Talk Elections

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s a list of which President’s were in which Party:

Federalist
George Washington
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
William Henry Harrison
John Tyler
Zachary Taylor
Milliard Fillmore

Democrat
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
James K. Polk
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Grover Cleveland
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S Truman
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton

Republican
 Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses S. Grant
Rutherford B. Hayes
James A. Garfield
Chester A. Arthur
Benjamin Harrison
William McKinley
Theodore Roosevelt
William Howard Taft
William G. Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Gerald R. Ford
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush

Federalist
Tough one. Washington.

Democratic-Republican
Madison.

Whigs
Zachary Taylor

Democrat
James Buchanan

Republican
George W. Bush

Federalist
John Adams

Jeffersonian Republican
John Quincy Adams

Whig
John Tyler

Democrat
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Modern Republican
Abraham Lincoln

Why do you hate FDR?  He's not my favorite either, but I consider him to be one of the best presidents.

Washington
Madison
Fillmore
Buchanan
Bush II

Adams
Adams
I don't really have an opinion on the Whig presidents
FDR, but Wilson and LBJ are also awful
Lincoln, but not including war criminals, TR or Hoover

Federalist
John Adams


Democratic-Republican
James Madison



Whigs
Milliard Fillmore




Democrat
Martin Van Buren




Republican
William Howard Taft

Why do you hate Wilson, besides the fact that he had some racist tendencies?

He had no regard whatsoever for the Constitution. He was responsible for the internment of the Japanese and for the court packing scheme. The New Deal did not achieve anything whatsoever, and was mostly unconstitutional anyway.

What I said is that he was awful. Wilson's administration was one of liberties lost and promises unkept.

Excess profits tax, the modern estate tax, a top tax rate of 77%. Kept us out of war, until he didn't. Outlawing criticism of the federal government.

OK, I agree with you on the court-packing scheme and the Japanese internment.  That was taking it a bit too far.  However, although it didn't change the economic state of the country, the New Deal gave hope and confidence to thousands.  The CCC helped make our National Parks tourist-friendly and gave people jobs when they would have had nothing.  The dams built in the Northwest like Grand Coulee and the Tennessee Valley Authority gave electricity and power to many for the first time.  So the New Deal may not have pulled us out of the Depression, but it was NOT a waste.  

Some consider FDR to be near-Socialist.  To all those out there who think so, it could have been worse.  You could have had Huey "Every Man a King" Long elected as president in 1936.

It may not have been a waste, but it was not the business of the government to "steal from the rich and give to the poor."   

Yes, it could have been worse, but that doesn't justify FDR's actions.

The Federal Reserve was created.  Direct Election of Senators established.  Women were given the right to vote.  All of this happened during his administration.  Wilson was a brilliant visionary with regard to international affairs.  One of the biggest mistakes we made was burying our heads in the sand after the war instead of taking our rightful place in the world as an economic power.  

With the Germans attacking our trade, it was either enter the war or lose more ships.  Take your pick.  Not every politician can keep campaign promises.  Just ask George H. W. Bush.

Long might have been the best president ever.

Federalist[/b]
John Adams

Democratic-Republican[/b]
John Quincy Adams

Whigs[/b]
Unsure about most of them, I guess Milliard Fillmore, but I really don't know.

Democrat[/b]
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Republican[/b]
Andrew Johnson

Johnson was not a Republican

Federalist

John Adams

Democratic-Republican

John Quincy Adams

Whigs

Milliard Fillmore

Democrat

Lyndon B. Johnson

Republican

Herbert Hoover

You realize Herbert Hoover was to the left of Theodore Roosevelt, right? Almost the entire "New" Deal was based off Hoover's proposals.

He was a disaster.  That's all I care about.

Yeah, but then FDR extended the policies that made him a disaster.

no, not exactly buddy.  I've already fought the FDR battle before and maybe will again one day here, but FDRs actions worked in getting the country out of a hole.

The economy showed some signs of life when the Supreme Court struck his "New" Deal down. Unemployment dropped to 18 percent in 1935, 14 percent in 1936, and even lower in 1937.

Then you have the court packing scheme. Unemployment returns to 20 percent by 1938, and the stock market crashes nearly 50 percent.

by the end of his presidency, the numbers were waaay back down.  Unemployment jumped only one year, decreased all the others.  I don't remember all the exact numbers, but I remember the steady decrease.

Unemployment remained at 20 percent until new public works spending was approved. Which, of course, might as well be welfare.

See, it doesn't count as a decrease in unemployment when you draft all the unemployed people into the militrary.

World War II ended the depression because the artifical Hoover/FDR wages were frozen while the money supply was inflated with the war spending. This meant wages were low enough to clear the employment market, and business could get back to business again.

I think you're oversimplifying it.  To a large extent, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and while he probably had the right personality and leadership style to preside over prosperity, he had the wrong personality and leadership style to lead a country through a disaster.

I think presidents get too much blame, and too much credit, as the case may be, for what happens economically during their presidency.  A president's effect on the economy is more subtle, and more over the long run than the short run, in my opinion.

I believe that while Roosevelt's policies took the hard edge off the depression through various relief and stimulus programs, his anti-business approach prolonged the depression and prevented a longer term cure of the problem. 

Roosevelt was forced to reverse many of his anti-business policies in 1940 in order to induce companies to invest in productive capacity for war materials, and it is really from these new policies that the post-war prosperity was born.

Here's what I've gathered

in mid-1932, unemployment hit its high at 33%.  It decreased slowly except for a rise around 1937ish.  The Depression ended when WWII started in 1939 and demand for war materials helped the US economy.

I have a printed page somewhere detailing US unemployment rates from 1930-1940, but don't ask me where it is.

Broken window fallacy.

()

Federalist
Adams

Democratic-Republican
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
Fillmore

Democrat
Andrew Jackson

Republican
Ronald Reagan

Federalist
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
John Quincy Adams (as president, he was a good congressman)

Whigs
John Tyler


Democrat
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Jimmy Carter
(a three way tie)

Republican

Andrew Johnson
Richard Nixon
(two way tie, but Johnson was a Unionist)

Generally true, except that the depression didn't end in 1939.

In 1939, the US industrial base was still largely crippled.  There was almost no investment for a decade, and our production capacity was not high.  We were producing precious little war material in 1939, and unemployment was still around 17%.

Roosevelt started working with business leaders in 1939-40 regarding war production, and they told him they'd be unable to produce the material needed with their then-current capacity.  They also said that certain of his policies made it too risky for them to invest in expanding production, and said that he would have to change those policies if they were to make the necessary investment.  Roosevelt changed his policies, and effectively abandoned the class warfare of the New Deal.  It never returned as government policy.

It wasn't until 1941 that the depression really ended, once war production was in full swing.

Federalist
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
John Q. Adams

Whigs
Zachary Taylor

Democratic
Franklin Pierce

Republican
Warren Harding

Federalist
Here, I don't think the term really applies, but if Adams is my favorite, it would stand to reason that Washington would have to be my least favorite, simply by default.

Democratic-Republican
Thomas Jefferson

Whigs
Ummm... who are these guys again.  ;)

Democrat
Andrew Jackson

Republican

All of these guys:
Rutherford B. Hayes
James A. Garfield
Chester A. Arthur
Benjamin Harrison

Fed             Adams
DR               Jefferson
Whig            Fillmore
Dem             Buchanan
Rep              Harding

Federalist

George Washington
John Adams

Democratic-Republican

Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams

Whigs

William Henry Harrison
John Tyler
Zachary Taylor
Millard Fillmore

Democrat

Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
James K. Polk
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Grover Cleveland
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S Truman
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton

Republican

Abraham Lincoln
1. Andrew Johnson
Ulysses S. Grant
Rutherford B. Hayes
James A. Garfield
Chester A. Arthur
Benjamin Harrison
William McKinley
Theodore Roosevelt
William Howard Taft
2. William G. Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Gerald R. Ford
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush

Johnson was NOT a Republican.

Fed: Adams (only because he was matched up against Washington)

DEM-REP: J.Q Adams (poor president, great congressman)

Whig: Tyler

Democrat before 1900: Pierce and Buchanan

Democrat after 1900: FDR & LBJ (terrible social policies)
                                   Carter (totally inept)
                                   Clinton (personally corrupt)

Republican before 1900: Grant (personally honest but had corrupt people around him)

Republican after 1900: Harding (same as Grant)

Federalist
George Washington


Democratic-Republican
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
Milliard Fillmore

Democrat
Grover Cleveland

Republican
William McKinley

Not that Buchanan didn't stop the civil war or anything. ::)

Federalist - John Adams
Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson
Whig - Milliard Fillmore
Democrat - James Buchanan
Republican - George W. Bush

So you'd rather have millions and millions homeless and starving? Tell me, why do you have a Democratic avatar?

Least Favorites

Democrat
John Kennedy
Bill Clinton

Republican
Warren Harding (in some ways)
Richard Nixon (in some ways)

Federalist
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
John Q. Adams

Whig
John Tyler

Democratic
Franklin Pierce

Republican
Warren Harding

Federalist
(Both great men, vitally important, impossible to choose.  John Adams is the most underrated of all of the founding fathers.  I abstain.)

Democratic-Republican
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
Milliard Fillmore

Democrat
Andrew Jackson (Redneck genocidal maniac.)
Woodrow Wilson, racist elitist prick, is a close second.

Republican
Ulysses S. Grant (Slobbering drunk with horribly corrupt administration.)

I have to agree with you there. ^^^

Federalist
 Washington was actually no party affiliation, so since there's only one on the list I choose:
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
James Monroe ( don't know much either way on this one)

Whigs
William Henry Harrison (stupid f--k, wear a hat! maybe you'll actually live to do something as president rather than being the guy they remember for only living a month in office), and you started Tecumseh's curse, so you're directly responsible for the deaths of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Harding, Roosevelt and Kennedy, you murderer :P


Democrat
Franklin Delano Roosevelt


Republican
 Abraham Lincoln

Federalist-John Adams

Democratic-Republican-John Quincy Adams

Whigs-John Tyler

Democrat-Andrew Jackson

Republican-George W. Bush

Federalist: John Adams (1797-1801)

Democratic-Republican: John Quincy Adams (1825-1829)

Whigs: John Tyler

Democratic: James Buchanan (1857-1861)

Republican: George W. Bush (2001- )

Federalist-George Washingon. Yeah, leading an insurrection over taxes.

Democratic-Republican-John Quincy Adams

Whigs-John Tyler

Democrat-Polk(he only took half of mexico)

Republican-Damn it I can't choose. Either FDR or ronnie

Federalist: John Adams

Democratic-Republican: John Quincy Adams

Whigs: John Tyler

Democratic: James Buchanan/Woodrow Wilson (tie)

Republican: George W. Bush/Ronald Reagan (tie)

Federalist
John Adams

(Democratic) Republican
J.Q. Adams

Democrat
Woodrow Wilson

Whig
Millard Fillmore

Republican
Abraham Lincoln

Federalist
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
Zachary Taylor

Democrat
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Republican
Abraham Lincoln

Federalist: John Adams (pretty easy choice, since it's between him and Washington)

old Republican: James Madison

Whig: Zachary Taylor

Democrat: a dead heat between Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan

Republican: tough choice, since there have been so many bad ones. Maybe Calvin Coolidge, for his priggish ultra-conservatism that did so much harm to the country.

It's rather pointless, but I love rating presidents.

Federalist
John Adams: Extremely partisan presidency, tried to destroy opposition with the repressive Alien and Sedition Acts.

(Democratic-)Republican
James Madison: Recklessly jumped into the War of 1812 and dangerously mismanaged the first years of the war. The Treaty of Ghent left the issue of impressment of American ships, one of the causus belli, unsettled.

Whig
Millard Fillmore: Passed a stronger law against fugitive slaves. The Compromise of 1850 satisfying no one. And he was an anti-Catholic bigot who later was the presidential candidate of the Know-Nothings.

Democrat
Franklin Pierce: Considered going to war with Spain to conquer Cuba. Supported the coup of pro-slavery filibusterer William Walker in Nicaragua. He supported the Kansas-Nebraska Act which led to Bleeding Kansas, dragging the country one step closer to the Civil War. His successor James Buchanan is a very formidable challenger for worst Democrat however, because he too did nothing to stop the Civil War and it was during his presidency that the hostilities began.

Republican
Herbert Hoover: His handling of the Great Depression was disastrous. He offered no hope to Americans during the crisis and his economic policies were actually rather leftist. He raised tarriffs and taxes, which made the crisis worse, and his spending was "reckless and extravagant" as Roosevelt stated.

Federalist: John Adams

Democratic-Republican: John Quincy Adams

Whigs: Millard Fillmore

Democratic: James Buchanen

Republican: George W. Bush/Ronald Reagan/Herbert Hoover

Federalist
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
Milliard Fillmore

Democrat
Andrew Jackson

Republican
George W. Bush

Federalist
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
Don't know enough about Monroe and Quincy Adams to say

Whigs
Milliard Fillmore  (Zachary Taylor was the best Whig President)

Democrat
Grover Cleveland- For refusing to help people in need during the Panic of 1893

Woodrow Wilson- For re-introducing segregation to the federal gov't and destroying America's chances of being in the League of Nations due to his own temper.

Franklin Pierce- For being a weirdo

Andrew Jackson- Trail of Tears, and publicly ignoring Justice Marshall's decision in support  the Cherokees.

Republican
I suppose George W. Bush, but I'll say Ronald Reagan, because it annoys me the way Republicans worship everything he ever did. He's a god to them ::)

Federalist: none
Democratic-Republican: James Monroe
Whig: John Tyler
Democrat: Franklin Pierce
Republican: Warren Harding

Federalist: John Adams
Jacobin Republican: John Q. Adams
Whig: Errrr.. John Tyler.
Democratic: Andrew Jackson\Woodrow Wilson
Republican: Benjamin Harrison\William McKinley\Richard Nixon\Ronald Reagan\George W. Bush.. Five-way tie. Yay!

Federalist: John Adams

Democratic-Republican: James Monroe

Whigs: William Henry Harrison

Democrat: Franklin Pierce

Republican: Calvin Coolidge & George W. Bush; Nixon and Reagan are pretty close, too

Federalist-John Adams

Democratic-Republican-John Quincy Adams

Whigs-John Tyler

Democrat-  FDR

Republican-George W. Bush

Federalist-John Adams

Whigs-John Tyler

Democrat-  LBJ

Republican- GPorter

Federalist
None

Democratic-Republican
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
Milliard Fillmore 

Democrat
James Buchanan

Republican
Bush II VERY closely followed by St. Ronnie

Democratic-Republican: Unfair, primarily since there are only three, who each had ups and downs and by leading a young country had to learn on the job.  Monroe was the BEST out of the three, however [I classify J.Q. Adams as a National Republican].
Federalist: No Answer [Unfair to ask seeing as how John Adams was the only official Federalist President].
Whig: No Answer, All of them had their ups and downs in about equal proportion.
Democratic: Woodrow Wilson.
Republican: George W. Bush [His policies are nearly anti-republican in every way, and he gives lipservice on everything else].

Federalist None

Democratic-Republican John Quincy Adams

Whig Millard Fillmore

Democrat Three Way tie between Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan and Woodrow Wilson

Republican Another Three Way tie between Warren Harding, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan

Federalist
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
Milliard Fillmore

Democrat
Andrew Jackson

Republican
Ronald Reagan
or
George W. Bush
I am not sure...

Federalist: John Adams
Jeffersonian Republican: James Madison
Whig: John Tyler
Democrat: Harry S. Truman (James Buchanan is a very close second)
Modern Republican: George W. Bush

Federalist: Adams
Democratic-Republican: Monroe
Whig: Tyler
Democratic: Buchanan
Republican: Bush II (wait a few decades for an unbiased answer)

Federalist
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
John Tyler

Democrat
James Buchanan
Lyndon B. Johnson

Republican
Andrew Johnson
William G. Harding
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush

Andrew Johnson wasn't a Republican. In fact, that was one of the reasons the Republicans impeached him.

Don't blame me. Blame the thread's creator for the mistake.

Federalist
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
John Tyler

Democrat
James Buchanan
Woodrow Wilson
Lyndon B. Johnson

Republican
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush

I'm not even going to list the first 2 parties as it isn't worth going through a couple of guys for each. Why's this thread resurrected anyway?

Whigs
Millard Filmore(I still don't think the FSA was necessary, but then, I'm not up on the debates, apart from the fact that Taylor wouldn't compromise

Democrats

Woodrow Wilson. Pierce is slightly behind somewhere


Republicans

George W. Bush seems easy, but remember that Grant and Harding were also incompetent, even though we never got in any major wars under them(I'm thinking Latin interventions of the 20s here, which weren't exactly wars per se, except maybe in a few places like Nicaragua with Sandino)

Federalists -- Adams
Democratic-Republicans -- Madison
Whigs -- Fillmore
Democrats -- Wilson
Republicans -- Harding

This honestly could not be easier:

Federalists -- Adams (is there another choice?)
Democratic-Republicans -- Madison
Whigs -- Tyler
Democrats -- FDR, Carter, LBJ
Republicans -- Lincoln, *huge gap* Ford, Eisenhower

Democratic: Buchanan
Republican: Least favorite? Bush 43. Worst? Harding.

Federalist: John Adams

Democratic-Republican: John Quincy Adams

Whigs: Zachary Taylor

Democrat: Jimmy Carter

Republican: Herbert Hoover

Lincoln?

There are a lot of Lincoln-haters on this forum.

Federalist: John Adams

Democratic-Republican: John Quincy Adams

Whigs: Millard Fillmore (though only because of that Know-Nothing run)

Democrat: a tie between Jackson and Buchanan

Republican: Richard Nixon (boring)

Why are you confused?  The man fought an unnecessary war that started by violating the constitution, than violated the constitution at every turn of the war, issue a proclamation that aimed not to free anyone, but to keep Britian out of the war.  All this while still finding the time to kill hundred of innocent Native Americans.

Federalist: John Adams
Democratic Republican: Unsure
Whigs: Millard Fillmore
Democrat: James Buchanan
Republican: George W. Bush

Federalist
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
James Madison?

Whigs
Milliard Fillmore or John Tyler.

Democrat
James Buchanan

Republican
George W. Bush

Federalist : Adams
Dem-Rep : Madison
Whig : Tyler probably
Democratic : Buchanan, then Pierce, then Cleveland
Republican : G. W. Bush, then Hoover, then Grant

Federalist: John Adams

Democrat: Jimmy Carter

Republican: Abraham Lincoln,  Herbert Hoover

Lincoln is your least favourite?

Democrat- Republican

Thomas Jefferson

Whig

Zachary Taylor

Democrat

Jimmy "Peanut  Carter

GOP

Warren Harding
Herbert Hoovet

Democrat - James Buchanan
Republican - George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan

Oh, really ? I expected you to answer Lincoln and Roosevelt... :D

Federalist: John Adams
Democratic-Republican: John Quincy Adams

Whigs: All of the Above

Democrats: Andrew Jackson
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Republican: William McKinley
Herbert Hoover
Richard M. Nixon
George W. Bush

Least favorite:
Either Woodrow Wilson or George W. Bush.

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

Lincoln was a awesome president and I'm a huge supporter of civil rights.

FDR was a Socialist. But Carter was a retard. Which is more dangerous.

Democrat: Buchanan

Republican: Cheney Dubya

Federalist: Adams

Whigs: All sucked

Democratic: Buchanan followed by Pierce

Republican: Where to begin? Short of my favorites (Lincoln, T. Roosevelt & Eisenhower), there's no one on the list other than Ford (barely) who rises above the range of "sub-mediocre" to "god-awful".
GWB (good job in first Iraq war).
Tie among every useless facial hair sporting plutocratic do-nothing (usually from Ohio) from (especially) A. Johnson through McKinley (who's probably tops among this lot, FWIW).
Hoover
Coolidge
Harding
Reagan
Nixon
W. (narrowly edging out Nixon for worst)

Nobody ( except maybe one ot two crazy southerners or the mebrer of a neo-nazi organisation ) would say the contrary today...

Federalist
George Washington
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
William Henry Harrison
John Tyler
Zachary Taylor
Milliard Fillmore

Democrat
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
James K. Polk
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Grover Cleveland
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S Truman
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton

Republican
 Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses S. Grant
Rutherford B. Hayes
James A. Garfield
Chester A. Arthur
Benjamin Harrison
William McKinley
Theodore Roosevelt
William Howard Taft
William G. Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Gerald R. Ford
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush

Democratic-Republican: James Monroe
Whigs: John Tyler
Republican: GW Bush
Democratic: James Tilden and James Buchanan

FDR and Lincoln, also my two least favorite

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

I can see FDR, but Lincoln? Come on.


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).

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

I don't think Civil liberties have been threatened after the war. The Patriot Act, instead, is still here... The strangest thing being that many of the Lincoln dislikers should be huge Dubya supporters. Funny, isn't it ? :D

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.

Democratic-Republican
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
Milliard Fillmore


Democrat
Woodrow Wilson, or
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Republican
Abraham Lincoln or
George W. Bush

Democrat:
Tie between Wilson and LBJ. Carter deserves a dishonorable mention

Republican:
George W Bush is certainly in the running but it's too early to give him a fair judgement, so I'll say Richard Nixon

Democratic-Republicans
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
John Tyler (he was a traitor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyler#Tyler_and_the_Civil_War))

Democratic
Andrew Johnson
Woodrow Wilson

Republican
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush

I'm surprised you didn't say LBJ.

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 States created the Federal government. Therefore they hold the right to nullify federal law and leave the union if they believe they are being oppressed by that which they created.

Federalist
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
James Monroe

Whigs
Milliard Fillmore

Democrat
Andrew Jackson

Republican
George W. Bush

Federalist- Washington
Whig- Fillmore (Does Tyler count? If so, him)
Democratic republican- Jefferson
Republican- Benjamin Harrison
Democrat- Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson

Federalist- John Adams
Democrat-Republican- James Madison (come on folks, if the British have set fire to Washington D.C. on your watch, you've failed.)
Whigs- Zachary Taylor
Democratic- Grover Cleveland
Republican- Calvin Coolidge

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.

Right, Lincoln really cared about ending slavery and helping blacks. That's why he ran for president on a white supremacist platform. That's why he waited until he was threatened by widespread Northern dissent to the war and the threat of U.K. intervention on behalf of the C.S.A. to make the war a crusade against slavery. That's why when he did make the war about slavery, he issued that pointless do-nothing "Emancipation Proclamation" that specifically freed slaves only in states he didn't have control over anyway. That's why 'til his dying breath he had dreams of deporting all blacks to Africa and making the U.S. an all-white nation.

By the 1860s there was already a substantial manufacturing base both in the Northeastern United States and in the U.K. The primarily rural South imported most of their goods more cheaply from Europe and would bear the brunt of any protectionist tariff agenda implemented by the federal government.

And? Support of slavery was a mainstream view in that era too, what's your point?

Sorry, many countries ended slavery peacefully without starting wars against their own people.

And Lincoln would not have ended slavery if he didn't have to.

And? Lincoln was a tyrant.

I know, in 2009 America, being a supporter of limited and decentralized government as envisioned by the Founding Fathers certainly makes one stand out...

Instead people like Lincoln, FDR, Stalin, Mao, etc. are made into saints.

And the U.S.A. committed treason in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. Have you read it lately?

Really, do you even know what a non sequitur is? It is your response that is the non sequitur here, since you clearly have no argument to explain exactly what made 1861 so different from 1776.

You made the claim that the 1861 C.S.A. secession from the U.S. was treason. If this is the case, explain how the 1776 U.S. secession from Britain wasn't.

The 1776 secession was treason. I don't think anyone ever claimed otherwise.

Please, change your display name, as it's patently obvious you have no real interest in individual liberty beyond that which preserves the racial hierarchy into which you were born. Dealing with pseudo-and-quasi-libertarians like yourself is an embarrassment to those of us who take the philosophy to heart.

Well, well, look at you flail around trying to turn this into a racial issue.

My display name will remain to reflect my belief in individual liberty, something so despised by that warmongering tyrant Lincoln and his supporters. I would appreciate not being lectured about libertarianism by a non-libertarian such as yourself.

I'm not the one promoting a virulently racist, agrarian vision of 'libertarianism', you useless hick. 


I'm the non-libertarian? I'm not the one supporting a backwards agrarian economy founded on the contravention of the law of self-ownership through slavery. The Confederacy was a slave-based socialist State.

I agree, you're not promoting libertarianism, you're promoting the borderline fascism of Abraham Lincoln.

Yes, supporting warmongering, tyrannical, protectionist, inflationist dictators like Dishonest Abe tends to conflict with libertarian values.

Hahaha, wow.

So tell me, my Southern-fried friend: is socialism not the ownership by the collective of the labor power of the individual? And, if so, does that not qualify the collectively-owned (by the whites) of the black slaves' labor power as a form of socialism? Finally, if these two premises are met, does it not follow then that the Confederacy was a racialist-socialist polity, to be adamantly opposed by all supporters of free labor?

I don't actually expect you to, you know, think through this logically, applying a principled analysis to the issue. But you can at least make the effort to be intellectually honest.

You sure you're in the right thread? One second we're talking about Lincoln's tariff war, the next you're talking about slavery. Quite a non sequitur.

To your point, slavery was practiced worldwide since ancient times, a holdover from pre-liberal eras, and was maintained in the southern U.S. for economic, not racial, reasons. Had the U.S. government followed the example of European powers and bought and freed the slaves themselves, it could have avoided the tremendous loss in both blood and treasure that came with Lincoln's war.

 But then, that would defeat the whole point of Lincoln's scheme to centralize power in the federal government.

Uh, no, it isn't. Because unless you've never heard of a war economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_economy) before, you'd know that tariffs and protectionism generally are entirely justifiable during a period of war: it guarantees business and stability to native industry, and therefore prevents them from selling arms and ammunition to the enemy. And so Lincoln's economic programme was formulated in the light of Southern secession; he was a free soiler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Soil_Party) capitalist otherwise. Not, of course, that I expect your primitive Southern brain to be able to wrap itself around this fine a point.


If the rest of the world began marching posthaste off the nearest cliff, would the South follow also (let us hope)?

Slavery is the agrarian equivalent of socialism; for it treats the individual slaves as the means of production, and justifies the common ownership of them on a class (or race)-basis. It's not my fault your white trash cracker ancestors were too lazy to plow the land themselves, and so appropriated Africans to do it for them. Just as any method towards the defeat of socialism is sacrosanct, so too is massive resistance towards its agrarian counterpart. One cannot have socialism without slavery, and one cannot have slavery without socialism.


And had the U.S. government followed the example of European powers and not resisted Soviet aggression, we'd be a benign social-democratic state today, right?

Don't be a tool. The European's hesitance to buck agrarian slavery is one of the chief reasons its industrial counterpart is so prevalent there today, in socialism.


Or, you know, his scheme to win the war, free the slaves from the bondage of their caste-based socialism, and restore them to honest capitalist employment?

Now I am going to go swimming, and that ought to give you time sufficient to eat your Porn-'N-Beans, fart, and play a few bars on the ol' banjo. But when I get back, I fully expect and want another Southern Manifesto to plow through. So, chop-chop.

No, interventionism and protectionism are not justifiable regardless of whether you want to call it a "war economy."

But then again, in my bizarre version of libertarianism, wars of aggression aren't justifiable in the first place.

Presumably it would have followed the general Western trend toward abolishing slavery, something accomplished without mass-bloodshed in just about every other country that did so.

The very existence of a state with the power of coercive taxation makes all workers essentially into slaves.

I don't see how your Soviet comparison could possibly work here.

 Europe abolished slavery without war; why is abolishing it with war better?

Wow, quite an altruist that mythical Lincoln in your mind must be. We're talking here about the real Abe Lincoln, the white supremacist corporatist who would do anything to advance his own political ambitions.

Your display name is also that of an epic failure.

So Lincon was a slave to corporate industrialists, but Harding and Coolidge who you listed as your favorite presidents weren't...

Awesome. I can't understand why libertarians can't win a single state house seat nationwide.

Your bizarre attempt at making a point is absurd considering neither Harding nor Coolidge started a war on behalf of corporate interests, nor did they seize dictatorial powers and throw out constitutional rights. In fact Harding restored constitutional rights and liberties lost during the tyranny of Woodrow Wilson, pardoning political prisoner Eugene Debs and calming the Red Scare created by Wilson, as well as bringing a formal end to U.S. involvement in World War I by signing the Knox-Porter Resolution.

Wow, Libertas is a mega FF. Keep up the good work! Glad to see someone is finally 150% correct around here. That's almost to the "t" my platform!

Oh, right. So, I suppose then that you'd not take any issue with Lockheed-Martin selling the latest scramjet technology to the Taliban?



I see. You will, naturally then, condemn the rebel attack on Fort Sumter as the initiation of a War of Southern Secession in the pursuit of the preservation of a socialist economic system, won't you? 


Oh, of course. I'd forgotten that there were (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution) no other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacky%27s_War) wars fought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1733_slave_insurrection_on_St._John) against slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimarron_people_(Panama)). How stupid I was to forget that the American Civil War was the only such one.


Don't try to change the subject, white trash. Do you or do you not deny that the antebellum slave system in the American South was a form of socialism? And do you therefore deny that your gap-toothed inbred ancestors were in fact fighting against modernizing capitalism and in favor of a backwards agrarian socialism?

Thank you, glad there is someone else here with a sense of historical reality.

Just was trying to have a civil discussion but right away the Lincolnites drag the whole debate down into mud-slinging and childish insults.

Does it make you feel like any more of a man knowing that your ancestors were too lazy to work the land themselves, unlike mine, who were some of the first sodbusters in the region? Are you any more "proud of your heritage" when you realize that these lazy peckerwoods - quite in contrast to the industrious and individualistic laborers in the North - enslaved the "means of production" for collective use, like good, uneducated proletariat?

Certainly the poor Irish working 14 hours a day had loads of liberty in the great industrial north. I love how you just assume everything about Libertas w/out even knowing the first thing about him. Many very credible historians agree with a lot of the positions he has posted here.

And? They did it themselves, honestly. My ancestors understood that labor, and labor alone, produces anything of worth; and, in order to honestly earn what they valued, they produced it themselves. His ancestors, to the contrary, skirted honest work whenever feasible, and enslaved an entire people to avoid it.

No, I can't say that I would, nor can I see how that relates to the issue of mid-19th century protectionism. 

The state of South Carolina had declared its independence from the United States, and the C.S.A. had attempted to negotiate the purchase of U.S. federal property on its territory. It was Lincoln's refusal to negotiate that made war inevitable.

You are seriously comparing Caribbean slave revolts to Lincoln's war on the South?  Wow.

How many lame and ridiculous comparisons are you going to make before you realize that you're in way over your head?

I don't think your white supremacist hero Lincoln would like that remark.

Slavery was an inhumane evil, but to call it 'socialism' would I think be a bit of a stretch.

Of course not. Because to feel otherwise would blemish your otherwise impeccable moron credentials.


Because Lincoln's economic policies were exactly that, designed specifically to prevent American companies and American allies (chiefly Britain) from exporting goods to the Confederacy, and not, by any means, a long-term economic programme for peacetime? Ah, but realizing this would require subtlety on your part - something that inbreds are not, at all, known for.


Wrong, jackass. Fort Sumter was attacked in the middle of negotiations, naturally bringing them to a stand-still. Lincoln's only mistake was in believing that the agrarian socialists would hold true to their word long enough for a compromise to be reached.


Yes, I am, because you categorically claimed that


I proved you wrong. Traitors seem least of all to like the truth, because they are in fact traitors to truth.

*snip puerile revanchism*


Uh, yes, it's socialism in every way possible.

What is socialism? Mass control over the means of production. What were the 'means of production' in the antebellum, agrarian South? Slaves. Who had control over them? Whites. Hence, Southern slavery was agrarian socialism, and you are a collectivist and anti-individualist for supporting an economic system that rejects the right of self-ownership of the individual man over his own being.

Federalist
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
James Monroe

Whigs
Milliard Fillmore

Democrat
Lyndon B. Johnson

Republican
Benjamin Harrison

So, statist policies are okay during wartime? That's sounds very neo-connish to me.


What negotiations? If a state says they've seceded, they're independent. End of discussion. No "negotions" are necessary.


So, the death of thousands of Southern civilians is justified because a minority of them did evil things? Very collectivist.


Uh, yes, it's socialism in every way possible.

What is socialism? Mass control over the means of production. What were the 'means of production' in the antebellum, agrarian South? Slaves. Who had control over them? Whites. Hence, Southern slavery was agrarian socialism, and you are a collectivist and anti-individualist for supporting an economic system that rejects the right of self-ownership of the individual man over his own being.
[/quote]

That is collectivist of you to assume that all Southern Whites took part in slavery, when only a minority of them held slaves. And I don't believe Libertas ever voiced support for slavery. You, on the other hand, have justified the killing of innocents in the name of "ending slavery".

Wow, so now one's ancestry is relevant to political debate? Very racist and collectivist.

Presuming you want to, you know, win a war? Most certainly. That's why idiot paleocons like yourself would prove hilariously inept running any sort of military campaign, and ought to be kept away at all costs from such a position.


Sumter was still the property of the United States government, dumbass. Would you like to justify to me the ethical validity of attacking your neighbor's property if it exists on your land?


Just like the death of millions of Soviet citizens would have been justified had it come to it, most certainly.


I understand that paleoconservatives like yourself are unthinking, unblinking, mindless drones designed to propagate whatever sort of rubbish Lew Rockwell vomits in your general direction, but you do yourself a disservice by refusing to at least think for yourself. No economic system that denies the right of self-ownership to any man is morally justifiable, and all of them are enemies of the capitalist state of affairs. By even attempting to justify slavery, you pave the way for socialism.

Most certainly so. I am convinced that the world-historical laziness and lack of competence of Southerners is heritable, the result of a genetic bottleneck.

I thought you were a "non-interventionist"?


How is it an attack when the Union provoked the attack by having a military base of another sovereign country?


So now starting wars is justified when you want to force your economic system on another people. Sounds pretty Trotskyist to me.


The economic system their country had is irrelevent. Was the invasion of Iraq justified because the Baath Party had socialist policies?  How about U.S. intervention in Vietnam, to provent Indochina from becoming "socialist"? And I can't help but notice that despite not having ever seen or known Libertas, you immediately assume that he is "white trash", "gap-toothed", and "inbred".

If someone tries to burn my property - even if it's on theirs - they can expect a full intervention of buckshot. Likewise--


Because Fort Sumter was bought and paid for by the Federal government, constructed using its monies, on land that it owned at the time of construction? I understand that pissant communists like yourself, because you reject property rights, feel free to attack the property of another; I am slightly more reserved than you are, in that I believe the Southerners had no right whatsoever to lay a finger on Federal property, regardless of whose land it was claimed to be on.


If they attack my property in the name of their socialist economic system? Most certainly.

*snip socialist revanchism*

Um, protectionism had to do with tariffs and trade restrictions to make domestically-produced goods more competitive with foreign (primarily European) imports, and it went on long before the Confederacy and the war came into existence. Like other Northern Republicans, Lincoln would have advocated such an economic policy because it was politically advantageous to do so.

"Protectionism" had nothing to do with stopping U.S. goods from being exported to a country they were at war with. That you would be mistaken about the meaning of a basic economic policy is laughable and betrays your total lack of knowledge beneath that thin veneer of arrogance.

And a primary purpose of the war was to ensure Northern manufacturers would indeed have access to sell their goods competitively in Southern markets.  

Making things up now? Lincoln's stubborn policy from day one was to refuse to acknowledge the existence of the C.S.A. in his fanatical devotion to the mythical "Union."

You proved me wrong by comparing slave revolts on Caribbean islands to a civil war initiated by the President of the United States whose initial goal was to simply preserve the union at all costs?

If you have an example of Britain or any other European slave-owning power being engulfed in a civil war in order to end slavery, do let me know. There, I've told you exactly what you need to do to make your case, don't embarrass yourself with another ridiculous non sequitur of a comparison.

So I'm a pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-free trade paleocon? ::)
And, as a libertarian, I care far more about the liberties of people than winning any military campaign. And military campaigns would be rare if you were peaceful with all nations, regardless of their domestic policies.


And how is it justified to have a military base on another sovereign nation's soil without its consent? Especially when that nation is intent on attacking your nation for tariff revenues?


That is awful! You would be willing to kill millions of innocent people just so you could have "regime change" in Russia?! And why exactly do you bitch about neocons who do that same thing in Iraq?


Again, to call me a paleoconservative is ridiculous, given my positions on social issues.


And what is the point of the ad hominem attack?
I disagree with Lew Rockwell on abortion and immigration, but he had good positions on most other things. Just because I agree with him most of the times doesn't mean I "propogate" what he says.


By the way, have you stopped beating your wife?


And where have I justified slavery?

Even if I accept all of your bullsh**t about the Civil War, wouldn't the appropriate response be to recover the lost property, rather than killing hundreds of thousands of people that had nothing to do with the incident?


And, assuming that you are correct, the Federal government "bought and paid" for Fort Sumter with money stolen from taxpayers. Thus, the "puchase" was illegitimate. And I am as far from a communist as you can get. I would question whether you are a communist, since you believe that the State has the right to own property.


So would Saddam Hussein have been justified in imposing a Baathist dictatorship in America because we 'attacked "his" property', if he were capable?

!!!!!!!!!!

Wow. This... wow. What are they teaching you in the schools down there?

Lincoln's economic plan is well known (http://www.seattlepi.com/virgin/399683_virgin12.html). It entailed the temporary nationalization of industries related to the war effort (once more, to ensure that they did not supply the Confederacy with weapons or ammunition and to ensure the Federal government's monopoly over the same), along with plans to restructure the Southern economy towards an industrial focus, eventually integrating the Freedmen into the free-market structure.

On the whole, this is a remarkably non-statist economic platform for the time; in comparison, Brazil's conservatives completely nationalized all industries during its own civil war.


See above. It's becoming increasingly apparent that you have no real knowledge of the issues involved whatsoever.


Uh, no. Lincoln received (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter#Background) Southern emissaries prior to the Battle of Fort Sumter; he quite simply refused to recognize their independence, and justifiably so. Therefore the Southerners launched a war of aggression against the North.  

*snip socialist revanchism*

That is so racist it doesn't even warrant a response. If you said that same thing about my (Jewish) race, nobody would hesitate to call you a neo-Nazi.

I bet he went to school in my state, CA. My US history AP teacher made us write an essay about the Great Triumvirate. I was absent. When I made up the assignment, I wrote about Webster, Clay and Calhoun. She had told all of the other students that the Great Triumvirate were the three branches of the federal government! She actually tried to fail my essay because she didn't know that was what the Triumvirate actually was!

That was one of many mistakes she made, significant ones. Keep in mind, AP teacher. Imagine the lower level classes......

CA is screwed up. All propaganda in these schools.

The rest of the South provided material and moral support to the terrorists who attacked Fort Sumter; ergo, they were responsible for the ensuing War.


Have you even read the Constitution, dipsh**t? Right there, in the Preamble, it states:


How else is the Federal government, as made responsible for "domestic Tranquility" and the "common defense" in the Constitution, to do so without first establishing and ordering a military?


Quite frankly, yes. To the victor goes the spoils.

That is ridiculous! You don't attack civilians for the actions of their government! You can't possibly know if the entire population supported their actions, so any attack on civilians is murder.


Why should I care about the Constitution (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm)? It is an void document. Plus, no citizens of the United States were killed in the attack on Fort Sumter, and no civilians were under attack.


I can only hope you are joking and don't actually believe in mass murder like you describe. If you do, I would suggest psychiatric help.

When you've gotten yourself this deep into a hole, it's generally a good idea to stop digging.

We're not talking about Lincoln's wartime economic policies, we're talking about protectionism as an economic philosophy. An economic philosophy which Abraham Lincoln ran on in his race for the presidency and which was a prime source of Southern dissatisfaction with the federal government.

 Obviously the South could not have seceded over Lincoln's wartime policies.

That you didn't know the meaning of "protectionism" has already shattered any illusion of credibility you may have held.

Yeah...as I just said, Lincoln refused to negotiate; in particular he refused to even recognize the existence of the potential negotiating partner.

Ah, right. So you will therefore condemn Lee's 1864 invasion of Pennsylvania (http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/owens/07/gettysburg.html) as an act of unwarranted aggression against United States civilians.

No?


Hahaha, riiiiiight.


So I am unjustified in defending my own property, even if nobody was killed in the course of its destruction?

Right. Which is why I advise you to leave the thread posthaste.


You will now, of course, provide evidence that Lincoln ran on an unduly 'protectionist' economic platform, and that this was the prime motivator for the War of Southern Secession?

Ah, wait, but you can't. Because Lincoln was not a protectionist (http://www.seattlepi.com/virgin/399683_virgin12.html), and in fact had joined the Whigs only hesitantly, at the behest of his law partner; his chief objection to them being their protectionism. The only economic ideas he had at all endorsed, in fact, were the Transcontinental Railroad and land-grants for colleges - hardly 'protectionism'.

*snip prattle*


Uh, no. As I just said, Lincoln happily received the agrarian socialist envoy; he simply refused to give into their whining, and they forthrightly stormed out, tears welling in their eyes, and threw a hissy-fit like spoiled children that lasted five years.

All attacks on civilians are unjustified. You have yet to condemn the war crimes commited by Union forces.


Wow, you went through that book fast. Do you care to give a summary?

Plus, even if we do accept the Constitution as valid, then you must condemn all of the unconstitutional actions of President Lincoln, including the deportion of a Congressman, censoring the telegraphs, confiscating weapons, not declaring war on the Confederacy, suspending habeus corpus, imprisoning journalists, imposing an income tax, etc. If not, it would appear that you have not read the Constitution.


You haven't answered how a State can own property when it's income is confiscated from taxpayers?

The defender of victors' justice, racism, collectivism, and mass murder says this.


So, you believe that people should be forced to be governed by a government against their will? Sounds like slavery, and last time I checked, two wrongs do not make a right.

I'll do that just as soon as you revanchists reject the numerous assaults on American citizens by secessionists. I see that no apology is forthcoming, however.


Sure, I disagree with many of the measures that Lincoln took in pursuit of the war, many of the same, in fact, that Bush took during his wars. But unlike the "War on Terror", the Civil War was eminently justifiable from a libertarian perspective.

And I will not even tolerate the notion that the Constitution is no longer applicable; suggesting such is tantamount to treason. 


When that right is granted to the State in its chartering document, then that State can own property.

Continuing to just type whatever comes into your head? Your claims here have no basis in reality, and your link doesn't even mention trade policy.

During his time in Congress, Lincoln had a thoroughly protectionist, pro-tariff record. Lincoln ran in 1860 supporting the protectionist Morill Tariff and using the slogan "Protection to American Industry"; both his Democratic opponents opposed the Morill Tariff. And during his administration, Lincoln would sign two additional Morill Tariffs, each higher than the previous, into law.

Lincoln's own words:

"My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank ... in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff."

"I was an old Henry Clay-Tariff-Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject [the need for protectionist tariffs] than any other. I have not since changed my views."

I already condemned their actions and will do so again if you deem it necessary. The Confederate Army commiting their share of crimes, and that is awful. However, at least they were not trying to coerce the other side into being their subjects, unlike the Union Army. So, yes, I condemn the Confederate Army's actions that harmed civilians.


Fighting a war to eliminate people's right to free association, by not letting the Southern civilians have the government of their choice is not libertarian. Either become a libertarian or stop referring to yourself as one, as killing civilians and destroying the right to free association is NOT libertarian.

Also, I notice that you are too close-minded to even read the essay. It is not applicable because I have not signed it, just like any contract that I have not signed is inapplicable. You use circular logic, the Constitution is legitimate, so suggesting that it is illegitimate is treasonous, so the Constitution is legitimate.


Even ignoring any arguments from natural law, could you point to the specific clause that gives the federal government the right to own property. Keep in mind the governments are delegated powers, not rights, so I doubt you will find that anywhere.

Oh, not at all! They were only coercing slaves - human beings - into becoming property. That's not at all at odds with the basic libertarian principle of self-ownership, no siree!


Fighting a war to preserve a socialist economic system that enslaves the individual man in order to recompense one's self from doing physical labor is not libertarian, either. Either become a libertarian or stop referring to yourself as one, as enslaving individuals against their will for one's material benefit is not libertarian.

Of course you don't have this problem, since you're quite clearly a communist. For that matter, I'd suggest you tone down your attitude with me, little boy.


I see no reason to subject myself to your socialist pipe-dreams, quite frankly.


Hence the concept of popular sovereignty, which you'd know about if you'd actually spent time inside of a classroom.


The Constitution is legitimate because it derives its support from the people. The people continue to support it; ergo, the Constitution is legitimate.



Article I, Section II quite clearly grants to Congress the power to collect taxes, with which to buy property. Please, try again.

Your ignorance is overwhelming, quite like, I imagine, the peculiar odor that rises from the fetid swamps of Louisiana on particularly balmy nights.

The Morill Tariff, you twat, was solely intended to raise funds for the United States military against the Confederacy - which it did (http://pw1.netcom.com/~rdavis2/tariffs.html). It was adopted on March 2, 1861 - nearly a full month after the Peace Conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Conference_of_1861) I mentioned above fell through, and was pushed through after it became obvious that war was coming, as a means to ensure that the United States would have the funds to defend itself.

Sorry, try again.

I never said it was. However, you asserted that the Union army's actions were libertarian, when in fact they were no better than their Confederate counterparts.


Please show me where I defended the Confederates' actions as liberarian. I have not condoned chattel slavery, but you have condoned political slavery.



Sorry, but I don't agree with this. I'm an anarcho-capitalist.


Where have I described myself as socialist or shown support for socialist ideas? Please provide a quote.


I know and reject the idea. I cannot be bound by a contract I don't give consent to; anything else is slavery.


I doubt that every single individual in the country supports the Constitution. Therefore, it is illegitimate since the Constitution presumes their consent when they have not given it.


It never gives the federal government the right to property, since they cannot possess it. Having the power to collect taxes != the right to own property. Only individuals and voluntary associations of individuals can own property.

---

BTW, it is telling that you must constantly midrepresent my positions in order to continue your argument.

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 (http://civilwartalk.com/Resource_Center/General_Resources/Causes_of_the_Civil_War/lincoln-and-slavery-a188.html). 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.


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!

You can't just keep repeating lies hoping to make them true. In his own inaugural address, Lincoln stated that he would have no objection to having the "slavery forever" Corwin amendment put into the U.S. Constitution. He was no abolitionist.

Lincoln's position on slavery changed with the political winds.

No he didn't, and how does lack of internet access make punishing half the county to reward the other half anymore justifiable?

That's because I'm not here to discuss unnecessary details.

Then you're clearly not concerned with the truth then. The issue of Fort Sumter has already been discussed in this thread.

Future war criminal Sherman got his feelings hurt? I don't see how that proves Lincoln didn't know exactly what he was getting into.

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.


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


Very Orwellian. Protecting them from conflict by instigating it!


And they could just move the capital.


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?


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

Well, as far as I'm concerned, Einzige lost this debate already when he made absurd statements. I know he's hopelessly brainwashed and too close-minded to win over, but if someone stumbled on this thread and saw this debate, it would be quite clear who the winners were, or at least who the loser was, based on all of the absurd statements and logical fallacies Einzige made.

::)



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


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


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


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


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.


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


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?


Again, it is well documented (http://civilwartalk.com/Resource_Center/General_Resources/Causes_of_the_Civil_War/lincoln-and-slavery-a188.html) 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.


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.


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


Citation please.

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.

Just curious, why Harrison compared to the other largely interchangable Gilded Age presidents (Grant, Arthur, etc)?

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."

Number of slaves who attempted (successfully or not) to flee north to become factory workers: countless thousands.

Number of factory workers who attempted to flee south to become slaves: 0

No matter how hard it was for northern indentured servants and industrial workers (and I agree it absolutely was---good thing unions were eventually formed to fight the worst abuses, right SR? ;-P ), don't kid yourself into thinking the horrors of slavery were comparable.

Bottom line: The South lost, the Union was saved, the slaves were freed, and the USA is infinitely stronger today for all of it----so get over it.

Alright, so Lincoln was either

A) a flip-flopper

B) a coward

C) a liar


None of those options reflect particularly well on him.

As I pointed out, the analogy is invalid.


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.


As you said, you are no historian.


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


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?


Actions speak louder than words.


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.


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.


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?


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.


Actions speak louder than words. He didn't free a single slave.


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


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

Well  too long ago for me to  know about most of them, so I'll post the ones I know about and not read about in books written by someone I don't know.

Democrat: Obama, (oh yes, I didn't see his name on your list) and Obama.
Republican: Like all of them.

Wow ! What an original list ! :D
Let me guess, what is your favorite party ?

WOW! Do you have to guess?   

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.


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.


But, you didn't deny my claim.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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

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


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.

Republican: Warren Harding

Democrat: James Buchanan

Federalist: John Adams*

Democratic-Republican: James Madison

Whig: Millard Fillmore


*Honestly who could side against Washington. Not much of a choice for Federalist.

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.

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.

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?


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"?


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.


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".



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?


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?

This is completely false.  Bogus.  Bullsh**t. 



For that reason i would think you would consider Jefferson the worst president, since he made Lincoln's actions possible.

Federalist
George Washington
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
William Henry Harrison
John Tyler
Zachary Taylor
Milliard Fillmore

Democrat
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
James K. Polk
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Grover Cleveland
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S Truman
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton

Republican
 Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses S. Grant
Rutherford B. Hayes
James A. Garfield
Chester A. Arthur
Benjamin Harrison
William McKinley
Theodore Roosevelt
William Howard Taft
William G. Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Gerald R. Ford
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush

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.

Just curious, Giovanni. Why was Wilson your least favorite Democrat? Most people either choose one of the pre-Civil War do-nothings like Pierce or Buchanan, or some conservatives decrying what they perceive as a socialist welfare state choose FDR or LBJ. Wilson is a rather unique choice and I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Blundering America's entry into the League of Nations? Heavily segregating the federal government? Something else?

What happened to that spat? I was enjoying it so much. Libertarians are the new Trots.

Update :

Jimmy Carter (D)
Herbert Hoover (R)
Zach Taylor (W)
Thomas Jefferson (D-R)

You do realize that West Point taught secession as a legal option for states up until the Civil War.

I hated the Wilsonian ideology of intervention, he was a hypocrite, and a Racist. Most Democratic Presidents in the era usually accomplhsihed something good, LBJ (civil Rights), FDR (I support Social Security) but I cannot name one accomplishment of Wilson.

Interesting analysis. I agree with much of your critique. Though personally I liked Wilson's New Freedom plan which implemented some needed progressive reforms like establishing the Federal Reserve. This puts him above some of the lousy pre Civil War Democrats like Buchanan and Pierce in my book, despite the very real problems with Wilson that you cite.

I do not realize it becuase it is not a true statement. 
 

One hundred fold.

Update!:

Mechman's least liked president of each party:

Federalist:
John Adams (Alien Sedition Acts anyone?)

Democratic-Republican:
James Madison
If it weren't for that one fact, I probably would put JQ Adams.

Whig:
All of them. Epic douchebags.

Democratic:
Woodrow Wilson. Racist statefag who did everything in his power to get the US into a war we had no business being in under the guise of "neutrality".

Republican:
George W. Bush: Under his presidency civil liberties were thrown into the sh*tter and moralf****try was rampant. I rest my case.

Repressive actions under the sedition act; massive expansion of government meddling in business ; inept foreign policy; incapacity during the end of his term which left the government driftless.  I feel like there is more but that's a starter.  I consider him as one of the worst presidents.

My selections:

Federalist -- I can't choose., like them both.

Democratic-Republicans -- Jefferson.  I think the common adoration of him is based on myth rather than reality.  His handling of the government, and especially the enforcement of the embargo policy, was bad.  Though Madison was president during the failures of the war of 1812, I see the situation he inherited from Jefferson as the root cause.

Whig -- Probably Tyler, who was WINO (whig in name only). 

Democrat -- Wilson.

Republican -- Bush Jr.

Go argue that point with Ken Burns then, moron.

http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle-00.htm

Get a clue and read a book WillK.

http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_32.txt

If you want to buy it you can find it here : http://www.amazon.com/Constitution-America-American-Constitutional-History/dp/0306719029

Guess it was some grand myth, huh?

Democratic-Republican Party: James Madison
Democratic Party: James Buchanan
Whig Party: Milliard Filmore
Republican Party: Warren Harding

I know all you liberals are going to blast me for this but I think it's amusing how Bush Jr. is automatically everyone's least favorite Republican president after he prevented terrorists from attacking us for 7 and a half years.  Regardless of your partisanship, you must admit he at least did that much.

Well, he certainly didn't prevent terrorists from attacking us on September 11th, 2001.

You're right. They were too busy attacking our soldiers in Iraq.

I have probably read more books than you and have much more clue than you.

I am familiar with that book.  It doesnt prove your statement.

As for being a moron, look in the mirror. 

What a tool.

Yes, it does. That book was used at West Point which again proves my point that secession was taught at West Point. But we can just keep going around and around because you think you're holier then thou. I'll still be right in the end.

Yes it was used at West Point.  Does that prove that every section of it was taught as being correct?  No.  You really have no grip on how to prove a point.

I was assigned to read the Communist Manifesto in college for a European History class, does that prove for you that it was being taught as correct doctrine?  If  so your a bigger idiot that I even thought.

As for acting holier than thou, that's your specialty not mine. 

What I said is a true statement. That book taught that secession was a legal option. That book was used at West Point. Your first post claimed my statement was incorrect. Clearly you are wrong.

What you said is not a true statement. 

Rawle's book was a text at West Point for a brief period of time.  In the book Rawle does express an opinion that secession was a right retained by the states.

But prove that this portion of Rawle was taught to cadets at West Point as being correct doctrine. 

You also claimed it was taught 'up until the Civil War'.  Prove that Rawle continued to be used at West Point, when evidnce indicates it was not -- Jefferson Davis himself claiming that when he got to his senior year Rawle had been replaced by Kent's Commentaries for constitutional law class.

Rawle was published in 1825.  Davis claimed Kent's work replaced it by 1828.     

Your clutching at straws to try to prop up your mythology of fictitious states rights and your pathetic adoration of the confederacy. 

Don't bother, Will. States hates the USA and wishes it had permenantly split in two in the 1860's. Life would be so much better today you see.

Republicans - Lincoln, GWB, Hoover, Grant

Democrats - Woodrow, LBJ, Carter, FDR

Democrat Woodrow Wilson
Republican Nixon

Republican - Ike
Democrat - FDR/Wilson

Democrat: Barack H. Obama
Republican: George W. Bush

R: Nixon

D: Buchanan. Though, as a Mexican, I should, probably, say Polk.

Out of curiousity, why Ike?  He had a very quiet stint as President.

Federalist: Adams

Democratic-Republican: Adams

Whigs: Zachary Taylor

Democrat: Andrew Jackson or James Buchanan

Republican: George W. Bush

Republican George W. Bush [43rd president, Texas]
Democratic James Buchanan [15th president, Pennsylvania]

Federalist - Adams
Democratic-Republican - Adams
Whig - Tyler
Democrat - FDR
Republican - Hoover

Republican: Acting President Dick Cheney (2002 and 2007)

Democratic: Probably James Buchanan

Federalist
George Washington
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams

Whigs
William Henry Harrison
John Tyler
Zachary Taylor
Milliard Fillmore

Democrat
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
James K. Polk
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Grover Cleveland
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S Truman
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton

Republican
 Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses S. Grant
Rutherford B. Hayes
James A. Garfield
Chester A. Arthur
Benjamin Harrison
William McKinley
Theodore Roosevelt
William Howard Taft
William G. Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Gerald R. Ford
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush

Democratic: Thomas Woodrow Wilson

Republican: George Walker Bush

Whig: Millard Filmore

Democratic-Republican: John Quincy Adams

Federalist: John Adams

Still the same.

John Quincy Adams? Why?

There was without a doubt no better President until Lincoln.

He has to compete with Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.

He was certainly better than Madison.

Better, maybe, but I prefer Madison.

Federalist - John Adams
Democrat-Republican - James Madison
Whig - William Henry Harrison (for dying)
Democrat - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Republican - Warren G. Harding

Johnson was never a Republican. He was a Democrat, then joined the Union ticket with Lincoln.

I always forget that....

Federalist - John Adams, though I recognize that both were important to history.
Democrat-Republican - Don't really dislike any of them. I'll go with Adams.
Whig - Millard Fillmore, though they are all atrocious.
Democrat - Andrew Jackson, but Buchanan is a close second due to being a total failure.
Republican - Ronald Reagan, though Harding and Grant give him a run for his money due to their incompetence.

Bible-basher.

I thought you were an atheist?  Surely you'd consider bashing the Bible a good thing?

Besides, I'm pretty sure Ike was a standard Christian, like pretty much every other President.

Bible-basher tends to mean devout Christians in Britain. And yes, I am an atheist.

OIC.  You crazy Brits and your upside down terminology...  :P

Just the way we like it :)

Dubaya and Woodrow Wilson

Dems: Andrew Johnson
Reps: Benjamin Harrison, with George W. Bush a very close second

GWB and James Buchanan (closely followed by Woodrow Wilson)

Update time:

Federalist: John Adams (F- MA)

Democratic Republican: John Q. Adams (DR- MA)

Whig: Millard Fillmore (W- NY)

Democratic: Woodrow Wilson (D- NJ)

Republican: Tie between Ronald Reagan (R- CA) and George W. Bush (R- TX)

For what it's worth, here are my favorites:

Federalist: George Washington (F- VA)

Democratic Republican: Thomas Jefferson (DR- VA)

Whig: William Henry Harrison (W- OH)

Democratic: Grover Cleveland (D- NY)

Republican: Calvin Coolidge (R- MA)

Least Favorites:

Federalist: John Adams
Democratic-Republican: John Q. Adams
Whig: Millard Fillmore
Democratic: Woodrow Wilson
Republican: Benjamin Harrison

Favorites:

Federalist: George Washington
Democratic-Republican: Thomas Jefferson
Whig: William Henry Harrison
Democratic: Bill Clinton
Republican: Theodore Roosevelt



And you are a Republican? Pure and utter blasphemy. ::)

I mean, I have many different beliefs then Saint Reagan (Blessed be his name) but I still consider him my second favorite president.

My favorite Republican would be Teddy Roosevelt (with Lincoln a very close second) and my favorite Democrat would be LBJ, with FDR a close second. I told you this in case anyone was wondering. Also my favorite Federalist is Washington, my favorite Whig is Taylor, and my favorite Democratic-Republican would be Jefferson.

You just made my day! I had always wanted to know precisely that. Thanks!

Limiting myself to Presidents in my lifetime:

Democrat          James E. Carter

Republican        Richard M. Nixon

Democratic: Woody Wilson

Republican: George W. Bush

Whig: John Tyler

Democratic: Grover Cleveland
Republican: Richard Nixon

A Democrat who's favorite president isn't FDR?
It's about damn time, the maturbatory praise that seems to be uniform among them for the man is beyond annoyance, I mean seriously at least Republicans have a little more variety..........

But he gave it to LBJ....

PRAISE REAGAN

Federalist
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
James Monroe (I liked all of them though)

Whigs
No opinion

Democrat
Woodrow Wilson

Republican
George W. Bush

Hopefully you'll learn someday NiK. ;)

Welcome to the fourm :)

Democrat: Woodrow Wilson

Republican: Ronald Reagan

Reagan sucks and was very stupid and a crook.

Thank you. :)

Democrat
Lyndon B. Johnson

Republican
Not even really a question any more. Dubya.

So you voted for him in your list twice....?

Democrat: Buchanan
Republican: Hoover

Democrat: Woodrow Wilson
Republican: George W. Bush

Democrat:Buchanan, Jackson, or Wilson
Republican: Reagan and both Bushes

Woodrow Wilson and FDR
George W Bush

Democrats: Wilson, FDR, LBJ and Carter in no particular order

Republicans: Teddy R., Hoover and W in no particular order.

Buchanan
Reagan (because of his influence, not necessarily his leadership/competence)

Democrats: Wilson, FDR, LBJ.
Republicans: Bush.

Democrats: Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon B Johnson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Republicans: Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, George W Bush, Herbert Hoover

Democrat: Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama
Republican: Lincoln, TR, Nixon

Federalist : Adams
Dem-Rep : Adams
Democrats : Buchanan
Whigs : Tyler
Republican : George W. Bush

Least Favorite Republican President: Herbert Hoover (R- CA)

Least Favorite Democratic President: Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D- NY)

Federalist: John Adams, inferior in everyway to the other Federalist President.

Dem-Rep: Thomas Jefferson, in theory. That said, James Monroe was a far worse President in my opinion.

Democratic:  Andrew Jackson, for a lot of reasons.

Whig: John Tyler, of a small sample he stands out as the worst.

Republican: Ronald Reagan, as he is the face of the "pass it along to the next generation", fat ass, consumerist culture that we have in America today.

Hoover was from Iowa.

No, he wasn't.

Democrat: Buchanan
Republican: Dubya

Republican: Ronald Reagan (R- CA)

Democratic: Tie between Woodrow Wilson (D- NJ) and Lyndon Johnson (D- TX)

Federalist
George Washington

Democratic-Republican
James Madison

Whigs
Zachary Taylor

Democrat
Andrew Jackson (over Kennedy)

Republican
Calvin Coolidge

Federalist: John Adams

Democratic Republican: John Quincy Adams

Whig: Millard Fillmore

Democrat: Lyndon B. Johnson

Republican: Herbert Hoover

Federalist: Washington

Democratic Republican: James Madison

Whig: Millard Fillmore

Democrat: James Buchanan

Republican: Herbert Hoover