Who was the Worst Anti-Liberty American of All Time? (Fun Poll)

[NYgs23]

The British ended the orders of council, not impressment.

You're right; I was mixed-up. The Orders in Council dealt with the blockades, while impressment ended in 1814. Nonetheless, it's quite likely, in my view, that Congress wouldn't have declared war had the news gotten there sooner.

If the war would have ended when Britain ceased impressment, how come it didn't end in 1814, when it ceased impressment?

 

[Galileo Galilei]

You're right; I was mixed-up. The Orders in Council dealt with the blockades, while impressment ended in 1814. Nonetheless, it's quite likely, in my view, that Congress wouldn't have declared war had the news gotten there sooner.

If the war would have ended when Britain ceased impressment, how come it didn't end in 1814, when it ceased impressment?

Madison, unlike other war presidents like those in this poll, had respect for human life. In mid-1814, Madison decided the point had been made, that the US could stand up to the British, so Madison pushed for a peace treaty even if impressment was not mentioned in the treaty. Madison also had concern about the economy, and knew the British were concerned about their economy as well. Remember also, the embargo act from 1807 had done damage to the British economy on top of their wars with Napolean.

Madison, as usual, was right. The final peace treaty did not mention impressment, but impressment ended, which was the whole point of the war.

The end of impressment was later solidified in the Treaty of 1818 and the Monroe doctrine of 1823.

The Monroe doctrine would have been unthinkable in 1812.

As far as whether congress would have declared war had they known the orders of council had been revoked, that's a good possibility. The vote for war was 79-49 in the House, but only 19-13 in the Senate.

The war started with good strategy but bad luck. Just as we invaded the British Empire (Canada), Napolean was invading Russia. The War of 1812 would not have lasted long had Napolean not just happened to foolishly invade Russia at that time, because the British would have been stretched too thin. Instead, they got a respite from Napolean, and Napolean was weakened permanently. The Battle of Leipzig in 1813 was a disaster for Napolean as well.

The other bad luck was the incompetance of the American commander ordered to invade Canada in 1812. Madison had spent months going over this possibility, many times over in fact. Madison was promised, even under severe cross-examination, that it would just be a matter of marching. As we all know, the initial stages of the war went very poorly from a military standpoint (but never from a human standpoint, as casualties were very low in the war).

Madison COULD have picked a better commander and one was available, William Henry Harrison. Harrison slaughtered the Indians at the Battle of Tippacanoe in 1811. But Madison did not want to turn this country into a military state. Harrison was a ruthless Indian killer. Harrison had also been double-crossing the Indians by promosing two tribes the same land, and then the Indians would fight for themselves over the same land. This is disgusting. Its not clear when Madison found this out, but he did not trust Harrison. (Harrison becomes even more disappointing when we recall that Harrison's father Benjamin Harrison was a fellow Virginian who had signed Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.)

Harrison, if you've read DiLorenzo's books, you'll know that Harrison went on the champion the American System.

The War of 1812 is the textbook example of how to fight a just war under the US Constitution. James Madison did this for OUR benefit. I have gone over the war in great detail, while also studying Christian Just war theory. Madison followed Just war theory to the letter. In other words, Madison set a precedent on how wars should be conducted. Its too bad that the three leaders in this poll, Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR totally ignored what Madison did.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

The other two ostensible grievances were were that Britain was arming the Indians against settlers in the northwest and that it was interfering with American trade with France (this was during the Napoleonic Wars). But Americans shouldn't have been trying to take Indian lands in the first place--we know how that worked out--and, at the same time, France was trying to interfere in American trade with Britain. So why side with a brutal dictator like Napoleon over Britain, which was arguably the most liberal country at the time other then the USA? So there was no adequate cause that I can see, and it's not surprising it generated such widespread antiwar sentiment, perhaps even more so than Vietnam.

Going after the British was a no-brainer:

1) The French were not kidnapping our sailors

2) The French did not have forts on our borders (the British were supposed to vacate their forts after the Revolutionary war)

3) We had no way to attack the French as we hardly had a navy.

4) The British had a superior navy and were blocking our trade in more areas, especially the Great Lakes.

5) The British, not the French, were instigating the Indians.

The anti-war sentiment was mostly confined to New England. The real cause of the anti-war sentiment was the LACK OF WAR PROPAGANDA.

James Madison, unlike all the presidents in this poll, did not use war propaganda. He gave the plain facts in concise form, as his war massage shows. The sad fact is that war propaganda works. Madison hoped this would not be a nation of war propaganda. His precedent can still be followed if demanded by the public. But that will not ahppen until the demonization of the War of 1812 ends, and the public is educated.

It led to the deaths of thousands, conscription in certain states, a failed invasion of Canada, the expansion the navy and the standing army, and war debt, which further led to inflation, the formation of the Second Bank of the United States, and the Panic of 1819.

* The casualty rates in the War of 1812 were very low, only 7000 total. By contrast, the Battle of Leipzig of 1813, just one battle, had 82,000 casualties!

* The expansion of the navy? Well, we had no navy before 1812, that's why we had 1000 ships seized on the high seas and 7000 sailors kidnapped.

* The Second bank was formed, but it was a temporay measure that set no precedent. Jackson, working with Madison, got rid of the bank after the 1832 election. You probably don't know this, but Jackson's personal secretary from 1828-1834 was Nicholas Trist, a man so devoted to James Madison that he spent his entire life promoting Madison's legacy. Madison and Jackson were in close contact during Jackson's first term. Then, in 1832, Jackson went to visit Madison before the election, and they agreed to get rid of the bank.

The war actually set a precedent on national banks. In January of 1815, Madison vetoed a bank bill that expanded the powers of the bank from the first bank. In other words, George Washington set a precedent that a bank was Constitutional, and Madison set a precedent on the limits of those powers. Taking this knowledge and this strategy to opposing the Fed is better than what I've seen here. If you argue the Fed is unconstitutional, you are never going to get a majority, as the bank was passed 2 to 1 by the 1st congress and signed by Washington. Better is to emphasize the limits on banking set by the Father of the Constitution, James Madison. Almost everything the Fed does is unconstitutional, per Madison's 1815 veto.

[John Tyler, citing his hero James Madison, vetoed additional bank bills in the 1840s. By that time, we had a great economy. The only reason the Founding Fathers voted for ANY bank bill was that the federal government was struggling to survive. After the debt was paid off by Jackson, that has never happend since.]

* The Panic of 1819 is a red herring and you know it. You know that our overall economy boomed after 1815, just look at the GNP numbers. It was one of the biggest booms in world history. The Panic of 1819 was short-lived, and mostly effected bankers and land specualtors, not ordinary people. The real cause of the panic was LOW LAND PRICES. That's bad for speculators, but GOOD for everyone else.

[if you need more evidence that the Panic of 1819 was not a big deal, remember that Monroe won EVERY STATE in the election of 1820, the only man to do so besides George Washington. By 1820, the free enterprise of the Industrial Revolution was starting to roar in America. Murray Rothbard's book on the Panic of 1819 is filled with interesting facts, but lots of bogus and cherry-picked conclusions.]

The more you study James Madison and the War of 1812, the more you can see the evil in Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ. Just wars CAN BE DONE.

[The War of 1812 should be read as a continuation of the Revolutionary War, which it was, rather than an ad hoc anachronism from later evil & unjust wars.]

 

[NYgs23]

I'm not really sure this thread is the place to get into a drawn-out discussion about this war. I was just referring to it as an aside. But I don't see how you can claim it was better for this country, given the growth and centralization of military structure and the devastation to the economy that would occur shortly thereafter, the use of conscription by states, and the deaths of 24,000 people. All wars are foul and destructive. All wars a damaging even to the victors. All wars enable the expansion of power and the destruction of freedom. All wars encourage the commission of reprehensible atrocities, even by those for whom the war itself may be justified. All wars should be avoided except in the most extreme circumstances.

The British impressment policy, like the blockades, was primarily an outgrowth of the war with Napoleon. So it seems they would have ended the policy with the end of Napoleon anyway, especially with diplomatic pressure from the US, without a war.

The Monroe doctrine would have been unthinkable in 1812.

The Monroe Doctrine does not agree with the policy of strict, absolute neutrality and non-interventionism that I consider the best foreign policy for any country, so I don't support the Monroe Doctrine. But let's not get into a debate over that.

Just as we invaded the British Empire (Canada), Napolean was invading Russia. The War of 1812 would not have lasted long had Napolean not just happened to foolishly invade Russia at that time, because the British would have been stretched too thin. Instead, they got a respite from Napolean, and Napolean was weakened permanently. The Battle of Leipzig in 1813 was a disaster for Napolean as well.

Well, I think that was a good thing. Napoleon was a conquering dictator. I would much rather the US have lost the War of 1812 then let Napoleon conquer Europe. That's another reason I'm against the War of 1812. While the USA was fighting Britain, Britain was already fighting that proto-fascist maniac.

The War of 1812 is the textbook example of how to fight a just war under the US Constitution. James Madison did this for OUR benefit. I have gone over the war in great detail, while also studying Christian Just war theory. Madison followed Just war theory to the letter. In other words, Madison set a precedent on how wars should be conducted. Its too bad that the three leaders in this poll, Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR totally ignored what Madison did.

The standards for just war are terribly, terribly high. For one thing, it must only be done as a last resort. Given that the just grievances that led to the war (impressment and blockades) would have both been moot within two years, was this really the last resort. Also, the benefits brought about by the war need to outweigh the damages. I see zero benefits that came from the War of 1812. As I said, the trade restrictions ended beforehand. Impressment would have ended anyway. Stack that against all the ill effects I've listed, especially the deaths of 24,000 people.

Well, I'm tired of debating this issue. After this post, I'm just going to agree to disagree.

 

[NYgs23]

Well, I guess I'll make a few final points to this other post.

The British, not the French, were instigating the Indians.

Generally speaking, the Indians were in the right. They were being pushed of their lands. I don't blame them for being "instigated."

The casualty rates in the War of 1812 were very low, only 7000 total.

I was including people who died from disease, as well as killed in battle.

The expansion of the navy? Well, we had no navy before 1812, that's why we had 1000 ships seized on the high seas and 7000 sailors kidnapped.

The original liberal American ideal avoided a centralized military with a standing army and navy, in favor of state-based, volunteer militias to fight off invasions. That's the what I'd prefer.

And now that I think about it, who's "we"? They weren't my ships. They were private merchant vessels. Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for their safe escort on the high seas? Why shouldn't they pay for their own protection?

The Panic of 1819 is a red herring and you know it. You know that our overall economy boomed after 1815, just look at the GNP numbers.

The banks were inflating the currency at that time. Bank inflation is never a good thing because resources are misallocated. And government debts and central banks are never a good thing, temporary or otherwise.

You seem to be a huge fan of James Madison. Just an observation. Are you Nicholas Trist?

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I'm not really sure this thread is the place to get into a drawn-out discussion about this war. I was just referring to it as an aside. But I don't see how you can claim it was better for this country, given the growth and centralization of military structure and the devastation to the economy that would occur shortly thereafter, the use of conscription by states, and the deaths of 24,000 people. All wars are foul and destructive. All wars a damaging even to the victors. All wars enable the expansion of power and the destruction of freedom. All wars encourage the commission of reprehensible atrocities, even by those for whom the war itself may be justified. All wars should be avoided except in the most extreme circumstances.

You say all wars, but that is not true. Defensive wars are good. You support the second amendment, right? Well, defensive wars are a deterrent to aggressors, just as arms are a deterrent to criminals. The War of 1812 was a defensive war against an aggressor. Just as a lot of people who bear arms end up with accidental shootings, defensive wars cost some lives; but the right of defense prevents more crime/aggression when exercised, then to lay down and become a slave and maybe be killed anyway.

The British impressment policy, like the blockades, was primarily an outgrowth of the war with Napoleon. So it seems they would have ended the policy with the end of Napoleon anyway, especially with diplomatic pressure from the US, without a war.

In June of 1812, nobody in the US knew that Napolean was going to invade Russia and kill off his army. By that time, the British had been harrassing our trade since the beginning of Jefferson's 2nd term.

The Monroe Doctrine does not agree with the policy of strict, absolute neutrality and non-interventionism that I consider the best foreign policy for any country, so I don't support the Monroe Doctrine. But let's not get into a debate over that.

Of course you don't support the Monroe Doctrine; because you live in a perfect world not encumbered by reality. Frankly, the Monroe Doctrine was a Declaration of economic Independence.

Well, I think that was a good thing. Napoleon was a conquering dictator. I would much rather the US have lost the War of 1812 then let Napoleon conquer Europe. That's another reason I'm against the War of 1812. While the USA was fighting Britain, Britain was already fighting that proto-fascist maniac.

The wars of Napolean were all provoked by the British. Especially this is easy to see after 1803, when the British reneged on a treay to vacate Malta, a key naval base. Napolean was a man of peace who was always under attack by a giant world conspiracy of related Royal families. Others claim the international bankers were after Napolean.

The standards for just war are terribly, terribly high. For one thing, it must only be done as a last resort. Given that the just grievances that led to the war (impressment and blockades) would have both been moot within two years, was this really the last resort. Also, the benefits brought about by the war need to outweigh the damages. I see zero benefits that came from the War of 1812. As I said, the trade restrictions ended beforehand. Impressment would have ended anyway. Stack that against all the ill effects I've listed, especially the deaths of 24,000 people.

Last resort? What the hell do you think the War of 1812 was? When Jefferson was president, the British fired on the Cheasepeake in 1807 and killed some of our sailors. In 1805, the British set up a naval blockage over Boston. We had 1000 ships seized from 1807 to 1812, that is 200 per year or about 4 per week!

Ever read about how many people die because the FDA takes so long to validate drugs? Well, the same things happen when your country is beseiged by beligerents of this scale. When ships are seized and 7000 men are kidnapped, people die. People can't get the stuff they need to support their families. Children die. In those days, small changes in welath were the difference between life and death.

Do you not see the difference between the Gulf of Tonkin and the War of 1812? Madison, and Jefferson before him, tried everything, every negotiation possible. they even tried the ill-fated embargo. Do you actually think Madison and Jefferson support embargoes? No, but they oppose war even more.

The trade restrictions did not end before the war started, we already went over this. Impressment was still going on before and during the war, and only ended after we kicked the sh** out of the British at Platteburg, Baltimore, and New Orleans.

Your attempts to put Madison and Jefferson in the same pot as Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and Bush are tiresome.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Well, I guess I'll make a few final points to this other post.

Generally speaking, the Indians were in the right. They were being pushed of their lands. I don't blame them for being "instigated."

The British did not give a rats ass about the Indians. White settlers were going to move into Indian lands no matter what any government told them. The British let the Indians hang out to dry. They gave them some guns and told them if they attacked Americans, then the British would support them. Of course that didn't happen.

The original liberal American ideal avoided a centralized military with a standing army and navy, in favor of state-based, volunteer militias to fight off invasions. That's the what I'd prefer.

That's what you support, but those militia armies usually lose wars. Madison did avoid a military state. He set up a very small standing army. Everything Madison did was to keep us from becoming a military state. That's why Lincoln, 45 years later, almost lost the Civil war, despite a 22 to 5 advantage of whites. We were not a military state in 1860.

It seems like you oppose the right of self defense. The Constitution set up the rules for war and Madison followed them. He did not invent "war powers" like Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and Bush.

And now that I think about it, who's "we"? They weren't my ships. They were private merchant vessels. Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for their safe escort on the high seas? Why shouldn't they pay for their own protection?

That's why we pay taxes, so a small amount of limited, delegated services can be provided by the government. The Founding Fathers in their wisdom, delegated a few things that it is better to have under government control. One of them is free shipping. If every shipper had to fend for themself, they'd be eaten alive back in 1815.

The banks were inflating the currency at that time. Bank inflation is never a good thing because resources are misallocated. And government debts and central banks are never a good thing, temporary or otherwise.

I agree, bank inflation is not good. But we had virtually no net inflation between 1800 and 1850, during the era when the Jefferson/Madison principles generally held sway over the government.

You seem to be a huge fan of James Madison. Just an observation. Are you Nicholas Trist?[/QUOTE]

No, I am not Nicholas Trist. Nor am I Andrew Jackson's private secretary. But I am a defender of James Madison, our greatest and most powerful Founding Father. And I can't stand Wilson, FDR, and FDR especially. The difference between them and their wars, compared to Madison, is as big as night and day.

 

[merrimac]

For me, it was a hard decision between Lincoln and Wilson.

I had to go with Wilson because at least Lincoln could argue he had the excuse of a civil war that was thrust upon him or whatever and helped eradicate slavery. What he did that really hurt liberty was he helped take away the states' main source of leverage over the federal government, that being secession. But was that his aim? I don't know.

Wilson flat out sold this country over to bankers and he admitted it. And he gave us the income tax and was the person who started the neoconservative idea of interventionism. And he wanted to get America into a United Nations! This guy has no excuses for what he did.

 

[hugolp]

lincoln destroyed federalism.
if the states still had their sovereign rights under a republic of republics, they could have easily nulified FDRs program.

^^ This. Also, Lincoln destroyed the free banking system that Andrew Jackson left, creating the roots for the dominance of the New York banks over the country.

 

[Danke]

Wilson flat out sold this country over to bankers and he admitted it. And he gave us the income tax and was the person who started the neoconservative idea of interventionism.

No, Lincoln can take the blame for the income tax. It goes all the way back to 1862.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I think Wilson did more permanent damage to the Constitution, than Lincoln. After Lincoln, the states still had the Senate. And the southern states had their numbers increased in the House & Electoral College, because when they freed the slaves, the 3/5th rule was out, so they were ale to still be an influence in the national government.

 

[Freedom 4 all]

He's not as bad as Lincoln, Wilson or FDR (mainly because he never had that kind of power) but I think Rudy "Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.” Giullianni at least deserves a spot on that list.

 

[RevolutionSD]

No, Lincoln can take the blame for the income tax. It goes all the way back to 1862.

Both were evil bastards and you can make a case for either Lincoln or Wilson being the worst of the worst. Wilson also ushered in the Federal Reserve and WWI. Lincoln instituted a temporary income tax that actually went away (not that temporary taxes are acceptable).

But as we can see, the constitution which many people on this board are in love with, are what allowed all of this anti-liberty action to happen.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Both were evil bastards and you can make a case for either Lincoln or Wilson being the worst of the worst. Wilson also ushered in the Federal Reserve and WWI. Lincoln instituted a temporary income tax that actually went away (not that temporary taxes are acceptable).

But as we can see, the constitution which many people on this board are in love with, are what allowed all of this anti-liberty action to happen.

Sure, its not Lincoln or Wilson's fault; it the Constitution stupid!

Of course we would have no taxes if not for the Constitution.

Just think, we would have had 200 years on idyll bliss if only we had kept the Articles of Confederation.

Evil people like Lincoln and Wislon, backed by banks, would get nowhere under the Articles. Nope, they'd never be able to buy up whole states and enslave us all. Never would ahve happened.

 

[RevolutionSD]

Sure, its not Lincoln or Wilson's fault; it the Constitution stupid!

Of course we would have no taxes if not for the Constitution.

Just think, we would have had 200 years on idyll bliss if only we had kept the Articles of Confederation.

Evil people like Lincoln and Wislon, backed by banks, would get nowhere under the Articles. Nope, they'd never be able to buy up whole states and enslave us all. Never would ahve happened.

How about none of the above and just have pure freedom?

Do you find freedom to be scary? (not trying to be snotty here, I really mean that because lots of people are afraid of freedom).

 

[Peace&Freedom]

If the Constitution had not been created, the forces for central banking and central government would have corrupted the Articles of Confederation, turning them in time into the Articles of Consolidation. The damage done by Lincoln is double: he set the largest number of bad precedents for tyranny, AND serves (along with Pearl Harbor) as the perennial poster boy for "strong government" to wage war against all alleged enemies, while suspending rights and freedoms until the perpetual 'emergency' situation is abated.

 

[brandon]

He's not as bad as Lincoln, Wilson or FDR (mainly because he never had that kind of power) but I think Rudy "Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.” Giullianni at least deserves a spot on that list.

Absolutely

 

[Galileo Galilei]

An old friend of mine, who I went to grade school with, sent me the following email:

"Galileo:

As someone who has made the study of politics and political theory one of his favorite pastimes, here is my advice. Cast all votes for Lincoln. In this way you will virtually guarantee the Libertarian Party will never move beyond the extreme fringe third rate party it is now and will forever languish with no real political power. Your candidates will continue to waste millions or dollars on hopeless campaigns at the conclusion of which they will have less or no more power than they had when they took out nomination papers.

The Libertarians, with their focus on limited government, could and probably should play a larger role in determining policy. Unfortunately, they don't. Lists like these are certainly part of the reason why. I know you are not the author because you've demonstrated more than once you possess far more wit than what is on display here.

What is overlooked about Arnold was his actions were welcomed by a signifiant number of Americans who did not support the Revolution. The idea all Americans united behind Washington's army is false. There were a significant and powerful cadre of Americans who supported the British and thought the Revolutionary cause was folly.

As to Hamilton, Burr and Clay I would suggest these were merely men who engaged in real power struggles and lost. That's not a sufficient reason to vilify them. They had to take historically opposing views or they would not have been in opposition to the power they wanted to obtain. Remember, to the victors go the history books.

Both the Civil War and the Second World War made the country significantly stronger. Woodrow Wilson was instrumental in KEEPING the US out of the First World War until it was substantially decided, saving perhaps a million American lives. He also founded ideals that grew into the United Nations.

I do agree on Cheney. The Bush administration perpetrated an assault on the Rule of Law unseen in the history of the Republic. For that, they should all be hung.

Bob"

 

[Naraku]

So many are left out of this. What of John Adams who signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, far worse than the Patriot Act?

Of course, one evaluating this subject objectively would see that many of the Founders despite their pro-libert rhetoric would often engage in acts against liberty. They would use libel laws to strike down political opponents, took over the press to target their political opponents and in the case of Aaron Burr actually arrested them.

People forget the use of thugs, the bribing of voters and politicians, and any other number of acts were committed in the early United States. It was not some bastion of freedom as so many romantics like to portray it.

I am also curious about the fact J. Edgar Hoover is missing and Nixon of all people.

Also, the War of 1812 was as much about independence as the Cold War was about communism.

 

[tremendoustie]

Wow, so many good options. I went for Lincoln, as pretty much everything he did other than freeing the slaves was evil, and he really did kill states rights.