Who's your least favorite president from each party?

[Vepres]

Democratic-Republicans: Jefferson for the embargo act. Though otherwise a good President.
Whig: Tyler
Democrat: Wilson, Andrew Johnson, Buchanan
Republican: Harding

[Vepres]

FDR and Lincoln, also my two least favorite

I can see FDR, but Lincoln? Come on.

Please, one day someone of the Lincoln dislikers could expalin me how the man who abolished slavery could be the worst president.

They like to be different? I actually have no idea. Something to do with suspending habeus corpus or something like that (trivial in my opinion, considering he only did it to the enemy, which by the way is totally fine under the geneva convention, and they were probably released at the end of the war anyway).

[Vepres]

Please, one day someone of the Lincoln dislikers could expalin me how the man who abolished slavery could be the worst president.

Suspending habeus corpus and an obsession over "states' rights".

To my knowledge it was only used on enemy soldiers, not Union citizens (which is acceptable, because they're basically POWs).

The states' rights thing was very mainstream back then. If he didn't take that into account, there would no doubt have been a bigger backlash against him. At that point in history, you were a resident of your state first, then of the union, not the other way around.

[Vepres]

Please, one day someone of the Lincoln dislikers could expalin me how the man who abolished slavery could be the worst president.

Yeah, I don't know how Americans could possibly not worship the man who on behalf of corporate interests started an unnecessary war that killed 500,000 of their countrymen, took upon himself dictatorial powers, oversaw war crimes, put the U.S. Constitution through the shredder, completely destroyed the carefully balanced government system crafted by the Founding Fathers, and was an all-around self-serving two-faced dirtbag. What's not to love about old Dishonest Abe?

I really don't understand why self-proclaimed 'libertarians' perpetuate this ancient canard. One of the central credos of classical liberal theory, first promulgated by John Locke, is that all men are possessed of the innate right of self-ownership. If one man owns another human being, he is contravening that basic right and, therefore, subjecting him to tyranny. Lincoln may have done some morally questionable things in pursuit of winning the war, but was, on the whole, fighting for a righteous cause.

I believe this is simply a side-effect of that decaying fusionist philosophy that will hopefully fall away completely when that particular ideological superstructure totally buckles.

Oh yes,  I forgot all about the fact that Lincoln sent a half-a-million men to their deaths for the "righteous cause" of forcing tariffs upon the South to enable his industrialist corporate clients to monopolize the market under a wall of favoritism and protectionism.

What was it you were rambling on about?

The genius of Lincoln was not that he was perfect, but that he learned along the way and changed his views on certain matters. For example, he was originally neutral on the slavery issue, but when he started to meet blacks during his tenure as President, that opinion changed.

What of the "industrialist corporate clients". Who are they? To my knowledge, the civil war occurred before the industrial revolution, so there certainly weren't "big industrialist corporations" at the time.

Secondly, you have to look at his presidency in the context of the era. Back then, high tariffs were reasonable and considered a mainstream view (though certainly there were opponents).

Sorry, but you're wrong about the war being unnecessary. It was the confederate army who attacked a union military base in South Carolina that started the war. The south succeeded because they didn't want to be told by the federal government that owning other people wasn't morally right. Lincoln publicly stated that he had no intentions of invading the southern states, which he didn't until provoked.

Lincoln only suspended habeas corpus in contested states. That is, states where war was either occurring or likely to occur (Maryland for example).

By the way, Lincoln couldn't have been corrupt because he took the Whig view of the presidency, let congress write the bills and set the agenda, and he would sign or veto them. You sir, just want to be different, to stand out, even though you have little evidence to support your claims.

[Vepres]

Let me ask you SPC. If California succeeded from the union (purely to make a point, it would never happen) and attacked a military base owned by the US there before they could leave, wouldn't you be furious? Wouldn't you consider that an act of war?

Lincoln was justified in suspending habeas corpus. Article I, Section 9 of the constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Why did he do this? Because many of the anit-war protesters were just asking for conflict. Lincoln was protecting the US citizens from even more conflict. Justified in my opinion. Much of these suspensions were used in Maryland, for if Maryland succeeded the US capital would be surrounded by the enemy, which could cause a collapse of the Union. Certainly if you walked down the street, peacefully protesting the war, without try to cause or imply violence, they wouldn't have been arrested. They all received trials after the war anyway.  

SPC, regardless of what the Union did, the confederates chose to solve it through violence, instead of diplomacy. They started the war.

Libertas, Lincoln was opposed to slavery. Radicals never get anything done, and often alienate people from their cause. Lincoln realized that a pragmatic approach was needed. If he took a hard line approach to slavery, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland may have succeeded as well. The Confederates would also rally their people better to fight against the Union. Strategically unwise.

High tariffs were much more viable an option then they are now. There was no internet, no telephones, no airplanes. Einzige gave good justifications as well.

Libertas, you keep referencing industrialists corrupting Lincoln, yet you don't cite them nor even give any of their names.

As far as I'm concerned, the Confederates started the war. They fired the first shot. They were contesting the border states, instead of allowing them to vote for whether they wanted to remain in the Union or join the Confederates.

From Wikipedia, and yes, I checked, it was cited, "This meeting left the future General Sherman "sadly disappointed" at Lincoln's seeming failure to realize that "the country was sleeping on a volcano" and the South was "preparing for war." As you can see, Lincoln didn't expect war, therefore didn't want to start a war.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution was contract signed by the states. It is therefore legitimate. To break said contract, I would say at least a super majority, if not all parties involved in the contract must reject it for it to be invalid.


Take that!

[Vepres]

SPC and Libertas, you guys are spinning your wheels in the mud with those that have been brainwashed by the school system.

Let me ask you SPC. If California succeeded from the union (purely to make a point, it would never happen) and attacked a military base owned by the US there before they could leave, wouldn't you be furious? Wouldn't you consider that an act of war?

Well, as a Californian, I would be on my states' side. Plus, Lincoln was sending supplies to Fort Sumter, not ordering troops to leave, so the analogy is invalid.

What if it was another state then? A state bordering yours.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That power is delegated to Congress, otherwise it wouldn't be in Article I of the Constitution, which specifically deals with Congress.
[/quote]

In March 1963, Congress passed the habeas corpus act, which endorsed Lincolns actions on the issue, both past and present.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very Orwellian. Protecting them from conflict by instigating it!
[/quote]

I'm no historian, but to my knowledge many were actively calling for conflict in the Union states.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And they could just move the capital.
[/quote]

True, but don't forget how many people lived there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even though many of them were just newspaper publishers peacefully exercising freedom of speech? And what good is it for them to receive trials AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER?
[/quote]

Because they may get out or be proven guilty.

I would bet that many of these newspaper publishers were calling for conflict, adding fuel to the flame if you will.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the Union chose to solve it through violence by refusing to recognize the independence of the CSA.[/quote]

Uh, no. Lincoln himself said on multiple occasions that he intended to solve the problem through diplomacy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even though he said that he would be willing to save the Union without freeing a single slave?
[/quote]

In his inaugural he said he would not force the states to do anything regarding slavery. He said it multiple times on the campaign trail. Therefore the south had no reason to succeed. It's like if Texas really decided to succeed because Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric would hurt them, even though Obama has done little to suggest he would outright end NAFTA.

Additionally, Lincoln was very pro-states' rights, so why should the southern states succeeded. They still had voices in congress as well.

While the southern states had every right to be mad that the candidate they opposed was elected, to succeed because of that is unjustifiable and in a way goes against the spirit of democracy.

Finally, a Lincoln quote, "If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?" This makes perfect sense to me. As a Libertarian, even you believe in the enforcing of contracts, no?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On the contrary, the Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" slaves in the areas that the Union Army didn't control. It was pure strategy.[/quote]

Again, it is well documented that Lincoln opposed slavery from a young age. His own pastor was anit-slavery.

The strategy was to not force the slave states to rescind slaver, but to prohibit slavery from spreading, thus letting it whither and die.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government functioned for several decades w/o high tariffs.[/quote]

I concede this. However, didn't Thomas Jefferson, a man you libertarians admire so much, push for a unilateral embargo. Besides, I'm not going to let one position cause me to hate a President.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just like the Poles started WWII by "firing the first shot" at Gleiwicz, right? [/quote]

Hitler claimed Poland belonged to Germany and was preparing to invade, though he had no reason to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actions speak louder than words. He had threatened war if the Southern states didn't pay their tariff revenue.
[/quote]

Citation please.

[Vepres]

Again, it is well documented that Lincoln opposed slavery from a young age. His own pastor was anit-slavery.

The strategy was to not force the slave states to rescind slaver, but to prohibit slavery from spreading, thus letting it whither and die.

The best you could do is make the argument that Lincoln was a flip-flopper on the issue of slavery. There is no way you could successfully argue that he was any sort of dedicated abolitionist.

Did you even read the page I linked to? With an open mind I might add.

[Vepres]

Again, it is well documented that Lincoln opposed slavery from a young age. His own pastor was anit-slavery.

The strategy was to not force the slave states to rescind slaver, but to prohibit slavery from spreading, thus letting it whither and die.

The best you could do is make the argument that Lincoln was a flip-flopper on the issue of slavery. There is no way you could successfully argue that he was any sort of dedicated abolitionist.

Did you even read the page I linked to? With an open mind I might add.

Yes, and it contains little more than baseless speculation to try to explain away the many occasions in which Lincoln made clear he didn't have a problem with slavery.

Here's a quote from Lincoln in July 1, 1854: "If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B. -- why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?--

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly?--You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you."

Another, from October 16, 1854: "I can not but hate [the declared indifference for slavery's spread]. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world -- enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites -- causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty -- criticising [sic] the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

One more, from August 24, 1855 in a letter to his friend: "In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair to you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the constitution and the Union."

[Vepres]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, as a Californian, I would be on my states' side. Plus, Lincoln was sending supplies to Fort Sumter, not ordering troops to leave, so the analogy is invalid.

What if it was another state then? A state bordering yours.[/quote]

As I pointed out, the analogy is invalid.[/quote]

I concede this.

New analogy: If Obama and congress decided to end NAFTA and put high tariffs on trade from Mexico, and the four border states seceded, would they be justified in doing so? No, a ration person would say they were overreacting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That power is delegated to Congress, otherwise it wouldn't be in Article I of the Constitution, which specifically deals with Congress.
[/quote]

In March 1963, Congress passed the habeas corpus act, which endorsed Lincolns actions on the issue, both past and present.[/quote]

And that matters why? He still violated the Constitution, and even if an act of Congress could override that, it would be an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional.[/quote]

In fact, the constitution says nowhere to who the power to suspend habeas corpus lies. It is in the first article, but congressional powers were in section 8.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very Orwellian. Protecting them from conflict by instigating it!
[/quote]

I'm no historian, but to my knowledge many were actively calling for conflict in the Union states.[/quote]

As you said, you are no historian.[/quote]

But, you didn't deny my claim.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And they could just move the capital.
[/quote]

True, but don't forget how many people lived there.[/quote]

And don't forget how many people lived in the Confederacy that wanted to be free of Union control.[/quote]

What of Confederates who didn't want to secede? It goes both ways SPC.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even though many of them were just newspaper publishers peacefully exercising freedom of speech? And what good is it for them to receive trials AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER?
[/quote]

Because they may get out or be proven guilty.

I would bet that many of these newspaper publishers were calling for conflict, adding fuel to the flame if you will.[/quote]

They should have been tried when they were imprisoned, in accordance with the law. And why do you automatically assume that the newspaper publishers were calling for conflict? Most of them were just warning against war. Do you automatically assume that those in Soviet gulags were calling for conflict as well?[/quote]

I highly doubt Lincoln was even notified of many of these imprisonments.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the Union chose to solve it through violence by refusing to recognize the independence of the CSA.[/quote]

Uh, no. Lincoln himself said on multiple occasions that he intended to solve the problem through diplomacy. [/quote]

Actions speak louder than words.[/quote]

Elaborate. The south fired the first shot, started the first battle. Even an ultra-liberal nowadays would strike back if we were fired upon.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even though he said that he would be willing to save the Union without freeing a single slave?
[/quote]

In his inaugural he said he would not force the states to do anything regarding slavery. He said it multiple times on the campaign trail. Therefore the south had no reason to succeed. It's like if Texas really decided to succeed because Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric would hurt them, even though Obama has done little to suggest he would outright end NAFTA.[/quote]

They seceded because Lincoln was going to raise tariffs, which he did. And why does a reason for secession matter? If you do not wish to be a part of a voluntary union, your reasoning for leaving is irrelevent. [/quote]

Additionally, Lincoln was very pro-states' rights, so why should the southern states succeeded. They still had voices in congress as well.[/quote]

You are joking, right? Lincoln was a supporter of a strong central government, and a voice in congress is irrelevent when the North is the majority.[/quote]

He stated multiple times that if the southerns states didn't secede, he would allow them to handle the issue of slavery on their own. On your last comment, that's like saying all the states where their representation is dominated by Republicans should secede because they don't have a voice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all, it's secede, not succeed. Second, why should they be bound to be part of a Union they do not wish to be a part of? As Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner". Why should the South be forced to be the sheep in this analogy? Would you consider it to be unjustifiable for the sheep in this election to run for its life?[/quote]

Because the states entered into a contract with the other states. Without trying to negotiate a new one or amend the current one.
Finally, a Lincoln quote, "If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?" This makes perfect sense to me. As a Libertarian, even you believe in the enforcing of contracts, no?[/quote]

Yes, but I also believe in the right to leave contracts if you feel that it is no longer of use to you. For example, if your wife filed for divorce, it would be completely unjustified to beat the sh**t out of her. That is basically what Lincoln did to the CSA. [/quote]

If you break a contract, you must accept that you're going to be punished for it, and deservedly so. By the way, marriage isn't the best analogy here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On the contrary, the Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" slaves in the areas that the Union Army didn't control. It was pure strategy.[/quote]

Again, it is well documented that Lincoln opposed slavery from a young age. His own pastor was anit-slavery.[/quote]

Actions speak louder than words. He didn't free a single slave.[/quote]

A little thing called "The Emancipation Proclamation" disagrees with you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government functioned for several decades w/o high tariffs.[/quote]

I concede this. However, didn't Thomas Jefferson, a man you libertarians admire so much, push for a unilateral embargo. Besides, I'm not going to let one position cause me to hate a President.[/quote]

Jefferson ceased to be good by the time he took the presidential oath of office. Obviously I disapprove of his embargo.[/quote]

If a piece of a country decided to secede because of things like tariffs, well, we'd probably have thousands more countries than we do now. The southern states are a part of the contract, knowingly accepting that they may have to make concessions. Instead of trying to win more seats for the Democrats in congress and attacking Lincoln, they just left. The northerners made the concession that the southern states wanted to keep slavery, so why shouldn't the southern states just tolerate it and focus on getting Democrats to win.

[Vepres]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just like the Poles started WWII by "firing the first shot" at Gleiwicz, right? [/quote]

Hitler claimed Poland belonged to Germany and was preparing to invade, though he had no reason to.[/quote]

Just like Lincoln claimed the Confederacy belonged to the Union and was preparing to invade! Perfect analogy!
[/quote]

Poland wasn't a part of Germany, at least for a long time (maybe way back in history). Again, the north was justified in its actions because the southern states weren't diplomatic, they took the immature route, which was to just leave without the consent of the other states.

I would note, that the President takes an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" the constitution. That alone justifies the war.

Regardless of the motivation or intent, Lincoln significantly increased individual rights in the US in the long term. I understand why you dislike him for the suspension of habeas corpus, and I agree that there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that it was misused on multiple occasions (though I doubt Lincoln personally approved of many of these). If we had let the southern states be, this would be a very chaotic region, with states changing allegiances and forming new countries constantly. If you look at the big picture, the historical perspective, our country is much better off now than if we hadn't gone to war.

A good analogy is Iraq. Right now it is seen as a terrible war, and I mostly agree. However, if it is a stable democracy in 50 years that helps spread democracy across the region, people will approve of Bush and his actions there. You seem to focused, look at the big picture.

Finally, I would like to note that the vast majority of historians, who are much more knowledgeable about history than you or me, consistently say Lincoln was a great President.


Note: I will say this, that my opinion of Lincoln during this debate, in which I did much research for, has dropped significantly. However, to say he is the worst President when you have people like Wilson, Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, or Harding, he is still a notch above them (not to mention hew was also a skilled military strategist). However, I still think the civil war was provoked by the Confederates.

[Vepres]

One last question, do you believe that, regardless of what he did, Lincoln had good intentions? It doesn't excuse what he did, but I'd like to see your thoughts, SPC.

[Vepres]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just like the Poles started WWII by "firing the first shot" at Gleiwicz, right?

Hitler claimed Poland belonged to Germany and was preparing to invade, though he had no reason to.

Just like Lincoln claimed the Confederacy belonged to the Union and was preparing to invade! Perfect analogy!
[/quote]

Poland wasn't a part of Germany, at least for a long time (maybe way back in history). Again, the north was justified in its actions because the southern states weren't diplomatic, they took the immature route, which was to just leave without the consent of the other states.[/quote]

the Polish Corridor as part of Germany as recently as 1918. Poland wasn't diplomatic about discussing the Polish Corridor with Germany either, they took the immatute route, which was to just leave without the consent of the Germans. I suppose that you have an opinion of Hitler's actions to quell the "secessionist movement" that had been there for the past 21 years?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why does the Constitution say that only Congress can declare war? And what does invading states that want nothing more than to leave in peace have to do with "defending the Constitution"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bullsh**t. Prior to the "Civil" War, it was generally understood that states could secede from their federal government. Afterward, that right had been supressed violently, and the people no longer have any safeguard of their individual rights against a tyrannical federal government. Does it matter whether Lincoln personally approved of the abuse if he was the one that allowed it to occur? You could just as easliy make that argument in favor of the British side of the American Revolution. "If we had let the American colonies be, it would be a very chaotic region, with states changng allegiances and forming new countries constantly." Somehow I doubt you are an enthusiast for British colonization.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Somehow I doubt that the hundreds of thousands of corpses created by our intervention in Iraq will approve of Bush and his actions there. Somehow I doubt that the Sunni minority is going to very excited for "democracy".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could that be because historians have a bias towards larger government? If historians said that George III was a great king, does that vindicate him?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lincoln is the worst president because he made the abuses of power by all Presidents following him possible. Just wondering, do you feel that the Revolutionary War was provoked by the Americans? Or do you feel that the Kuwaitis provoked the Persian Gulf War? What period of time is required between secessions before it becomes illegitimate to supress them?
[/quote]

Well, in both the wars you mentioned, the other side fired the first shot, drew the first blood.

Anyway, at the time the civil war was not justified. I'm sure that diplomacy could've won out. Though ultimately, I'm happy the slaves in the south were freed probably decades before they otherwise would have been. In my opinion it's  diplomacy>war>inaction. But whatever, my opinion of Lincoln is very low now, perhaps not as low as yours, so in a sense you won this debate. Let's just end it now.