# Think Tank > History >  Why Grover Cleveland and not Coolidge or Jefferson?

## ZanZibar

Why did Ron Paul say Grover Cleveland and not Coolidge or Jefferson? 


Kick it around!

----------


## Stevo_Chill

Vetoes and gold standard. Ron's words.

----------


## afwjam

lol

----------


## muh_roads

Christopher Hitchens I think said Jefferson was sort of an interventionist.  He wanted to double the size of the US.  He wanted Canada and Cuba.

----------


## The Dark Knight

I have heard Dr Paul say very positive things about Jefferson. I think he relates more to Cleveland because of current conditions.

----------


## ZanZibar

> Christopher Hitchens I think said Jefferson was sort of an interventionist.  He wanted to double the size of the US.  He wanted Canada and Cuba.


True. Jefferson enacted a horrible tariff, and his actions regarding the Louisiana Purchase were Constitutionally questionable. Other than that, he was a great President.

----------


## South Park Fan

Coolidge and Jefferson both had flaws; Coolidge supported Prohibition and Jefferson largely repudiated his own principles through the Louisiana Purchase and bellicosity toward Britain. Although to be fair, Cleveland implemented the first (EDIT: peacetime) federal income tax, which was overturned by the Supreme Court.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

Meh...I think the Louisiana purchase was Jefferson helping the French. He did love France.

----------


## KingNothing

Cleveland's take on Hawaii was pretty great, too.




> "I suppose that right and justice should determine the path to be followed in treating this subject. If national honesty is to be disregarded and a desire for territorial expansion or dissatisfaction with a form of government not our own ought to regulate our conduct, I have entirely misapprehended the mission and character of our government and the behavior which the conscience of the people demands of their public servants."
> Cleveland's message to Congress on the Hawaiian question, December 18, 1893

----------


## Stevo_Chill

> Meh...I think the Louisiana purchase was Jefferson helping the French. He did love France.


we took louisiana without loosing a single soldier.

----------


## ZanZibar

> Cleveland implemented the first federal income tax, which was overturned by the Supreme Court.


Are you sure that Lincoln didn't do that first?

----------


## South Park Fan

> Meh...I think the Louisiana purchase was Jefferson helping the French. He did love France.


It wasn't the purchase itself as much as the lack of a constitutional provision for such a purchase that was a matter of concern. Accepting it made Jefferson look like a hypocrite.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> Coolidge and Jefferson both had flaws; Coolidge supported Prohibition and Jefferson largely repudiated his own principles through the Louisiana Purchase and bellicosity toward Britain. Although to be fair, Cleveland implemented the first federal income tax, which was overturned by the Supreme Court.


More than once, I've heard Scott Horton say that "Ron Paul is far and away the greatest politician in American history.  He makes Thomas Jefferson look like James Madison."

----------


## green73

trade embargo act of 1807 wasn't too cool

----------


## Shane Harris

murray rothbard's favorite president was martin van buren. wonder what paul's thoughts on mvb are?

----------


## Stevo_Chill

wasn't millard filmore the do nothing president?

----------


## green73

> murray rothbard's favorite president was martin van buren. wonder what paul's thoughts on mvb are?


Lew Rockwell's is William Henry Harrison, but I won't say why.

----------


## Kluge

Grover Cleveland's signature is very legible and you can tell he put effort in making it appealing to viewers (very thoughtful!). Jefferson's has unnecessary complexities, is not thoughtful in differentiating upper-case letters and lower-case letters, has a disco-esque aesthetic, but is legible. Coolidge's is simply illegible ("Culvur Crvliey" or maybe "Cuhreu Cvuhey"). Compare.






It is no wonder Paul favors Cleveland given how similar their handwriting style is.

----------


## cjm

> Lew Rockwell's is William Henry Harrison, but I won't say why.


heh...I know why.

----------


## John of Des Moines

> Coolidge and Jefferson both had flaws; Coolidge supported Prohibition and Jefferson largely repudiated his own principles through the Louisiana Purchase and bellicosity toward Britain. Although to be fair, Cleveland implemented the first federal income tax, which was overturned by the Supreme Court.


It was Lincoln with the first income tax, (upheld by US Sup Court).  It was in 1894 that the Income Tax Act of 1893 was declared unconstitutional.

----------


## cityoflight

Jefferson: Louisiana Purchase was constitutionally dicey, embargo was horrible, got the ball rolling on Indian relocation... plus there's the slave/illegitimate child issue which would surely get brought up if Ron said Jefferson, and for obvious reasons I'm fine with him NOT calling attention to racial issues at the moment, as stupid as it might be

Coolidge: lots of monetary expansion, the Dawes Plan had some iffy economic effects on the middle-class, and he tried to get us into the Court of International Justice

In addition to what Ron said about Cleveland's policies, he was also known for being tremendously honest

----------


## joshnorris14

He should have said William Henry Harrison.

----------


## Justinfrom1776

Jefferson was the best IMO, but I think it can be controversial to say so in Paul's position mainly due to Jefferson having been a slave owner.

----------


## joshnorris14

And having fought a war on the barbary pirates. 

Jefferson didn't govern based on his philosophy. He was great before and after his presidency.

----------


## South Park Fan

> It was Lincoln with the first income tax, (upheld by US Sup Court).  It was in 1894 that the Income Tax Act of 1893 was declared unconstitutional.


My mistake. Thank you for catching that.

----------


## cityoflight

> murray rothbard's favorite president was martin van buren. wonder what paul's thoughts on mvb are?


Van Buren was very good, particularly in staying out of wars (trying to grab Canada, for one!)... pretty nasty to the Indians, but overall he was one of our best. I would imagine that Ron thinks highly of him.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

I feel so out of my league.  I really don't know the history of many of our presidents.  I couldn't name ten good OR bad presidents.

----------


## South Park Fan

> I feel so out of my league.  I really don't know the history of many of our presidents.  I couldn't name ten good OR bad presidents.


The former isn't easy even if you do know history.

----------


## joshnorris14

> I feel so out of my league.  I really don't know the history of many of our presidents.  I couldn't name ten good OR bad presidents.


Even if you were an expert you'd have a hard time naming ten good President's.

And chances are, if you know about 25% of the Presidents, you can name 10 bad ones.

----------


## rambone

The best president was John Hancock. 

Smuggler.  

Revolutionary.

4th President of the Continental Congress. (1775-1777)

Oversaw the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Boldly signed his name in huge letters to inflame the king. 

Had a price on his head from the royal JBTs.

Sacrificed much for our freedom.

----------


## BuddyRey

> Grover Cleveland's signature is very legible and you can tell he put effort in making it appealing to viewers (very thoughtful!). Jefferson's has unnecessary complexities, is not thoughtful in differentiating upper-case letters and lower-case letters, has a disco-esque aesthetic, but is legible. Coolidge's is simply illegible ("Culvur Crvliey" or maybe "Cuhreu Cvuhey"). Compare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is no wonder Paul favors Cleveland given how similar their handwriting style is.


Wow!    I think you might be onto something there.  Sometimes, people with similar character traits and values have similar handwriting styles.

----------


## cityoflight

> I feel so out of my league.  I really don't know the history of many of our presidents.  I couldn't name ten good OR bad presidents.


If you ever get a chance, pick up "Recarving Rushmore" by Ivan Eland. It gives a critique of each president up through GWB based on how they did in peace, prosperity, and freedom. Recommended by Ron Paul (quoted on the jacket cover!), Tom Woods, and Thomas DiLorenzo. One of my favorite books.

----------


## cityoflight

for the record...

1. Tyler
2. Cleveland
3. Van Buren

38. McKinley
39. Truman
40. Wilson

...according to that book

----------


## green73

> for the record...
> 
> 1. Tyler
> 2. Cleveland
> 3. Van Buren
> 
> 38. McKinley
> 39. Truman
> 40. Wilson
> ...


Lincoln and FDR have got to be near the bottom.

----------


## green73

> Wow!    I think you might be onto something there.  Sometimes, people with similar character traits and values have similar handwriting styles.

----------


## dillo

> Meh...I think the Louisiana purchase was Jefferson helping the French. He did love France.


I agree it was a way of "secretly" funding the French to fight England.


I would say Andrew Jackson and Warren Harding are my top 2 presidents

----------


## Kluge

Idunno... Dick's has a lot of similarities with Paul's. Upward slant, focus on the first upper-case letter being distinguished from the lower-case other letters, very legible (less maybe the "ck" in "Dick"), very curvy, connects all letters less the first and second (Ron does this with his last name, Cheney with his first)... Notice how Dick's "D" is not closed, much like Ron's "R" and "P." The c->h transition (along with the "h" itself) is quite similar in Cheney's & Manson's, though...

Cheney's is much more symmetrical-looking, though, like how you'd see writing on a ladies' day-time talk show. Paul's looks kind of warped. Cheney also looks like he writes his name much faster -- it slants not only slightly upward (assuming this isn't just from how it was scanned), but also very slanted forward.

.... Hm... Now I want to sign all these folks' names and look for similarities & differences. Fwiw, I went through a handwriting analysis course in Psychology and think the majority of it's bull$#@!. Once the textbook started talking about how a fellow writes his "o" determines whether he's generally open-minded or narrow-minded is when I started to skim.

----------


## cityoflight

> Lincoln and FDR have got to be near the bottom.


Lincoln 29
FDR 31

----------


## mport1

> I couldn't name ten good OR bad presidents.


There is no such thing as a "good" president.  They have all done terrible things.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Lew Rockwell's is William Henry Harrison, but I won't say why.





> heh...I know why.


AH-_CHOO_! *cough* *cough*




> murray rothbard's favorite president was martin van buren. wonder what paul's thoughts on mvb are?


Rothbard also had a good point about Jefferson: he was fantastic when he wasn't president, but terrible when he was.

Despite that, TJ was *still* a better prez than anyone but Cleveland (who was, not coincidentally, the last so-called "Jeffersonian" president).

As for Coolidge: meh! I wouldn't call him a "great" president (if there even is such a thing) - just the "2nd least-bad president of the 20th century" (after Warren G. Harding).

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Fwiw, I went through a handwriting analysis course in Psychology and think the majority of it's bull$#@!. Once the textbook started talking about how a fellow writes his "o" determines whether he's generally open-minded or narrow-minded is when I started to skim.


Heh-heh! I can't help but wonder - given how you write your "o", how would your textbook have classified you?

----------


## joshnorris14

> I agree it was a way of "secretly" funding the French to fight England.
> 
> 
> I would say Andrew Jackson and Warren Harding are my top 2 presidents


The only good thing Andrew Jackson did was end the 2nd B.U.S. He was a tyrant.

----------


## Kluge

> Heh-heh! I can't help but wonder - given how you write your "o", how would your textbook have classified you?


I remember calling my teacher over, because quite a few of my letters not only didn't match anything comparable in a long list of examples ("o" was probably one of them -- this was a few years ago), but often didn't match each other. She told me my handwriting indicates I'm lazy, inconsistent, and impulsive. "I mean... does that sound about right?" Got a big smile out of me -- first time I really felt understood. 

I remember another time we were supposed to be filling in incomplete pictures. I apparently had a very unique drawing. It was "supposed" to be a flower, and we were to analyze how our flowers turned out and what other complementary images we included, but I turned my "flower" into blades of a desktop fan, indicating I hate nature. Since I was one of the few interested in sharing my results during discussion, I also learned I'm neat, unimaginative, and creative. Go figure.

----------


## unknown

Andrew Jackson, "no bank"!!!!

----------


## dillo

> The only good thing Andrew Jackson did was end the 2nd B.U.S. He was a tyrant.


how was he a tyrant?

----------


## Paul or not at all

> how was he a tyrant?


The whole Indian removal thing.

----------


## dillo

> The whole Indian removal thing.


A racist maybe, but not a tyrant.  He proposed an amendment that would eliminate the electoral college and limit the presidency to 1 term.  Giving up power is simply not fitting of a tyrant.  While the Indian Removal Act was undoubtedly handled poorly, Jackson was in favor of limited Federal Government and wanted the states to handle the situation properly.

"This emigration should be voluntary, for it would be as cruel as unjust to compel the aborigines to abandon the graves of their fathers and seek a home in a distant land. But they should be distinctly informed that if they remain within the limits of the States they must be subject to their laws. In return for their obedience as individuals they will without doubt be protected in the enjoyment of those possessions which they have improved by their industry. "

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I remember calling my teacher over, because quite a few of my letters not only didn't match anything comparable in a long list of examples ("o" was probably one of them -- this was a few years ago), but often didn't match each other. She told me my handwriting indicates I'm lazy, inconsistent, and impulsive. "I mean... does that sound about right?" Got a big smile out of me -- first time I really felt understood. 
> 
> I remember another time we were supposed to be filling in incomplete pictures. I apparently had a very unique drawing. It was "supposed" to be a flower, and we were to analyze how our flowers turned out and what other complementary images we included, but I turned my "flower" into blades of a desktop fan, indicating I hate nature. Since I was one of the few interested in sharing my results during discussion, I also learned I'm neat, unimaginative, and creative. Go figure.


Ha! Sounds like you were subjected to more BS than just graphology. I've always been skeptical of that sort of thing - handwriting analysis, "doodle" analysis, body-language analysis, what-have-you analysis. They all seem like "modernized" versions of studying bumps on people heads (which, for its day, was just a "modernized" version of examining sheep entrails).

----------


## joshnorris14

> A racist maybe, but not a tyrant.  He proposed an amendment that would eliminate the electoral college and limit the presidency to 1 term.  Giving up power is simply not fitting of a tyrant.  While the Indian Removal Act was undoubtedly handled poorly, Jackson was in favor of limited Federal Government and wanted the states to handle the situation properly.


Limited government until Natives were found to be living on land where gold was found.

----------


## Revolution9

> The best president was John Hancock. 
> 
> Smuggler.  
> 
> Revolutionary.
> 
> 4th President of the Continental Congress. (1775-1777)
> 
> Oversaw the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
> ...


My father, though Canadian always said about signatures "Got to put my John Hancock on this."..or similar. Interesting it was written large for that reason.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Ha! Sounds like you were subjected to more BS than just graphology. I've always been skeptical of that sort of thing - handwriting analysis, "doodle" analysis, body-language analysis, what-have-you analysis. They all seem like "modernized" versions of studying bumps on people heads (which, for its day, was just a "modernized" version of examining sheep entrails).


You cannot teach it is the issue. My nanna (you didn't dare call her grandma) read handwriting, regular playing cards, tea leaves and was a brilliantly accurate psychometrist. I watched her, growing up, knock all kinds of blowhard skeptics dicks into the dirt with her accurate promulgations about their life's recent and upcoming events. She did a circle of reading at my wedding and all the photogs pics with her in it when she was doing readings showed a golden ball of light above her head and a gold pearl in the center of her forehead. She was born in Sherwood Forest and claimed till the day she died she was an incarnation of Maid Marian.

Rev9

----------


## A Son of Liberty

What I love about the answer is that it wasn't, "Washington", or "Reagan", or "Kennedy", or any of the other cliches that are normally trotted out.  Though we all know this about Ron, it shows he's a thoughtful, studied man, and he has an actual political philosophy.  

Just love the guy!

----------


## amy31416

Cleveland was a really good person, in addition to being a good president. He's my favorite too, if only for his exchanges with Queen Liliuokalani and vetoes.

----------


## No Free Beer

> we took louisiana without loosing a single soldier.


Didn't Jefferson do it illegally tho?

----------


## osan

> wasn't millard filmore the do nothing president?


I have always found it so interesting that "do nothing" presidents are tacitly mocked while all the worst ones are raised up as heroes and gods.

Rot seems part and parcel of our "evolved" human condition.

----------


## amy31416

> Idunno... Dick's has a lot of similarities with Paul's. Upward slant, focus on the first upper-case letter being distinguished from the lower-case other letters, very legible (less maybe the "ck" in "Dick"), very curvy, connects all letters less the first and second (Ron does this with his last name, Cheney with his first)... Notice how Dick's "D" is not closed, much like Ron's "R" and "P." The c->h transition (along with the "h" itself) is quite similar in Cheney's & Manson's, though...
> 
> Cheney's is much more symmetrical-looking, though, like how you'd see writing on a ladies' day-time talk show. Paul's looks kind of warped. Cheney also looks like he writes his name much faster -- it slants not only slightly upward (assuming this isn't just from how it was scanned), but also very slanted forward.
> 
> .... Hm... Now I want to sign all these folks' names and look for similarities & differences. Fwiw, I went through a handwriting analysis course in Psychology and think the majority of it's bull$#@!. Once the textbook started talking about how a fellow writes his "o" determines whether he's generally open-minded or narrow-minded is when I started to skim.


Bah.

My signature is illegible because I'm not important and I hate signing things. I only write legibly for practical purposes: if I'll need to read it again, or someone else needs to read it.

----------


## iamse7en

Martin Van Buren wasn't a protector of liberty and rights though. Let Missouri issue Extermination Order, which allowed for persecution, rape, and murder of Mormons to drive them out of the state. Joseph Smith went to DC and pleaded for help, MVB said take a hike. It's the role of the Federal Government to protect rights and liberties.

----------


## Stevo_Chill

> Didn't Jefferson do it illegally tho?


depends on if you consider the louisiana purchase a treaty. which would by constitutional.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Didn't Jefferson do it illegally tho?





> depends on if you consider the louisiana purchase a treaty. which would by constitutional.


Even granting that it was a treaty, there are still serious problems regarding the legality of the Louisiana Purchase.
For one thing, Napoleon had no right under the French constitution to sell it.
For another, France had agreed that it would never sell or alienate the territory when it acquired Louisiana from Spain.

----------


## Stevo_Chill

> Even granting that it was a treaty, there are still serious problems regarding the legality of the Louisiana Purchase.
> For one thing, Napoleon had no right under the French constitution to sell it.
> For another, France had agreed that it would never sell or alienate the territory when it acquired Louisiana from Spain.


would it make it better if we declared war first, then france resolve the conflict be giving us the purchase?
i think that is technical nit-picking. skip the declaration of war, go straight to treaty resolution.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> would it make it better if we declared war first, then france resolve the conflict be giving us the purchase?
> i think that is technical nit-picking. skip the declaration of war, go straight to treaty resolution.


What are you going on about?
No Free Beer asked a simple question about the legality of the Purchase.
I elaborated on your initial response.
I wasn't offering any praise or condemnation of how of the Purchase was conducted.
I was just answering the original question. But since you bring it up...

Do you *really* think that the head of a state ignoring his country's constitution is "technical nit-picking" ??
Do you *really* think that ignoring the clear terms of legally-binding agreements is "technical nit-picking" ??

If you do, then you are *so* in the wrong place. If you don't, then what is your point?

----------


## Stevo_Chill

> What are you going on about?
> No Free Beer asked a simple question about the legality of the Purchase.
> I elaborated on your initial response.
> I wasn't offering any praise or condemnation of how of the Purchase was conducted.
> I was just answering the original question. But since you bring it up...
> 
> Do you *really* think that the head of a state ignoring his country's constitution is "technical nit-picking" ??
> Do you *really* think that ignoring the clear terms of legally-binding agreements is "technical nit-picking" ??
> 
> If you do, then you are *so* in the wrong place. If you don't, then what is your point?


Um, it was a treaty. do you need a war for a  treaty or not?
That is the nit-picking. Jefferson didn't ignore the constitution. But if he can engage in treaties, he did just that.
Can you not handle someone challenging you? perhaps you shouldn't be on an internet forum if you can't.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Um, it was a treaty. do you need a war for a  treaty or not?
> That is the nit-picking. Jefferson didn't ignore the constitution. But if he can engage in treaties, he did just that.


No one but you has said *anything* about the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase.
No Free Beer asked about the legality of the Purchase.
You responded by saying the Purchase would be constitutional if it were considered to be a treaty.
I then repsonded by granting what you said, but noting that there were still valid concerns regarding legality of the Purchase.
You then replied with some bizarre & irrelevant verbiage to the effect that it is "technical nit-picking" to expect legal agreements (such as treaties) to be ... well ... legal.

And now you're going on (again) about how Jefferson didn't ignore the constitution, when I not only never claimed that he did, but actually granted that he didn't!




> Can you not handle someone challenging you?  perhaps you shouldn't be on an internet forum if you can't.


I can handle someone challenging me just fine. Why do you ask? Were you planning to do so?

Can you not handle matters that involve the use of simple reading-comprehension skills?
(Here's a free clue: "constitutionality" and "legality" do *not* mean the same thing.)

----------


## Stevo_Chill

> No one but you has said *anything* about the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase.
> No Free Beer asked about the legality of the Purchase.
> You responded by saying the Purchase would be constitutional if it were considered to be a treaty.
> I then repsonded by granting what you said, but noting that there were still valid concerns regarding legality of the Purchase.
> You then replied with some bizarre & irrelevant verbiage to the effect that it is "technical nit-picking" to expect legal agreements (such as treaties) to be ... well ... legal.
> 
> And now you're going on (again) about how Jefferson didn't ignore the constitution, when I not only never claimed that he did, but actually granted that he didn't!
> 
> 
> ...


maybe you are missing the word treaty. the purchase is a treaty. a president can enter into treaties. it is constitutional. its not constitutional if you can argue it is not a treaty.
if i felt compelled to open ms paint, i'd draw you a picture.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> maybe you are missing the word treaty. the purchase is a treaty. a president can enter into treaties. it is constitutional. its not constitutional if you can argue it is not a treaty.
> if i felt compelled to open ms paint, i'd draw you a picture.


At this point I can only conclude that either you truly do suffer from a serious reading disability or you are simply a troll.
In either case, good luck with that.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Lew Rockwell's is William Henry Harrison,* but I won't say why.


He's mine too.

----------


## Stevo_Chill

> At this point I can only conclude that either you truly do suffer from a serious reading disability or you are simply a troll.
> In either case, good luck with that.


maybe you should draw me a picture. i'm must be retarded or your engrish is different from my english.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Coolidge and Jefferson both had flaws; Coolidge supported Prohibition and Jefferson largely repudiated his own principles through the Louisiana Purchase and bellicosity toward Britain. Although to be fair, Cleveland implemented the first (EDIT: peacetime) federal income tax, which was overturned by the Supreme Court.


To be fair to Coolidge though, it was constitutional when he was President.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> maybe you are missing the word treaty. the purchase is a treaty. a president can enter into treaties. it is constitutional. its not constitutional if you can argue it is not a treaty.
> if i felt compelled to open ms paint, i'd draw you a picture.


False.  See article II, section 2.

----------


## dbill27

I would have said harding or cleveland probably. Coolidge was a drug warrior. Jefferson the president was not jefferson the radical.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Martin Van Buren wasn't a protector of liberty and rights though. Let Missouri issue Extermination Order, which allowed for persecution, rape, and murder of Mormons to drive them out of the state. Joseph Smith went to DC and pleaded for help, MVB said take a hike. It's the role of the Federal Government to protect rights and liberties.


Exactly. Van Buren, and his mentor Jackson, were both douchebags who allowed the rape and/or pillaging and/or murder of thousands of citizens for a few votes. They were as loyal to the Constitution as King George III was.

----------


## Stevo_Chill

> False.  See article II, section 2.


the president can do treaties, it just states the qualifier of senate approval. this how wars are ended and how land can be bought constitutionally.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

What did William Henry Harrison do?

----------


## PierzStyx

> how was he a tyrant?


He removed thousands of people from their privately owned land, seized it for corporate business interests, and then exiled them from the nation altogether! And the Indians he removed were under treaty to the US and had every legal and constitutional right to the land they were on, and had even adopted "white men's ways" so much they were living on plantations and dressing in tails and vests. Imagine today if a US President disenfranchised thousands of people, seized their property, and exiled those who would leave and used the US military to kill those who wouldn't. How would you feel about him? That is what Jackson did. To add to that during the Nullification Crisis he got Congress to authorize his usage of the US military against peaceful civilians in South Carolina threatening to "hang every damned one of them from teh streetlights" if they didn't enforce US tariff  law in their state. The man was a tyrant, or more appropriately, a dictator.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> What did William Henry Harrison do?


Not much!

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> What did William Henry Harrison do?


Died after a month in office.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> He removed thousands of people from their privately owned land, seized it for corporate business interests, and then exiled them from the nation altogether! And the Indians he removed were under treaty to the US and had every legal and constitutional right to the land they were on, and had even adopted "white men's ways" so much they were living on plantations and dressing in tails and vests. Imagine today if a US President disenfranchised thousands of people, seized their property, and exiled those who would leave and used the US military to kill those who wouldn't. How would you feel about him? That is what Jackson did. To add to that during the Nullification Crisis he got Congress to authorize his usage of the US military against peaceful civilians in South Carolina threatening to "hang every damned one of them from teh streetlights" if they didn't enforce US tariff  law in their state. The man was a tyrant, or more appropriately, a dictator.


The Cherokee even sued against Removal, and won in the Supreme Court. After the ruling, Jackson contemptuosly said of the Chief Justice (don't remember who it was off-hand), "He has made his decision - now let us see him enforce it!"

And so the Removal went forward anyway - and gave us the aptly-named "Trail of Tears."

----------


## dillo

> He removed thousands of people from their privately owned land, seized it for corporate business interests, and then exiled them from the nation altogether! And the Indians he removed were under treaty to the US and had every legal and constitutional right to the land they were on, and had even adopted "white men's ways" so much they were living on plantations and dressing in tails and vests. Imagine today if a US President disenfranchised thousands of people, seized their property, and exiled those who would leave and used the US military to kill those who wouldn't. How would you feel about him? That is what Jackson did. To add to that during the Nullification Crisis he got Congress to authorize his usage of the US military against peaceful civilians in South Carolina threatening to "hang every damned one of them from teh streetlights" if they didn't enforce US tariff  law in their state. The man was a tyrant, or more appropriately, a dictator.


This is not fitting from what I have read, care to give me a source on this information

----------


## Revolution9

Taft got stuck in The White House bathtub and it took several secret service guys and four pounds of butter to dislodge him. When Gingrich was high in the polls the Secret Service reimplemented their Protocol for Bathtub Stuck POTUS and ordered eight pounds of the finest Swedish butter at 500 USD a lb and an armory rack of teflon coated crowbars. They breathed a collective sigh of relief and put the training program back into mothballs when RP's numbers picked up.

This is my theory of why he didn't choose Taft

Rev9

----------


## trey4sports

> Taft got stuck in The White House bathtub and it took several secret service guys and four pounds of butter to dislodge him. When Gingrich was high in the polls the Secret Service reimplemented their Protocol for Bathtub Stuck POTUS and ordered eight pounds of the finest Swedish butter at 500 USD a lb and an armory rack of teflon coated crowbars. They breathed a collective sigh of relief and put the training program back into mothballs when RP's numbers picked up.
> 
> This is my theory of why he didn't choose Taft
> 
> Rev9




had a good laugh. i can just see gingrich doing that.

----------


## willwash

> Jefferson: Louisiana Purchase was constitutionally dicey, embargo was horrible, got the ball rolling on Indian relocation... plus there's the slave/illegitimate child issue which would surely get brought up if Ron said Jefferson, and for obvious reasons I'm fine with him NOT calling attention to racial issues at the moment, as stupid as it might be


These are pretty minor dings on Jefferson's presidency when you consider the benefit we derived as a nation from his reversal of John Adams' program of systematic dismantling of all constitutional limitations on the federal government.  Remember Adams was only our very second President; therefore, almost as much as Washington, Adams was engaged in the setting of precedents as to how we were to behave as a nation and what place the executive branch was to make for itself.  Without Jefferson sweeping in and pulling the rug out from Adams' feet after just one term, we may very well have had President Adams reelected until death and replaced with his son John Quincy.  Without the "Revolution of 1800" (led by Thomas Jefferson), the United States would have degenerated into a tyranny much more swiftly than we have.

So think twice before you chastise Jefferson for _maybe_ having slept with one of his slaves or _marginally_ exceeding his constitutional authority to double the size of the country.  Yes the embargo was a disaster, but war with France or Britain at the time would have been worse.  This is all VERY small scratch compared to what we gained from his presidency.

----------


## stephensmith

Jefferson was great as a thinker and as a theoretical libertarian, no question. Not so great as President, I'm afraid -- a bit more interventionist than his philosophy called for. Obviously still better than most who have held that office, but still... 

I understand the case for Cleveland and tend to agree with it.

----------


## Revolution9

> Bah.
> 
> My signature is illegible because I'm not important and I hate signing things. I only write legibly for practical purposes: if I'll need to read it again, or someone else needs to read it.


Which would show you were impulsive and had disdain for authority.

HTH
Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> These are pretty minor dings on Jefferson's presidency when you consider the benefit we derived as a nation from his reversal of John Adams' program of systematic dismantling of all constitutional limitations on the federal government.  Remember Adams was only our very second President; therefore, almost as much as Washington, Adams was engaged in the setting of precedents as to how we were to behave as a nation and what place the executive branch was to make for itself.  Without Jefferson sweeping in and pulling the rug out from Adams' feet after just one term, we may very well have had President Adams reelected until death and replaced with his son John Quincy.  Without the "Revolution of 1800" (led by Thomas Jefferson), the United States would have degenerated into a tyranny much more swiftly than we have.
> 
> So think twice before you chastise Jefferson for _maybe_ having slept with one of his slaves or _marginally_ exceeding his constitutional authority to double the size of the country.  Yes the embargo was a disaster, but war with France or Britain at the time would have been worse.  This is all VERY small scratch compared to what we gained from his presidency.


A good thing he smoked the female flowers of hemp which brings about an anti-authoritarian mindset.

Rev9

----------


## Paul4Prez

> True. Jefferson enacted a horrible tariff, and his actions regarding the Louisiana Purchase were Constitutionally questionable. Other than that, he was a great President.


Jefferson cut federal spending by 50 percent and abolished all internal taxes in his first term.  Hard to top that.

----------


## PierzStyx

> These are pretty minor dings on Jefferson's presidency when you consider the benefit we derived as a nation from his reversal of John Adams' program of systematic dismantling of all constitutional limitations on the federal government.  Remember Adams was only our very second President; therefore, almost as much as Washington, Adams was engaged in the setting of precedents as to how we were to behave as a nation and what place the executive branch was to make for itself.  Without Jefferson sweeping in and pulling the rug out from Adams' feet after just one term, we may very well have had President Adams reelected until death and replaced with his son John Quincy.  Without the "Revolution of 1800" (led by Thomas Jefferson), the United States would have degenerated into a tyranny much more swiftly than we have.
> 
> So think twice before you chastise Jefferson for _maybe_ having slept with one of his slaves or _marginally_ exceeding his constitutional authority to double the size of the country.  Yes the embargo was a disaster, but war with France or Britain at the time would have been worse.  This is all VERY small scratch compared to what we gained from his presidency.


I get so sick and tired of you Jefferson arsekissers trashing on John Adams. That man was a greater President and human being than Thomas Jefferson ever was. There is no such thing as a "marginal" violation of the Constitution. That is like saying Obama is a great President for "marginally" violating the Constitution by forcing socialized healthcare on everyone. And yes, I know about the Alien and Sedition Acts. But you know what? I'm not afraid to face the negative aspects of Adams' Presidency while all you Jefferson cronies do is make excuse after excuse why its ok for Jefferson to be immoral and unconstitutional. Its disgusting.

----------


## PierzStyx

> This is not fitting from what I have read, care to give me a source on this information


How about a history book? In lieu of that:

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

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullifi...ion_.281833.29 and along with that the Force Bill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_bill .

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I get so sick and tired of you Jefferson arsekissers trashing on John Adams. That man was a greater President and human being than Thomas Jefferson ever was.


Pssh!  Federalist apologist!  Yeah, the Alien and Sedition acts were a helluva accomplishment.  It was also good of him to start the "Quasi War", eh?

All presidents are overrated anyways.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Pssh!  Federalist apologist!  Yeah, the Alien and Sedition acts were a helluva accomplishment.  It was also good of him to start the "Quasi War", eh?
> 
> All presidents are overrated anyways.


Actually I rank the Quasi-War as an accomplishment. France violated our national sovereignty by attacking our neutral trading ships and seizing their goods and our men for France. Then they had the balls to demand a bribe form us to restore peace? Bullcrap! Act of war if I ever heard of one. And unlike Jefferson, who thought it was cool to go to war without a declaration, Adams got authorization from Congress to attack French warships.  

On a side note, we also got this from a Supreme Court ruling of the time: "Presidential orders, even those issued as Commander in Chief, are subject to restrictions imposed by Congress." And that should be recognized today!

----------


## MaxPower

> It wasn't the purchase itself as much as the lack of a constitutional provision for such a purchase that was a matter of concern. Accepting it made Jefferson look like a hypocrite.


Jefferson wanted to use the Constitutional amendment process to make the Purchase lawful, and actually drafted an amendment to do so, but the French started saying they were going to pull out of the deal and his cabinet talked him out of it. I don't think Jefferson was correct, here, but I sympathize with his perspective, and will say in his defense that this was not one of the great crimes of history.

----------


## MaxPower

> Actually I rank the Quasi-War as an accomplishment. France violated our national sovereignty by attacking our neutral trading ships and seizing their goods and our men for France. Then they had the balls to demand a bribe form us to restore peace? Bullcrap! Act of war if I ever heard of one. And unlike Jefferson, who thought it was cool to go to war without a declaration, Adams got authorization from Congress to attack French warships.  
> 
> On a side note, we also got this from a Supreme Court ruling of the time: "Presidential orders, even those issued as Commander in Chief, are subject to restrictions imposed by Congress." And that should be recognized today!


Jefferson _didn't_ "go to war without a declaration." Congress had actually drafted a bill before he even took office putting forces on command for Jefferson to employ _in defense of American ships which were actively being attacked_- and remember, even Ron Paul supported immediate defensive action against Al Qaeda without a formal "declaration of war." The idea is that _strictly defensive_ reactions can be undertaken forthwith, but the Congress has to declare war before you can launch an offensive or long-term military campaign.

This is a particularly frustrating meme because Jefferson was one of history's most scrupulous defenders of the notion that the president does not have the power to go to war without a declaration from Congress; in fact, he himself explicitly wrote that he was "unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense." Congress subsequently passed a bill explicitly authorizing him to undertake all such _"acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."_

----------


## MaxPower

> I get so sick and tired of you Jefferson arsekissers trashing on John Adams. That man was a greater President and human being than Thomas Jefferson ever was. There is no such thing as a "marginal" violation of the Constitution. That is like saying Obama is a great President for "marginally" violating the Constitution by forcing socialized healthcare on everyone. And yes, I know about the Alien and Sedition Acts. But you know what? I'm not afraid to face the negative aspects of Adams' Presidency while all you Jefferson cronies do is make excuse after excuse why its ok for Jefferson to be immoral and unconstitutional. Its disgusting.


No, Jefferson was a far better president than Adams. Adams raised internal taxes and signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson, working with the Democratic-Republican Congress, _repealed_ the Alien and Sedition Acts, pardoned those prosecuted under them, abolished the Whiskey Tax, property tax, and all other standing internal taxes, prohibited the trans-atlantic slave trade, _and_ cut the national debt by a third. In terms of accomplishment for libertarian causes, Jefferson was _absolutely_ one of the very best presidents the United States has ever had.

As for the Louisiana Purchase, I disagree; there is such a thing as a marginal violation of the Constitution. Much as I wish it were not, the Constitution _is_ actually ambiguous in some areas the drafters did not make provision for, including territorial expansion. Now, the president has diplomacy/treaty-making power with foreign nations, without any specific enumeration or prohibition of certain types of treaties, and territorial expansion is something traditionally affected through treaties, so it does not seem _terribly_ obvious that territorial expansion through a presidential treaty is unconstitutional. Congress subsequently ratified the treaty, as the Constitution requires.

It was because Jefferson was such a strict and consistent constitutionalist, rightly wary of accepting the notion of the kind of "implied powers" I've just suggested, that he was even _concerned_ about the issue of the power for; few other presidents would have given it a second thought. Anyway, what Jefferson did in the Louisiana Purchase falls into a sort of grey area wherein the Constitution itself is (unfortunately) ambiguous, and is not at all comparable to Obama's health care act or any other such law which goes directly against the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

----------


## SpicyTurkey

> Even granting that it was a treaty, there are still serious problems regarding the legality of the Louisiana Purchase.
> For one thing, Napoleon had no right under the French constitution to sell it.
> For another, France had agreed that it would never sell or alienate the territory when it acquired Louisiana from Spain.


Those are Frances problems, not America. _France_ was held responsible to the treaties.

----------


## Conza88

/thread

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Those are Frances problems, not America. _France_ was held responsible to the treaties.


Well. the way things actually worked out, I guess it really wasn't anyone's problem.

But if things had been a bit different, it very well could have become our problem.

I don't know if Spain had any complaints about France violating the terms of their treaty, but if the Spaniards had had strong objections - and had been in a position to militarily assert those objections - history might be quite a bit different. Or if Napoleon had, say, been overthrown and had the new French regime told America, "Give the Louisiana territory back - it's ours - Bonaparte had no authority to sell it to you!"

A militant Spain (or a France freshly divested of Napoleon) would have been correct in assertiing that the Louisiana Purchase was an illegal transaction.

That didn't happen, of course. But it could have.

----------

