Who was it?
A story in American history...There was once a newly elected president who, despite never traveling east of France, considered himself well-qualified to deal with conflicts in the middle east. Historically, the US government had traded weapons and money with Middle Eastern countries to alleviate attacks on Americans, weapons which were then, ironically, used for more effective attacks on Americans. This president, on entering office, secretly planned to declare war on a certain Middle Eastern country, but he had a significant legal obstacle. By the Constitution, only Congress had the legal right to declare war, thus he managed to sidestep their authority and proceed with a "police operation," which involved everything short of completely declaring war.This president was...Thomas JeffersonThe issue Jefferson faced was violence against American trade ships from what was then the Barbary states in the Middle East. 20% of American trade traveled through a path vulnerable to these state-funded pirates. Every major country in the world, Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, paid off these pirates for a free pass, or forged documents, as did the Americans, until this point. By the time Jefferson was in office, 20% of US trade revenue was being used to pay off the Barbary states in the form of gold, cannons, and gunboats. It was the first of many, many times American weapons would be used against American military by Middle Eastern enemies.While it was still possible to achieve fantastic profit with trade in the middle east even after paying off the pirates, American traders were all too eager to shift that expense to the taxpayers. These traders became some of America's first "special interest groups," in that they funded campaigns of politicians who promised a war against the Barbary states. Additional propaganda excited and terrified the public, who before long were convinced that without government action against these pirates, an invasion on American shores would take place! This fear served the commercial interests of the special interests and the expansion of state power, which is always the interest of the political class....So... one of the great Libertarians of history... the writer of the Declaration of Independence and one of the founders of the Constitution, and an extremely vocal proponant of small government, sought out flaws in the government he helped to design to advance his own power and please his financers. Jefferson, more than hardly anyone else, insisted upon the separation of powers between Congress, President, and Judges, specifically to prevent the president from doing EXACTLY what Jefferson did. Jefferson was an intelligent man... if he actually believed everything he said, he should have spent the remaining years of his presidency fixing the flaws that he exploited... but he did not. What conclusion can be found then... except that his morals matched his actions and not his words... and he said those things just to gain power?If we look at George Washington... well... we see the same thing :-(George Washington was a military leader who led a revolution against a tyrannical government, in part due to the imposition of some minor taxes on stamps, tea, etc. After the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the US Constitution it took only two years for Alexander Hamilton to convince congress to impose a tax on spirits and carriages. In order to control the rising rebellion that took place in response to this tax, Washington created a militia of 13,000 troops, about the size of the entire Continental Army, and imposed martial law on all those attempting to resist the implimentation of this tax. The subsequent violence that took place was the very first time the US government attacked its own people to enforce a tax. This then set the precedent that protest against taxation could only be done through peaceful means.*sigh* Hypocrisy much? And there is no evidence in diaries or any other source that Washington or Hamilton felt any sort of remorse or recognized the irony of their actions.So yeah, the people I believed were my heroes turn out to be full of crap in light of historical fact. Does power corrupt? Or do only corrupt people enter into government? Either way... I'm losing faith in it more every day.
You observe, but you do not see.
Seph: The Late Andrew Ryan: Snowflake: Andrew Jackson? Ever hear of the trail of tears? Jackson might have helped to fight off a central bank but he was responsible for genocide and threatening the U.s's entire system of checks and balances. Which is actually less than most presidents did, sadly.
The Late Andrew Ryan: Snowflake: Andrew Jackson? Ever hear of the trail of tears? Jackson might have helped to fight off a central bank but he was responsible for genocide and threatening the U.s's entire system of checks and balances.
Snowflake: Andrew Jackson?
Andrew Jackson?
Which is actually less than most presidents did, sadly.
The Late Andrew Ryan: Seph: The Late Andrew Ryan: Snowflake: Andrew Jackson? Ever hear of the trail of tears? Jackson might have helped to fight off a central bank but he was responsible for genocide and threatening the U.s's entire system of checks and balances. Which is actually less than most presidents did, sadly. .... Well yea but none of them got their faces on the twenty
Andrew Jackson, eh? He impacted the presidency the most negatively way back then.
- Harsh treatment of Southerners and Indians.
- Expanded Executive branch powers
- Responded biligerently to the nullification crisis.
- Asserted military power.
- He was all about "democracy for the people". We all see how that turned out.
Abraham Lincoln? He provoked a catastrophic civil war that achieved far less than believed. He was father of big government in the united states, and he rampantly violated civil liberties. Back then 600,000 + deaths was a big deal... GJ war!
First of all, even the "best" President was far from ideal. Given the individuals who have held the office.
I would say Grover Cleveland was the closest to the ideal, though not perfect, of course.
Followed by Martin van Buren, Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge.
Obviously, all the above had their flaws, but overall they were the best of what has been mostly a very bad bunch.
The question should probably be rephrased to who was the least worst president.
Calvin Coolidge was not all that bad. His first official act as President was to go back to bed. During an era where Government interventionism was on the rise, Coolidge exercised enough self-control to actually be attacked by critiques of lassez-faire government.
Justin Laws: The Late Andrew Ryan: Seph: The Late Andrew Ryan: Snowflake: Andrew Jackson? Ever hear of the trail of tears? Jackson might have helped to fight off a central bank but he was responsible for genocide and threatening the U.s's entire system of checks and balances. Which is actually less than most presidents did, sadly. .... Well yea but none of them got their faces on the twenty Andrew Jackson, eh? He impacted the presidency the most negatively way back then. - Harsh treatment of Southerners and Indians. - Expanded Executive branch powers - Responded biligerently to the nullification crisis. - Asserted military power. - He was all about "democracy for the people". We all see how that turned out. Abraham Lincoln? He provoked a catastrophic civil war that achieved far less than believed. He was father of big government in the united states, and he rampantly violated civil liberties. Back then 600,000 + deaths was a big deal... GJ war!
I was referring to the fact that he was the best duelist ....
...So... one of the great Libertarians of history...
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:...So... one of the great Libertarians of history... ..was a slave owner. Try again ?
Yes, he was. That wasn't the point, though. I am sorry you chose to look at my post in this light. It had far more to say.
Juan:I thought your point was that the founding fraudsters, were, well, fraudsters ?
Yes. But maybe I am missing your point then, sir?
Best one was Coolidge simply because he kept out of the markets and allowed them to regulate themself to a large extent. He also signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which was a noble effort, though flawed. Ultimately, he is the archetype of good governance. Grover Cleveland is also up there too.
IrishLiberal:Who was it?
Vladimir Putin?
Who was the best president? Why the first one no less...and no it isn't Washington. It was John Hanson. President of the Articles of Confederation.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
I actually think that Martin Van Buren was the best president ever. He kept America out of not one, but three potential wars with two different countries (Mexico and England/ Canada). Domestically, he took steps to remedy the mess that Jackson left when he halfway fixed finances by defunding the central bank. Martin Van Buren was instrumental in creating the Independent Treasury, which ushered in what could be considered the closest thing that America ever had to a free banking system. He was more decisive in cutting tariffs and also ended state aid for the purposes of internal improvements. Jeffrey Rogers Hummell wrote an article here on Mises about him, and since he is a historian, he has done his research on Van Buren.
I think we all know the real answer here.