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

[Galileo Galilei]

So where is the poll for the best pro-liberty historic figure??

PS - do a search of the forum, I put up a poll for that a few months ago.

 

[Carole]

I chose Woodrow Wilson for stupidly selling out this country with the Federal Reserve Act and income tax.

Though all of them are bad, Wilson's actions have had the most enduring long-term effects on our nation and continue to do so today and in the future. Even he acknowledged his error, but it was too late and countless wars and millions of deaths followed. Millions of lives have been economically destroyed as well as never-ending higher taxes and destruction of wealth have occurred. Through corruption, ponzi schemes, pyramids, and benefiting the few wealthy at the expense of middle class and poor , he did a lot of damage that has no apparent end in sight.

 

[acptulsa]

What? No sign of the cross-dresser who managed to keep his secret while ferreting out the secrets of the rest of the nation, J. Edgar Hoover? Come on now.

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

I voted FDR: he strongly supported global socialism at home and abroad.

 

[Anti Federalist]

That's a great quote attributed to Henry. He never said it, though, it is a fake quote. The whole speech was made up in a book that was published about 5 or 10 years after he died.

Not quite.

http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Winter02-03/speech.cfm

But are those the words Henry really said?

The speech first appeared in print in 1817 with the publication of the first biography of the “Forest-born Demosthenes,” Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry, by William Wirt, a Richmond lawyer and writer, soon to become attorney general of the United States. The book was immensely popular, but it was a romanticized, exaggerated, one-sided story. Wirt’s report of Henry’s speech has been tarred with pretty much the same brush. No one accused Wirt of fashioning it from whole cloth, but there was, and perhaps still is, a feeling that the fabric had been stretched.

In Wirt’s defense, it must be said that getting factual information on a speech that by its nature dissipated when it hit the air and left behind no physical trace was no easy assignment. In the custom of the day, only sermons were published. Williamsburg’s St. George Tucker, a federal judge, told Wirt that no stenographer attended the Virginia Assembly. Still, Wirt did what he could.

For twelve years he collected materials for his Sketches, and still he could not document significant parts of it. He tapped the recollections of those who had known the orator, some of whom had heard the speech, and reported their recollections in the third person. Or, as historian Richard Beale Davis put it, Wirt molded his memoir “from bits and pieces of myths and memories.”

Jefferson was a big help, but Wirt struck gold with his friend Judge Tucker. The greater part of the speech as Wirt reported it came from Tucker. The judge’s memory of the oration was contained in a letter to Wirt of eleven foolscap pages, which was in the possession of the judge’s grandson, Henry St. George Tucker, in 1905, when it was lost. After finishing ninety-six pages of the manuscript, Wirt told Tucker in a letter of August 16, 1815, “I can tell you I have made free use of you in this work. . . . I have taken almost entirely, Mr. Henry’s speech in the convention of ’75 from you, as well as your description of its effect on you verbatim.”

Computer analysis corroborates Tucker’s authorship. A doctoral dissertation on the work by Steven Taylor Olsen compares fifteen linguistic-stylistic features of the “Liberty or Death” speech with writings by Henry, Wirt, and Tucker and finds Tucker the hands-down winner.

All this insulates Wirt from serious suspicion that he manufactured the speech. It does not, of course, prove that what Patrick Henry said had been tucked away in Tucker’s memory. But that memory does seem to have come fairly close to the mark, for Wirt saw to it that several dignitaries who had been at the church—Jefferson, for one—had a shot at the judge’s rendering, and they did not quibble with it. Furthermore, as David A. McCants, professor of communication at Indiana University–Purdue University at Fort Wayne, said in the Virginia Magazine of October 1979, “Wirt was justified in placing great confidence in Tucker’s reliability as a reporter. Tucker heard the speech as an impressionable youth who was without partisan political commitments . . . and his personal opinions towards Henry as a public leader and orator indicate that his judgments were not quick, nor static, nor the result of hero-worship.” Wirt testified that his confidence in Tucker’s report was bolstered by the similarities of Edmund Randolph’s less detailed account in the introduction to his History of Virginia.

McCants notes that publications of the speech in biographies and anthologies have recast the report in direct voice, dropping the quotation marks and references to Wirt’s sources that appear in the original. As a result, he said, “generations have been deceived into believing in the literalness” of the speech. “Efforts to authenticate the ‘Liberty or Death’ speech, then, are efforts to authenticate a speech report, not a speech text.”

At this point, the reader could be forgiven for wondering whose speech we’re talking about. The last word of a sort could come from William Safire in his Lend Me Your Ears, a collection of speeches that includes “Liberty or Death”—without quotation marks. “My own judgment,” Safire writes, “is that Patrick Henry made a rousing speech that day . . . and that a generation later . . . Judge Tucker recalled what he could and made up the rest. If that is so, Judge Tucker belongs among the ranks of history’s best ghostwriters.”

Pennsylvania-based Jim Cox contributed “The Man Who Moved Independence,” a story about Virginia’s Richard Henry Lee, to the autumn 2002 journal.

“Their souls were on fire for action”
A portion of William Wirt’s report of Henry’s speech, as Wirt got it from St. George Tucker:

“Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we any thing new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find, which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done every thing that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned—we have remonstrated—we have supplicated—we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon, until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight!—I repeat it, sir; we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts, is all that is left us!

“They tell us, sir,” continued Mr. Henry, “that we are weak—unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed; and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our back, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us, hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat, but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged. Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable—and let it come!! I repeat it, sir; let it come!!!

“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north, will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear; or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains, and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!—I know not what course others may take; but as for me,” cried he, with both his arms extended aloft, his brows knit, every feature marked with the resolute purpose of his soul, and his voice swelled to its boldest note of exclamation—“give me liberty, or give me death!”

He took his seat. No murmur of applause was heard. The effect was too deep. After the trance of a moment, several members started from their seats. The cry, “To arms,” seemed to quiver on every lip, and gleam from every eye! Richard H. Lee arose and supported Mr. Henry, with his usual spirit and elegance. But his melody was lost amidst the agitations of that ocean, which the master spirit of the storm had lifted up on high. That supernatural voice still sounded in their ears, and shivered along their arteries. They heard, in every pause, the cry of liberty or death. They became impatient of speech—their souls were on fire for action.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Oh and Wilson, far and above anybody else.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Not quite.

http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Winter02-03/speech.cfm

Thank you for posting that, it is very interesting. I stand corrected. It is too bad the manuscript was lost in 1905. Was it copied before it was lost? That is a very valuable paper.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Hmm. The worst anti-liberty American of All Time. Tough choices. Would that be the person who did the worst job at being an anti-liberty American which would make them pro-liberty?

 

[Bucjason]

That's a great quote attributed to Henry. He never said it, though, it is a fake quote. The whole speech was made up in a book that was published about 5 or 10 years after he died.

No, it IS a real qoute. It was reconstructed from oral testimony to the biogragher of Henry's book to basically say,

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

It may not be word for word , and some parts may be left out( supposedly some name-calling at the brits, etc.) , but that is the jist of it , and he did say it.

 

[Bucjason]

Lincoln was not perfect , but there is no way he is #1 over names like Wilson and Roosevelt. Come on people.

Freeing the slaves ALONE is such a HUGE move towards liberty there is no possible way it wouldn't cancel out enough to not make him #1 on the list....

 

[Mini-Me]

Lincoln was not perfect , but there is no way he is #1 over names like Wilson and Roosevelt. Come on people.

Freeing the slaves ALONE is such a HUGE move towards liberty there is no possible way it wouldn't cancel out enough to not make him #1 on the list....

I think the reason Lincoln is so high on the list is because he was the "first of the worst," and him destroying federalism is what made so many of the later abuses possible. In addition, saying he "freed the slaves" isn't really accurate, since he only declared slaves in southern states to be free, and ONLY if they didn't return to the Union within the next two-and-a-half months, by January 1st, 1863. Basically, not only was it not about freedom, it wasn't even a spiteful act of war; it was literally nothing other than petty blackmail! Because of this, I find it absurd that anyone - even unapologetic federal supremacists - gives Lincoln any credit for "freeing the slaves." Besides, considering the North was at war with the South, it's not like they were going to be returning any runaway slaves in the first place. Lincoln even said he would have rather kept the union together (his sole aim, come hell or high water) without freeing the slaves, so I think it's pretty fair to take that at face value. He didn't give a damn about the slaves, only federal supremacy.

...that said, Lincoln could not have gotten away with permanently destroying federalism if it weren't for his later lionization based on the South's reliance on slavery. Therefore, we should seriously also pin the blame on every single pro-slavery Framer and every pro-slavery Southern politician, too. Aside from the fact that slavery is the worst form of tyranny by itself, they are also just as responsible for Lincoln's lasting effect as he is: If they weren't such goddamn tyrants in the first place (hardly different from Lincoln themselves), then modern generations wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the idea of states' rights and decentralized power. Butterfly effect notwithstanding, the first thing I would do if I went back in time to 1776 would be to warn them of what the tyranny and idiocy of the pro-slavery assholes would cost this country. Of course, they probably wouldn't listen, so I'd have to kill them. It's not like any of the same people would be born to later generations the moment I set foot in an earlier time and displaced the air molecules anyway.

Still, I do agree with you: Wilson takes the cake. Although most federal abuses wouldn't have been possible without Lincoln's help, the worst of all fall squarely on Wilson's shoulders. That son of a bitch shares responsibility for every bit of our debt, our inflation, and everything that has come along with it, like the military-industrial complex and numerous unnecessary wars. Not only does he directly or indirectly share responsibility for every life we've lost in every war since World War I, he's also indirectly responsible for World War II in its entirety.

Of course, that's just if we're talking about Americans who had the worst lasting anti-liberty legacy. I have little doubt that deep down in their souls, our modern tyrants are actually even worse.

 

[Naraku]

You do believe in individual liberty, right? If someone does not want to be a subject of a king, and wants to join a democratic republic, that is his natural right.

It had nothing to do with that, they were deserters from the British Navy in a time of war. Not only did the U.S. shelter them they were provided with false documents.

The War of 1812 was the most popular war in American history. Easily.

Dude. What are you smoking and where can I get a case?

Despite James Madison being our only war president in history not to issue war propaganda.

They didn't need to issue war propaganda. They had plenty of newspapers under their control.

* The National Anthem, not a coincidence, came from the war, and Francis Scott Key is one of our greatest national heroes.

It was made the national anthem over a century later.

* The Federalist Party, which opposed the war, became extinct.

This ties in with most of the other crap you pulled out. The Federalist Party was in decline long before the war.

* Madison was comfortably re-elected president in 1812, despite the election coming shortly after the worst military portion of the war.

Back then elections were not popular efforts. Half the states still chose electors through appointment by state legislatures. Even then the Federalist Party actually gained support in 1812.

* Hero Andrew Jackson won the popular vote in 1824 and was elected president in 1828 and 1832.

For entirely different reasons. Seriously, most people don't vote against someone for being a solider in a war.

It is a liberal and neocon myth that the War of 1812 was unpopular.

It's a reality, not a myth.

 

[Promontorium]

It was made the national anthem over a century later.

It was made official over a century later. It was always popular. It was used in official events during that "over a century". You're just spinning.

This thread is just rife with spin and subjectivity.

The OP thinks Clinton and Cheney literally and officially personally attacked the WTC. OP's "friend" claims to be objective, then says Wilson, who started wars across the world, including many South American nations, and Russia was a man of peace, while the entire Bush administration should literally be hanged.

If I could, I would put a bomb underneath this whole idiotic thread and blow it to hell. But I think it's good to see no one's perfect around here. We're all just people.

Don't get angry when people don't agree, because this thread proves we come from all over, and not a drop of rational thought is necessary.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Lincoln's election deprived people of their greatest liberty: their life.

Never before or since has an American president raised up a large army of Americans to go kill other Americans.

Lincoln's election in November 1860 was the direct reason South Carolina became the first state to secede in December 1860. That resulted in other states leaving, then the war and finally 620,000 dead Americans.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

It had nothing to do with that, they were deserters from the British Navy in a time of war. Not only did the U.S. shelter them they were provided with false documents.

You are making a statist argument. If an idividual wants to desert the British navy, that is their natural right. 3/4 of those impressed (kidnapped) were not deserters anyway, they were Americans.

The people who deserted wanted to live in a free country under the Constitution, not under a monarchy.

You are also defending an oppressive empire. Is this not an anti-empire website? Is not Ron Paul an anti-empire candidate?

The British Empire was bullying America, just like America today bullies other nations. Britian had never even complied with the Treaty of Paris (1783). They were supposed to vacate forts on the Canadian frontier. As of 1812, 29 years later, they still had not complied.

I am a defender of national sovereignty, as is Ron Paul. In 1812, America did not have national sovereignty. After the war, we did.

James Madison, like George Washington, was anti-empire, they fought the British Empire. Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR were pro-empire, they expanded the American empire.

btw - In other posts, the Hartford Convention has been misrepresented. Only ONE delegate, Timothy Bigelow of Massachusettes, was in favor of secession. That's it. ONE delegate.

"Notwithstanding a thousand faults and blunders, [Madison's] administration has acquired more glory, and established more union, than all his three Predecessors, Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, put together."

John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 1817

http://www.preservationnation.org/travel-and-sites/sites/southern-region/montpelier.html

 

[Bucjason]

Lincoln's election deprived people of their greatest liberty: their life.

Never before or since has an American president raised up a large army of Americans to go kill other Americans.

Lincoln's election in November 1860 was the direct reason South Carolina became the first state to secede in December 1860. That resulted in other states leaving, then the war and finally 620,000 dead Americans.

If there are certain states violating the human rights of American citizens and ENSLAVING them , isn't it one of the few justified powers of the federal government to stop that?? Isn't ending slavery something that is worth fighting and dying for if you claim to be a lover of liberty??

 

[Galileo Galilei]

If there are certain states violating the human rights of American citizens and ENSLAVING them , isn't it one of the few justified powers of the federal government to stop that?? Isn't ending slavery something that is worth fighting and dying for if you claim to be a lover of liberty??

Good points, Bucjason. You are a brave person to say that in this forum.

 

[AuH20]

FDR forced the supreme court to legitimize his 'interstate commerce' clause which really changed the landscape of federal authority. Plus, many of his New Deal policies have matured into such a burden that they're financially unsustainable by an incredible margin. FDR has to be the runaway enemy of liberty in this country as well as Eastern Europe.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt