And yes, they eventually (and subsequently) recovered.



Strong, yes. Too strong. Principled, ha, unless you consider murdering opponents a good principle.

Could you be more specific? If you mean the south, heck yeah! We fought a war to keep them from seceding. Killing happens in war. Murder is not always synonymous with killing. Many people can't grasp this.



I have no high regard for Carter, but surely Lincoln and FDR were worse. Look at all the deaths they've caused.

You're willfully ignorant if you honestly believe this. FDR and Lincoln both took the initiative to win in situations that they didn't cause. In war people die. But sometimes wars are necessary to preserve more (innocent) lives in the long run. And with either situation that's exactly what happened. Weak leaders and people fail to see this and irresponsibly let death and suffering continue because they can't morally distinguish between life taken on the battlefield for the greater good and life taken in tyranny at the hands of those who enslave or brutalize in cold blood.

[Augustine2004]

FaithThruDoubt, I will focus on what I think are the worst aspects of your reply.

1. Nobody will recover from death until Judgment day.

2. One’s taking a course of action that will result in a net number of premature deaths is effectively murder, unless he is an idiot.

3. You’re wrong if you think that World War II saved lives. How can you even begin to think so unless you’re ignorant of the facts. Do you not know that the War to Undo the Southern Secession cost 650,000 lives, including civilians ones?

4. FDR and Lincoln did take courses of action that resulted in net numbers of premature deaths IMO. Look at how much FDR provoked Japan. And, the USFG was not exactly neutral when the British made war on the Germans. Hitler had no practical chance of invading and conquering Britain without adequate sea transportation. While the South fired the first shot (Fort Sumter), Lincoln did take a few measures such that would happen, such as resupplying the fort. Also read his First Inaugural Presidential Address. South Carolina seceded shortly afterwards, because the address didn’t sit well with it.

[FaithThruDoubt]

Nobody will recover from death until Judgment day.


Walk me by that again slowly and tell me what you are trying to say here.


You’re wrong if you think that World War II saved lives.

Tell that to the people whose grandparents were rescued from concentration camps and the many more who were spared from being murdered by Hitler in other ways. How many more had to die....millions more in Auschwitz and Dachau?



One’s taking a course of action that will result in a net number of premature deaths is effectively murder, unless he is an idiot.

Wrong. Murder, as defined by Webster's Dictionary, is "to kill wantonly, unlawfully, and with premeditated malice". This does not describe battlefield killing. Not all killing is unlawful, including that done on the field of battle. Read the Geneva Conventions. Targeting non-military personnel is murder. (Civilians dying WITHOUT BEING TARGETED is another matter. Intent is everything.) Targeting enemy soldiers is permitted in war under international law and is not murder.



Do you not know that the War to Undo the Southern Secession cost 650,000 lives, including civilians ones?

See the above. The 600,000 men who died did so to preserve the Union. They also prevented the enslavement, murder, and torture of countless people.


FDR and Lincoln did take courses of action that resulted in net numbers of premature deaths IMO. Look at how much FDR provoked Japan. And, the USFG was not exactly neutral when the British made war on the Germans. Hitler had no practical chance of invading and conquering Britain without adequate sea transportation. While the South fired the first shot (Fort Sumter), Lincoln did take a few measures such that would happen, such as resupplying the fort. Also read his First Inaugural Presidential Address. South Carolina seceded shortly afterwards, because the address didn’t sit well with it.

Let me get this straight...it was FDR's fault that Japan invaded Manchuria, Vietnam, big parts of Indonesia, and other territories in the 1930s and 1940s?

It was Lincoln's fault that the South was willing to secede in order to preserve their brutal, yet profitable, slave-based economy? The South was prepared to secede well before Lincoln ever was elected. His election in 1860 was what caused them to act more than anything.

[Augustine2004]

Walk me by that again slowly and tell me what you are trying to say here.That was a counterpoint to your saying that the South eventually recovered and even prospered.

Tell that to the people whose grandparents were rescued from concentration camps and the many more who were spared from being murdered by Hitler in other ways. How many more had to die....millions more in Auschwitz and Dachau?According to the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust someone estimated that more than 67% of the pre-war Jewish population over a wide area including Greece and the USSR died. Neither the USFG nor the Britain made much direct effort, if any, to save the Jews, for example by warning the Germans ‘there would be consequences.’ The Allieds’ ‘unconditional surrender’ policy undoubtedly prolonged the war.


Wrong. Murder, as defined by Webster's Dictionary, is "to kill wantonly, unlawfully, and with premeditated malice". This does not describe battlefield killing. Not all killing is unlawful, including that done on the field of battle. Read the Geneva Conventions. Targeting non-military personnel is murder. (Civilians dying WITHOUT BEING TARGETED is another matter. Intent is everything.) Targeting enemy soldiers is permitted in war under international law and is not murder.Phooey on dictionary definitions. What about starting a war with a modern style like what we use in Iraq that you ought to know may result in a million civilian deaths and 4 million displaced persons? What about the atom bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima? It’s rather doubtful they saved ½ million American lives because Japan had already sued for peace. We told Japan no, you must surrender unconditionally, and went on to fire-bomb Tokyo and other cities.


See the above. The 600,000 men who died did so to preserve the Union.No, roughly half were Southerners, some of them civilians.
They also prevented the enslavement, murder, and torture of countless people.I think you meant the slaves of the South. You can’t be sure the South would be running a slave economy to this day. IIRC importing slaves was already outlawed. The trend was for developed countries to stop the practice of slavery. The North itself did so by the 1850s.


Let me get this straight...it was FDR's fault that Japan invaded Manchuria, Vietnam, big parts of Indonesia, and other territories in the 1930s and 1940s?I can’t say what would happen had we encouraged free trade instead of cutting off supplies of oil and basic materials like iron, but things might have been different.


It was Lincoln's fault that the South was willing to secede in order to preserve their brutal, yet profitable, slave-based economy?That was not the only reason. Likely not the chief reason. Ironically, it was the North’s enslavement, if I may so put it, of the South through such economic measures as the Tariff of Abominations.
The South was prepared to secede well before Lincoln ever was elected. [QUOTE=FaithThruDoubt;2519201]His election in 1860 was what caused them to act more than anything.OK, I guess.

[Augustine2004]

That was a counterpoint to your saying that the South eventually recovered and even prospered.
According to the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust someone estimated that more than 67% of the pre-war Jewish population over a wide area including Greece and the USSR died. Neither the USFG nor the Britain made much direct effort, if any, to save the Jews, for example by warning the Germans ‘there would be consequences.’ The Allieds’ ‘unconditional surrender’ policy undoubtedly prolonged the war.

Phooey on dictionary definitions. What about starting a war with a modern style like what we use in Iraq that you ought to know may result in a million civilian deaths and 4 million displaced persons? What about the atom bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima? It’s rather doubtful they saved ½ million American lives because Japan had already sued for peace. We told Japan no, you must surrender unconditionally, and went on to fire-bomb Tokyo and other cities.

No, roughly half were Southerners, some of them civilians. I think you meant the slaves of the South. You can’t be sure the South would be running a slave economy to this day. IIRC importing slaves was already outlawed. The trend was for developed countries to stop the practice of slavery. The North itself did so by the 1850s.

I can’t say what would happen had we encouraged free trade instead of cutting off supplies of oil and basic materials like iron, but things might have been different.

That was not the only reason. Likely not the chief reason. Ironically, it was the North’s enslavement, if I may so put it, of the South through such economic measures as the Tariff of Abominations. [QUOTE=FaithThruDoubt;2519201]The South was prepared to secede well before Lincoln ever was elected. OK, I guess.

[Augustine2004]

That was a counterpoint to your saying that the South eventually recovered and even prospered.
According to the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust someone estimated that more than 67% of the pre-war Jewish population over a wide area including Greece and the USSR died. Neither the USFG nor the Britain made much direct effort, if any, to save the Jews, for example by warning the Germans ‘there would be consequences.’ The Allieds’ ‘unconditional surrender’ policy undoubtedly prolonged the war.

Phooey on dictionary definitions. What about starting a war with a modern style like what we use in Iraq that you ought to know may result in a million civilian deaths and 4 million displaced persons? What about the atom bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima? It’s rather doubtful they saved ½ million American lives because Japan had already sued for peace. We told Japan no, you must surrender unconditionally, and went on to fire-bomb Tokyo and other cities.

No, roughly half were Southerners, some of them civilians. I think you meant the slaves of the South. You can’t be sure the South would be running a slave economy to this day. IIRC importing slaves was already outlawed. The trend was for developed countries to stop the practice of slavery. The North itself did so by the 1850s.

I can’t say what would happen had we encouraged free trade instead of cutting off supplies of oil and basic materials like iron, but things might have been different.

That was not the only reason. Likely not the chief reason. Ironically, it was the North’s enslavement, if I may so put it, of the South through such economic measures as the Tariff of Abominations.I don't know why things came out as badly as that did. Sabotage?

Here's a clean version


Walk me by that again slowly and tell me what you are trying to say here.That was a counterpoint to your saying that the South eventually recovered and even prospered.

Tell that to the people whose grandparents were rescued from concentration camps and the many more who were spared from being murdered by Hitler in other ways. How many more had to die....millions more in Auschwitz and Dachau?According to the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust someone estimated that more than 67% of the pre-war Jewish population over a wide area including Greece and the USSR died. Neither the USFG nor the Britain made much direct effort, if any, to save the Jews, for example by warning the Germans ‘there would be consequences.’ The Allieds’ ‘unconditional surrender’ policy undoubtedly prolonged the war.


Wrong. Murder, as defined by Webster's Dictionary, is "to kill wantonly, unlawfully, and with premeditated malice". This does not describe battlefield killing. Not all killing is unlawful, including that done on the field of battle. Read the Geneva Conventions. Targeting non-military personnel is murder. (Civilians dying WITHOUT BEING TARGETED is another matter. Intent is everything.) Targeting enemy soldiers is permitted in war under international law and is not murder.Phooey on dictionary definitions. What about starting a war with a modern style like what we use in Iraq that you ought to know may result in a million civilian deaths and 4 million displaced persons? What about the atom bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima? It’s rather doubtful they saved ½ million American lives because Japan had already sued for peace. We told Japan no, you must surrender unconditionally, and went on to fire-bomb Tokyo and other cities.


See the above. The 600,000 men who died did so to preserve the Union.No, roughly half were Southerners, some of them civilians.
They also prevented the enslavement, murder, and torture of countless people.I think you meant the slaves of the South. You can’t be sure the South would be running a slave economy to this day. IIRC importing slaves was already outlawed. The trend was for developed countries to stop the practice of slavery. The North itself did so by the 1850s.


Let me get this straight...it was FDR's fault that Japan invaded Manchuria, Vietnam, big parts of Indonesia, and other territories in the 1930s and 1940s?I can’t say what would happen had we encouraged free trade instead of cutting off supplies of oil and basic materials like iron, but things might have been different.


It was Lincoln's fault that the South was willing to secede in order to preserve their brutal, yet profitable, slave-based economy?That was not the only reason. Likely not the chief reason. Ironically, it was the North’s enslavement, if I may so put it, of the South through such economic measures as the Tariff of Abominations.
The South was prepared to secede well before Lincoln ever was elected. His election in 1860 was what caused them to act more than anything.OK, I guess.

[FaithThruDoubt]

Phooey on dictionary definitions.

Hahahahahaha....

You say that to me picking VALID sources for defining and discussing terms and then you go and trot out Wikipedia in supporting your specious grasp of war and history. I think that pretty much speaks for itself.


According to the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust someone estimated that more than 67% of the pre-war Jewish population over a wide area including Greece and the USSR died. Neither the USFG nor the Britain made much direct effort, if any, to save the Jews, for example by warning the Germans ‘there would be consequences.’ The Allieds’ ‘unconditional surrender’ policy undoubtedly prolonged the war.

Wow, this is bogus on so many levels.

First, your assertion that unconditional surrender terms prolonged the war??? Yeah? And you think Hitler would have been open to conditional surrender terms? This guy fought to the last bullet and the last boy (not man)....and you think the Allies should have reverted to Neville Chamberlain's whining pleas? I hope you never attain any kind of public office.
Second, ending the war when we did SAVED MANY lives and many more weeks/months/years of bogged down, bloody fighting. Your "strategy" would have had the Allies stuck in WWI trenches while Hitler killed the remaining 33% of the European Jews and started in on the others.
BTW, Jews made up only a portion of those killed in the concentration camps and in prisons. Hitler, like any tyrant, killed masses of non-Jews, sometimes for stuff like failing to "Sieg Heil" properly.

What would you have done? Talk to Hitler? get to be his friend? Get duped, intimidated, and taken advantage of like Anton Drexler, Neville Chamberlain, Paul von Hindenburg, and so many others? That's a losing, snivelling (not to mention dangerous) strategy.




I can’t say what would happen had we encouraged free trade instead of cutting off supplies of oil and basic materials like iron, but things might have been different.


I repeat, was it FDR's "provocation", as you put it, that led Japan to invade Manchuria, Vietnam, and parts of Indonesia? That's pretty far-fetched by most standards of analysis.


That was not the only reason. Likely not the chief reason. Ironically, it was the North’s enslavement, if I may so put it, of the South through such economic measures as the Tariff of Abominations.

Completely ancillary to the reason I offered.



No, roughly half were Southerners, some of them civilians.

And that was the price to end slavery in the US and keep the Union together. I maintain that in the long run it saved more lives and benefited a ton of people both directly and indirectly. That was the end result.

[Augustine2004]

You say that to me picking VALID sources for defining and discussing terms and then you go and trot out Wikipedia in supporting your specious grasp of war and history. I think that pretty much speaks for itself.That you think starting a war that might result in a million civilian deaths and 4 million displaced persons, as the Iraqi war appears to have done, is never necessarily murder speaks volumes about your lack of understanding or care.

Wow, this is bogus on so many levels.

First, your assertion that unconditional surrender terms prolonged the war??? Yeah? And you think Hitler would have been open to conditional surrender terms? This guy fought to the last bullet and the last boy (not man)....and you think the Allies should have reverted to Neville Chamberlain's whining pleas? I hope you never attain any kind of public office.You’re right Hitler fought on until the Commies were about to capture him. However, many Nazis were willing to surrender on their own to the Americans and the British. Incredibly, they were told that they’d also have to surrender to ALL of the Allies, including the Commies.

Second, ending the war when we did SAVED MANY lives and many more weeks/months/years of bogged down, bloody fighting. Your "strategy" would have had the Allies stuck in WWI trenches while Hitler killed the remaining 33% of the European Jews and started in on the others.No idea what you’re talking about. I suspect you misread something.

BTW, Jews made up only a portion of those killed in the concentration camps and in prisons. Hitler, like any tyrant, killed masses of non-Jews, sometimes for stuff like failing to "Sieg Heil" properly.So? What was that in response to?


What would you have done? Talk to Hitler? get to be his friend? Get duped, intimidated, and taken advantage of like Anton Drexler, Neville Chamberlain, Paul von Hindenburg, and so many others? That's a losing, snivelling (not to mention dangerous) strategy.You need specifics. You need to read Pat Buchanan’s The Unnecessary War. Also Human Smoke. Those are well-documented works.


I repeat, was it FDR's "provocation", as you put it, that led Japan to invade Manchuria, Vietnam, and parts of Indonesia? That's pretty far-fetched by most standards of analysis.Well, no. Japan would never have dared to attack such a formidable nation as the USA until she became much stronger that it was . . . I can’t prove that trying to increase trade with Japan instead of decreasing trade the way FDR did would have led to peace, but you can’t disprove that either.


Completely ancillary to the reason I offered.I’m sorry, you got me lost.


And that was the price to end slavery in the US and keep the Union together. I maintain that in the long run it saved more lives and benefited a ton of people both directly and indirectly. That was the end result.I believe we’re better off without the USFG. Whole books have been written, so I can’t go into the reasons. Anyway, you could look at the threads public goods & provision of security http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=108296
small government http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=107328

You have to demonstrate that there was no chance that the South wouldn’t have abandoned an economic regime that was not really sustainable.

[Augustine2004]

New stuff: Srdja Trifkovic’s timeline of the events of 1940-1941 that led Japan to fire the first shot in the war with America. Taking nearly every part of the timeline to be an accurate representation - not misleading - of what really happened, I have no doubt at all FDR was the true instigator of America’s entry into World War II.

In 1940 the Tripartite Pact gave FDR a means whereby he could lead an isolationist America into battle against Hitler: Manipulate Japan by diplomatic and other means into attacking first. The pact would then require Germany to declare war. You know what happened afterwards. http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=815
More evidence http://tqr.mentalblockparty.com/html/NHborgquist6.htm

[Cyrus Johnson]

In 1940 the Tripartite Pact gave FDR a means whereby he could lead an isolationist America into battle against Hitler: Manipulate Japan by diplomatic and other means into attacking first. The pact would then require Germany to declare war. You know what happened afterwards. http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=815
More evidence http://tqr.mentalblockparty.com/html/NHborgquist6.htm

This is the text of the Tripartite Pact (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/triparti.asp):

The governments of Germany, Italy and Japan, considering it as a condition precedent of any lasting peace that all nations of the world be given each its own proper place, have decided to stand by and co-operate with one another in regard to their efforts in greater East Asia and regions of Europe respectively wherein it is their prime purpose to establish and maintain a new order of things calculated to promote the mutual prosperity and welfare of the peoples concerned.

Furthermore, it is the desire of the three governments to extend co-operation to such nations in other spheres of the world as may be inclined to put forth endeavours along lines similar to their own, in order that their ultimate aspirations for world peace may thus be realized.

Accordingly, the governments of Germany, Italy and Japan have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE ONE
Japan recognizes and respects the leadership of Germany and Italy in establishment of a new order in Europe.

ARTICLE TWO
Germany and Italy recognize and respect the leadership of Japan in the establishment of a new order in greater East Asia.

ARTICLE THREE
Germany, Italy and Japan agree to co-operate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict.

ARTICLE FOUR
With the view to implementing the present pact, joint technical commissions, members which are to be appointed by the respective governments of Germany, Italy and Japan will meet without delay.

ARTICLE FIVE
Germany, Italy and Japan affirm that the aforesaid terms do not in any way affect the political status which exists at present as between each of the three contracting powers and Soviet Russia.(1)

ARTICLE SIX
The present pact shall come into effect immediately upon signature and shall remain in force 10 years from the date of its coming into force. At the proper time before expiration of said term, the high contracting parties shall at the request of any of them enter into negotiations for its renewal.

In faith whereof, the undersigned duly authorized by their respective governments have signed this pact and have affixed hereto their signatures.

I draw your attention in particular to the bolded part of Art. 3. Note that Japan was not attacked by the US (the power that wasn't presently involved). It was the other way around. There was no need for Hitler to declare war on the US based on this pact. That he did so was for other reasons. He wanted to impress upon Japan his willingness to go all out with them, hoping in turn that the Japanese would reciprocate for example in Russia or at least in further weakening the British in the Far East. He also assumed the war with the US was inevitable anyway, and so he wanted to get the jump on them first to retain his initiative.

[Augustine2004]

I draw your attention in particular to the bolded part of Art. 3. Note that Japan was not attacked by the US (the power that wasn't presently involved). It was the other way around. There was no need for Hitler to declare war on the US based on this pact. That he did so was for other reasons. He wanted to impress upon Japan his willingness to go all out with them, hoping in turn that the Japanese would reciprocate for example in Russia or at least in further weakening the British in the Far East. He also assumed the war with the US was inevitable anyway, and so he wanted to get the jump on them first to retain his initiative.FDR was hardly neutral even if the American public was. Officially the USFG was neutral, but it did stuff that both Japan and Germany could have taken as casa bellum. For example convoy protection of British ships before Pearl Harbor.

[Cyrus Johnson]

FDR was hardly neutral even if the American public was.

No, he wasn't. But that has nothing to do with the fact that Germany was not compelled by the Tripartite Pact to declare war on the US.


Officially the USFG was neutral, but it did stuff that both Japan and Germany could have taken as casa bellum. For example convoy protection of British ships before Pearl Harbor.

But they didn't. Japan attacked as a preemptive measure to take America effectively out of the war before they ever got in. And if Roosevelt just wanted a causes belli against Germany, he had it when they sunk the Reuben James. It was dangerous for unescorted American ships in the Atlantic too, and there were American troops in Iceland, so it was in their interest to ensure the safety of the Atlantic, especially the western side.

[Augustine2004]

No, he wasn't. But that has nothing to do with the fact that Germany was not compelled by the Tripartite Pact to declare war on the US.



But they didn't. Japan attacked as a preemptive measure to take America effectively out of the war before they ever got in. And if Roosevelt just wanted a causes belli against Germany, he had it when they sunk the Reuben James. It was dangerous for unescorted American ships in the Atlantic too, and there were American troops in Iceland, so it was in their interest to ensure the safety of the Atlantic, especially the western side.Why were American troops in Iceland? It costs money to station troops abroad. The Reuben James was hardly doing anything that was of a neutralty nature. The Tripartite Pact was prior to the sinking.

I incorrectly spelled casa belli, didn’t I? “Cases of war.” Well, when Pearl Harbor occurred, would Germany expect that Japan won’t be counter-attacked?

[Cyrus Johnson]

Why were American troops in Iceland?

It was part of the American zone of interest. And yes, it was a good way to help Britain without violating neutrality.


It costs money to station troops abroad. The Reuben James was hardly doing anything that was of a neutralty nature. The Tripartite Pact was prior to the sinking.

Whatever it was doing, it wasn;t sinking vessels of a nation it was not at war with,


I incorrectly spelled casa belli, didn’t I? “Cases of war.” Well, when Pearl Harbor occurred, would Germany expect that Japan won’t be counter-attacked?

Of course America would defend when attacked. But that's irrelevant. They worded the pact that way for a reason. You generally don`t want to put your decision to go to war solely in the hands of another country. The wording is essential. Hitler had an out, but he chose not to use it.

[Augustine2004]

It was part of the American zone of interest. And yes, it was a good way to help Britain without violating neutrality.I doubt that's how Hitler viewed it.
Whatever it was doing, it wasn;t sinking vessels of a nation it was not at war with, You said it was ok or so I thought for a nation to blockade war material or attempt to do so. In any case this webpage says that Germany warned that any member of a convoy was fair game. (The page didn't say so explicitly but surely that's implied.)
Of course America would defend when attacked. But that's irrelevant. They worded the pact that way for a reason. You generally don`t want to put your decision to go to war solely in the hands of another country. The wording is essential. Hitler had an out, but he chose not to use it.Yea, good point, but you still seem to ignore FDR's overwhelming desire to get into the European war, something Hitler must be aware of by Pearl Harbor.

[Cyrus Johnson]

I doubt that's how Hitler viewed it.

He didn't like it. But who cares what he liked?


You said it was ok or so I thought for a nation to blockade war material or attempt to do so.

It can be an effective military strategy. But it can also be taken too far, if for example its targeted specifically at starving the population after the military has already surrendered..


In any case this webpage says that Germany warned that any member of a convoy was fair game. (The page didn't say so explicitly but surely that's implied.)

Escorting convoys and protecting American vessels and American personelle in them wasn't sinking German vessels.


Yea, good point, but you still seem to ignore FDR's overwhelming desire to get into the European war, something Hitler must be aware of by Pearl Harbor.

Yes, FDR knew that Facism had to be stopped. By force if necessary. He also knew the mood of the country was isolationist and short-sighted, and Hitler knew this too. But the US was a democracy and the President heeded the will of the people inasmuch as he could, while at the same time doing what he thought best in his role as President and Commander in Chief. Hitler certainly knew that a showdown with the US was inevitable at some point. The Japanese attack offered to him his chance. He thought the US couldn't both tangle with the Japanese and at the same time continue to support Britain and Russia. He was wrong. Once the industrial capacity of America kicked into gear, the war was over. Still sadly, many more people were to die first.

The American people were firmly on-board after Pearl. The mood of the German people was going the other way...the Russian offensive had stalled, winter was upon their troops, and now Hitler declared war on yet another very powerful enemy. 1942 would see the tide turn for Germany.

[Augustine2004]

He didn't like it. But who cares what he liked?You mean even if Hitler had a good case, nobody would have cared?
Escorting convoys and protecting American vessels and American personelle in them wasn't sinking German vessels. What the hell were American tourists doing in war zones?
Yes, FDR knew that Facism had to be stopped. By force if necessary. He also knew the mood of the country was isolationist and short-sighted, and Hitler knew this too. But the US was a democracy and the President heeded the will of the people inasmuch as he could, while at the same time doing what he thought best in his role as President and Commander in Chief. Hitler certainly knew that a showdown with the US was inevitable at some point. The Japanese attack offered to him his chance. He thought the US couldn't both tangle with the Japanese and at the same time continue to support Britain and Russia. He was wrong. Once the industrial capacity of America kicked into gear, the war was over. Still sadly, many more people were to die first.That's ironic considering FDR's fascism.

[Cyrus Johnson]

You mean even if Hitler had a good case, nobody would have cared?

I mean who cares what a psycho like him liked or didn't like. Did he have a good case?


What the hell were American tourists doing in war zones?

Show me where I used the word 'tourists'. Or even implied that term.


That's ironic considering FDR's fascism.

Yeah, just like Hitler he was.

[Augustine2004]

Yeah, just like Hitler he was.You clearly don't believe me. First of all, what's your definition of fascism?

[Cyrus Johnson]

You clearly don't believe me. First of all, what's your definition of fascism?

You have quite a gift for misrepresenting what I say. I didn't say I didn't believe you. Only that I don't agree with you. FDR was called a 'fascist' under the loose sense of centralizing powers, But that is a long way from what Hitler was doing.

[Augustine2004]

You have quite a gift for misrepresenting what I say. I didn't say I didn't believe you. Only that I don't agree with you. FDR was called a 'fascist' under the loose sense of centralizing powers, But that is a long way from what Hitler was doing.Fascism did vary from country to country, but I don't believe the FDR variety was 'a long way,' unless you're referring to stuff like the Holocaust.

[Cyrus Johnson]

Fascism did vary from country to country, but I don't believe the FDR variety was 'a long way,' unless you're referring to stuff like the Holocaust.

Of course it varied. The current President has also been called a fascist, but that doesn't make him just like Franco. Anyway, the Holocaust was hardly a small matter. The closest FDR got was the internment of Japanese Americans on the west coast, which by the way was spearheaded by local officials ands was still wrong. But it certainly didn't come close to state-sponsered slavery, brutality and murder on a massive scale. Anyway, Hitler and cronies weren't good guys, the Holocaust aside. Ask Russian prisoners of war or even non-Jewish parts of the population in the occupied territories. Ask the families in the Reich itself affected by the T4 'euthanasia' program. If you think FDR wasn't much different than Hitler, then you are seriously deluded.

[uberliber]

Without a doubt, the worst was FDR. FDR prolonged the Great Depression so that it lasted over 10 years. He was the first president that showed how easily the government could take away our rights. He destroyed our economy and set us up for future failure. Worst of all, he was the first president to be a pure pragmatist. HE had no principles whatsoever. Contradictions in policies did not matter. All he wanted to do was achieve goals, not matter what the means. He set the precedent for this type of thinking.

Best, I'll go with Jefferson for the obvious reasons. His respect for liberty was not been matched. He believed in non-interventionist foreign policy, free markets, and weak government. He is the example of what our nation was supposed to be.

[Darth Executor]

Of course it varied. The current President has also been called a fascist, but that doesn't make him just like Franco. Anyway, the Holocaust was hardly a small matter. The closest FDR got was the internment of Japanese Americans on the west coast, which by the way was spearheaded by local officials ands was still wrong. But it certainly didn't come close to state-sponsered slavery, brutality and murder on a massive scale. Anyway, Hitler and cronies weren't good guys, the Holocaust aside. Ask Russian prisoners of war or even non-Jewish parts of the population in the occupied territories. Ask the families in the Reich itself affected by the T4 'euthanasia' program. If you think FDR wasn't much different than Hitler, then you are seriously deluded.

My grandmother has nothing but praise for the German army. Polish people I know think the same, and unlike my native country they were forcefully occupied. In general, the Germans were civilized unless ordered not to be. Russians OTOH...

[Zero Tolerance]

Best:

-JFK/LBJ because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Affirmative Action; EEOC). Having the balls to say radically, "You don't want it but it's better for everyone," deserves recognition. Unfortunately for the former, the last time someone did something like that was Lincoln,and we all know how both presidents went out.

Worst:

-Andrew Jackson/ Martin Van Buren. Why? Indian Removal Act.

-Andrew Johnson. Did the opposite of my "best presidents," delaying steps toward real justice and freedom for another ONE HUNDRED years. God Bless America!

[Zero Tolerance]

Anyone who thinks the Civil War was about slavery is as clueless as those who think Iraq was about WMDs.

I hope this was said in jest because modern historians on the Civil War and Reconstruction disagrees with you, and I hope that you read more contempoary historical texts that are not from the archaic Dunning school historiography.

For "worst" I'd like to add Woodrow Wilson.

[Ninjalan]

Hey now, I'm related to Woodrow Wilson, so be nice.

(Even though he was a pretty evil president)

[Augustine2004]

Curtmudgeon, your view of this article
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo167.html
might be interesting to say the least.

[Augustine2004]

Curtmudgeon!? Wherefore art thou?

Anyway, Thomas DiLorenzo said that by the time Lincoln made his first inaugural address he had no objection to making slavery’s constitutionality permanent: "no objection to making it express and irrevocable."

[Augustine2004]

Joe Sobran makes clear what Lincoln had accomplished:

What if the Federal Government grossly violated the Constitution? Could states withdraw from the Union? Lincoln said no. The Union was “indissoluble” unless all the states agreed to dissolve it. As a practical matter, the Civil War settled that. The United States, plural, were really a single enormous state, as witness the new habit of speaking of “it” rather than “them.”

So the people are bound to obey the government even when the rulers betray their oath to uphold the Constitution. The door to escape is barred. Lincoln in effect claimed that it is not our rights but the state that is “unalienable.” And he made it stick by force of arms. No transgression of the Constitution can impair the Union’s inherited legitimacy. Once established on specific and limited terms, the U.S. Government is forever, even if it refuses to abide by those terms.http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml

[Firelung]

I've seen a lot of people saying Jefferson was the best
ex:


Best, I'll go with Jefferson for the obvious reasons. His respect for liberty was not been matched. He believed in non-interventionist foreign policy, free markets, and weak government. He is the example of what our nation was supposed to be.

and this is baffling to me. What Jefferson believed and what he did were two very different things. When he was elected, he considered it a huge win for the anti-federalists; in fact, he called it a 2nd revolution. However, upon entering office, he allowed the federalist policies sported by Alexander Hamilton to continue. He allowed the navy to grow weak, spending a lot of money on smaller boats which did little good in warfare, and embarassingly had to pay $60,000 to Tripoli for the release of American hostages after 4 years of fighting. Worst of all was Jefferson's embargo act, banning exportation of goods to any country. This was absolutely devastating to the US economy and failed to accomplish its original goal of causing Britain and France to respect the rights of US citizens. The best thing he did was clearly the Louisiana Purchase, and comically, he believed it to be Unconstitutional, as it was a great display of the power of the Federal Gov (something he was personally against).

I agree with Jefferson philosophically on a lot of issues and think he was a brilliant man, but I'd hardly consider his presidency to be good, let alone the best...

My best:
Washington, Lincoln, TR

My Worst (no particular order):
Dubya, Carter, Jackson, Johnson, Harding.

[Augustine2004]

Welcome to TWeb, Firelung!

Sorry, but no real libertarian would rank Washington, Lincoln, and TR as the best; and Harding as among the worst.

[Firelung]

You're right, I'm not really a libertarian anymore. And thanks for the welcome.

[Augustine2004]

One of the reasons why libertarians do not deify Lincoln:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/027607.html

[Zero Tolerance]

One of the reasons why libertarians do not deify Lincoln:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/027607.html

Yeah, Lincoln is the most widely written-about president to date, particularly because of what appears on the surface to be an abolitionist attitude. That could not be further from the truth, and after reading three or four books on the guy, I feel that his decisions were practically the result of a coin flip.

It is quite profound considering what happens in the fallout, such as "The Party of Lincoln," where blacks (who could vote) would vote almost exclusively for that party (and would so for decades), back when republicanism was synonymous with liberalism.

Obviously, times have changed, with perhaps the exception of the tendency for the black demographic to vote overwhelmingly for one party.