Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Worst President in US History

Rate this topic


adrock3215

Recommended Posts

This is something I've given a bit of thought to lately. It seems to me that the 225+ year history of the United States has shown a slow and steady trend toward larger government. With that in mind, I ask the question, Who was the worst president in United States history?

I'll set ole' George W. aside, simply because his presidency isn't complete yet. I start with the B-movie actor Reagan. The most significant contribution this guy made was the serious integration of religion with politics, when he gave voice to the religious right. Furthermore, the acclaimed "Reaganomics" was a disaster, because it justified laissez-faire policies but did so by giving credence to collectivist thought, i.e. when taxes are decreased in percentage terms, governmental revenue will actually increase, so everyone will benefit from it. Horrendous, but not enough to warrant the title of worst.

Jimmy Carter was a nobody. Nixon terminated the last remenant of any gold standard that the world had, but he can hardly be blamed for the complete detoriation of our economic system. Lyndon Johnson and Kennedy were garbage. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" pretty much sums up their years in office. The implication being government is either a paternalistic figure that will take care of its children, or government is a master that needs the service of its slaves. Not much to say for Eisenhower. Truman had a corrupt administration and oversaw the escalation of the Cold War in Korea. As Paul Johnson writes in his history of the 20th century Modern Times, "If the Cold War began over Poland it reached maturity over Korea and embraced the whole world."

I am tempted to give the title to FDR. He seized gold, created the social security nets we have in place with his New Deal acts, expanded governmental oversight of markets with the SEC creation, and seemed to look up to Stalin as a figure of greatness. But when one thinks of the progression of statism in the United States, one sees Roosevelt as a figure who simply went with the Keynesian trend of the times. Indeed, it was Herbet Hoover before Roosevelt who laid the foundation for FDR's policies; and it is from this perspective I am tempted to say FDR wasn't any better or worse than those before him. Moreover, Hoover prolonged the depression a great deal by not using his veto powers on the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act, contrary to the urgings of economists.

I'll pause here to give recognition to Warren Harding, as he was the last United States president who combated recession with laissez-faire politics - in other words, he did nothing. During the early 20's recession he simply let wages fall and unemployment rise for a short period of time. But little did Harding know that it was Woodrow Wilson before him who had created the business cycle by instituting central bank control over the money supply. Wilson also made a tremendous step toward world government when he conceived of the League of Nations after WWI. It was with this conception that the term 'democracy' became more important than 'rule of law' and the career of 'professional politician and statesman' became reality. Wilson paved the way for presidents after him during the 20th century to justify various foreign intervention efforts by pointing to 'democracy.' The decolonization of Africa (done by European powers, but cloaked in UN policy) in the mid-20th century showed how much of a flawed concept this was. Instead of justice, Africans were given the right to elect "professional" political figures, empty suits who cared nothing for objective law.

I could likely go on a great deal on Wilson. When I first began to think of this, I concluded that Wilson was the worst president in US history. But my opinion has since changed. I now believe that Abraham Lincoln owns the title. Lincoln's politics during the Civil War seem to me to form the conceptual basis for all US statism afterwards. His suspension of habeas corpus, jailings of numerous "Confederate sympathizers" without trial, detaining of Supreme Court justices, and signing of the Revenue Act of 1861 which formally implemented the first Federal income tax seem to me measures striaght out of Leninist Russia. Lincoln also created the National Bank Act which gave oversight of banks to government, signed huge tarriff bills, created an official US banknote, and used the Treasury to control cotton trade. Not to mention the Civil War, where he enslaved hundreds of thousands of free men through conscription in order to "end slavery." Most likely this war was fought over sucession. Nevertheless, I believe Abraham Lincoln is the one figure who gave statist thought the push it needed to infilitrate American politics. As Barry Goldwater said 100 years later in his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, "You can't legislate morality." I believe Lincoln was the first US president who thought that you could. So I see the major turning point in American politics as Lincoln's presidency.

Maybe I'm wrong. What are you guys thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

From a laissez-faire perspective one could argue that the more famous a president is, the more likely they are to be bad.

A good laissez-faire president is unlikely to have done much that would merit going down in history (i.e. they spent less time interfering in things), and so such a president has been conveniently forgotten.

On the other hand a president that gets into the history books beyond a footnote likely meddled in things, and so was probably bad.

Thus the most famous president is a good candidate for the worst.

Edited by punk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Lincoln, if for no other reason than he set precedent for so many later Presidents. Wilson, and FDR round out my top 3.

I do think Teddy deserves an honorable mention because of his obsession with "Trust-Busting" which continues to this day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When thinking of presidents I try to come up with at least one outstanding act which ameliorates, at least partially, their other deeds. Alas, I don't think any of them can be redeemed by such acts.

But consider: Lincoln ended slavery, FDR defeated two brutal and savage enemies, Reagan defeated the Soviets, Wilson established America as a world power (alebit in a war America had little to no stakes in), JFK mannaged as well as could be expected the Cuban Missile Crisis (the ultimate in Cold War brinksmanship).

Of course such acts can be criticized for their consequences or for the consequences of the means used to achieve them. Thus FDR allied us with the Soviets and handed them half of Europe on a silver platter. Reagan propped up the Islamists who eventually struck us at home. Wilson's League of Nations enabled WWII by emboldening Germany and Italy.

What did Carter and Theodor Roosevelt do for America, or at least for her allies? I'll admit I don't know TR enough to say one way or another. And the only thing I can say about Carter in this sense is the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. Now it's true Egypt has not attacked Israel since then (not directly), but neither has any other of her Arab neighbors, most pointedly including Syrira (who uses Lebanon-based terrorists instead).

Judged this way the worst president has to be Jimmy Carter. And considering his recent assaults on Israel on one hand and his moral sanctioning of Hammas and worse refuse on the other, he's also the worst former president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last time this thread came up, I expressed the view that Theodore Roosevelt should take the crown as the worst President in American history. Since this is a somewhat unusual view, I'll explain my reasons again here.

Objectivism argues that ideas are the fundamental drivers of historical change. This means that when making judgments like "who is the worst President", we should consider not only the specific policies of the administration in question but the more fundamental ideas championed by the men in question. When Theodore Roosevelt because President, there was a conflict raging between two incompatible visions of American political life. We might designate this conflict as classical liberalism vs. progressivism. Classical liberalism was the political system established by the Founders -- government limited to protecting the individual rights of citizens to enable their own private pursuit of happiness and success. Progressivism envisioned a much larger and more intrusive government tasked with upholding the weak against the strong and acting to "improve" the public in various ways. Progressivism is the intellectual root of the subsequent growth of government through the 20th century. It lies beneath the New Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society. Theodore Roosevelt decisively resolved this conflict in favor of progressivism. This was the fundamental intellectual turning point which made FDR, LBJ and GWB possible.

In the same way that Kant acquires a share of the blame for the evils that his philosophy made possible, even though he himself lived quietly and unobjectionably, Theodore Roosevelt acquires a share of the blame for the evils that his entrenching of progressivism made possible in American political life even though the bulk of those policies were enacted by later men. Those later men were in effect only playing out the long-term consequences of the basic principles that Theodore Roosevelt put in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I now believe that Abraham Lincoln [is the worst President in United States History]. Lincoln's politics during the Civil War seem to me to form the conceptual basis for all US statism afterwards. His suspension of habeas corpus, jailings of numerous "Confederate sympathizers" without trial, detaining of Supreme Court justices, and signing of the Revenue Act of 1861 which formally implemented the first Federal income tax seem to me measures striaght out of Leninist Russia. Lincoln also created the National Bank Act which gave oversight of banks to government, signed huge tarriff bills, created an official US banknote, and used the Treasury to control cotton trade. Not to mention the Civil War, where he enslaved hundreds of thousands of free men through conscription in order to "end slavery." Most likely this war was fought over sucession. Nevertheless, I believe Abraham Lincoln is the one figure who gave statist thought the push it needed to infilitrate American politics. As Barry Goldwater said 100 years later in his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, "You can't legislate morality." I believe Lincoln was the first US president who thought that you could. So I see the major turning point in American politics as Lincoln's presidency.

Although I do not think your motivation is malevolent, I suspect that much of the Libertarian literature that vilifies Abraham Lincoln based on a few false premises. The first is that the South had the "right" to secede, which in practice meant that the Confederate states had the "right" to redefine their government to preserve chattel slavery. This is obviously wrong as no government has the right to preserve or maintain slavery on a subset of its populace.

I suspect that the second false premise underlying the vilification of Lincoln is one that magnifies inessential attributes of his administration, like the fact that he allowed greenbacks to be issued to finance the war. The fundamental defining attribute of the Lincoln administration is not the fact that he issued greenbacks or detailed secessionist-sympathizers without trial (possibly because the country was in chaos) but that he ended chattel slavery. There was a significant amount of political pressure on President Lincoln to end the civil war and allow the Southern states to remain as an independent nation with instituted slavery. For example, the meeting that took place between President Lincoln and Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at the Hampton Roads Conference. Nevertheless, President Lincoln maintained an uncompromising position to see slavery abolished.

Although you have probably raised a few undesirable features of the Lincoln Administration, I think that because the definining attribute of Lincoln's presidency is the end of slavery, he should be recorded in history books as an overwhelmingly good President.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theodore Roosevelt should take the crown as the worst President in American history.

This is an interesting view and I must admit I don't know enough about TR, although I have done some studying on progressive politics as well as classical liberalism. I do agree that you should judge the worst president by the ideas championed. That is why it seemed as if Lincoln was a good start. But could you give some examples of how TR upheld progressivism over classical liberalism in principle and, if applicable, in policy? Thanks.

DarkWaters: I see your point here. Lincoln's legacy of ending slavery should be upheld over his other policies. But my line of thought is that Lincoln sort of set a precedent for statism in the United States as far as I know. Once the precedent was in place, statist politics could quietly infiltrate America, sneaking up in various movements here and there. Also, although I do admire Lincoln for maintaining an uncompromising position with regards to the end of slavery, it is likely that slavery would have ended without Lincoln. As Rand says about the subject, capitalism demanded the abolition of slavery. In other words: why use slaves when it is cheaper to get a tractor? While the south would not abolish slavery on a moral basis, I'm sure it would abolish it when it began to dent their pocketbooks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting view and I must admit I don't know enough about TR, although I have done some studying on progressive politics as well as classical liberalism.

As a non-expert, I lean towards TR for a few reasons. He started the environmentalist movement in politics; he was a major "trust-buster," and instituted the "Square Deal," a model for the New Deal, Fair Deal, and Great Society. He explicitly called for many "progressive" programs to become Republican Party ideals (allegedly to weaken the Progressive Party) (ex. he argued that labor unions should have more political power).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[M]y line of thought is that Lincoln sort of set a precedent for statism in the United States as far as I know. Once the precedent was in place, statist politics could quietly infiltrate America, sneaking up in various movements here and there.

I am not sure if Lincoln set a precedent for Statism, although it is possible. Actually, I would not be surprised if this precedent started with Andrew Jackson. I am beginning to suspect that the Jackson Administration was the first Administration to operate on the flawed premise of assuming a Democracy to be the underlying moral premise of the United States political structures (as opposed to a government that was constructed to protect individual rights.) However, I have not done any significant research in this direction.

I think the pertinent question is, did the policies of the Lincoln Administration make the subsequent policies of both Roosevelt Administrations, LBJ's "Great Society", Bush's "Compassionate Conservativism" and all other significant instances of Statism possible? I am not too familiar with the reasoning behind Lincoln's policies, but I suspect that the intellectuals behind the Progressive movement (John Dewey and William James) are significantly more responsible for the great expansions of government under the TR Administration as well as intellectuals such as John Maynard Keynes for ultimately influencing the policies of the FDR Administration. In other words, I think these expansions were intellectually accepted not because Lincoln might have taken some Statist measures to preserve the Union but because intellectuals such as Dewey, James and Keynes made Pragmatism and its economic manifestation Keynesianism intellectually fashionable.

I do not see Statism in the legacy of Lincoln as I do not think that Lincoln's policies are the reason why individuals have a Statist mentality in the United States today.

As Rand says about the subject, capitalism demanded the abolition of slavery. In other words: why use slaves when it is cheaper to get a tractor? While the south would not abolish slavery on a moral basis, I'm sure it would abolish it when it began to dent their pocketbooks.

I am not so sure of the last point as chattel slavery was motivated by more than just mere economic advantages. More generally, I am typically skeptical of any argument that assumes individuals will always follow economically optimal courses of action, as it presupposes rationality and a wealth of pertinent knowledge.

Racism was another huge factor in maintaining slavery of blacks. Of course, technology might have shifted slave labor to other markets. If the South was left to their own devices, I suspected that it would have been a very long time before slavery was abolished by a voluntary political movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lincoln was indeed the first major player to establish statism in the USA. I highly recommend reading "Lincoln Unmasked" by Thomas DiLorenzo.

While I've heard of the book, I am highly skeptical of anything written by DiLorenzo, since he's an anarcho-"capitalist" associated with the League of the South.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I highly recommend reading "Lincoln Unmasked" by Thomas DiLorenzo.

This book is an epitome of the Libertarian view on the United States Civil War that I have described. You can read a few of Thomas DiLorenzo's articles on Abraham Lincoln here and here. In the first linked article, DiLorenzo approving quotes Judge

Napolitano claiming that the South had the "right" to secede from the Union, which as I said before, in practice meant the right to maintain chattel

slavery. The South had no such right.

The second linked article discusses how a black writer at Ebony magazine wrote a book alleging that President Lincoln was incredibly racist and had a vision to deport all black slaves back to Africa. I am not sure how much truth there is to this, but it certainly did not happen and I am not sure of any evidence of if it was seriously considered. Obviously, any truth in this regard detracts from the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln. Until I hear more convincing arguments, these criticisms are about as meaningful to me as the criticisms of Thomas Jefferson being racist. Despite any poor views each may have had towards blacks, their actions ultimately led to the abolition of slavery (in the case of Jefferson, his political writings in support of individual rights; in the case of Lincoln, his actions as Chief Executive.)

Many more of Thomas DiLorenzo's hateful articles on Abraham Lincoln can be found in his archive.

Lastly, I think this thread should be moved to the history sub-forum, as this does not really contain discussion of political philosophy.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not care for anarchists or minarchists either, and yes I know that DiLorenzo is a Lew Rockwellian, but his book does posit some facts concerning the rise of big gov't under Lincoln's presidency. So, how does one account for the massive growth of the Federal government under Lincoln? It obviously didn't start with Lincoln, but Lincoln put big government on the map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This book is an epitome of the Libertarian view on the United States Civil War that I have described. You can read a few of Thomas DiLorenzo's articles on Abraham Lincoln here and here. In the first linked article, DiLorenzo approving quotes Judge

Napolitano claiming that the South had the "right" to secede from the Union, which as I said before, in practice meant the right to maintain chattel

slavery. The South had no such right.

I think you have to understand that the motive behind Lincoln going to war was union, not slavery. Slavery was simply a politically convienent move for him. Read Lincoln's House Divided Speech, which is now very famous. In it Lincoln never once mentions or ponders on the topic of the morality of slavery. The speech is simply full of allusions toward unification and remaining one nation, and metaphorically talking of the nation as a "house" which cannot be divided (an interesting paternalistic way to think of the relation between government and citizens). If this is Lincoln's motive for civil war however, and slavery is simply a secondary consequence, then Lincoln should be seen negatively. At root was and still is the issue: What relation do states have to the federal government? Lincoln rewrote that relationship to his liking, and in the meantime abolished slavery because he saw it as a means to his desired end.

The second linked article discusses how a black writer at Ebony magazine wrote a book alleging that President Lincoln was incredibly racist and had a vision to deport all black slaves back to Africa.

He planned to deport all blacks to Liberia at one point. Some time ago when I took American literature (Civil War to present) I remember my professor actually giving a moment of a lecture to this, despite the fact that the professor saw Lincoln as the greatest president who ever lived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd vote that Franklin D. Roosevelt was by far the worst US president. He Socialized the US with his "New deal" [trading freedom for soup]. He then destroyed the gold standard seizing much of the US gold. And lets not forget Executive Order 1066, which forced nearly one hundred thousand Americans of Japanese decent off their property and into internment camps. Nothing Carter, Lincoln, Nixon, Wilson nor Harding did can compete with forcing Americans at gun point off their property and into camps.

Edited by Rearden_Steel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have to understand that the motive behind Lincoln going to war was union, not slavery.

I imagine that politics back then shared the same characterization of politics today. That is, both sides of each issue were probably wrong, possibly disgustingly wrong. However, just like today, one of the two sides was probably even worse. With regards to the issues of the civil war, my guess is that the North primarily wanted to preserve the union. Needless to say, "preserving the union" is not necessarily good in all contexts, especially if we were discussing preserving the Soviet Union.

On the other hand, Southern secessionism insisted that they had the "right" to secede from the Union regardless of the context. Since one of the primary motivating factors was to maintain chattel slavery, this made the South significantly worse than the North in my opinion.

Remember, we are evaluating Abraham Lincoln as a President, not as a philosopher. Despite whatever misgivings he may have had, his administration still saw the abolition of slavery despite many possibilities to end the conflict without abolitioning slavery. I will grant that it will be interesting to identify how many opportunities there were for President Lincoln to preserve the union and allow the South to remain as slave states. I suspect that there were several significant ones. I will read the speech that you have linked.

So, how does one account for the massive growth of the Federal government under Lincoln? It obviously didn't start with Lincoln, but Lincoln put big government on the map.

The government might have grown substantially under President Lincoln. However, again, the issue is if President Lincoln really caused the trend of Statism in the United States. Did the great expansions of government that occurred under Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and beyond occur because they wanted to continue President Lincoln's tradition? I suspect that these expansions instead happened because of the drastic intellectual support underlying the Progressive movement, not because of whatever precedent Lincoln might have established. President Lincoln might have undertaken some significant Statist measures before these other guys during an enormous war, but it is not clear to me that his administration really defined Statism as a guiding principle for future administrations.

Anyway, if you perceive otherwise, I invite you to post evidence that many of Lincoln's actions were influential on future administrations in the context of the government having a duty to improve education, retirement planning, health care, maintain national parks or the like.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd vote that Franklin D. Roosevelt was by far the worst US president. He Socialized the US with his "New deal" [trading freedom for soup]. He then destroyed the gold standard seizing much of the US gold. And lets not forget Executive Order 1066, which forced nearly one hundred thousand Americans of Japanese decent off their property and into internment camps.

I'd have to agree with you here. FDR set the table for the last 70 years of statism and anti-LF government policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government might have grown substantially under President Lincoln. However, again, the issue is if President Lincoln really caused the trend of Statism in the United States. Did the great expansions of government that occurred under Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and beyond occur because they wanted to continue President Lincoln's tradition?

I am going to write out a few thoughts here, I will try to make it succinct...

I consider Lincoln responsible for the enlargement of the powers of federal government, most specifically the executive branch. Let us remember that the reason the founding fathers declared America's freedom was in revolt to being governed by a centralized "federal" power across the Atlantic. The Articles of Confederation did not define an office of President, and the governing power was given mainly to the states. The office of President was provided for in the current constitution, which saw some transfer of powers from states to federal government. Obviously George Washington became the first man to hold the office, and the natural tendency early on in America was a distrust for and a dislike of the office in general. Nobody wanted another King, and they were unsure of the powers of this office, how it would govern, and how much like a king the president would be (not to mention the fact he was named George). I believe Jefferson was most vocal about the president having limited power, and I suspect if he was alive today he would have a heart attack if he saw the shear size that the government has grown to and the tremendous power that the executive holds.

In my estimation Lincoln is the man who initially set the office of President and the executive branch into its never-ending expansionary phase, which it is still undergoing. The founding fathers had likely considered this might happen and they added the 10th Amendment to the constitution, which read: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. As I said before, Lincoln rewrote this Amendment to his liking, or perhaps just ignored it altogether. Lincoln envisioned a union with a strong central government and a strong leader, and that was the vision which led him into Civil War. Of course nobody is claiming the South had a right to secede in order to preserve slavery, and it would be fine and proper for Lincoln to fight the war on cause of slavery. But from early on that was a non-issue. The issue at hand was: What relation do the states who ratified the constitution have to the federal government?

That's primarily the reason I despise Lincoln: his rewriting of this relationship to his liking and his complete disregard for the 10th Amendment. Of course he isn't a philosopher, but he laid the principles for statism to thrive in America. But let's also examine some of his policy decisions, and how they influenced 20th century America...

Lincoln tremendously expanded the powers of the Presidency when he suspended habeus corpus and jailed what he termed "Confederate sympathizers" without trial. These are measures later to be repeated in the 20th century when Roosevelt places the Japanese in internment camps, and also by the NKVD in Soviet Russia when they place political prisioners in the Gulag. Lincoln expanded the central government when he signed the National Bank Act which gave oversight of banks to the federal government and enabled the federal government to control the money supply by printing currency. These measures were later repeated by Wilson in the 1910's when he created the Federal Reserve Act. Lincoln again expanded the role of central government when he implemented the first federal income tax, a measure traditionally reserved for the states. This was an act which was also repeated by Wilson in 1913, when the 16th Amendment was passed.

In summary Lincoln oversaw a tremendous growth of the role of a.) the executive office, and b.) the federal government. This power had to come from somewhere, and it was taken from the states, who had ratified the constitution under different pretenses. To address what you said later in your post, the progressive movement is built on the fact that all good things come from a centralized federal government which can take care of its citizens in a paternalistic manner. This belief was given credence by Abraham Lincoln, who primarily gave later-day progressives the principles they needed to formulate a system of political beliefs, and secondly gave a precedent for progressives to follow by the very nature of his policy decisions.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, Southern secessionism insisted that they had the "right" to secede from the Union regardless of the context. Since one of the primary motivating factors was to maintain chattel slavery, this made the South significantly worse than the North in my opinion.
But there is a stronger reason the south chose secession. Tariffs. They were breaking the south. Wars, no matter what their separate apologists may claim, are ALWAYS fought over economics. Slavery was not initially an issue when The South first elected to secede. Lincoln grabbed at it to pull him through at the point where he'd nearly lost. And consider all the countries in South America but one, ended slavery WITHOUT war. The cost in lives was astronomical here by comparison. Then add all the other stuff mentioned above about him, plus suspension of Habeas Corpus and his income tax. I guess, for these and the others you mention, my choice goes to Lincoln.

But I have to consider these guys too:

G.W. Fastest national debt growth in history of U.S. If taxation=slavery and deficit spending=taxation, he's been pretty bad. I know, he didn't appropriate it. But he helped justify it, traded with congress for it and certainly didn't veto it.

Reagan, second fastest.

H W Bush, Reneged on "Read my lips."

Nixon, Not Watergate as his worst but wage and price controls.

George Washington, put down the whiskey rebellion, the same thing the colonies left England over.

Jefferson (I know, I know many, many pluses here), bought Louisiana without due process.

As Henry Adams wrote, in purchasing Louisiana, Jefferson bought a foreign colony without its consent and against its will...made himself monarch of the new territory, and wielded over it, against its protests, the powers of its old kings. Such a sweeping and unjustified exercise of executive privilege effectively, as Jefferson admitted, made blank paper of the Constitution.

Perhaps, surprisingly, it is these two of our heroes, Jefferson and Washington who led the way to the statism we have today.

Who do you hold as the best, or should I say, least bad president?

Edited by HP11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us remember that the reason the founding fathers declared America's freedom was in revolt to being governed by a centralized "federal" power across the Atlantic.

When we have discussions on what makes a just society, we should agree to do things that they are right, not because they are traditional. Regardless of what the Founding Fathers intended, we should strive to have a just government.

That being said, a free society needs a strong central government that serves as the final arbiter on the use of retaliatory force. If President Lincoln strengthened the Federal government only to settle disputes over if a state government should be allowed to permit chattel slavery, then this is a wonderful thing.

In my estimation Lincoln is the man who initially set the office of President and the executive branch into its never-ending expansionary phase

I still disagree with this. Consider the following excerpt from Joseph Ellis' Founding Fathers, which concerns the resignation letter of President Washington:

Washington suggested that his departure from the national scene would require the enlargement, not the diminution, of the powers of the federal government in order to compensate for his absence. He recommended that Congress undertake a whole new wave of federal initiatives: a new program to encourage domestic manufacturers; a similar program to subsidize agricultural improvements; the creation of a national university (his old hobby horse) and a national military academy; ... It was the most expansive presidential program for enlarged federal power until John Quincy Adams ...

If this is accurate, then Washington obviously actively encouraged a few Statist measures. Nevertheless, I think it would be unjust to conclude that George Washington is the first President who encouraged Statism.

Anyway, I still do not see enough evidence to conclude that President Lincoln is the reason for a Socialist government, as the only political principle I think his administration advanced is the idea of "preserving the union". However, the other measures taken by his administration all seem to be in the context of the greatest domestic military conflict the country has ever seen. I do not see any actions suggesting that the role of government should be expanded for the sake of being expanded.

Of course nobody is claiming the South had a right to secede in order to preserve slavery, and it would be fine and proper for Lincoln to fight the war on cause of slavery. But from early on that was a non-issue. The issue at hand was: What relation do the states who ratified the constitution have to the federal government?

The legality of slavery was the fundamental issue at hand. Why else was secession even being considered?

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the view that economics, not ideas, is primary.

I understand. Certainly. But though I agree with you that ideas, that is, an integrated philosophy, SHOULD be primary, it is often not. People frequently vote their pocketbooks, not who will protect their freedoms, etc. Kings have often gone to war strictly for property. Would you say such wars are based on ideas or economics?

Edited by HP11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...