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

[LDA]

My vote goes to Lincoln. Amazingly, he's still revered as an American hero by the vast majority.

 

[AuH20]

Hamilton proposed a permenant President. He also proposed mercantilism, imperialism, and empire. On top of that, Hamilton subverted the AoC, by hastily calling for a Convention that was supposedly for amending the AoC not abolishing it. Hamilton also called for a Central Banking system. Upon more numerous violations of everything the Revolution stood for. As an aside, he also called for changing the sovereign states into provinces whereby governors would be appointed by the permenant President and the President could veto anything and everything the Governor did. He advocated for the monarchical and tyrannous Government we just fought against.

The top 3:

#1 General Sherman
#2 Abraham Lincoln
#3 Alexander Hamilton

sherman? Wasn't sherman trying to win the war as fast as possible? I'm no fan of the Union per se, but Sherman destroyed the South's ability to wage war both physically and psychologically. I'd expect the south to do the same if they were provided a critical opportunity to wound the North.

 

[werdd]

Abe, wilson, roosevelt in that order

 

[werdd]

sherman? Wasn't sherman trying to win the war as fast as possible? I'm no fan of the Union per se, but Sherman destroyed the South's ability to wage war both physically and psychologically. I'd expect the south to do the same if they were provided a critical opportunity to wound the North.

Like when Lee knew he could of taken Washington but opted against it?

 

[YumYum]

sherman? Wasn't sherman trying to win the war as fast as possible? I'm no fan of the Union per se, but Sherman destroyed the South's ability to wage war both physically and psychologically. I'd expect the south to do the same if they were provided a critical opportunity to wound the North.

I agree. When the South invaded the North Lee should have had his men inflict horror on the citizens. In doing so a majority of the Northerners would have demanded an end to hostilities.

 

[AuH20]

Like when Lee knew he could of taken Washington but opted against it?

which partially explains the later fate of the confederate army.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

sherman? Wasn't sherman trying to win the war as fast as possible? I'm no fan of the Union per se, but Sherman destroyed the South's ability to wage war both physically and psychologically. I'd expect the south to do the same if they were provided a critical opportunity to wound the North.

I'm sure you loved WWII with all the Carpet Bombing....Nothing like whole Japanese cities getting burnt to the grown, men, women, and children.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

sherman? Wasn't sherman trying to win the war as fast as possible? I'm no fan of the Union per se, but Sherman destroyed the South's ability to wage war both physically and psychologically. I'd expect the south to do the same if they were provided a critical opportunity to wound the North.

Oh one more thing....IT WAS AN INVASION OF A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY FOR CONQUEST. Missed that part?

 

[AuH20]

I'm sure you loved WWII with all the Carpet Bombing....Nothing like whole Japanese cities getting burnt to the grown, men, women, and children.

United States should have never involved itself in the conflict. however, once the diplomatic solutions evaporated and there was literally no turning back, you do what you must to achieve victory as quickly as possible. I didn't write the rules. War is horrific for these very reasons I laid out. There can be little hesistation or restraint. It's kill or be killed.

 

[Bucjason]

Oh one more thing....IT WAS AN INVASION OF A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY FOR CONQUEST. Missed that part?

Nonsense.

So let's get this straight...You support your states right to ENSLAVE you, just so long as the fed can't tell it what to do??


You believe your state has the right to deny life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to select citizens, the SAME reason we gave for OUR independence from the king and WAGED WAR, simply because they have soveriegn authority??

Bullshit....I don't buy your argument at all, it's empty.

 

[YumYum]

Nonsense.

So let's get this straight...You support your states right to ENSLAVE you, just so long as the fed can't tell it what to do??


You believe your state has the right to deny life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to select citizens, the SAME reason we gave for OUR independence from the king and WAGED WAR, simply because they have soveriegn authority??

Bullshit....I don't buy your argument at all, it's empty.

Actually, I believe we fought the British to protect slavery, because Britain was turning anti-slavery. That is why our early government was so strong in supporting state's rights.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Nonsense.

So let's get this straight...You support your states right to ENSLAVE you, just so long as the fed can't tell it what to do??


You believe your state has the right to deny life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to select citizens, the SAME reason we gave for OUR independence from the king and WAGED WAR, simply because they have soveriegn authority??

Bullshit....I don't buy your argument at all, it's empty.

I'm a non-interventionist. The USA and CSA were two seperate entities. I would not support intervening in the personal affairs of that nation just like I don't advocate getting involved in the personal affairs of Rwanda, Darfur, or Myanmar. I personally condemn that activity, and all Natural Law violations, but that doesn't mean I would violate the NAP to forcefully change another nation when I myself, nor the country has been assaulted. It is up to the people within that country to fight for their determination. If people want to voluntarily assist in that effort, then by all means do so, and they did (They were abolitionists). Yes, it is a horrible atrocity, but killing 620,000 men for conquest is worse.

Secondly, I never said what you are implying, nor did I imply so. The Constitution is a contract. Independant, sovereign States formed the Federal Government on the basis of that contract. The Federal Government violated that contract, and used it against the South to empower the North. The Southern Independant States disagreed with the action and removed themselves from the contract. There is no stipulation within that contract that it is forevermore. In fact, it notorizes the opposite, but only indirectly.

I am coming at this from a moral, contractual viewpoint, not the unhinged emotional response. Logically, if you support the USA invading the CSA on the grounds of Natural Law violations, then you support the USA now invading and conquering and occupying (Reconstruction was occupation) every Nation on this planet. There is not one Nation today that does not violate Natural Law egregiously. I guess I have rooted out a Neo-Con infiltrator.

My arguement is the moral, and just arguement based on voluntary contractuality. Secondly, the only way to determine when a war is just, is using the Christian Just War Theory. The War of Northern Aggression violates that theory.

Lastly, read Lincoln Unmasked by Thomas Di'Lorenzo.

 

[Bucjason]

I'm a non-interventionist. The USA and CSA were two seperate entities. I would not support intervening in the personal affairs of that nation just like I don't advocate getting involved in the personal affairs of Rwanda, Darfur, or Myanmar. I personally condemn that activity, and all Natural Law violations, but that doesn't mean I would violate the NAP to forcefully change another nation when I myself, nor the country has been assaulted. It is up to the people within that country to fight for their determination. If people want to voluntarily assist in that effort, then by all means do so, and they did (They were abolitionists). Yes, it is a horrible atrocity, but killing 620,000 men for conquest is worse.

Secondly, I never said what you are implying, nor did I imply so. The Constitution is a contract. Independant, sovereign States formed the Federal Government on the basis of that contract. The Federal Government violated that contract, and used it against the South to empower the North. The Southern Independant States disagreed with the action and removed themselves from the contract. There is no stipulation within that contract that it is forevermore. In fact, it notorizes the opposite, but only indirectly.

I am coming at this from a moral, contractual viewpoint, not the unhinged emotional response. Logically, if you support the USA invading the CSA on the grounds of Natural Law violations, then you support the USA now invading and conquering and occupying (Reconstruction was occupation) every Nation on this planet. There is not one Nation today that does not violate Natural Law egregiously. I guess I have rooted out a Neo-Con infiltrator.

My arguement is the moral, and just arguement based on voluntary contractuality. Secondly, the only way to determine when a war is just, is using the Christian Just War Theory. The War of Northern Aggression violates that theory.

Lastly, read Lincoln Unmasked by Thomas Di'Lorenzo.

They were NOT two seperate entities , they were MANY seperate entities that all entered into to same contract. That contract said we will declare our independence from the king , and our legal grounds for doing so are these:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

Slavery violates that contract ...PERIOD. It makes thier secession request invalid , because it was done for the OPPOSITE reason. Therefore , we had a right to alter and abolish the Confederacy. If you don't believe that contract is binding or has meaning , then it means we had no legitimate reason to claim independence from the king in the 1st place.

So , answer the simple question that I asked you , Mr. Liberty Lover: Do you believe the Federal government has no right to ENSLAVE you , but your State government can ENSLAVE anyone it pleases???

By the way , take the Neocon Card and stick it up your ass. If thinking slavery in my own country is something worth fighting against makes me a "neocon" then call me a neocon all you want. I will call you a coward for not being willing to stand up for a fellow americans human rights promised to them in the Declaration.

 

[Son of Detroit]

they were not two seperate entities , they were many seperate entities that all entered into to same contract. That contract said we will declare our independence from the king , and our legal grounds for doing so are these:

"we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. — that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. "

slavery violates that contract ...period. It makes thier secession request invalid , because it was done for the opposite reason. Therefore , we had a right to alter and abolish it. If you don't believe that , it means we had no right to claim independence from the king either.

So , answer the simple question that i asked you , mr. Liberty lover: Do you believe the federal government has no right to enslave you , but your state government can enslave anyone it pleases???

By the way , take the neocon card and stick it up your ass. If thinking slavery in my own country is something worth fighting against makes me a "neocon" then call me a neocon all you want. I will call you a coward for not being willing to stand up for a fellow americans human rights promised to them in the declaration.

+1000

 

[Bucjason]

Hypothetical for the Confederacy defenders:


Tomorrow , The state of California realizes they can no longer balance thier budget under current federal restraints.

In order to fix the problem , they enact a 100% income tax on ALL white-family earnings. (blacks and mexicans are exempt due to political reasons) Those who are jobless will be assigned a job , those who refuse to work are thrown in jail on charges of "tax evasion" .

After people begin to try and escape to other states, California builds a huge barb-wired fence around it self to keep everyone in. Trying to escape is punishable by death.

The feds decide to step in , but California then announces it has decided to secede from the union.

Question: DO you defend the liberties of your fellow americans in California , or do you sit back , yawn , and say , "It's none of my business, California can violate the constitution and do whatever they want to THOSE people... so long as they leave me alone" ???

 

[Anti Federalist]

Hypothetical for the Confederacy defenders:


Tomorrow , The state of California realizes they can no longer balance thier budget under current federal restraints.

In order to fix the problem , they enact a 100% income tax on ALL white-family earnings. (blacks and mexicans are exempt due to political reasons) Those who are jobless will be assigned a job , those who refuse to work are thrown in jail on charges of "tax evasion" .

After people begin to try and escape to other states, California builds a huge barb-wired fence around it self to keep everyone in. Trying to escape is punishable by death.

The feds decide to step in , but California then announces it has decided to secede from the union.

Question: DO you defend the liberties of your fellow americans in California , or do you sit back , yawn , and say , "It's none of my business, California can violate the constitution and do whatever they want to THOSE people... so long as they leave me alone" ???

I for one, would welcome California secession.

 

[mconder]

Alexander Hamilton

To some, the devil incarnate. At first a Patriot, but once the Constitution was ratified, Hamilton immediately twisted the text and pushed for bigger government. Was the driving force behind the 1st National Bank, and his actions at the Whiskey Rebellion are despicable. On top of that, he cheated on his wife.

That's why you just have to love Andrew Jackson, the anti-Hamilton. He killed the bank and it stayed dead for 77 years.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

As a student of James Madison, I have speculated how he might have handled the crisis during the Civil War era:

(It is important to remember that between the time Madison was president, and the time of Lincoln, almost all of the Western world had freed their slaves, or was in the process of doing so, excepting the deep south and Brazil.)

1) Madison would not have orchestrated the "event" at Fort Sumter. Rather, he would have entered into honest negotiations.

2) Madison would have negotiated with the Upper South including Virginia, to keep them in the Union. Remember that the deep South seceded before Lincoln was sworn in, but not the Upper South.

3) During the time Madison was president elect, he would have taken initiatives to start a conference of negotiation, working with lame duck president Buchanan, the states, and the federal congress.

4) Madison would not have invaded the South without a declaration of war.

5) Madison would have stated the war aims at the outset, including preserving the Union and an emancipation plan.

6) Madison would not have suspended habeas corpus.

7) Madison would not have had political opponents arrested, nor would he shut down opposition newspapers.

8) Madison would have used Generals like McClellan who had respect for human life, and would have removed generals liek Sherman that committed war crimes. He would not have supported Grant's "war of attrition" tactics.

9) Madison would not have supported an income tax.

10) Madison would not have supported a draft.

In a nutshell, I think Madison would have organized a giant negotiation convention that would have accomplished the following:

1) The Fugitive Slave Act would be reverted back to the slave Act of 1793.

2) Tariffs reduced.

3) The Dred Scott decision overturned via either legislation or a Constitutional amendment.

4) An gradual emancipation plan for the Upper South modeled on successful plans in the North or the British Empire, with partial compensation for slaveowners funded by sale of Western lands.

5) A plan to help the South industrialize.

6) Frederick Douglass would be allowed to speak and be a voting representative at the conference. Douglass supported allowing freed slaves to move to a new colony in Florida. A large chunk of Flordia could have been set aside for freed blacks, as well as some chunks in the West. This is not to say all blacks would go there. It is a known fact that racism increases when the black population goes over a certain threshhold. This is still seen today, when Hillary Clinton beat Obam in Pennsylvania, but Obama won Iowa. Iowa, being mostly white, is less racist, than PA, which has about 11% blacks. Of course, racsim was much worse in 1860 than today.

7) For the Deep South, they either would be let go, or given more generous terms (slower emancipation) than the Upper South. The big problem with slavery was in the deep South. The congress, or the North, or maybe even Madison, may have been ready to use their power to protect the rights of black people in the deep South if they rejected reasonable negotiations.

One way to do this would be to allow blacks from the South to attend the conference. Under the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the Constitution, blacks have equal rights. By 1860, individual liberty was a recognized natural right.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Oh one more thing....IT WAS AN INVASION OF A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY FOR CONQUEST. Missed that part?

The blacks were not allowed to vote in the secession talks.

 

[jonesohms]

I vote for Barack Obama, because he has the opportunity to stand up for liberty, and isn't.